(Hint: A demagogue who has already changed history)GUEST COLUMN BY GREGG JACKSON + JOHN HASKINS RFFM.org
When Ann Coulter endorsed Mitt Romney she called the former Massachusetts governor “manifestly our best candidate” — though the paper for which she is “chief legal correspondent,” Human Events, ranked Romney the #8 RINO (Republican In Name Only) in the nation in 2005.
GOP establishment pom pom girl Laura Ingraham and water boy Sean Hannity evangelize Romney on their radio shows as the second coming of Ronald Reagan.
Curiouser and curiouser!
Romney the wallflower bats his eyelashes and coyly pretends not to notice the increasing speculation of a McCain-Romney ticket–even as he criss-crosses the country campaigning and fundraising for McCain–the same John McCain who Romney said during the primaries was “almost indistinguishable” from Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton.
But perhaps Romney intended that as a compliment, since Romney was a virtual GOP clone of Barack Obama, until he repackaged himself to seduce conservatives.
As a Boston talk radio host and writer-researcher (respectively), who both initially supported Romney (author Gregg Jackson lived out of state in 2002 and co-author John Haskins voted for him in 2002), we have followed Romney closely and know the truth about his record as very few people in America do. The truth is that many of the leading “conservative” lawyers, radio pundits and pro-family leaders whom we trusted for years have ruthlessly distorted and suppressed the truth about Romney’s hideous record as governor — even after all his “conversions.”
It took one hundred million dollars of Romney’s personal fortune to waterboard Americans with Orwellian propaganda from “conservative” talk radio, Fox News and “pro-family” lawyers and religious mercenaries. Their consensus is they’ve rewritten enough history enough to fool enough of the people enough of the time.
Many pundits and political prognosticators are now calling Romney the odds-on favorite to be chosen as MCain’s running mate–making it more urgent than ever conservatives–the field slaves of the Republican Party–know the true record of this man.
After reading the truth about this soulless demagogue, whom most of the GOP elites have airbrushed into a quasi-conservative, ask yourself if Mitt Romney is somebody, who as Dr. James Dobson of “Focus on the Family” stated, “is a man pro-family voters could support?”
1. Romney illegally imposed homosexual marriage as he had secretly promised “Log Cabin Republicans” a homosexual activist group he would, given the pretext of a legally meaningless court opinion. He publicly admitted that the four outlaw judges who belched forth the Goodridge opinion (urging the legislature to make sodomy-based “marriage” legal) had violated the state Constitution and their oaths of office. But bizarrely, he flatly contradicted the state constitution he had sworn to uphold by pretending he was bound by this opinion. He also opposed a citizen-led effort to remove the four judges!
He then authorized illegal changes to, and issuance of, still legally null and void marriage licenses to homosexuals in violation of the marriage laws which the state constitution explicitly says only the legislature can change (the same court has admitted this). But Romney and his hired “conservatives” falsely claimed that “everybody (knew) that the (judges) legalized same-sex ‘marriage’.”
The Massachusetts Senate today passed a bill that would repeal a 1913 state law that prevents gay and lesbian couples from most other states from marrying in Massachusetts…The bill now heads to the House, where Speaker Salvatore F. DiMasi has already expressed support. Supporters said they expected the bill to pass the House and be signed by Governor Deval Patrick by the end of the month. “If that bill comes to me, I will sign it and sign it proudly,” Patrick said Monday.
Full Boston Globe article here
I wonder if those same sex couples from out of state who will get “married” in Massachusetts, when the 1913 marriage law is officially repealed, are aware their illegally altered and issued marriage licenses will be as null and void as every one that has ever been issued in Massachusetts for the last 3 years, since then Governor Mitt Romney authorized the first illegally altered and issued licences, falsely claiming that “the court had legalized same sex marriage,” and every one Governor Schwarzenegger illegally altered and issued for the last month to same sex couples in California(beginning on June 15, 2008)?
One thing I will say is that at least the Mass legislature is actually going about overturning the current marriage law in the only constitutionally prescribed manner via the legislative branch. (The only branch that can pass, revoke, overturn, or amend a law in any way.)
Now, if only these “legislators” could actually “overturn” the current marriage statute (Massachusetts General Laws chapter 207) which limits marriage to one man and one woman, same sex “marriage” would actually be legal. Although they have attempted to, they still have not done so. which means that same sex “marriage” is still illegal.
Might I suggest that before we attempt to spread the seeds of Jeffersonian Democracy and the rule of law to 7th Century Islamic Barbarians around the world that we consider practicing a little of it here in the good old U.S of A first? Just thinking out loud here…
And one last parting thought:
Admittedly, I am not a constitutional lawyer, but before passing a law that would allow same sex couples from out of state to get “married” in Massachusetts, shouldn’t the legislature actually legalize same sex marriage in Massachusetts first?
Again, just thinking out loud…
Same Sex “Marriage”: Illegal in All Fifty States
Gregg Jackson
Monday, July 07, 2008
Townhall.comAbout a month ago, the California Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, issued a declaratory opinion that Proposition 22, which states that, “Only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in California,” enshrined into statutory law by 61.4% of California voters in 2000 (over four million voters), was “unconstitutional” on the basis that “gender discrimination” violates the equal protection clause of the state constitution.
The LA Times reported that:
“The California Supreme Court struck down the state’s ban on same-sex marriage Thursday in a broadly worded decision that would invalidate virtually any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation.”
Sadly, many of the leading “conservative” and “Christian” pro-family organizations such as AFA, Liberty Council, ADF, FRC, ACLJ, and Focus on the Family have been in full surrender mode conceding this same liberal talking point that the court “legalized same-sex marriage in California” and that the only way to ensure preserving traditional male-female marriage is through a state constitutional amendment scheduled to be on the ballot in November.
The California Supreme Court issued a declaratory opinion that, in the view of the bare majority, banning same sex couples from marrying was unconstitutional and that the language of the initiative statute limiting marriage to one man and one woman must be stricken from the statute. Unfortunately however, the court doesn’t have the constitutional authority to re-write the marriage statute nor any other initiative statute for that matter. According to the California Constitution, only the people can revoke or amend an initiative statute such as Prop 22. Same-sex “marriage” remains, therefore, illegal.
Patterico’s Pontifications is one of my favorite blogs. Written by LA County asst. district attorney Patrick Frey, the site is relentless when it comes to exposing the biases of the LA Times.
He has a great one today, highlighting the difference when polling data either fits their world view, or doesn’t.
Supporting Barack Obama, yep, that fits the LA Times agenda quite nicely. They are reporting that Barack Obama leads John McCain by 12 points in a national poll. They characterize that in the following way,
Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) has captured a sizable lead over Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.)
Voters rejecting gay marriage, that doesn’t fit the LA Times agenda. Care to guess how they refer to a poll that showed voters oppose gay marriage by a 19% margin?
This is why I love blogs so. Thanks Patterico.
For the record, I favor gay marriage. It’s blatant media bias I object to.
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?
I helped author and was a signatory to the following letter entitled, “A Stern Warning to the ‘Conservative Elites ‘about Mitt Romney” that is a World Net Daily Exclusive today:
ELECTION 2008
Family leaders call Romney ‘disaster’
Letter criticizes ‘deceptive rhetoric’ around candidate——————————————————————————–
Posted: January 3, 2008
© 2008 WorldNetDaily.comMitt Romney
A coalition of leaders on family issues has released a letter warning about what they describe as the deception being assembled around former Massachusetts governor and GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney.
“Most of us are not allied with any presidential candidate,” the letter says. “But we are troubled by the unethical and Orwellian cover-up of Mitt Romney’s role in catastrophic events in Massachusetts, once the cradle of American liberty.
“Actions he took as governor were beyond the pale,” the letter continued.
Signers include William Greene of RightMarch.com, Ted Baehr of the Christian Film and Television Commission, Linda Harvey of Mission America, Gary Glenn of American Family Association of Michigan, Michael Heath of Christian Civic League of Maine, Ray Neary of Pro-Life Massachusetts and others.
The letter cites seven issues seen as problematic in the Romney campaign, including a “phony pro-life ‘conversion.’”
“Mitt Romney established abortion as a ‘healthcare benefit’ in his own government-run healthcare plan at $50 per abortion – after his supposed ‘pro-life conversion,’” the letter said. “He created a permanent, official government role for an unelected Planned Parenthood representative on the health care board.”
Second, according to the letter, “Romney told Catholic Charities’ adoption and foster agency they had to give children to homosexuals even when normal mother-father families were lined up to give them a home,” the letter said.
rest of World Net Daily Article here
And here is the actual letter:
A Stern Warning to the “Conservative Elites” about Mitt Romney
By silence about Romney’s illegal actions and toxic legacy, the elites are assisting a political cancer that has profound consequences for our children and grandchildren
We write the following because we must oppose the deception of the American people by powerful and influential conservatives. Many in the conservative grassroots no longer trust the “conservative” media, lawyers and leaders, whom they see as serving the GOP establishment regardless of the will of the conservative base, regardless of the truth.
Most of us are not allied with any presidential candidate. But we are troubled by the unethical and Orwellian cover-up of Mitt Romney’s role in catastrophic events in Massachusetts, once the cradle of American liberty. Actions he took as governor were beyond the pale. As Romney twice explained to the homosexual “Log Cabin” Republicans, it would take a Republican to enact their agenda ( www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2006/12/romneys_thought.html ). Attorneys, journalists and pundits must be fearless and selfless watchdogs of politicians and guardians of democracy. This is a sacred trust that is being defiled. Silence about ugly truths, such as the points enumerated below, is a betrayal of the lofty status we claim in a constitutional republic. Pay the price of courage. Tell America the truth.
Phony Pro-Life “Conversion”
Issue # 1. Mitt Romney established abortion as a “healthcare benefit” in his own government-run healthcare plan at $50 per abortion — after his supposed “pro-life conversion.” ( www.mass.gov/Qhic/docs/cc_benefits1220_pt234.pdf ) He created a permanent, official government role for an unelected Planned Parenthood representative on the health care board.
Issue #2. Romney’s well-timed “pro-life” conversion for the Republican primary pulled a “states’ rights” committment out of nowhere to hedge his political bets. His claim that states’ rights trump the unalienable right to life is inconsistent and unprincipled: he simultaneously opposes an amendment to protect human life, but claims to support one to preserve marriage! What happened to Romney’s committment to “states’ rights?”
Issue #3. Unforced by anyone, Romney overruled his own Commissioner of Public Health and lied about state law in order to compel Catholic hospitals to issue abortifacient pills — in violation of their freedom of religion enshrined in the United States and Massachusetts Constitutions. Using exactly the crafty political theatre he employed to cover his actions on same-sex “marriage” and homosexual adoption, Romney posed as defender of the very thing he was destroying, gallantly “asking” the legislature to create a special “religious exemption” for Catholic institutions. Even Democrat former governor Mike Dukakis publicly agreed with Romney’s commissioner of public health that state law already grants a “religious exemption.”
The primaries are intended to vet the candidates to ensure that each party nominates the best qualified candidate. It has been clear to me and many others that Romney is by far the most liberal candidate and the most dishonest and the most unlikely to defeat Hillary or Obama in November. I am glad that voters are increasingly coming to this conclusion as well. Time will tell.
Our friend Tom Blumer from Bizzy Blog thoroughly rebuts the claim that Mitt Romney had no other choice but to enforce the “decision” of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts when they issued the Goodridge decision which has been said to have “legalized gay marriage.” In fact, Tom demonstrates that it was not the MSJC who imposed “gay marraige” on Massachusetts citizens (even though the court acted unconstitutionally as well) but was Mitt Romney himself who in ordering the Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to perform same sex marriage ceremonies violated his oath to uphold the constitution and enforce the laws of the Commonwealth.
Thanks again to Tom Blumer of Bizzy Blog for this outstanding analysis!
Tom pulls together a plethora of documentation and comes to the following conclusion:
Romney had marriage license certificates changed from “Husband” and “Wife” to “Person A” and “Person B” anyway. He didn’t have to, and further had no constitutional authority to do so.
He “ordered the town clerks, even ones with religious conscience concerns, to solemnize the marriages.” He didn’t have to, and further had no constitutional authority to do so.
In these and other actions, he “acquiesced in the SJC decision and actively authorized same-sex ‘marriage.’” He didn’t have to, and further had no constitutional authority to do so.
It is thus clear, again regardless of how one feels about the issue itself, that same-sex marriage certificates issued in Massachusetts under the Romney regime have been issued without requisite legal authority to do so (i.e., a real law voted on by the legislature and signed by the governor), and are, by definition, void.
So not only did Mitt Romney not have the required legislative authority tp implement Goodridge, the “ruling,” on its face, is objectively and irretrievably constitutionally flawed. He had a constitutional duty to the state’s citizens to ignore the “ruling,” and he failed in that duty.
And yet, somehow, Mitt Romney is considered A-OK by “conservatives” who clearly should know better.
Our friend and past guest on our radio show Tom Blumer, proprietor of the award winning, Bizzy Blog, has been intimately involved in our ongoing discussion on the radio and on this blog with regard to Mitt Romney’s candidacy and specifically as it pertains to:
1. Whether the former governor Romney was just “just following the decision of the Court” in the Goodridge decision that “legalized gay marriage” or whether he was actually subverting the law by ordering Justices of the Peace and other town clerks and state officials to perform same sex marriage ceremomies even though the original marriage statute (ch 207) had not been changed by the legislature and did not allow for same sex marriages.
2. Whether the former governor was just “following the law” when he signed his healthcare plan legislation (Commonwealth Care) that included tax subsidized abortions on demand with a $50 co-pay or whether he had the opportunity to veto the bill and ask that the abortion provision be removed from it (since at that time he claimed to be “pro-life”).
3. Whether the judiciary has the constitutional authority to “strike” or “suspend” any law in Massachusetts. (Article XX says no)
Tom has done a wonderful job in shedding some much needed clarity around these issues which is the reason that I believe Tom is the prototypical “New Media Journalist.” Here it is:
Romney, the Courts, and the Constitutions: Part 1 — Abortion Coverage in RomneyCare
Yesterday was a relatively light posting day, at least in terms of verbosity, because I’ve been watching a fascinating and important e-mail debate unfold primarily between Gregg Jackson and Kevin Whelan, the co-hosts of Pundit Review radio and the Pundit Review blog. Along the way, there has been some input from myself and at least a couple of other more knowledgeable folks.The subjects started out being Mitt Romney’s inclusion of abortion coverage in Commonwealth Care, aka RomneyCare, and Romney’s ability or inability to act on the Massachusetts court’s Goodridge ruling “legalizing” same-sex marriage. In the process of vetting these two matters, broader issues about the relationships between the branches of government have come to the fore.
The broader issues strike me as awfully important, and I’ll try to develop them…
I’ll try to summarize where I believe things stand on these matters, with the obvious disclaimer that I don’t know Massachusetts law inside and out.
The bedrock issue is how much power the courts have.
Haskins believes that, at least in Massachusetts, the courts can only advise. I’m not kidding. He cites as precedent how slavery actually became illegal in the state.
When the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) of Massachusetts declared the practice of slavery to be a violation of the state’s constitution, it only had the power to set free one slave, the slave on whose behalf legal action was brought. The only way to make slavery illegal, as opposed to “merely” unconstitutional, was for the legislature to pass, and the governor to sign, a law proscribing slavery. Until that happened, the only way for an individual slave to be freed was for him or her to bring a new legal action. If the legislature had dithered for 100 years (I don’t know how long it actually took; my guess is not long), the case-by-case approach would have been the only one available.
Haskins is clearly historically correct.
There is no reason to believe that constitutional conditions in Massachusetts have changed since.
Here is what that means to the issues at hand.
The first is the presence of abortion in RomneyCare.
In 1981 and 1997, the SJC “ruled” (i.e., based on the above, “stated its belief”) that a state-subsidized plan must offer “Medically Necessary Abortions.” But wait a minute. Why was the 1997 “ruling” necessary? Is it because, as I suspect, the legislature never passed an actual law requiring such coverage in the intervening 16 years, and the Executive Branch and bureaucracy “just did it”? If so, and if no actual law has gone on the books in the 10 years since the second “ruling,” there is no legal requirement to offer these services, and there will not be until the Legislature passes a real law, signed by the Governor, containing such a mandate. Without such an actual law (regulations written by bureaucrats don’t count), the only recourse for Medicaid patients requesting abortions should have been individual court actions. If the legislature is and has been too lazy, or too afraid, to get off its collective butt to pass a law the SJC has “ruled” is needed, too bad, so sad. Those who are impatient with all of this and want legislators who will actually do something to pass such laws have always had recourse. They’re known as elections.
This is also interesting background on the issue. “Robert Paine” Esq. is the foremost legal authority in the country on how Mitt Romney illegally imposed “Gay Marriage.” His analysis has been affirmed as legally sound by numerous constitutional lawyers and law professors. Here it is.
And here is the Massachusetts highest law- the Massachusetts Constitution.
Gregg, I feel compelled to respond to your latest anti-Romney post. The kindest thing I can say about the notion that it was Mitt and not the courts that brought gay marriage to Massachusetts is that it is revisionist history.
Yes, Mitt’s abortion position has been changed. His position on gay marriage however, has been consistent. When the decision came down, Romney said this,
”All along, I have said an issue as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage should be decided by the people. Until then, I intend to follow the law and expect others to do the same.”
More recently, he said this,
“I have been an ardent defender of traditional marriage, and have fought same-sex marriage in every way I could conceive,” Romney said. As governor, Romney pushed for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
The facts demonstrate that Romney did indeed do everything he, legally, could do to stop gay marriage in Mass. Did he ultimately succeed in preventing gay marriage? No, he didn’t. The reason isn’t because he, Sean Hannity and Hugh Hewitt are secret shills for the “gay agenda”, it’s that he had limited options, based on the very state constitution you point to as Romney’s Holy Grail to strike down gay marriage.
The fact is that Romney is severely limited by the very state constitution that you hold up as the source of all his alleged powers to stop gay marriage. The state attorney general, as the state’s chief legal officer, determines legal policy for the commonwealth. Not Romney. Romney tried to do several things in the courts, but he was blocked by the AG,
Associated Press,
April 15, 2004
Mass. Gov. Seeks to Stop Gay Marriage
Democratic Attorney General Thomas Reilly last month rejected the Republican governor’s request to seek a stay from the Supreme Judicial Court until November 2006, when voters may have a chance to weigh in on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage and legalizing civil unions.
The man Romney hopes to tap as special counsel is retired state Supreme Judicial Court Justice Joseph R. Nolan, who has called the court’s November ruling legalizing gay marriage an “abomination.”
The attorney general, as the state’s chief legal officer, determines legal policy for the commonwealth.
Would a pro gay agenda politician select a special counsel who believed that court’s ruling was an “abomination”? Would he? Doesn’t that indicate to you that Romney was serious about doing what he could through the legal process? It does to me. There is a big difference between what you want Romney to do and what he is able to do.
Romney tried to do many things, in some cases he succeeded. For example, Mitt was very strong in seeking to restrict out of state couples from coming to MA for gay marriage licenses. He went to court and he won,
PBS Newshour
March 30, 2006, 3:50pm EST
COURT RULES OUT-OF-STATE GAY COUPLES MAY NOT MARRY IN MASSACHUSETTS
Gay couples from states where same-sex marriage is banned may not marry in Massachusetts, the state’s highest court ruled Thursday.
In some cases the outcome was less than fully satisfying. Mitt won these battles, but lost the war,
Boston Globe
December 27, 2006
The Supreme Judicial Court ruled today that it had no authority to order the Legislature to vote on a ballot initiative to ban gay marriage, but the justices gave Governor Mitt Romney a symbolic victory by scolding lawmakers for shirking “their lawful obligations.”Boston Globe
June 29, 2006
Lobbying intensifies on gay marriage
Romney, O’Malley press for vote on a ban
Governor Mitt Romney and Cardinal Sean P. O’Malley called on the Legislature yesterday to hold a scheduled vote next month on a proposed ban of same-sex marriage, amid indications that gay-rights advocates are prepared to use procedural tactics to kill the measure.
They got their vote, not the outcome they wanted. Again, Mitt was not passive in this, and he certainly was not Imposing Gay Marriage on The Citizens of Massachusetts
Here are more examples of Mitt taking positions you would seemingly support,
Romney backs new effort to prohibit gay marriages
Proposal for ballot excludes civil unions
By Raphael Lewis, Globe Staff | June 17, 2005
Governor Mitt Romney yesterday endorsed a grass-roots effort to pass a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2008, abandoning his support for what he called a ”muddied” compromise measure that would also ban gay marriages but allow gays to enter into civil unions.Romney Files Suit Over Gay Marriage
Romney files lawsuit after legislators recessed before vote on issue
November 26, 2006 Outgoing Massachusetts Governor W. Mitt Romney announced last week that he would file a lawsuit with the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) in an attempt to put an amendment banning gay marriage to a statewide referendum.
Where’s the acknowledgement that Romney did these things? The idea that “Mitt Romney, Not the Mass Supreme Judicial Court, Imposed Gay Marriage on The Citizens of Massachusetts” is unbelievable, literally.
Your claim that Romney has the constitutional authority to define marriage, is not a sound legal reading of the law,
By Frank Phillips and Kathleen Burge, Globe Staff, 3/30/2004
“The governor can act regardless of what the legislators do,” said Ronald A. Crews, a spokesman for the Coalition for Marriage, a group that has called on Romney to seek a stay of the SJC’s decision until voters have decided the issue in 2006.
Crews said lawyers for his coalition believe that Romney has the constitutional authority to define marriage. He said the state constitution is one of the few that involves the governor in marriage issues. Chapter 3, Article V, allows the governor a role in determining “all causes of marriage.”
“We believe the governor has the law behind him,” said Crews.
But many constitutional scholars reject the notion and say Romney’s legal maneuvers will not sway the high court. They say the governor’s powers under the Massachusetts Constitution regarding marriage are trumped by its equal protection language.
Laurence H. Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School, said those requirements “must, like all other parts of the state constitution, be enforced by the governor in accord with the authoritative construction given to them by the SJC.”
Tribe said the argument that the SJC delay implementation of its decision until the issue goes before voters in November 2006 is “speculative actual prediction” that voters will support an amendment that has only won initial approval from lawmakers. The amendment won’t make it on the ballot until a second vote by the Legislature in its next session, beginning in January.
“Piling prediction upon prediction to ask the SJC for an unprecedented 2 1/2-year extension of a half-year stay already granted by the SJC . . . seems far-fetched in the extreme,” Tribe said.
“Not only would such a further stay be unprecedented in its duration, but denying people the fundamental right to marry the partner of their choice purely on the gamble that this right may be rolled back by the electorate some 30 months hence would represent a step unprecedented in character.”
Here are some other attempts to block gay marriage that have been heard and rejected by the courts,
PBS Newshour
May 13, 2004
JUDGE BLOCKS LAST-MINUTE BID TO STOP MASS. GAY MARRIAGES
A federal judge Thursday rejected an 11th hour attempt by conservative groups to prevent Massachusetts from granting the first state-sanctioned gay marriage licenses beginning next week.“The Supreme Judicial Court (of Massachusetts) has the authority to interpret and reinterpret if necessary the term marriage as it appears in the Massachusetts constitution,” U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro wrote in his opinion.
PBS Newshour
Nov. 29, 2004
Supreme Court Lets Stand Massachusetts High Court Ruling on Gay Marriages
The U.S. Supreme Court opted to stay out of the Massachusetts gay marriage fight for now, deciding on Monday not to hear a challenge to the state court’s decision legalizing same-sex unions. The justices rejected efforts by those opposed to the state court’s ruling to consider their appeal, but offered no comment on the reason for their decision.
This is the second time the high court declined to intervene in the Massachusetts dispute. Last May, justices refused to block clerks from issuing the first marriage licenses.Associated Press
May 7, 2004
SJC denies lawmakers’ motion to vacate decision on gay marriageBOSTON - The state’s highest court Friday unanimously rejected an appeal by 13 state lawmakers to reverse its November decision legalizing gay marriage in Massachusetts as of May 17. The lawmakers had argued that the Supreme Judicial Court lacked jurisdiction in the case under the state Constitution. Instead, they argued, the Legislature and governor are empowered to determine marriage laws. The court ruled Friday that the motion was untimely, because the case had already been decided; that the same arguments had been raised by others and rejected during the court process; and that the assertion that the court had no jurisdiction was erroneous.
Repeatedly, the courts have heard and rejected the arguments on gay marriage in Mass.
Some of your other proposed solutions included the “Bill of Address”, of which you said,
When the Massachusetts’ Supreme Court imposed gay marriage on the citizens of the Commonwealth, Romney could have exercised a “bill of address” to impeach the activist judges. But he didn’t.
First of all that is up to the legislature, not the governor. The legislature, apparently, had no interest,
Foes of gay marriage try long shot
Bill seeks to remove four of SJC’s justicesTwenty-eight days before the Supreme Judicial Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage goes into effect, diehard opponents will turn today to a radical, long-shot strategy: a bill to remove the four justices who penned the historic ruling.
The lone sponsor of the measure — Representative Emile J. Goguen, Democrat of Fitchburg — said he sees the “bill of address” as a tool to pressure members of the court to reconsider their landmark 4-3 decision or risk losing their judgeships.
“I’m going to be in tomorrow to file the bill,” said Goguen, 70, who strongly opposes same-sex marriage and civil unions. “I’m going solo for now, but I will circulate it to all the legislators.”
Secondly, there is a reason that the “bill of address” is so inappropriate,
Richard C. Van Nostrand, president of the Massachusetts Bar Association, said that the bill of address route has been invoked rarely for a reason. “We don’t want to go down a path that would cause judges to fear removal from their position for making unpopular decisions,” Nostrand said.
So on and on it goes. Your mind is obviously made up about Mitt Romney. What I have attempted to do is demonstrate that Romney is not the guy you claim him to be. The idea that “Mitt Romney, Not the Mass Supreme Judicial Court, Imposed Gay Marriage on The Citizens of Massachusetts” is demonstrably and factually wrong.
He’s done what he could through the legal process; he has spoken out aggressively against gay marriage, consistently. That is not enough for you, but it is for me, and I don’t even agree with him on this issue.
I have no problem with gay marriage and wish that it would come to a vote because I strongly believe it would pass in Massachusetts and we could finally put this issue to rest.
12 Questions For Pro-Same Sex Marriage Presidential Candidates
GrassTopsUSA Guest Commentary
By Gregg Jackson
08-23-071. To those who say: “Banning homosexual marriage is a form of discrimination, similar to the banning of interracial marriages, which makes homosexuals into second class citizens.”
Anti-miscegenation (interracial marriage) laws were struck down by the Supreme Court in 1967 (Loving v. Virginia) because they frustrated the core purpose of marriage in order to sustain a racist legal order. Since the decision didn’t change the fact that marriage was still between one man and one woman, how is banning “same sex marriage” discriminatory?
2. To those who say: “Homosexuality is a normal sexual orientation that God intended for some people and is not a perversion of normal sexuality.”
I am not aware of a single place in the Bible where homosexuality is not condemned by God as unnatural, perverted, and sinful behavior. Can you point to any place in the Bible where homosexuality is not condemned by God? Also, if in fact homosexuality is genetic, how do you explain the thousands of former homosexuals who are now straight?
