Romney bashes Iowa judge for striking down ban on gay marriage

The Boston Globe ^ | August 30, 2007

[Clintonfatigued]

Mitt Romney, who inveighed against gay marriage while governor in Massachusetts, wasted no time today excoriating a court decision in the first-caucus state of Iowa that struck down its law banning same-sex marriage.

"The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act," Romney said in a statement issued by his campaign. "This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman."

Six gay couples in Iowa, where Romney is leading Republican presidential contenders in the polls, had sued after being denied marriage licenses in Polk County. County officials are expected to appeal today's ruling to the Iowa Supreme Court, the Associated Press reported.

[Old_Mil]

...the Republican party keeps telling us that we don’t need a Federal guideline which once and for all excludes homosexuals from being married, so it must be true.

[colorcountry]

Ah, oh.....

[Clintonfatigued]

Liberals rely on judges to impose policy that is opposed by the public at large. That’s why the DemocRATS are so hung up on the Supreme Court.

Romney is right to call them on it.

[Conservativegreatgrandma]

Let's make no mistake about it. We can lay this travesty right at the feet of Democrats and those who vote for them. This idiot judge was appointed by Vilsack, a Democrat. Iowa Democrats are opposed to a Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage.

I want everyone who voted for Vilsack, or any other Democrat to be shamed.

[Diogenesis]

actually dictator romney allowed the court to violate
the mass constitution. he has nerve.

[CheyennePress]

Anyone else still willing to argue that the DOMA is enough? Marriage needs to be codified as being between one man and one woman. And it needs to be done Constitutionally. In the US Constitution. Period.

Any other response to the issue is just waiting for the above to occur.

And as an aside, I’d rather not call this an amendment banning gay marriage. This is so much larger than that. It’s codifying the institution which has reared our families through generation after generation.

Marriage needs to remain about family. Any other type is a weak imitation, at best.

[Maceman]

How was he supposed to stop them? He was as aggressive as he could possibly be in Mass.

[flashbunny]

But he has such nice hair! He has my vote!!!!

[CheyennePress]

>>>>actually dictator romney allowed the court to violate
the mass constitution. he has nerve.<<<<

Ahhh....that’s right. Romney has the authority to order the courts around. The courts who have the right (and always have) of interpreting the Constitution... *rolls eyes*

Get a new act.

[colorcountry]

[gidget7]

Yes he is right. It’s just sad he didn’t stand up for that right when the court in MA did this. Instead he allowed the court to dictate marriage law, when the only ones in the state with that authority, according to the Constitution, was Romney himself and his council. But he directed the clerks to issue the licenses and the JP’s to perform them or be fired. Only when he left office did he stand up for marriage. Too late.

[stevio]

Marriage needs to be codified as being between one man and one woman. And it needs to be done Constitutionally. In the US Constitution. Period.

I didn't use to think we needed it, but I do now.

[gidget7]

Interpret yes, they cannot write or dictate the law. They can, as the MA court did, refer it back to the legislature to fix the constitution, one way or the other. Which never happened. And the only time Romney stood up for an amendment was when he was leaving office, he told them they had to vote on the petition.

[CheyennePress]

Funny, how many of the candidates running for President spoke before the Senate in favor of approving the Federal Marriage Amendment when it first came up for a vote?

Oh, that’s right. Mitt Romney was there.

hmm....

[mylife]

The Govt has no business in marriage period.

Traditional or otherwise

[EternalVigilance]

Romney is a complete hypocrite.

Gay marriage would not be taking place in Massachusetts without Mitt.

Gay marriage is still, to this day, not legal in Massachusetts. There is no law or constitutional provision allowing it, much less mandating it.

He changed the marriage licenses and threatened the justices of the peace with firing if they did not comply.

Before this is done, he’s going to wish he had never been to Iowa.

[mylife]

“His car is fast,
His teeth, they shiney,
He tells all that vote,
They can kiss his hiney”

Im sorry “Ken” doesn’t impress me

[TAdams8591]

Thanks for the ping, C! : )

[CheyennePress]

Actually, the legislative branch was the brance capable of dictating the marriage laws in Mass.

And I’ve heard this argument again and again, but frankly, I think it’s a weak one. The Supreme Court’s decision determined that the Mass Defense of Marriage Law was unconstitutional and struck it down. Thus, gay couples were de facto allowed to marry in Mass. Go read the Mass Constituion. Or Mass laws on marriage.

Simply ignoring the ruling of the court would have just put Romney under the gun for violating the Constituion (as it was (IMO WRONGLY) interpreted by the Mass Supreme Court.

Romney did the right thing by fighting for an amendment to the state constitution. He got one vote but failed the second.