(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"?)
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.
“(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.”
That is a trait of his and it works on at least one person.
Judging by his growing image of being too slick and evasive, most people see it for what it is.
Bookmarking!