If you haven’t seen this yet, prepare to be sickened.

Where to begin with this arrogant pig? First of all, he must be the world’s worst defense attorney if that is his strategy, destroying an 8-year old in a jury trial. I’m sure the jury will be impressed by how tough you are. This guy is a disgrace, not to the citizens of this state, but to humanity itself.

Why would someone feel as though they can get away with such outrageous talk on the floor of the House of Representatives? Because they can. Rep. Fagan, or is that defense attorney Fagan, sometimes it is hard to tell the difference, is running unopposed.

We get the representatives we deserve in Massachusetts.

If you like to tell Rep. Fagan how impressed you are, here’s how to contact him,

Telephone: State House Office: 617-722-2040; District Office: 508-824-7000
Facsimile: 508-823-9892
E-Mail: Rep.JamesFagan@hou.state.ma.us

This has to be the biggest non-story of the year. Jon Keller, a leading political commentator in these parts for years is being taken to task by the few Patrick administration cheerleaders who are still hanging on for having the audacity to make fun of Deval’s Top 20 accomplishments list.

And what exactly is Keller’s sin? It’s the other Keller, his son Barney. You see, Barney is the PR spokesperson for the state GOP , an unenviable job if there ever was one. Jon, by the way, discloses the relationship on his blog, it’s no state secret. Barney did what any good flack would do when such a laughable, pathetic, weak list of 4-5 accomplishments is super fluffed to reach twenty. He pitched it around to the press. Jon Keller did what any pundit worth his salt would do to a list like this…he mocked it for its lameness.

The state’s leading liberal blog, Blue Mass Group, picks up on a Herald story and says that,

Jon Keller and his son and Barney have both stated that they did not collaborate on this story. This is something that needs to be followed.

What would be criminal or worthy of investigaion is if Jon Keller DIDN’T mock this list. After all, take a look at it yourself.

Number two on the list is marriage equality for all. The fact that Deval had very little to do with this demonstrates how weak this list is. Pardon me if I’m just slightly underwhelmed by Deval’s “accomplishments,”

5. Civic engagement
8. Increasing access to state government
15. Governor of the whole state
16. Passed parts of the municipal partnership act…
17. Appointed reform-minded leaders…
18. Moving an agenda to affirm human dignity
19. Investing in the state’s DC office…
20. Governor’s role as the state’s chief salesperson…

I feel better about Deval now, don’t you? Phew, these are the hot button issues that have been keeping me up at night. And congraulations to Deval for successfully double dipping, he’s now ready, apparently, for a career as an infomercial spokesperson if this governing thing doesn’t work out.

It’s Valerie Plame all over again!! Come on people. Do you really think that after covering Beacon Hill for twenty years Jon Keller needed instruction or help in realizing this list was deserving of his trademark snarky barbs? If you follow the logic, then Jon Keller can never criticize Deval on any issue that the state GOP agrees is an issue. If he does, it is some sort of scandal. Talk about an incumbent protection act. They are trying to criminalize criticism of Deval. I’m sure that will be at the top of next year’s “accomplishments”.

The most pathetic part of all of this is that I have been watching Jon Keller for years and I have no idea if he is a Democrat or a Republican. That is the best thing one could say about a political commentator I think…and that is what makes this non-story so laughable.

It’s a reality TV series, ripped from the headlines ala Law & Order, that follows the antics of the out of control pols on Beacon Hill. It has all the elements for a successful reality series, from people you love to hate to sexual hijinks, an unhealthy obsession with money. They could get an entire season worth of material from just one week’s worth of news.

Committing sexual offenses

DA: Sen. Marzilli ‘out of control’

LOWELL - A second woman came forward this morning claiming state Sen. James Marzilli accosted her in downtown Lowell as new details emerged about what a prosecutor called “out of control” behavior by the Arlington Democrat. The veteran politician, 50, claimed he was Martin Walsh when he was grabbed by cops yesterday, the name of his colleague in the House.

Marzilli, who was mobbed by a dozen cameramen and reporters, said nothing as he left Lowell District Court with his wife, political commentator Susan Shaer, and his sister this morning, after facing charges he accosted two women in Lowell. The white Toyota Corolla he drove away in appeared to have a parking ticket on the windshield.

Marzilli was charged with disorderly conduct, assault and battery, resisting arrest, attempt to commit a crime to wit indecent assault, furnishing a false name to a police officer and lewd and lascivious behavior after allegedly trying to grope a woman on a park bench. He was charged with accosting and annoying a person of the opposite sex for the second woman’s claims.

Marzilli’s attorney proclaims his client’s innocence.

Protecting sexual offenders

GOP rep: Dems gutted child sex offense bill

A GOP lawmaker claims a sex offender bill known as Jessica’s Law has been gutted by Beacon Hill Democrats, whose changes would allow child rapists to escape mandatory prison sentences.

“This bill is a weaker substitute,” said state Rep. Karyn Polito (R-Shrewsbury). “I take a very straightforward approach to this: You rape a child, you serve time, but this (legislation) does not guarantee that convicted child rapists will be incarcerated.”

Hackarama and Pension Scams

Howie Carr’s take,

This bill started out as a multi-billion kiss payoff for the state hacks, by jacking up their COLA’s (cost-of-living adjustments). The reverse-Robin Hood then added the municipal retirees to the frenzy…The solons have a very sweet pension rule for themselves. If they’re in office one day in a calendar year, they get a year’s credit on their pensions. Nice “work” if you can get it. So after 19 years, Marian’s got her 20 years in. That’s pension No. 1.

Marian’s problem in the Senate is the fact that there can be only one queen bee, and that is the president, Terry Murray. Which brings us to the judgeship. Marian was one of Gov. Deval Patrick’s early supporters, which seems to entitle her to a $130,000-a-year no-heavy-lifting state judgeship.

A couple of months ago, she was on the runway, ready for takeoff to the bench. Her would-be Senate successors were scurrying around, pulling nomination papers.

But something happened, and she withdrew her name. But I predict that sooner or later she’ll be back before the JNC, cup in hand. So let’s say Sen. Walsh eventually takes the judgeship and puts in 10 years. That would be pension No. 2 - 80 percent of what will by then be at least $150,000.

Finally, her elderly husband, Paul V. Buckley. In an amazing coincidence, this husband of a politician was handed a judgeship. Yep, another nationwide search.

And here’s a Globe news story,

Patrick discusses supporter for post
Appointment would mark shift for governor
By Frank Phillips, Globe Staff

The Patrick administration has been discussing whether to name an early campaign supporter as head of a state bonding agency, a job that pays as much as $225,000 a year, according to an e-mail written by a Walsh political adviser that outlines the plan.

By installing state Senator Marian Walsh, a West Roxbury Democrat and early supporter of Governor Deval Patrick’s 2006 campaign, as executive director of the Massachusetts Health and Educational Facilities Authority, the administration would be trading down in expertise.

A former Suffolk County prosecutor and longtime legislator, Walsh has no detailed job experience in public bonds and nonprofit debt. The current executive director, Benson T. Caswell, has an extensive background in the field.

A switch also could be expensive, creating a major hurdle for Walsh to get the job: Firing Caswell would cost the state $450,000, according to terms of his severance package.

If Patrick moves ahead with the plan, it would mark a shift for the governor, who declared after his campaign that lawmakers need not apply for administration jobs. At the time, Patrick’s statement was in keeping with his campaign promises to reform Beacon Hill culture and reduce political patronage hiring.

Insiders and Lobbyists Running Wild

DiMasi friend called to hearing before Secretary of State

BOSTON - A close friend of House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi has been ordered to appear at a hearing before Secretary of State William Galvin to explain why he failed to report lobbying income.

Richard Vitale last year helped promote legislation that would lift restrictions on price markups by ticket brokers. The bill passed the House with DiMasi’s support, but stalled in the Senate. Vitale’s company was paid $60,000 by the Massachusetts Association of Ticket Brokers.

DiMasi has said he never spoke to Vitale about the bill.

Comedic relief provided by MA GOP

Ogonowski Senate ballot effort falls short

Republican Senate hopeful Jim Ogonowski has failed to collect enough signatures to get on the September primary ballot.

Ogonowski, who hoped to challenge incumbent Democratic Sen. John Kerry, submitted 9,970 signatures to Secretary of State William Galvin’s office before the 5 p.m. deadline yesterday.

That’s 30 signatures short of the 10,000 needed.

As cities and towns across Massachusetts struggle with budget problems and overrides, the political class on Beacon Hill is sending a message to the citizens loud and clear,

IT SUCKS TO BE YOU

You see, on Beacon Hill, there is no such thing as difficult choices. There is not even a hint of concern about waste and spending at a time of alleged fiscal crisis. With a ballot initiative to completely repeal the state’s 5.3% income tax on the ballot this fall, Beacon Hill seems to be playing a game of chicken with the citizens of this state, daring them to pass it and repeal the tax.

EXHIBIT 1: The Arrogance of Governor Patrick

’What is this guy doing?’
Deval Patrick’s 80% office budget hike blasted

Despite a slumping economy and looming budget crunch, Gov. Deval Patrick has hiked his office budget by an astonishing 80 percent, adding questionable new staff positions like “director of grassroots governance” and pumping millions into an extravagant “civic engagement” program.

“We know the governor had a goal of creating 100,000 new jobs in his first term, we just didn’t know he was going to create them all in the Corner Office,” said Sen. Michael Knapik (R-Westfield).

EXHIBIT 2: The arrogance of a one-party legislature

MA’s leading liberal blog, Blue Mass Group, declared: It’s official: Life sciences bill now a pork-fest

House lawmakers earmarked $49.5 million to build a science center at the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts in North Adams, though the school currently has no science graduate programs. The college is, however, the alma mater of Representative Daniel E. Bosley, a North Adams Democrat who wrote the House legislation and has frequently joked at press conferences and legislative hearings that “spending $1 billion doesn’t go quite as far as it used to.”

He who laughs last, laughs best. We’ll see who’s making jokes when the citizens of this state pass the repeal of the income tax and Beacon Hill has say goodbye to $11 BILLION in what they consider play money. For the rest of us, it’s our money!

With this possibility on the horizon, it puts into sharp focus the obscene level of disregard for the voters AND the unvelievable arrogance of the entrenched politicians on Beacon Hill.

It was a great pleasure to welcome back Jay Fitzgerald to Pundit Review Radio. Jay is a business reporter with the Boston Herald and blogs at the always outstanding Hub Blog. There is a saying that goes, “I wrote you a long letter because I didn’t have time to write a short one.” The best writers are economical with their words. Jay is one of them.

We focused on state politics this afternoon, here is hour one.

All of our interviews are also available for download at iTunes and Podcast Alley via the Pundit Review Radio Podcast.

What is Pundit Review Radio?

Pundit Review Radio is where the old media meets the new. Each week Kevin and Gregg give voice to the work of the most influential leaders in the new media/citizen journalist revolution. Called “groundbreaking” by Talkers Magazine, this unique show brings the best of the blogs to your radio every Sunday evening from 7-10 pm EST on AM680 WRKO, Boston’s Talk Station.

Adam Reilly of the Boston Phoenix joined me tonight to talk about the head scratching drug arrest of a Boston firefighter. This comes at a time when the union is in a bitter contract negotiation and drug testing is a key issue. Talk about bad timing. Here’s the Herald’s Peter Gelzinis,

When the cops came upon Anthony Gaston, he had allegedly just disposed of his funny cigarette . . . while dressed in his uniform . . . seated behind the wheel of an official fire department Chevy parked in front of a hydrant . . . and just across the street from the Dorchester District Court.

That’s not what the union was looking for. A few years ago, things were much different for Gaston,

In July 2002, Gaston was profiled in a NewsCenter 5 story after making a daring rescue to get residents out of a burning building. Gaston rushed into the building on Wales Street in Boston and led six residents to safety. He suffered smoke inhalation during the rescue.

This is an interesting topic and Adam and the callers were excellent. People were really into the firefighter story and that dominated the discussion. I hope to have him back on soon because we barely got to touch on Obama’s media implosion.

All of our interviews are also available for download at iTunes and Podcast Alley via the Pundit Review Radio Podcast.

What is Pundit Review Radio?

Pundit Review Radio is where the old media meets the new. Each week Kevin and Gregg give voice to the work of the most influential leaders in the new media/citizen journalist revolution. Called “groundbreaking” by Talkers Magazine, this unique show brings the best of the blogs to your radio every Sunday evening from 7-10 pm EST on AM680 WRKO, Boston’s Talk Station

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?

David Parker joined me to discuss his upcoming court case this Wednesday Dec 5th in Boston. David is the Lexington Mass father who sued the Lexington School System for violating his parental notification rights when his 5 year old was read a pro-homosexual book without being notified. You can read the details of his story here. Our thoughts and prayers will be with David and his family as they continue their fight on behalf of parent’s rights.

Section One

Section Two

What is Pundit Review Radio?

Pundit Review Radio is where the old media meets the new. Each week Kevin and Gregg give voice to the work of the most influential leaders in the new media/citizen journalist revolution. Called “groundbreaking” by Talkers Magazine, this unique show brings the best of the blogs to your radio every Sunday evening from 7-10 pm EST on AM680 WRKO, Boston’s Talk Station.

I had the pleasure of speaking with pro-family activist and political analyst for the Parents’ Rights Coalition Mr. John Haskins regarding how Mitt Romney shredded the Massachusetts’ Constitution by illegally imposing same sex marriage on the citizens of the Commonwealth and how he signed a healtcare bill that included tax payer subsidized abortion after his supposed “pro-life epiphany.”

More details here

Part One

Part Two

Part Three

What is Pundit Review Radio?

Pundit Review Radio is where the old media meets the new. Each week Kevin and Gregg give voice to the work of the most influential leaders in the new media/citizen journalist revolution. Called “groundbreaking” by Talkers Magazine, this unique show brings the best of the blogs to your radio every Sunday evening from 7-10 pm EST on AM680 WRKO, Boston’s Talk Station.

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 marriage

BOSTON - 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 justices

Twenty-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.