Posted on 03/19/2011 9:19:26 PM PDT by BlackFemaleArmyColonel
"Romney made a promise to homosexual groups that strikes at the core of who Romney is and how he will govern. She says he promised that he would not defend traditional marriage once the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made its ruling on same-sex marriage."
Read more: Author: Romney's promises to homosexuals still stand http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=276313#ixzz1H6TCwqLL
(Excerpt) Read more at wnd.com ...
Contrada said that in 2002, ... [Romney] promised that he would not defend traditional marriage once the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court made its ruling on same-sex marriage.First, the record clearly shows that in 2002, "everybody" didn't think the court would rule this way. In fact, on the day that the court ruled this way, most people didn't think they would -- it was national news, and conservatives were shocked and outraged at the ruling. We all were alive when it happened, this isn't some debate about ancient history. We shouldn't re-write it when it suits our purpose."Everyone knew that the court would rule in favor of same-sex marriage.
Second, the record clearly shows that in the immediate aftermath of the court ruling, Romney did in fact "fight" it. A lot of people complain he didn't do enough, and he gave in too soon, but he did fight on multiple fronts, including pushing for a referendum to overturn the ruling. So if he did make this "promise" for which there is no evidence, he did NOT, as the person claims, keep it.
Like I said, this doesn't speak to all the other charges made, or Romney's general view of gays, which is clearly widely rejected here.
Just say no to Northeastern gun-grabbing liberals...even if they have an R next to their name....
I understand very well. Under no circumstances, even under the threat of spending an eternity in Hell, will I vote for Obama.
Are there any circumstances in which you would vote for Obama.
Fact: Romney is a Carpetbagger who never read either Constitution (Mass and US).
Fact: Romney IMPOSED Gay Marriage upon the people of Massachusetts
just like he imposed RomneyCARE and his BIG-DIG coverup.
Note Romney’s 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."
I know you hate Romney, and there are good reasons, but as has been explained to you repeatedly, most of your post is simply wrong. Legally and historically. I’ve posted multiple links and explanations for you, but you seem to have little interest.
But since this thread has nothing to do with the item you mentioned and are wrong about, why not keep from repeating the same old tired argument. Instead, if you disagree with the facts of the matter in this thread, why not post a single reputable source from the years 2002-2005, which states as a foregone conclusion that the Mass. Supreme Court was going to institute gay marriage.
That is the claim of the article that I am refuting, not the tired, threadworn argument you posted. Do you have ANY evidence whatsoever that the claim made in this article is correct? If so, post a link, and enlighten us.
Wrong again, ROMNEYBOT.
First, I LIKE Romney. We all do.
He was a terrible fascist Governor who
installed ROMNEYMARRIAGE and ROMNEYCARE.
He called them his “experiments”.
HIS EXPERIMENTS.
The Court did not install this. Milt Romney did.
The DNC did not install RomneyCARE. Milt Romney did.
Now if you want to LIE, and try to revise
history, please consider going to another web site.
As I said, the topic of this thread is the article at the beginning. In that article, it is claimed that in 2002, it was “well-known” that the Mass. Supreme Court would legalize gay marriage. I disagree with that, and you argued with me, so I ask again — do you have ANY evidence that it was generally expected? Articles from 2002 that looked forward to that occurance? Articles from 2003 that said it was a foregone conclusion? Articles from 2004? 2005?
Maybe some of those you pinged have references that show that. I remember people being very upset when the court ruled as it did, people seemed rather surprised that the court could get things so wrong; they then urged action to overcome the unexpected decision.
I can’t find any indication that conservatives had years to prepare for this ruling, as the article suggested.
As for the topic you keep bringing up, just go back to what I and others wrote in the myriad of articles posted in 2008 regarding this. The only source that seems to think the way you do is a couple of lawyers in MassResistance — the entire rest of the legal community makes it clear that the theory is hogwash.
But as I have said to you before — if you think you are correct, why don’t you post some article from any news source, say in the first week after the Mass. decision, where a legal argument is made that the court didn’t do anything, that there was no danger of any gay marriages happening, and that we could all simply ignore the ruling and pretend it didn’t happen.
It shocks me that people are willing today to make such an argument, having actually lived through that time. The Mass. Surpreme court legalized gay marriage. Every right-wing organization said so loud and clear after it happened. To argue now that the ruling was meaningless is to re-write history — something conservatives should reject. There’s no need to do so.
That last sentence was a typographical error; the Supreme Court ruled in November of 2003, so obviously by 2004 and 2005 there were articles speculating. That was suppsoed to be part of the following paragraphs about citations from legal sources other than MassResistance suggesting the Mass. Supreme Court didn't actually legalize gay marriage.
Sorry about the confusion.
First, here is a reasonable free republic thread from 2008, where Jay Sekulow (the lawyer who actually was PART of the Goodrich case that you keep inaccurately portraying), and David French both dismiss the argument you keep pushing here. Sekulow and French on Goodrich Case:
Jay Sekulow: "[Romney] did everything possible and feasible under Massachusetts law. You have to look at what's practible and feasible in that state. He did everything possible to defend marriage."And here's David French (Constitutional Lawyer, Alliance Defense Fund member), demolishing the argument that you keep pushing about the Mass. Supreme Court:
"If such silly legal arguments didn't cause so much harm, I would read them and laugh. Instead, some serious people seem to be taking these arguments seriously, so let me take a moment for a little bit of constitutional law 101.If you are going to accuse someone of re-writing history, it would be good not to be doing so at the time.The court did not order the legislature to do anything--it merely stayed its judgement for 180 days for the legislature to take action that it deemed "appropriate." However, since the marriage laws had already been interpreted (construed) to include same-sex marriage, the legislature did not have to take any action at all for same-sex marriage to become legal. It was already legal because of the court's decision.
Frankly, it is sad that so many could be misled by something so simple--and simply wrong. When the Governor confronted the Massachusetts Supreme Court, he had two choices: (1) He could fight the decision using legal means; or (2) he could risk contempt citations and impeachment in an ineffectual, grandstanding attempt to block same-sex marriages.
FACT: Despite your attempt to rewrite history
for your lord and master, the despicable Mitt ROmney,
his action violated 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..."
So since you have now been shown
to be a totally disingenuous
by claiming the Court would do otherwise,
it is time for you to go back to DU.
Go back to your beloved Romney and Soros
who have done NOTHING except hurt America.
So your response to the lawyer who actually litigated the court case, and a christian constitutional lawyer active in the field, is to quote a constitutional snippet that has no bearing, which they explained if you bothered to read.
The court did not suspend a law, or suspend the execution of a law. They interpreted the words contained in a law, and ordered that the law be interpreted in that fashion. I disagree with their interpretation, and I presume you do to, but it does no good to argue about something that didn't happen.
Frankly, the legal concept that you are arguing is so ludicrous that almost nobody has actually even commented to refute it, just as people won't waste their time arguing against someone who claims the sky is orange.
Do you think that Jay Sekulow is trying to re-write history? Or are you simply refusing to acknowledge that you are re-writing history to make an argument that doesn't hold water? There are plenty of good reasons to oppose Romney that you shouldn't feel compelled to make erroneous arguments that do nobody any good, and are just foolish.
Listen, who CARES what the lawyer or you RomneyBOTs think.
The COURT DID NOT MAKE THE LAW.
Instead, your beloved Bishop Mitt Romney,
who you defend over and over,
IMPOSED a “LAW” HE made up on the spot,
and which Bishop Romney forced it down the throats
of the court CLERKS. They SAID so.
Romney DID NOT have to do this, did he?
But you support him on this, dont’ you.
Just like you support RomneyCARE/ObamaCARE.
Shooo. So go back to DU and Soros.
I'm guessing the answer to that is not you. I think most people actually care about facts. May be why the people you keep pestering aren't responding.
You keep thinking this is about Romney, and that drives you to lose your objectivity, and apparently your interest in knowing facts. This is about you posting inaccurate information, and refusing to consider the experts who explain how you are wrong. This is about you misleading conservatives who read this and expect that most things here are accurate, and that's why I correct your comments.
Romney DID NOT have to do this, did he?
No, he did not "have" to do anything. He could have ignored the court. He could have supported the executive branch ignoring the court's ruling. We know that is possible, because we see Obama doing it time and time again, ignoring a court telling him the drilling ban was illegal, ignoring a court telling him Obamacare is unconstitutional, ignoring the war powers act.
So there is no question that Romney could have ignored the court. The real question though is whether that would have made any difference. As the legal expert I quoted for you explained, it would not.
We needed the legislature to "fix" the law by making it clear that "man" and "woman" meant opposite sex -- but being liberal democrats, they refused to do so. And we needed them to vote sufficiently to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot, which they did the first time but not the required second time, again because they were liberal democrats.
Just like you support RomneyCARE/ObamaCARE
I don't support either. In 2008, I understood the argument made for Romneycare, but didn't agree with it. I've never understood the defense of it after it was clearly failing; I have strongly opposed Obamacare, including writing about it publicly.
But you have once again decided to speak without the facts, and that has led to your continuing errors of fact and conclusion.
CharlesWayneCT (RomneyBOT and Romney Defense Lawyer):
"Romney ... did not "have" to do anything.
He could have ignored the court."
BINGO. But that would have meant
that the RINO Romney followed the Constitution.
And THAT was not acceptable to Bishop Romney, was it?
So instead, the RINO carpetbagger Milt Romney FORCED
the clerks to do something they refused.
And there is another issue YOU ignore, RomneyBOT.
Now why would THEY, the COURT CLERKS, refuse?
Because they, unlike YOU and Romney
and Obama, actually obey the Law.
Are you Soros' lawyer, too?
CharlesWayneCT (RomneyBOT and Romney Defense Lawyer)
I am not a lawyer. I've said many times in many threads on many subjects that I am not a lawyer. There is absolutely no indication anywhere that I am a lawyer. There is no reason you should falsely claim that I am a lawyer.
FACT: Every single month you falsely post the following:
CharlesWayneCT (RomneyBOT Romney apologist)"
"We were all alive and reading the news the day the Supreme Court of Massachusetts legalized gay marriage."
That is not what happened.
Go back to Milt - he is your future.
That's another falsehood; I have not posted that every single month. There are months when nobody makes the mistake you keep making, and I don't have to post.
Your other "facts" have already been refuted by references to actual lawyers who scoff at the statement you keep posting. That will remain true no matter how many people you try to drag into the conversation.
Trying to change the SUBJECT again for Romney?
You are NOT successful.
1 - It was SOLELY Romney’s fault.
2 - For atttempting to continually deceive
with your posts, you deserve to live with
Pissant and Milt — far away from here.
You changed the subject long ago. The subject was whether, in 2002, it was "common knowledge" that the supreme court would overturn thousands of years of understanding and decide that "man" and "woman" were meant to be interpreted in a genderless fashion.
I say it was not; I have no idea what you believe, because rather than discuss that issue from the article, you started quoting other misstatements of fact as if it mattered.
I'll ping pissant since you mentioned him, as I can't tell whether you did so because your ping list is so long. As I can't remember pissant ever saying a nice thing about Romney, I'm not sure why you dragged him into this.
It was SOLELY Romney’s fault.
You seem to believe Romney has a lot more power than is rational. Even the inaccurate stuff you post as reference doesn't go as far as your claims, which as I pointed out are refuted by the actual lawyer from the case, and other constitutional lawyers (I know, you don't want to be bothered by the actual facts, but they are still the facts whether you ignore them or not).
|
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.
