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.
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.