Posted on 03/30/2011 10:13:24 AM PDT by Right Wingnut 2
I came across this article, and wanted to share the good news. If Mitt Romney ever decides to proceed with Mitt's Massachusetts, the producer stands to receive a generous tax credit - provided it's filmed in Massachusetts.
On Wednesday, November 23rd, Governor Mitt Romney signed the tax incentive bill that the Boston AFTRA/SAG office, along with numerous other industry members, have been working to enact in Massachusetts. The new law puts the Bay State in the spotlight as a competitive venue for motion picture and commercial production, and not surprisingly is already garnering interest from motion picture studios that would not otherwise have come to the Commonwealth. Upon hearing the news, Mary Ann Hughes, Vice President, Film Production Planning, Walt Disney Company commented "This law makes Massachusetts very competitive in attracting film and TV production. We look forward to doing business in Massachusetts."
The new law will take effect in 90 days but will be retroactive to January 1, 2006. Its principal elements include a 20% tax credit on all Massachusetts source payroll, a 25% tax credit on qualified production expense in Massachusetts, and a sales tax credit for producers who spend a minimum aggregate of $250,000 per year in the commonwealth. The law is in place through the year 2013.
(...)
I'm THE ONLY front page Palin contributer OUT OF 15 on Right Speak. I'm over there battling the Rombots every day.
What have you done lately, other than cause trouble around here?
Well, I’m mostly here protecting my turf. Diogenesis is supposed to be MY stalker, and I’m jealous that you are now drawing all this attention.
But i’m trying to draw the fire back!!
I wouldn’t worry about getting booted. The people in the Diogenesis ping list are smart enough to see what’s up — I mean, everybody is smart enough to see what’s up. I can’t imagine there’s a freeper reading your posts who doesn’t understand where you are coming from, and what your intentions are.
And I can’t imagine anybody other than Diogenesis ever suggesting you were a Romneybot. IN fact, up until today, I couldn’t imagine that even Diogenesis would stoop so low.
Wow, I’ve actually got my own Diogenesis spam post now! This is exactly the same false post you made in another thread on another day.
I can’t fathom why you keep pinging people to your displays of willful ignorance.
Unless I’m wrong, and you were NOT actually alive when the Mass. court made their ruling. That would make you extremely young, and would explain a lot.
Now you are playing into my theory that Diogenesis is a closeted Romney supporter, trying to drive people away from Sarah and to Romney by incessantly posting pages and pages of anti-Romney diatribes and attacking good freepers like yourself by calling you a RomneyBot.
I would disagree about your “causing trouble” comment. On the other hand, we probably needed an extra server just to hold all the repetitious, graphics and image/laden spam posts Diogenesis is “known for”. It may look like there’s “trouble” being “caused”, but as I said, nobody is taking it seriously, given the number of times that same ping list has been called into threads in the past month without ever making a comment, I have a feeling they’ve all put anti-Diogenesis filters on their ping pages.
I have a feeling that, outside of this strange fixation Diogenesis has for Romney, Diogenesis is probably a fine upstanding Freeper who would be a pleasure to have a drink with.
CharlesWayneCT, you have been exposed defending
Romney with your false statements over and over.
From RomneyCARE to RomneyMarriage to RomneyTAXES,
and Obama’s and Romney’s unnatural citizen status.
As but one example I posted #20 above.
You are incorrigibly FOR Romney.
Anything you want to add to support his coverup of
the BIG DIG?
It's definitely an example -- of your inability to grasp simple facts, or to comprehend the evidence of constitutional scholars, lawyers with detailed knowledge, or common sense.
At the end of the day, despite your endless RomneyBOT-lies, CharlesWayneCT,
and your claims that FReepers have an
"inability to grasp simple facts, or to comprehend the evidence of constitutional scholars,
lawyers with detailed knowledge, or common sense"
the truth is: YOU ARE A LIAR.
As one example:
Note Romneys use of improper executive authority. [The Romney Way]
"While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney claims he did everything possible to throttle homosexual marriage in his state his campaign now saying he took "every conceivable step within the law to defend traditional marriage" several constitutional experts say that just isn't so.
"What Romney did [was] he exercised illegal legislative authority," Herb Titus said of the governor's actions after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court released its opinion in the Goodridge case in 2003. "He was bound by what? There was no order. There wasn't even any order to the Department of Public Health to do anything."
Titus, a Harvard law graduate, was founding dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School. He also worked with former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, ...
Romney's aides have told WND that after four of the seven court members reinterpreted the definition of marriage, he believed he had no choice but to direct clerks and others to change state marriage forms and begin registering same-sex couples.
Some opponents contend that with those actions, Romney did no more or less than create the first homosexual marriages recognized in the nation. And Titus agrees."
"....But the court's decision conflicts with the constitutional philosophy of three co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial, Titus said. It also violates with the Massachusetts Constitution, which states: "The power of suspending the laws, or (suspending) the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..."
And it cannot even be derived from the opinion itself, asserts the pro-family activist group Mass Resistance, which says the decision did four things:
* First, it acknowledged that the current law does not permit same-sex marriage.
"The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."
* Second, it said it is NOT striking down the marriage laws (among other things, the Massachusetts Constitution forbids a court to change laws)
"Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."
* Third, it declared that not allowing same-sex marriages is a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution.
"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."
* And fourth, given that the court is not changing any laws, the SJC gave the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."
"We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."
After the Legislature did nothing during the 180 days, Romney then took action "on his own," the group said.
"Gov. Romney's legal counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace that they must perform same-sex marriages when requested or 'face personal liability' or be fired," the group said."
One again, we see that you, CharlesWayneCT, are a nothing
but a deceptive proRomney fraud and proRomney liar.
Here are links to over a dozen sources which refute your baseless claim.
Associated Baptist Press: Massachusetts court legalizes gay marriage:
The decision, unless overruled by a state constitutional amendment, will make Massachusetts the first legal jurisdiction in the United States to sanction same-sex marriage.
Fox News: Mass. Court says Gay Marriage cannot be denied
Mass Law Library: Massachusetts Law About Same-Sex Marriage:
MGL c.207. Marriage. The same laws and procedures that govern traditional marriage also apply to same-sex marriages. There are no special procedures for a same-sex marriage.
CNN LAW: Massachusetts court strikes down ban on same-sex marriage
FindLaw legal opinion of Mass. Court:
The opinion reformulates the common-law definition of civil marriage to mean "the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. Nothing that "civil marriage has long been termed a 'civil right,"' the court concluded that "the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice, subject to appropriate government restrictions in the interests of public health, safety, and welfare."
CNN: Massachusetts court upholds same-sex marriage:
Underscoring its original ruling last November, Massachusetts' highest court said Wednesday that only full marriage rights for gay couples, not civil unions, would conform to the state's constitution.
...
"Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," [President George] Bush said. "If activist judges insist on re-defining marriage by court order, the only alternative will be the constitutional process. We must do what is legally necessary to defend the sanctity of marriage."
Protect Marriage (Prop 8): "Gay marriage was legalized by Massachusetts courts in 2003.":
MSNBC: High court won't review Mass. gay marriage law :
Justices had been asked to overturn a year-old decision by the Massachusetts high court that legalized gay marriage. They declined, without comment.
..
Critics of the November 2003 ruling by the highest court in Massachusetts argue that it violated the U.S. Constitution's guarantee of a republican form of government in each state. They lost at the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.Their attorney, Mathew Staver, said in a Supreme Court filing that the Constitution should "protect the citizens of Massachusetts from their own state Supreme Court's usurpation of power."
Federal courts, he said, should defend people's right "to live in a republican form of government free from tyranny, whether that comes at the barrel of a gun or by the decree of a court."
I greatly admired his leadership in Massachusetts in the way that he responded to the activist court's ruling legalizing same-sex 'marriage.' His leadership on the issue has served as a model to the nation on how to respect all of our citizens while respecting the rule of law at the same time."Pravda: "After the court made Massachusetts the first state in the nation to legalize gay marriage, opponents saw a ballot question as their best shot at circumventing the ruling."
National Review: Dwight Duncan, Kris Mineau::
But Dwight Duncan, one of the Brownback endorsers, told NRO last week that the contention that [the Governor] is to blame for the state of marriage in Massachusetts is really over the top. According to Duncan, a professor at the Southern New England School of Law.edgeBoston: BOSTON - The same court that made Massachusetts the first state to legalize gay marriage is now mulling whether citizens have the right to get around its ruling by amending the state constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman.Kris Mineau, president of the Massachusetts Family Institute: From the onset of the infamous Goodridge court decision in 2003, [the] Governor ... has opposed same-sex marriage and, I believe, correctly sought to overturn it through a constitutional amendment.
"I believe that, at least in the short term, that decision harmed the cause of same-sex marriage and the electoral prospects of progressive politicians. Before Goodridge, only three states had constitutional provisions barring same-sex marriage; today, 30 states do. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle almost certainly lost his seat in 2004the only Senate majority leader in 50 years to do sobecause of the gay marriage issue. He lost by roughly 2 percentage points to an evangelical Christian who made the issue a prominent one in his campaign; the same-sex marriage ban on the ballot in North Dakota won by roughly 50 percentage points.It is even possiblethough not certainthat Goodridge helped re-elect President George W. Bush. Without the electoral votes of Ohio, Bush would have lost. He won Ohio by about 2 percent; the same-sex marriage ban on the ballot won by roughly 24 percent. If enough religious conservatives were motivated to turn out because of the ballot initiative, or if enough swing voters shifted their allegiance to the Republican Party because of the gay marriage issue, the Massachusetts court may have helped re-elect the president. Bushs two Supreme Court appointeesJohn Roberts [79] and Sam Alitodo not seem likely candidates to support same-sex marriage any time soon.
Christian Life Resources: Massachusetts' Supreme Court OK's Gay Marriage
So, on the one side, we have you claiming the Massachusetts Court did not legalize gay marriage, along with the people who signed this letter authored by MassResistance
It's an alluring argument -- say "ignore the courts", and just do what we want. It's a lot easier than spending millions of dollars on a fight to put a gay marriage amendment into the constitution. It also provides a great attack against a politician the organization strongly opposes. Heck, I wish the Governor could have done it, even though it would have been futile.
On the other side, saying that the court DID legalize gay marriage, we have the rest of the world, including:
As I said, the easy road is alluring. But the opponents of gay marriage actually launched an EXPENSIVE court challenge, which worked it's way up through the appellate level. They didn't sue to overturn the Governor's actions -- which is what your argument would call for. If your argument had any merit, they certainly would have used it in their lawsuit. Instead, they sued to overturn the actual court ruling -- a suit that would make no sense if, as you contend, the court's ruling didn't actually do anything. Why file a lawsuit to overturn a meaningless ruling? Why spend money on a constitutional amendment if the court didn't necesitate any action? Why work so hard to get the legislature to act to stop gay marriage if all that was needed was to do nothing? Why were all the pro-marriage organizations up in arms over the court's ruling, if as you contend the ruling was meaningless?
You face overwhelming evidence, from law reviews, the lawyers involved in the case, constitutional scholars, the news reports from the time, the statements of pro-marriage groups, and every action taken after the court ruling, which all clearly show the court legalized gay marriage, and the world responded as if they had.
There are many groups fighting to protect the sanctity of marriage. Your fanciful claim is a useless and annoying distraction from the real fight in the real world; a argument that we should simply ignore what is happening and it would all just go away. Advancing unsound arguments simply because you want to stop a particular candidate distracts and detracts from the real battle.
I know you want to make this about a particular candidate. But it's not -- it's about what the TRUTH is about how courts legalized gay marriage, which truth tells us what we need to do to STOP gay marriage -- change the courts, make it clear in the constitutions of each state what marriage is, and get a federal amendment to do the same. Note that "replace governors with ones who ignore the courts" is NOT among that list of things we can do.
You rely and quote all the magazines that support your backstabbing Romney
including FOX NEWs, CNN, MSNBC, Christian Science Monitor, etc.
However, NOTE: You left out the ONLY important citation, you lying RomneyBOT,
and THAT is the The Massachusetts Constitution (destroyed by Mitt Romney ).
The Massachusetts Constitution states:
At the end of the day, Bishop Carpetbagger Willard Romney acted "on his own"
in illegal legislative authority
issuing "a directive to the Justices of the Peace that
they MUST perform same-sex marriages
or 'face personal liability' or be fired."
No wonder he fled Massachusetts.
|
I guess this is complicated, although it doesn't seem so to me. The argument for me is easy, but problematic in that I think the court was wrong, and should have ruled otherwise.
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.