Romney's Christmas Present to the 'Gay' Lobby Should End Pro-Family Support for his Candidacy

Christian Newswire ^ | 12/26/2007

[Sun]

Social conservatives need to take a look at Duncan Hunter who voted for traditional marriage between a man and a woman through HJ Res 88.

And there is no stronger social conservative than Duncan Hunter on each and every social conservative issue, PLUS Hunter is strong on all of the conservative issues (as well as the social conservative ones).

Duncan Huner ratings:

A+ rating from the National Rifle Association;

100% rating from the Eagle Forum;

92% rating from the American Conservative Union;

100% from the Concerned Women for America;

100% from the Christian Coalition;

100% from the Campaign for Working Families.

And this is a good time to call a talk show about Duncan Hunter, because it’s probably easier to get through to the shows, especially if you call early.

Here’s what I did:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1938073/posts

[Calpernia]

bttt

Did you hear Duncan D2 on the radio last night? It is in the archives if you missed it.

http://www.monksmedia.com

[Sun]

Thanks. I’ll check it out.

[John Haskins]

Charles, everything you are arguing is provably false. The MA court can’t make laws, can’t order the governor or legislature, and they have repeatedly admitted that. There was no new law in Goodridge, no order to anyone. Please, get the basics right. Romney alone imposed homosexual “marriage.” The court never even asked him to. They urged to legislature to legalize it.

Read this, then you’ll see why you need to go back to square one:
“44 conservative leaders across America challenge Romney’s claim he ‘defended’ marriage and the constitution.”
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/dec_letter/letter.pdf

[CharlesWayneCT]

MassResistance doesn’t have credibility on this matter, compared to the actual ruling of the court.

The court didn’t make law, they simply explained what the existing law meant. Courts do that all the time, it’s exactly what they have the power to do.

You go to court because you have a dispute regarding the law. The court decides whether the law applies in your case or not, by interpreting the law as related to your situation.

In this case, they simply (and wrongly) interpreted ‘man’ to be “person”, and thus said the existing Marriage law required marriage for same-sex couples.

I will note that if you were correct, and of these people who say Romney was violating the law could simply go to court. The court would rule that Romney was in violation of the law, and the marriages would be null and void.

Since that has not happened, your assertion regarding this matter has no weight whatsoever.