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

CHICAGO, December 26, /Christian Newswire/ -- Peter LaBarbera, longtime pro-family advocate and founder of the Republicans For Family Values website, is calling on pro-family leaders who have endorsed Mitt Romney to withdraw their support for his candidacy in light of his recent comments on NBC's "Meet the Press" supporting pro-homosexual "sexual orientation" state laws.

"Mitt Romney's Christmas present to the homosexual lobby disqualifies him as a pro-family leader," LaBarbera said. "Laws that treat homosexuality as a civil right are being used to promote homosexual 'marriage,' same-sex adoption and pro-homosexuality indoctrination of schoolchildren. These same laws pose a direct threat to the freedom of faith-minded citizens and organizations to act on their religious belief that homosexual behavior is wrong.

"Romney may have had a late conversion on abortion, but it appears his ninth-inning flip-flop on homosexuality is falling short due to his strong commitment to 'gay rights,'" LaBarbera said. (See the 'Mitt Romney Deception' report) "Now some pro-family leaders –– who have raised millions of dollars over the years opposing 'gay' activism –– will need to explain how they can go on supporting an openly pro-homosexual-agenda candidate."

LaBarbera said it is "inconceivable after Massachusetts' twin disasters involving homosexual 'marriage' and homosexual adoption that Romney now is recommending pro-homosexual 'orientation' laws –– long derided as "special rights" among social conservatives — to the rest of the nation.

"In Romney's own state of Massachusetts, the state 'sexual orientation' nondiscrimination law laid the groundwork for homosexual activists' campaign to legalize 'same-sex marriage' –– which then-Gov. Romney brought to fruition with his unnecessary and illegal directive granting marriage licenses to homosexual partners," LaBarbera said. "The same pro-gay state law also forced Boston's Catholic Charities to shut down its century-old adoption agency because it would not pledge to place children in homosexual-led households against Catholic teaching.

"Given Romney's extensive pro-homosexual record and willingness now to depart from principle on this crucial issue, should we trust a 'President Romney' not to reverse course again on federal pro-homosexual laws such as 'Hate Crimes' and ENDA (Employment Nondiscrimination Act)?" LaBarbera said.

The following is excerpted from Romney's "Meet the Press" interview December 16 with Tim Russert:

MR. RUSSERT: You said [in 1994] that you would sponsor [Sen. Ted Kennedy's federal] Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Do you still support it?

GOV. ROMNEY: At the state level. I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this.

GOV. ROMNEY: I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level.

Gregg Jackson brings up the following issues for Mitt Romney to respond to:

(1) Romney changed the Massachusetts marriage certificates from "Husband and Wife" to "Partner A and Partner B" in order to facilitate same-sex "marriage". Here is the new Massachusetts marriage certificate that Romney had changed (Note: “Party A/Party B” where it used to read “Husband/Wife”.)

(2) Romney threatened to fire any Justice of the Peace who refuses to perform same-sex "marriages", according to an April 25, 2004 Associated Press news article.

(3) Romney held "training sessions" for Town Clerks, telling them that the law had changed and that they must perform same-sex marriages. Here are the slides from those sessions.

(3) The Goodridge decision by the Supreme Judicial Court did not "order" the Governor to do anything. But Romney acted anyway. (The ruling did NOT change any laws. The Court had decided that not allowing same-sex marriage was "unconstitutional" but also acknowledged that only the Legislature could change the marriage laws. However, the Legislature did nothing.)

(4) As the New York Times recently reported, Romney met with the homosexual group "Log Cabin Republicans" while campaigning for Governor in 2002. When the subject of same-sex marriage was brought up, says the Times, "according to several people present, he promised to obey the courts’ ultimate ruling and not champion a fight on either side of the issue." (“'I’ll keep my head low,' he said, making a bobbing motion with his head like a boxer, one participant recalled.")

Thus, Romney received an endorsement from the group.

Here is how Romney responded:

(1) He said that Gregg is "slightly delusional". An interesting way for a presidential candidate to respond to a media figure.

(2) Instead of responding to the question about marriage certificates, he discussed what he did regarding birth certificates -- as if that's what Gregg had asked about.

(3) Romney said he was just giving the Justices of the Peace "information." But according to the Associated Press report, he ordered them to resign if they refused to comply. He gave them no choice.

(4) Romney claims that the SJC did "require" Justices of the Peace to perform same-sex marriages, and that the Goodridge decision made same-sex marriage "legal". In fact, the Court only rendered an opinion and suggested that the Legislature act on it. The Massachusetts Constitution does not allow the Court to either (1) make law or (2) order another branch to do anything. See legal discussion. (Furthermore, the Legislature never did change the Mass. marriage statute, which only authorizes "husband/wife" marriage.)

(5) Probably the reason that homosexual groups protest Romney so much (and not the other Republicans) is that they believe he double-crossed them (see NY Times article above).

(6) Romney refers to Gregg as "the folks on the right wing." Actually, that's how he's always felt about conservatives. At least he's being honest here. (If Romney is running as a conservative, isn't that the same thing as "right wing"?)

recent comments on local Boston talk show

My first post to this thread, #4, was more in the nature of a generalized gripe about politicians who try to have it both ways. The classic example would be, “I’m personally opposed to abortion but committed to enforcing the established law.”

I just don’t understand how they can devote their careers to enforcing laws protecting a practice they consider murder (or evil, or a mortal sin).

Lately I’m also hearing a lot of federalist talk, which may or may not be intellectually valid. I have gray areas myself on these things, so I realize it isn’t necessarily dishonest to say “the states should decide, and I’m now a candidate for federal office, so...”

But sometimes, I’m sure they just say it so they can have it both ways. They have their personal beliefs, and they don’t uphold them or try to advance them. Instead, they’re only concerned with advancing themselves.

As for Romney in particular, I don’t trust him and he’s got more positions than the Kama Sutra. Therefore, while I don’t know with 100% accuracy where he really stands on states rights, the compartmental technique I described seems to me a good match for the way Romney reconciles his beliefs to his audience. I could be wrong; I sure hope so.

We all need to do a lot of soul-searching before we approve of a man who would be our leader. Examine not just him, but also ourselves and the standards by which we accept him.

Romney may be the candidate in November, so I pray his conservatism is genuine, but solid evidence remains lacking.
:(

In 2002, he said he opposed gay marriage and same-sex unions.

When the court ruled that the words “man” and “wife” must be interpreted as “person A” and “person B”, He fought that ruling all the way to the supreme court.

When he lost that case, he filed legislation to change the constitution.

When the 18 month stay of the court order expired, he did exactly what the court had in fact required to do, changed the words “man” and “wife” to “person A” and “person B”, as the court ruled those terms HAD to mean in the law per the state constitution.

No change in the law was required. The court provided a time period for the legislature to attempt to change the law to make it constitutional, but the legislature (which supported gay marriage) refused to act.

Their refusal was NOT a sign they opposed Gay Marriage and were planning to keep them prohibited, but were in fact their way of IMPLEMENTING same-sax marriage. Anybody who says otherwise IS delusional, as can be seen by the fact that of the entire legislature, they couldn’t even get 50 votes to allow the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage to get on a ballot for the people to vote on.

In other words, prohibiting same-sex marriage was something that was only supported by a MINORITY of the legislature, as PROVEN by their vote. If the law required a change to implement the court order, they would have changed the law, they had a super-majority who would do so — a veto-proof majority in fact, as seen by the vote about putting the amendment on the ballot.

So it is clear that the court order was an order that changed the interpretation of the law, and that the legislature knew this was the case.

The court ruling was that the word “man” must be interpreted as “person” in the existing law. People who argue that they didn’t change the law don’t understand the law or the court ruling, or do understand but would rather make a point than be right.

See my other post.

A lot of people were opposed to constitutional amendments before the court ruled in a way that was totally wrong. It’s hard to argue both that the court was wrong, AND that a constitutional amendment was needed. If the court was wrong, it means the constitution did NOT need to be modified, and even now is only being modified because the judges didn’t correctly read the existing constitution.

As to the amendment later, the legislature was clearly not going to allow people to vote on an amendment. Romney supported what he could get through the legislature. Our legislature tried to modify the words between passages for the same purpose, but since a majority of our legislature supported the ban it didn’t work.

In Massachusetts, the legislature did NOT WANT to ban same-sex marriage. So they played games, and since they had a supermajority on their side they could do whatever they wanted. Romney did his best to keep them in line and to put pressure on them, but in the end there weren’t even 50 votes (a minority requirement) to put the measure on the ballot. In fact, the OPPONENTS of the ban actually liked the addition of civil unions, they put it in to win those last few votes to block passage.

See, while they didn’t have the supermajority to block a ban on marriage which allowed civil unions, they DID have a MAJORITY who wanted gay marriage, who could ADD civil unions to the bill. And they did.

If Romney had come out OPPOSED to adding civil unions, the conservatives would have been furious, the measure would have passed anyway, and we’d be where we are today. Romney couldn’t stop them from changing it because a majority wasn’t supportive of the measure in any case.

Court Ruling, Pdf Form

First, here's the money paragraph from the summary of the ruling:

The opinion reformulates the common-law definition of civil marriage to mean "the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. Noting that "civil marriage has long been termed a'civil right,"' the court concluded that "the right to marry means little if it does not include the right to marry the person of one's choice, subject to appropriate government restrictions in the interests of public health, safety, and welfare."

So the summary indicates that they "reformulated" the meaning, which means they simply changed what the words in the existing laws MEANT. Which means what previously was thought to restrict same-sex unions would NOW allow same-sex unions. No new law was needed.

Let's go to the actual ruling, since you might argue the summary isn't enough. But before we do, let me see if I can talk you into understanding why it HAS to be so, based on logic.

Several same-sex couples tried to get married under the existing law. When they were refused, they sued saying the constitution required they be accepted. What were they suing for? The right to get married, UNDER THE CURRENT LAW.

So when they "won" the court case, for "win" to have any meaning, they must have been granted the right to get married under the current law.

In fact, the appellate court denied their motion, saying that the law could not be interpreted as allowing same-sex unions. It was this ruling that the supreme court overturned, ruling instead that the law HAD to be interpreted as allowing same-sex unions.

It gave the legislature 6 months to make any changes they thought necessary to the law, and at the time the news reported that "Analysts said the state Legislature could write laws legalizing same-sex marriages, or it could do nothing and let Tuesday's ruling go forward." In other words, they could actively change the law, or just let the court's intepretation of the law take effect.

OK, to the actual ruling, in the request for relief section (that's the part where the court says what it will DO for the plaintiffs, given that they have prevailed on the merits of the case:

We consider next the plaintiffs' request for relief. We preserve as much of the statute as may be preserved in the face of the successful constitutional challenge.

In other words, they are CHANGING the law, by court order, but only as much as the need to. So to those who argue the court can't change the law, but only the legislature, that point is already dismissed.

Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief. Eliminating civil marriage would be wholly inconsistent with the Legislature's deep commitment to fostering stable families and would dismantle a vital organizing principle of our society.

One way a court can deal with a law found unconstitutional is to negate the law. Doing so would mean nobody could get married until the legislature wrote a new law which met the court's ruling of constitutionality. But the court notes that this is a too-drastic act.

We face a problem similar to one that recently confronted the Court of Appeal for Ontario, the highest court of that Canadian province, when it considered the constitutionality of the same-sex marriage ban under Canada's Federal Constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (Charter). See Halpern v. Toronto (City), 172 O.A.C. 276 (2003). Canada, like the United States, adopted the common law of England that civil marriage is "the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others." Id. at, quoting Hyde v. Hyde, [1861-1873] All E.R. 175 (1866). In holding that the limitation of civil marriage to opposite- sex couples violated the Charter, the Court of Appeal refined the common-law meaning of marriage. We concur with this remedy, which is entirely consonant with established principles of jurisprudence empowering a court to refine a common-law principle in light of evolving constitutional standards. See Powers v. Wilkinson, 399 Mass. 650, 661-662 (1987) (reforming the common-law rule of construction of "issue"); Lewis v. Lewis, 370 Mass. 619, 629 (1976) (abolishing common-law rule of certain interspousal immunity)

It's not important that you understand this paragraph, as the next one will make clear what they DID, and this just explains how they did it. But in case you are interested, they used Canadian court precedent. Finding that marriage is a common-law concept, their remedy will be to "refine" the common-law principle.

In other words, they argue that when the legislature wrote "man and woman", they weren't really insisting on man and woman, but merely repeating a common-law construction based on the norms of that time. Now, in light of new constitutional imperatives, they will amend that common-law construction to reflect modern norms.

I'm not saying I agree with them in fact I don't, but that is what they are doing -- revising the meaning of the words "man and wife" in the law so it means "personse".

OK, now for the money paragraph. In what way are they amending the law by court decree?:

We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. This reformulation redresses the plaintiffs' constitutional injury and furthers the aim of marriage to promote stable, exclusive relationships. It advances the two legitimate State interests the department has identified: providing a stable setting for child rearing and conserving State resources. It leaves intact the Legislature's broad discretion to regulate marriage. See Commonwealth v. Stowell, 389 Mass. 171, 175 (1983).

And there it is. By that paragraph, the court rules that, whenever the law says "man and woman", it MEANS two people of either sex. There is no need to change the law, the court determines that the law's use of "man and woman" was merely a common-law construction, which should have this new meaning in light of the state constitution.

They go further in explaining how this will effect marriage in the state:

In their complaint the plaintiffs request only a declaration that their exclusion and the exclusion of other qualified same-sex couples from access to civil marriage violates Massachusetts law. We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution. We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion.

The court rules that these couples, and all other couples, will be allowed to get married. They stay their ruling for 180 days in order to allow the legislature to do whatever it wants. Note they said the legislature still has the right to regulate marriage, so the legislature could have vacated marriage altogether, or even tried to come up with a new wording of man and wife that would clearly mean they wanted to restrict marriage, rather than being a common-law construction.

The legislature was NOT required to change the law in order for the court ruling to take effect. The court ruling gave people the right to get married. They simply delayed things for a bit in case the legislature wanted to try to stop them.

I hope this has been educational for you and the many others who have commented on this case, coming to the wrong conclusions based on well-meaning but incorrect statements by people we sometimes trust to understand legal matters.

Charles, you fail the test:

As you note in your own citation, the court acknowledged that “in their complaint the plaintiffs request only a declaration.”

And so the court makes a “declaration.” It’s a declaratory judgment, i.e., the court’s misguided declaration of its opinion as to constitutionality.

WITH NO COURT ORDER FOLLOWING BEYOND THE DECLARATION.

I challenged you to quote the Goodridge decision’s ORDER that Romney (a) must instruct that marriage licenses be amended to read “Partner 1” and “Partner 2” or (b) must instruct justices of the peace to perform homosexual “marriage” ceremonies or resign.

You have not done so. And I’m not talking about some philosophical musing by the court.

Romney himself, at his own initiative, used his executive authority to actually implement homosexual “marriage” in Massachusetts in the absence of a court order to do so.

He was fully within his constitutional authority, under the doctrine of separation of powers, to ignore a court ruling that clearly violated the state constitution, which states that only the Legislature shall make law regarding marriage; in fact, he swore an oath to uphold the state constitution. The court’s opinion attempted to make NEW LAW, which it cannot legitimately do either by legislating or reinterpreting something that was clearly not legislative intent when enacted.

Since you cannot show a COURT ORDER to actually do anything, I trust you will concede that Romney was not compelled at any point to use the authority of his separate branch of govt to actually implement homosexual “marriage.”

Unless you want to go back and try again to produce any section of Goodridge which ORDERED him to do anything.

No court is going to write what you asked. I presumed your question was hyperliteral, and you simply wanted me to prove my point that Romney had no choice.

I’ve shown you exactly what they said, and how it changed the law, and if you want to ignore it, then maybe what you said before about their being “truth” and “fiction” wasn’t so applicable in your case.

In fact, the reference you cite about declaration was the court noting that the plaintiffs wanted the court to “declare” that the LAW allowed them to get married, and they went further and said the CONSTITUTION allowed them to get married.

The term “declaration”, like “declaratory judgment” and “declare”, are LEGAL terms that have a much more precise and operative meaning than some of their interpretations in common usage.

A court declaration has the force of law. When the court DECLARES that the marriage law’s statement “man and woman” is CONSTRUED to mean “persons”, that’s what it now means. It’s not some philosphical excercise.

Of course, I guess that’s what your problem has been all along, that you do not have an understanding of the legal terms and purpose of court rulings, and so think the supreme court would be taking their time on esoteric musings of no effect.

I’ve shown you the citations, given you the link, and explained in simple english what they were saying in their legalese. If you decide not to accept what the words mean, I can’t do anything more for you. If you have a lawyer friend, take the ruling to them, and ask them to explain it to you.

If you want to figure it out for yourself, try going to the central paragraph I told you you could ignore. Read what they write about the canadian court. Go look at that ruling in the newspapers — see how that court ruling changed the law and started same-sex marriage in Canada. Then read where this court says they are doing the SAME THING, and that they have a right to do so. Think about what that means, and realise they are making same-sex marriage OUT OF the existing law.

If you aren’t convinced, follow the citations given by the court, and read those rulings through.

Notwithstanding the current political contest, the issue of the use of foreign courts is much more nuanced and complicated than a sound bite can capture.

I believe the court was wrong in this case. Further, precedence is often just a way to pass off your decisions on someone else.

But given that both Canadian and American law both have some foundation in the concept of British common law, it makes sense to look to how other learned scholars deal with matters of common law when making decisions.

Further, in this case they did not use the Canadian court to interpret the Mass. constitution. They had already determined that the constitution required gender equity. The question they were determining was how they could justify reinterpreting a law already on the books.

They happen to like the argument the Canadian court used on the exact same issue, namely that the legal description of marriage was not debated and explicitly determined by the state legislature, but was simply taken in toto from the common-law definition — and therefore, if “common law” were to change over time based on constitutional perogatives, that change would apply to laws which used the common-law language.

Thus, they could say that the Mass. legislature never explicitly determined they wanted only opposite-gender marriage — they simply wanted common-law marriage, which the courts determined included same-gender relationships under the Mass. constitution.

I happen to think that their particular choice was bad. Plus, I think they left an opening for the legislature to “fix” the problem by restating marriage as between only those of opposite gender, thus proving to the court that the legislature INTENDED that interpretation.

Then the courts would have had to rule based on whether the state legislature provided a reasonable government purpose in restricting marriage in that way.

Of course, the legislature had no intention of doing anything — they supported same-sex marriage, and knew they didn’t have to take ANY action for that to happen, as the court had already made that determination.

So I agree with you that the decision was illegitimate. Citing Canadian law does not itself make the ruling illegitimate, but the assertion that legislatures never intended to restrict marriage to opposite-gender relationships was a fabrication to do what they wanted to do.

And they got away with it because the legislature wanted it.

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.