Who’s Delusional Mitt ?
On the Howie Carr Show a few months ago, I asked his guest former governor and presidential candidate Mitt Romney why he illegally instituted “same sex marriage” without an accompanying legal statute.
Here was my exact question taken from the transcript and here is the audio:
Gregg Jackson: Thanks, Howie. Mr. Romney, I’m just wondering, why is it that you have claimed that you were just following the MSJC’s Goodridge opinion by ordering the Department of Public Health to change the marriage certificates from “Husband and Wife” to “Partner A and Partner B” and also forcing the Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies or resign when there was no specific order from the court for you to do so? I mean, I guess the question is, why did you violate your oath of office that you swore and, was it to fulfill a campaign promise to the Log Cabin Republicans not to oppose same-sex marriage?
Here was Mr. Romney’s reply:
Mitt Romney: Gregg, I’m afraid, is slightly delusional. And let’s go through this one by one. First of all, we received a request to change our birth certificates to “Parent A and Parent B” and we refused to do so. So we insisted that they not change the birth certificates. So he’s got that wrong, number one. Number two, we did instruct our Justices of the Peace that they needed to understand that given the Supreme Court’s decision requiring them to marry people of the same people of the same gender if so requested that they had no choice but to do so or, alternatively, they would be wise not to stay as a Justice of the Peace because they might get sued by somebody. So we were giving them the information they needed to avoid a legal condition. And finally, number three, the idea that I’m not an opponent of same-sex marriage is frankly laughable.
As I have noted on previous occasions, it’s important to note that not only did Romney intentionally avoid answering my question about his bogus claim that he was under a “court order” and that he was legally obligated to order his Department of Public Health to change the marriage certificates but he also added that:
Mitt Romney: Everybody in the entire nation knows that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made same-sex marriage legal and that I fought it in every single way I could.
Well, here is my question for the former governor:
If “everybody in the entire nation knows the MSJC made same-sex marriage legal” why is there a bill before the legislature that would amend the current marriage statute (chapter 207) to include “same sex marriage” H1710? and S918?
Well anybody who has actually read the Massachusetts Constitution knows that the reason why the legislature has proposed legislation to amend the current marriage statute is because the law has never been amended to include “same sex marriage” as Romney and many of his toadies have claimed.
Even the Goodridge majority admitted that they were not suspending the marriage statute (legalizing same sex marriage as Romney falsely claimed):
“Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief.”
The Court in fact admitted that under the statute, Chapter 207 of the Massachusetts General Laws, homosexual marriage is illegal:
“We conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.”
It is also important to note that Romney also failed to answer my very direct question about his promise to the Log Cabin Republicans in 2002 not to oppose “same sex marraige.” This is of enormous significance since such a promise constitutes a premeditated decision to violate his sworn oath only to enforce the existing laws and statutes of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
In summary: Mitt Romney illegally instituted same sex “marriage” in Massachusetts. He claimed that he fought “it” every way possible but was forced by the court to issue the same sex “marriage” certificates to same sex couples.
The fact that the legislature is proposing legislation to legally amend the marriage statute is prima facie evidence that Romney’s claim that the “court legalized same sex marriage” was a blatant lie plain and simple. Romney knew (or should have known) that the MSJC didn’t even have subject matter jurisdiction to even hear the case in the first place much less “order” either of the other two branches to “do” anything. Under the oldest functioning constitution in the world authored by John Adams which served as the model for our Federal Constitution:
“The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.” (PART THE FIRST, Article XXX.)
The truth is that those marriage certificates that were issued (over 150 of which Romney himself personally signed and issued) were/are not worth the paper they are written on because there was no accompanying legal statute authorizing same sex “marriage.” Plain and simple. The legislature never changed the law. Romney lied when he claimed he was under “court order.”
And in usurping the legislative authority of the people of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts by altering the law without the consent of the people via our elected representatives, Mitt Romney violated his sworn oath to uphold the Constitution and enforce the laws and statutes of Massachusetts.
As it turns out, Romney, not I, was the one who was delusional about his role in illegally imposing “same sex marriage” in Massachusetts.
As a lawyer, Mitt Romney should be disbarred for his primary role in the shredding of the Massachusetts Constitution.
Shame on you Mr. Romney
As a post script: Wouldn’t it have been nice if some of the “conservative” Christian and pro family organizational leaders, lawyer-pundits, and radio blabber mouths who were evangelizing Romney for a year when all this information was readily available had actually done their homework instead of whitewashing Romney’s far left wing record and falsely claiming he was the most authentic conservative in the race?
Source: 
March 3rd, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Great job of catching this liar in his own lies! We have done it earlier, but what if we had not? This would kill our chances at the WH. I’m not too thrilled as it is…but that’s for another day. lol. Have a great day, Gregg.
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:07 pm
It still doesn’t mean you’re not delusional Gregg. You apparently believe you’re a constitutional lawyer. Did someone want to go to law school and couldn’t get in? Good thing being on the radio doesn’t have any requirements other than being able to talk semi-coherently.
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:13 pm
Hello Gregg,
I was on your website http://www.greggjackson.com and I saw the article that you recently posted about how radio talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh were “attacking Senator Mccain relentlessly.” After this, throughout the article, you had written much on what Mitt Romney had done as Governor of Massachusetts, and you continuously called him a liar. Well there are things Senator McCain did that are quite terrible. For instance: The McCain Feingold Law. It is a law that restricts free speech of Americans at a certain time before an election, and the penalty for breaking this law can result in 5 years in jail.
This law is unconstitutional.
And McCain helped create the law, which is unconstitutional, and it is a job of the president to protect the constitution, so McCain is preliminary already doing a bad job as president.
This thing alone would frighten me away from supporting McCain.
Senator McCain also sided with the liberal members of the senate against the Bush tax cuts. Raising taxes and greater government control are signs of Liberalism, and him supporting these things makes him a liberal candidate wearing a Republican jersey.
One of the fundamental conservative principles is lowering taxes. Senator McCain was against Bush’s efforts to lower taxes, and this further exhibits Senator McCain being liberal.
Senator John McCain says he will protect the country, but supporting amnesty is not protecting the country at all. He is endangering the country by allowing illegal immigrants to enter the country and stay in the country. His logic in this situation seems quite messed up.
It is a fact. McCain is a liberal candidate running in the Republican Party, and the proof is there. Anyone can bash a candidate. You did it to Mitt Romney, and Rush Limbaugh and others continue to about McCain.
March 3rd, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Aramis,
Thanks for commenting. I never disputed McCain\’s record. Nor have I endorsed him. And I have not \”bashed\” anybody. I have merely set the record straight with regard to Romney\’s lie about that the MSJC \”legalized same sex marriage\” in Mass and that he was just following the \”law\” when in fact there is no such law.
Canning,
Your comment like most of the ones you post on this blog is absurd. Does one have to be a \”constitutional lawyer\” to have an opinion about a legal matter? That is the implication of your comment. As to rebutting any of the substantive points of my post you failed to do that. So you can name call all you want and call me \”delusional\’ or whatever but don\’t forget that puerile ad hom attacks are no substitute for a well reasoned, cogent, and informed argument. the next one you make here at PR I believe if memory serves me correct, will be your first.
Gregg
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:37 pm
Gregg, this is the Catch of the Day.
Canning, I am so tired of empty name-calling devoid of argument.
What the Legislature is doing puts the exclamation point on MassResisstance’s arguments all these years.
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:27 pm
the judicial branch can’t create laws, it can merely interpret them. That’s why you don’t see it reflected in the constitution–it’s not rewritten to reflect judicial decisions.
BUT, the court’s decisions are used as precedents in later trials, so the likelihood of justices of the peace being sued over blocking a gay marriage is high.
Look I hate Romney as much as the next guy, but you’re just plain wrong here I think. I never went to law school, but I didn’t pass high school government class, and this seems pretty elementary
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:29 pm
rather, i DID pass govt class
March 4th, 2008 at 12:13 am
Okay, Pierce, you’re going to be asked to exercise your imagination a bit. Fasten your seatbelt. Imagine that you are in a strange universe where what you said makes no sense whatsoever.
Imagine, further that this “Channing” fellow is either a moron or has an axe to grind and does not mind putting the rest of us through a black hole if necessary to distort the laws of reason
.
Imagine that in such a strange universe, Gregg is right, and that every serious lawyer in the country who has read what Gregg has read knows that Gregg is right.
Imagine also that the “conservative” elites have some massive conflicts of interest and they’d rather continue surrendering the culture war, constitutionalism and their own children’s civilization to anti-constitutional barbarian “liberals” than admit they are as wrong as wrong could be on how Massachusetts ended up with sodomy-based “marriages.”
Well, I’ve have news for you, Pierce. All of the above is easilly proven to be true in the very SAME universe that your fat hiney is sitting in. I happen to have spent the last three years of my life researching this and have spoken to about two-dozen law professors, lawyers and judges (CLUE: except for the ones whom Romney bought, they ALL agree with Gregg, Because Gregg has done his homework (which I and a small number of others wrote!).
Now, if you want to learn the basics of American law and government and get a head start on figuring out why your children will not enjoy the constitutional freedoms you grew up with and how great civilizations end “not with a bang but with a whimper” (as T.S. Eliot wrote), go to http://www.UndergroundJournal.net and start reading.
It’s all open and shut. Facts are stubborn things! For one thing, as Gregg pointed out, the Goodridge court opinion NEVER CLAIMED to legalize sodomy-based “marriage.” So I think that instantly cancels your comment.
Get moving, Pierce. There’s a pop quiz on law and government tomorrow. (It’s called citizenship in America!)
As for Canning, I don’t think he’ll be showing up for the test.
March 4th, 2008 at 1:15 am
All politician are liars, and so do writers like you. Why not write about the presidential candidates who are still running? Even if you are telling the truth, is Romney still bothering you? Why not concentrate on the current crap?
March 4th, 2008 at 2:38 am
Mr. Jackson, I’m actually glad you continue to write about Romney. According to rumors, Romney’s advisers are interested in a 2012 presidential run. They’re perhaps hoping Obama screws up, and hoping to have 4 years of prep time to unseat him.
Romney has been learning quickly from the GOP foreign policy establishment. If Obama/Clinton gets unpopular, Romney may be the natural replacement. Just to mention one scenario, if a terrorist attack lands in the USA and Obama is seen as inadequately tough, or as an enabler of it, 2012 could be a huge opportunity year for the GOP nominee, as this year clearly is for the Democrat side.
Romney is a very, very smart man and a very, very good fund raiser. Just before Super Tuesday 2008, countless influential conservative pundits had settled on Romney as their top pick, over McCain. If Romney has 4 years of prep time, he could go into 2012 as the heavy GOP favorite. If Romney is not somebody we want, scrutiny such as that from Mr. Jackson will become important.
I strongly encourage Mr. Jackson to continue writing about Romney between now and 2012, especially if he seems to be preparing to run again. Even if I don’t always agree with Mr. Jackson, it will show us what kind of obstacles there may be to Romney in 2012.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:01 am
Savea,
First of all Romney merely “suspeded” his campaign. Technically he is still a candidate and controls over 250 delagates.
He has also been talked about as a potential VP pick for McCain, the presumtive nominee of the GOP.
You also call me a liar. Care to offer any evidence or is the mere allegation all that is required to substantiate your claim? Talk about intellectual sloth.
As to your last comment. I can write about whatever I chose to. You don’t have to read it. I am one of the proprietors of this blog. Romney is not “bothering me.” I am concerned however that certain “conservatives” who continue to make the case that Romney is an authentic “conservative” (such as Ann Coulter and Karl Rove for example) fail to acknowledge his illegal actions and extreme Left Wing record as governor.
Romney is technically still a candidate and I will do whatever I can to expose the truth about his record in the interest of the voters who deserve to know the truth about this very dangerous individual.
Gregg
March 9th, 2008 at 10:07 am
“This very dangerous individual”
Please. Give me a break.
You can argue that he was wrong about the court and the law while still having some slight measure of personal decency in assessing Romney’s character. Being wrong doesn’t make one a liar, and having a genuine belief that one’s course was necessary and correct doesn’t make one “dangerous” unless it’s a clear issue (which I hope you’ll concede this is not, at least in terms of consensus).
Yes, I’ve heard the character attacks on Romney, ad nauseum. They all fail to acknowledge a lifetime of integrity and genuine interest in public service. Self-advancement for all the diabolical reasons I’ve seen caricatured are just laughable, but promoted by folks like you with, apparently, an ax to grind. I’m sorry he insulted you. Get over it.
And speaking of insults… How is repeatedly reciprocating the insults of your commenters with words like “peurile” and “sloth” any better?
I don’t have any special legal knowledge to understand whether Romney acted appropriately in the same-sex marriage situation in Mass, but I’m fully convinced that he believed he was acting appropriately, that he acted on the best legal advice he had available at the time, and that he continues to honorably assert his best assessment of the record, all while honestly maintaining his long-standing personal views on gay marriage, and separating those personal views from what is legal and appropriate in terms of policy and governance.
March 10th, 2008 at 8:29 pm
Coach says:
“I don’t have any special legal knowledge to understand whether Romney acted appropriately in the same-sex marriage situation in Mass…”
Uh, “coach” I think that is pretty obvious judging from your nonsensical post. When you can rebut one of the things from my actual post instead of calling me names get back to me.
Gregg
March 13th, 2008 at 7:39 am
[...] Adding an exclamation point to all of this, Gregg Jackson had an important update at Pundit Review last week on the best and most important reason to reject Romney. It vindicates everything that Mass Resistance and Jackson (whom Romney himself characterized as “delusional” in January) have been saying about the inarguable fact that Romney unilaterally, unconstitutionally, and unnecessarily imposed same-sex marriage in Massachusetts. [...]
March 15th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Gregg, why do people only talk about Romney being the left wing candidate when McCain took very left actions as a Senator. People insist that McCain is a Conservative. He voted against the Bush tax cuts, and that is not in harmony with Conservative principles. Why do the papers all endorse McCain? He’s a liberal. I think that McCain is a “very dangerous individual” more than Romney.
March 15th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
McCain is quick to anger, he wants Amnesty, but still thinks he’ll properly be able to protect the country, and he is not strong in his Economical ideas. He is a liberal who is the Republican nominee, and now the race is a Liberal against a Liberal.
March 16th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
The same thing can be said, only slightly altered. McCain is the Republican nominee and I will do whatever I can to expose the truth about his record in the interest of the voters who deserve to know the truth about this very dangerous individual.