Rebut the Notion that Gov. Romney’s Inaction Allowed Same-Sex Marriage to Become Law in Massachusetts
http://www.freerepublic.com/~unmarkedpackage/#DOM
IssueSource.org is a website co-produced by MassINC and The State House News Service and is a project of MassINC’s Civic Renewal Initiative. It is a non-partisan, not-for-profit, free public service.
IssueSource.org has a remarkably detailed chronological journal of the legal actions and legislative events in Massachusetts regarding same-sex marriage following the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruling in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health on Nov. 18, 2003 (Issue: Gay Marriage: Prior to May 17, 2004). The journal records in great detail the actions taken by people both for and against the same-sex marriage court ruling up to the date the ruling became law on May 17, 2004 making same-sex marriage legal in Massachusetts.
The journal is a very long read with several examples where Governor Romney opposed the ruling and attempted to delay the implementation with statements and directives; actions that were openly defied by others at times. However, focus on the events after March 29, 2004 when the constitutional convention in Massachusetts approved an amendment to ban gay marriage. Note the legal action Gov. Romney initiated immediately after March 29, 2004 to prevent the SJC’s Goodridge ruling from becoming law on May 17, 2004. More importantly, note that Gov. Romney’s efforts were thwarted because the Democrat Attorney General Tom Reilly and Senate President Robert Travaglini refused to cooperate and blocked the required legislative action.
Excerpts from the journal of events are presented below:
“On Mar. 29, the Legislature, meeting in constitutional convention, approved the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and provide for civil unions. The measure must still be approved a second time, during the 2005-06 session of the Legislature, in order to be placed on the November 2006 ballot for ratification by voters.
-—— snip -——
“Immediately after the vote, Romney called on AG Reilly to go before the SJC to halt the start of gay marriages on May 17, but Reilly quickly responded that he would not seek the delay, arguing that the SJC’s two rulings, in November and February, had made it clear that the court would tolerate nothing less than marriage for same-sex couples. A week earlier, on Mar. 22, Travaglini told the State House News Service that any attempt by Romney to halt the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses on the SJC’s ordered timetable would probably fail. “It is my understanding that no matter what legislative action we take, we cannot affect the issuance of licenses come the 17th of May. If the governor believes that he has the capacity or the authority to stop the issuance of licenses, then that’s a personal political decision that he can make; I don’t necessarily agree.”
-—— snip -——
Office of Gov. Mitt Romney, “Romney Files Emergency Bill to Seek Goodridge Decision Stay,” Press Release, 4/15/2004
“Romney announced April 15 that he would seek emergency legislation to allow him to appoint a special counsel to ask the Supreme Judicial Court for a 2 1/2 year delay of its gay marriage ruling set to take effect May 17. Romney’s plan was to bypass AG Reilly—who refused to name a special counsel in March—and name his own special counsel, retired SJC Justice Joseph Nolan. Romney said the legislation would allow him to “protect the integrity of the Constitutional process” and return the decision on gay marriage to voters. “We believe the people have the right to have their position heard and that as the governor, I should have right to have my position heard. Look, people that don’t have any income are entitled to representation. Everyone in the Commonwealth is entitled to representation. But somehow as governor of the Commonwealth, it’s deemed that I can’t represent my view before the courts—I think that’s a mistake,” said Romney.
“State House News Service reported April 22 that Romney’s special counsel bill was “languishing” on Beacon Hill. The main obstacle was the Senate, which failed to admit the bill in its last two sessions. Senate President Robert Travaglini dismissed the legislation when it was announced and said the governor was only trying to push his “political agenda.” If the bill was not admitted, then there would not be a joint committee public hearing on it.
“Romney said April 21 that he would not file a supportive brief or otherwise get involved in a petition brought by the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts. The League was attempting to persuade the Supreme Judicial Court to delay the start of gay marriages until November 2006, when voters could vote on the issue. Romney said he preferred to make the case for delay himself. On April 23, Romney renewed his call for the Legislature to grant him the authority to appoint a special counsel so he could launch his own effort to persuade the court to delay gay marriages from taking effect May 17. “I call on both branches of the Legislature, particularly the Senate. . .to give me the opportunity to preserve the choice of the definition of marriage to the citizens and make sure that the hard work the Legislature went through to pass this amendment to allow the citizens to have a voice is worth something,” Romney told reporters at a press conference.
http://www.freerepublic.com/~unmarkedpackage/#DOM
On December 23rd, Romney showed his true colors on a campaign stop at Nonni’s Italian Eatery in Hillsborough, NH, where a well-placed contact initiated the following exchange:
To Mitt Romney: “It’s been widely reported that the candidate leading the race for the presidency of the United States is a spousal abuser. Numerous reputable sources have reported that Hillary Clinton has thrown lamps, ash trays, and other objects at her husband’s head, and that he has been injured by his wife in domestic disputes.
“In addition, a New Mexico judge granted a restraining order against David Letterman, based on a woman’s claim that Letterman was harassing her with subliminal messages in his television appearances. As a result of the Violence Against Women Act and current domestic-violence policy, the judicial oversight in this case amounted to verification that the form was filled out properly, with no consideration of the veracity of the claims. This type of judicial oversight is practiced in many states.
“Will you pledge to oppose reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act and similar domestic-violence legislation without provisions to prevent the issuance of restraining orders based on false claims?”
Romney said he wouldn’t and then asked the questioner what he’d do about it. Answer: “I’d veto further VAWA and VAWA-related legislation unless it: 1) incorporates provisions and funding to address the way in which false claims are being used to exploit the legislation, and 2) is reformed and funded to reflect the well-documented female commission of domestic violence at higher rates than men.”
According to the account, Mitt Romney got bored, started looking around the room, and, while walking away, said: “False accusations; that’s tough.”
“False accusations; that’s tough.” This is Mitt Romney’s answer? It’s insulting ... and revealing. A false accusation is a crime. Did Romney not learn this at Harvard Law School? Did he not enforce it as governor of Massachusetts? His response was akin to saying: “Men should just take abuse and get over it.” Now, if one of Romney’s son’s gets nailed with a false rape accusation, I’ll bet he’ll change his I-don’t-care-about-men tune in a heartbeat. The sad part is that Romney’s rivals are no better. So, any American man who believes he has representation in exchange for his taxation is a naive fool.