Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

(Virgil)Goode: Romney ‘father of homosexual marriages’ (Constitution Party Candidate)
Augusta Free Press ^ | 12 May 12 | Augusta Free Press

Posted on 05/14/2012 10:53:24 AM PDT by xzins

Former Fifth District Congressman Virgil Goode blasted presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney as “the father of homosexual marriages” in a statement released to the news media on the eve of Romney’s visit to Liberty University this weekend.

Goode, now running for president on the Constitution Party ticket, referred to Romney’s move as Massachusetts governor to issue same-sex marriage licenses in the wake of a state-court ruling.

“Gov. Romney did not stand fast in favor of traditional marriage,” said Goode, who lost his Fifth District seat in 2008 to Democrat Tom Perriello.

Goode said he has been a “consistent supporter of defining marriage as being between one man and one woman.”

“At this point in our country’s history, we need a president who will stand firmly behind traditional marriage and the Federal Marriage Amendment. I am suspicious that Gov. Romney, if elected president, could waffle again,” Goode said.

The stakes, to Goode: “If homosexual marriages become normal across the country, the impact on states like Virginia, which prohibit gay marriage, will be huge. State taxpayers will have to pay for the expanded health insurance costs and State retirement costs. At the federal level, the impact on the Social Security Trust Fund and the Department of Defense will be significant when homosexual partners are granted the same monetary benefits that heterosexual married couples have under current Social Security law and provisions covering military spouses,” he said.

TOPICS: Editorial; US: Virginia
KEYWORDS: bhohomosexualagenda; constitutionparty; elections; gaymarriage; goode; goode4obama; homosexualagenda; marriage; obamasstalkinghorse; romney; romney4nytimes; romneymarriage; romneytruthfile; romneyvsclerks; thirdparty; va2012; virgilgoode
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 181-198 next last
To: Sirius Lee
You're either voting FOR the queer lovers Obama and Romney, or you'll take a stand, do what's right, and vote for Goode.

LOL! Good luck with that.

61 posted on 05/14/2012 2:16:19 PM PDT by GOP_Party_Animal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo
Just guessing but something along the lines of what Judge Moore faced in Alabama?

That was a judge defying a federal court order who was then removed by his peers. Here you had a Governor who could have refused to act on an "edict" from some state activist judges who were bypassing the legislature.
62 posted on 05/14/2012 2:21:25 PM PDT by kevcol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: xzins
That is entirely accurate. Even by your claim, Romney still caved in rather than fight.

I suspect you've read the history of Romney's multi-year battle with the legislature and the lawsuit he won to get them moving to allow the people of MA to have a direct vote.

If you know those facts--and I believe you must--you are as much a vile and despicably filthy liar as Obama's willing tool Virgil Goode. You are a Deceiver's Deceiver.

If Romney "caved" as you contend, there would've been NO such fight.

History says differently: he followed the law and fought.

63 posted on 05/14/2012 2:26:25 PM PDT by newzjunkey (I advocate separation of school and sport)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: kevcol
When did SCOTUS make a ruling federalizing Homo Marriage?

When did I ever make such a claim? I was talking about Roe vs Wade and how, by your reasoning, conservative Govs that allowed abortion in their states must therefore be the fathers of abortion in those states.

Hey! I found a flyer from one of his "protests":

Pretty sad and sick stuff. No argument from me. But that is not from the rally he led in support of the marriage amendment is it? We are discussing homosexual marriage right? Obama is for it, Romney is against it.

He did not have to do/should not have done anything! That's the point.

So he should have just ignored the supreme court of his state. How did that work out for Judge Moore on the Ten Commandments? Want to argue he did not do enough, should have ignored court, etc etc-fine. But trying to create an impression that Romney ever pushed/promoted/ or supported homosexual marriage is simply not factual.

64 posted on 05/14/2012 2:26:25 PM PDT by icwhatudo (This is not a choice between Romney&Reagan-Its between Romney & most radical leftist Pres in history)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo; Gay State Conservative; cripplecreek; xzins
The MA supreme court legalized Homo marriage which Romney was against. The court gave the state 180 days to comply.

Both of which actions by the Supreme Court of MA were illegal and unconstitutional by the Constitution of MA.

Furthermore, Romney was warned way in advance by many legal scholars and conservatives that this was the case, and instead of performing his duty, and responsibility as Chief Executative of the State of MA and refusing to implement a ruling that was both illegal and unconstitutional, he folded.

HARRISBURG, PA, January 19, 2007 ( – A letter addressed to Massachusetts’ ex-governor Mitt Romney has just been made public in which 44 conservative, pro-family leaders from across the nation requested that before stepping down from office, Romney would adhere to the Massachusetts Constitution and repeal his order directing public officials to perform ‘same-sex marriages’.

The letter was hand delivered to members of Romney’s staff on December 20th, 2006 at his office. Romney took no action to adhere to the letter’s requests before he left office at the beginning of the New Year.

The letter cited numerous, historical cases and the Massachusetts’ Constitution to assert that Romney’s actions in implementing ‘gay marriage’ were beyond the bounds of his authority as governor. The authors further asserted that his actions were unconstitutional as were the actions of the four initial judges who formulated the official opinion on the matter in the ‘Goodridge’ case, the case that originally brought the matter to national attention.

Commenting on the ‘Goodridge’ opinion, Judge Robert Bork said that it was “untethered to either the Massachusetts or United States Constitution.”

As quoted in the letter, the MA Constitution denies the judicial branch of its government any authority over the state’s marriage policies. So it was that three of the seven judges that heard the Goodrich case strongly dissented that the court did not have authority to formulate laws.

The letter also outlined how the MA Constitution forbids judges from establishing or altering law. According to the Constitution, such a task is to be left to the legislature. The judges’ opinion in the Goodrich case admitted that they were not altering the standing marriage statute in MA.

Instead, Governor Romney took it upon himself, despite legal counsel to do otherwise, to order officials across the state that they would have to perform ‘gay marriages’, even though, according to Massachusetts law, to do so is a crime. Officials who refused were advised to resign their position.

65 posted on 05/14/2012 2:29:46 PM PDT by SoConPubbie (Mitt and Obama: They're the same poison, just a different potency.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: icwhatudo
I think your list of timeline highlights omits some significant events. You left a lot of gaps for some reason, I will fill those in using info from the same source I believe you did (red):

Some timeline highlights:

Nov. 18, 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) rules that same-sex marriage is protected in the Mass. Constitution

Jan. 2004 Romney silent on proposal to remove four SJC justices through Bill of Address (put forward by Article 8 Alliance / MassResistance).

Feb. 5, 2004 Romney publishes editorial in Wall Street Journal laying all blame on the SJC for problem in Massachusetts. Suggests other states strengthen marriage statutes and pass constitutional amendments.

Feb.-May 2004 Pro-family leaders and columnists urge Romney to defy court, and issue Executive Order to block same-sex marriage; no public comment from Romney.

March 29-31, 2004 Romney seeks stay of SJC ruling until constitutional amendment issue is settled, but Atty. General Reilly refuses to take Governor’s case before SJC.

March 26, 2004 Word leaks out that Romney’s Dept. of Public Health (DPH) and attorneys are planning training sessions for Town Clerks and preparing same-sex marriage licenses.

March 30, 2004 Romney says he’ll “abide by the law of the land as it exists on May 17” and says he would not order town clerks to defy court edict. Romney says he’d not explored the Constitution section giving him power over “causes of marriage” and whether it gives him any legal power to stop same-sex marriage (according to spokesman).

April 12, 2004 Romney spokesman says training sessions for town clerks will begin “with plenty of room to spare before May 17.” Ron Crews of Mass. Coalition for Marriage states hope for an Executive Order to halt the marriages.

April 15, 2004 Romney files emergency bill in Legislature to seek stay of SJC ruling, and is rebuffed and reprimanded by Senate President Travaglini. On April 15, 2004 Romney filed an emergency bill in the Legislature to seek a stay of the SJC ruling, and was rebuffed and reprimanded by Senate President Travaglini.

April 16, 2004 Romney announces his administration is scheduling training sessions for May 5-12 with licenses changed from “husband/wife” to “Party A/Party B”.

April 17, 2004 Mass. Dept. of Revenue (under Romney) declares SJC ruling the new “law”.

April 22, 2004 Romney does not comment on Rep. Goguen's filing of Bill of Address for Article 8 Alliance/MassResistance to remove the 4 SJC judges, or Article 8’s revelation of Chief Justice Marshall’s violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. (Marshall had appeared as keynote speaker at homosexual advocacy group dinner in 1999 advocated extension of “rights” for homosexuals, and failed to recuse herself from ruling on same-sex marriage though she had publicly expressed her bias.)

April 26, 2004 Romney’s chief Legal Counsel, Daniel Winslow, issues directive to Justices of the Peace to resign (or be fired, fined, or sued) if they are unwilling to perform same-sex marriages (exact date not given on document).

April 29, 2004 Romney writes to 49 other Governors to inform them he’ll uphold section of Mass. marriage statutes banning same-sex marriages for out-of-state couples.

May 5-12, 2004 Town clerk training sessions held. [GLAD – Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders -- is only source on content of sessions; perhaps they were responsible for content?]

May 15, 2004 Romney issues proclamation: May 15 is “Gay/Straight Youth Pride Day”. Romney’s “Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth” events include parade, GLBT activism (with prominent transsexual radical activists), and a GLBT prom – two days before same-sex marriages are to begin.

May 17, 2004 Same-sex marriages begin across Massachusetts. Romney issues brief statement: “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.” [What law? Original marriage statutes clearly defining marriage as between a man and a woman were –and are -- still on the books, unchanged by the Legislature. So Romney is not enforcing the actual law—just a court opinion.]

June 22, 2004 Romney testifies before US Senate Judiciary Committee for federal marriage amendment and blames Court for situation in Massachusetts. June 2, 2006 Romney sends letter to US Congress arguing for federal marriage amendment. June 28, 2006 Romney urges Legislature to vote on VOM amendment, and addresses importance of following Constitution. Nov. 19, 2006 Romney holds rally on State House steps announcing he’s delivering a copy of the Constitution to every Legislator who voted to recess the Constitutional Convention (to avoid the vote on the VOM amendment required by state Constitution). Romney also announces he’s appealing to the courts.

66 posted on 05/14/2012 2:39:32 PM PDT by kevcol
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Tell me what I said that was inaccurate, and if it is, then I’ll say it is.

I quoted your post, in italics, in the my first reply to you on this thread.

Post number 38.

Which was my reply to your post number 11.

Goode is the only real conservative in the race.

Again, that's simply not true.

That's before we even look at parts of Mr. Goode's record that some, including myself, wouldn't consider to be conservative.

67 posted on 05/14/2012 3:00:10 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (We're not Republicans or Democrats. We're Americans. Visit SelfGovernment.US.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Bravo, lets vote for Obama... Ah I mean Virgil!

68 posted on 05/14/2012 3:10:50 PM PDT by HenpeckedCon (What pi$$es me off the most is that POS commie will get a State Funeral!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevcol

The question is: How do you make what you, just, posted become what the majority of conservative voters and what the majority of anti-Obama voters end up doing? We can’t be sure to, even, get the majority of FR voters to vote for Virgil Goode, this November!

69 posted on 05/14/2012 3:16:47 PM PDT by johnthebaptistmoore (The world continues to be stuck in a "all leftist, all of the time" funk. BUNK THE FUNK!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Party_Animal

Obama could be accurately described as a “successful candidate” that is also socialist.

Romney could be accurately described as a “successful candidate” that is also socialist.

The party they belong to is IRRELEVANT (sort of). Electing a socialist president who happens to be in the republican party, is BAD.... He will be unstoppable, what few republicans refuse to support his socialist agenda will be replaced with socialists the Democrat party that WILL.

Think prescription drug entitlement , TARP, etc...

If it comes down to a choice between a gop socialist or a dem socialist ill choose a dem socialist if I can control one branch of gov with republicans.

70 posted on 05/14/2012 3:17:37 PM PDT by myself6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: xzins
A sinner is evil, as is a serial killer. Thus both are evil, though one less so than the other. Should we apply the death penalty to both since they are both evil to some degree?

To make the statement that the lesser of two evils is still evil, fails to take everything into consideration.

Voting for Virgil is in reality a vote for Obama, regardless if you want to believe it or not, and especially so if you are in a critical swing state. So if Obama does win re-election you can pat yourself on the back that your principles elected the serial killer over the sinner.

71 posted on 05/14/2012 3:18:51 PM PDT by Robert DeLong (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Robert DeLong

A vote for Romney is a vote for a socialist that will be HARDER to stop than a democrat socialist.

Anything Zero tries to do to advance his socialist agenda will be blocked by the republicans in the hous (and or senate).

Anything Romney tries to do to advance HIS socialist agenda will be much easier to pass because a significant percentage of the GOP will go along with him simply because hes a republican and those that wont will have their AYE votes replaced by socialist in the democrat party.


72 posted on 05/14/2012 3:26:05 PM PDT by myself6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: myself6
Anything Romney tries to do to advance HIS socialist agenda will be much easier to pass because a significant percentage of the GOP will go along with him simply because hes a republican and those that wont will have their AYE votes replaced by socialist in the democrat party.



You mean he's George Bush III?

I guess I could live with that.

Survived the first two, anyway.

73 posted on 05/14/2012 3:36:18 PM PDT by x
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I live in this effeminate hick's old district. Trust me! He's a lightweight and an embarrassment. And a former Democrat. Don't make a fool of yourself by paying attention to him.

Go for a 4th party LaRouchie (are they still around?) before voting for this phony.

74 posted on 05/14/2012 4:00:02 PM PDT by Forgotten Amendments (Let's name a law after a kid who died because of CAFE standards!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: myself6
No, I disagree. Obama is absolutely the worse case scenario. The worst President ever to occupy the White House, and you foolishly believe we can survive as a free people after Obama gets to tear us apart for 4 more years.

There may not even be elections after this cycle, and don't be surprised if something happens to stop even this election.

What we need to do, if Romney gets elected, is put the fear into the hearts and minds of Congresscritters and Senatoids that this march, or even a continued slow creep, towards more socialism will no longer be tolerated. We do have ways to fight back my friend, but only if we have someone that somewhat respects freedom.

If Reagan were able to vote in this election, would he vote for Virgil? I don't think so.

75 posted on 05/14/2012 4:00:02 PM PDT by Robert DeLong (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: kevcol
Many of us do not buy the argument that a vote for anyone but Willard is detrimental in the long run to Conservatives. In fact, I personally feel it just the opposite:

I can deal with sending the Gop-e a message, while gridlocking Obamao for another 4 years (or even maybe impeachment), improving or getting majorities in both houses, and having those [R]'s resisting the socialist agenda, and a chance for a true Conservative nominee in 2016. I know things will not get too out of hand to the point of no return (i.e. looking at record firearms and ammo sales) so I cannot be scared into voting for Willard.


And even IF we manage to take control of the Senate (say 52 or 53 to 48 - 47 Demo Rats, I can BLOW your (and your HATE Romney/Mormons fellow delusional Freepers) right out of the water.


Do any of these names ring a bell?

John McCain
Lisa Murkowski
Jon Kyl
Charles Grassley
Mitch McConnell
Susan Collins
Lindsey Graham
Orin Hatch
Scott Brown
Thad Cochran

Yeah, with these wuss RINO's there is NODOUBTABOUTIT, "they" will keep Dear Leader in check.....that is when not voting with him or his Demon-Rat stooges in Congress

Why don't you and your fellow ABR Freepers just take a big swig of hemlock now and save yourself the trouble of recriminations later after O'Bummer wins a second term and proceeds on his merry way, issuing EO's, ignoring the Constitution, having his Czars and heads of Agency such as EPA, Interior, etc. thumb their noses at the SCOTUS, and moves full steam ahead "transforming" our Republic (READ: DESTROYS) and stop and ponder how y'all's standing on "Principles" no doubt helped his re-election efforts.

How will you all feel then?

The old Evil Empire had a name for folks like you and the others here who will ignore the facts and foolishly help Dear Leader thru naivete, ignorance or plain ol' stooopidity: They were referred to as "USEFUL IDIOTS!"

76 posted on 05/14/2012 4:01:40 PM PDT by Conservative Vermont Vet (l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Crucial

Agreed. Virgil is practicing, IMHO, some extreme hyperbole here.

To my knowledge, throughout this campaign Romney has stated again and again (including at the debates) that he supports a Constitutional Amendment to define marriage as he spoke of it at Liberty U.

I do not see him giving any opposing message regarding that message.

Others in the GOP perhaps have, but on this issue I have yet to see it from Romney to date. I wish these folks could point me to an opposing statement by him as regards the Marriage Amendment. All I have heard is his support of that amendment, which is exaclty in line with what he stated at the speech.

He reaffirmed this last week in a statement to Denver station KDVR-TV,

“Well, when these issues were raised in my state of Massachusetts, I indicated my view, which is I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name.”

He went on to reaffirm his supports of a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between one man and one woman according to the National Organization for Marriage pledge he signed.

He also pledged to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, in contrast to the Obama administration, which does not defend DOMA as it thinks the 1996 law banning is unconstitutional.

We should all also note, as regards his record in Mass., when the Mass Supreme Court ruled that gays had the right to marry in 2003, initially Romney said that although he would follow the ruling as Governor, he would seek a constitutional amendment to overturn it.

Ultimately, that was unsuccessful, and he had to resort (and did) to a variety of tactics to try to block the ruling, but he was unsuccessful there as well in blocking it through the remainder of his term in office. This was because the overwhelming majority of legislators and Judges in Mass, for a long period of time (pre-dating Romney), have been Democrats and very left leaning.

The people in Mass, and the legislators in Mass may have fathered this thing, but not Romney. In fact the record shows he was against it and fought it as Governor.



77 posted on 05/14/2012 4:06:24 PM PDT by Jeff Head (Freedom is not free, never has been, never will be (
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Robert DeLong

I can play that game too..

If Reagan were still alive, I believe that he would make another speech declaring that he did not leave the republican party... The republican party left HIM when it nominated a socialist as its candidate for president.

I think that If we go back and look at reagans positions, we will find that my position is far more anchored in reality than yours (Regan would support a socialist). The so called “11th” commandment only goes so far. Suppporting a socialist is so far over that line its comical.

78 posted on 05/14/2012 4:15:45 PM PDT by myself6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: xzins
Before I read the thread let me guess that the Mittbots came out of the woodwork to lambaste you for campaigning for Obama or something.

The "A vote not for Romney is a vote for Obama" nonsense is probably the most vile and offensive kind of slander.

79 posted on 05/14/2012 4:22:58 PM PDT by GeronL (The Right to Life came before the Right to Pursue Happiness)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Vermont Vet

That list of peeps is interesting...

Those are about the only republicans that will join in woth democrats to enact Obamas socialist agenda. However, the republicans in the house will most likely stand firm against his agenda.

If Romney wins... MOST of the gop in the house and senate will join that list of douche bags in passing Romney socialist agenda. The gop that refuse to give an AYE vote will be replaced with dem socialists that WILL give an AYE vote.

80 posted on 05/14/2012 4:23:22 PM PDT by myself6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100 ... 181-198 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson