Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: CatQuilt

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.


87 posted on 12/27/2007 7:55:41 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies ]


To: CharlesWayneCT

“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.”

Charles, this is a simple case of fact or fiction.

Please provide the quote from the Goodridge case in which the court orders Romney to (1) change “husband” and “wife” to “party A” and “party B” or (2) instruct local justices of the peace to either perform homosexual “marriage” ceremonies or resign.

If you can provide the quote from Goodridge so ordering Romney, I concede.

If you cannot...


91 posted on 12/27/2007 10:23:43 AM PST by AFA-Michigan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson