Posted on 02/22/2007 8:19:37 PM PST by EternalVigilance
As I speak to some of the smaller grassroots conservative groups around the country, they keep bringing up this idea that Mitt Romney did not do enough to stop gay marriage in Massachusetts. The headlines read that Romney fought it as Governor and came to Washington DC to testify in front of the Senate to support of a federal marriage amendment. But these groups tell a different story. I bring this up because it is a common concern I hear from folks who at least say they are in the know in Massachusetts. Below is a column yesterday from Don Federer, an Orthodox Jew who is active in the pro-family movement. He lays out the case against Romney on marriage. It's a little long but worth the read.
If you’re confused by Romney’s evolving position on abortion (with many missing links), consider Mitt’s shifting stand on marriage. In January, Romney was Ozzie and Harriet on the campaign trail. “I opposed then and I do now, gay marriage and civil union (sic.),” Romney alleges. “I am proud of the fact that my team did everything within our power and within the law to stand up for traditional marriage." Well, not quite everything.
As a candidate in 2002, he opposed a defense-of-marriage amendment to Massachusetts' Constitution, which preceded the decision of its high court mandating same-sex marriage. (It was, Romney sniffed, “too extreme.”) As governor, there were any number of things he could have done to stop same-sex marriage after the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) discovered a right to same lurking in an 18th century constitution. Article V of the document drafted by John Adams provides, “All causes of marriage, divorce and alimony… shall be heard and determined by the governor and council,” meaning the courts can’t change the definition of marriage. Yet, as the Commonwealth’s chief executive officer, Romney never attempted to enforce that provision against a clear case of judicial usurpation. Article X of the constitution declares: “The people of this Commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given consent.”
The state’s constitutional representative body never consented to gay marriage. The Massachusetts legislature never passed enabling legislation, as mandated by the court. Romney could have simply rejected the decision on the grounds of either constitutional provision. Instead – echoing his earlier pro-choice position – Romney chose to do nothing.Or, Romney could have used a “bill of address” to try to remove a gang of judicial autocrats who were forcing their radical views on the state. He didn’t. (Mitt currently travels around the country railing against activist judges. Talk is cheap.)
So, what did the champion of traditional marriage do? The court ordered the legislature to pass a law providing for same-sex marriage within 180 days. The legislature did nothing. When the time limit expired, Romney acted as if the legislature had acted and told town clerks to issue marriage licenses to gays. He further ordered justices of the peace whose conscience wouldn’t allow them to perform such ceremonies to resign. Except for offering lip-service to traditional marriage, Romney did exactly what gay activists wanted him to do -- nada.
Embryonic Stem Cell Research Financier Joins Pro-Gay Fundraiser To Host Mitt Romney San Diego Event
I think the things I like most about Mitt is his respect for the rule of law, and his ability to pick his battles where it makes the most difference.
ping!
Mitt's current position on protecting marriage is a flip-flop itself.
In seeking the homosexual Log Cabin Republican endorsment (which he got twice), he said: “The authorization of marriage on a same-sex basis falls under state jurisdiction.”
In other words, it's up to each state to decide, identical to McCain's argument against a federal marriage amendment.
Running for governor in 2002, Romney publicly OPPOSED a state Marriage Protection Amendment proposed before his state Supremes legalized so-called homosexual "marriage," calling it "too extreme" -- even though his wife and son signed the petition to put it on the ballot.
But hey, Mitt's no dummy. After getting elected governor, he put that presidential campaign finger up in the air and correctly calculated that he could get some national mileage by making himself out to be the crusading champion of marriage amendments.
ping.
Family group: Mitt Romney chose 'gay' marriage
Activist says Massachusetts court admits it couldn't force change
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53598
Thanks for the ping, XR7 - for now, if you find relevant artlicles, could you ping wagglebee? I've been swamped with other responsiblities (and hassles) for quite a few weeks and it won't let up for a while.
I miss FR...
You think that "large numbers" of illegals are "paying taxes" and "not taking government benefits"?
I watched, but no matter how much the woman tried, I still believe Mitt was for a women's right to choose in 2002. He seemed very adamant about being for it.
Odd that she was a "pro-life" person at one point, and then changed her mind to think it was OK to kill babies.
I'm so much happier when people who were pro-choice come to their senses and decide that they can no longer support abortion.
IF something comes out to make Hunter no longer "desirable", they can turn on a dime to a new candidate that is perfect.
I'm still waiting for the site to turn pro-Buchanon. Seriously, he's probably closer to their point of view than even Hunter is.
I'll say this -- at least Hunter is a credible candidate that doesn't seem crazy, like their previous choice.
I wish he had taken on the courts -- he would have probably lost, but it would have been fun. Of course, doing so would probably have sunk the bill that puts the amendment on the ballot.
Romney's move was bad in the short run, but it forced the issue to a constitutional amendment, which is how it has to be solved in the long run.
If Romney had taken the other approach, it may have driven the liberal legislature to ignore calls for an amendment (claiming it "wasn't needed").
MassGOP: "I don't know if he has flipped on Guns yet, though I doubt it."
Actually, he has flipped on his rhetoric and the NRA, but not on his support for gun control itself. (You gotta have a very detailed scorecard to keep up with this guy's machinations.)
He previously endorsed the Brady Bill and the federal Assault Weapons Ban.
Told the Globe last month that he still supports the federal AWB, but "won't say" if he still supports Brady. So no flip on his actual endorsement of gun control.
However, Mitt's rhetoric has flipped. In the past, he was publicly critical of the NRA, said his views didn't coincide with the NRA.
But last Sunday, he told ABC News (live on camera) that he ever-so-conveniently plunked down his money to become a "life member" of NRA last August...why, just six months ago.
Globe reported that he wrote in an online blog last month: "I've got a gun of my own."
Then reported that when pressed by reporters, he admitted that he does not actually own a firearm.
Yet another in a pattern of statements that are just one shade shy of the truth.
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.