RoeGone TV ad -- Romney: "Look at my record as governor"

RoeGone.org ^ | January 29, 2008 | RoeGone.org

[AFA-Michigan]

NEWS RELEASE

A new 527 group called RoeGone.org -- the conservative answer to MoveOn.org -- has produced a 60-second web ad responding to Gov. Mitt Romney's challenge to look to his record as governor as an indication of where he stands on the issues.

TV AD -- Romney: "Look at my record as governor"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFGA_HN3Yc&feature=PlayList&p=FD9F88028457D175&index=0

"Governor Mitt Romney challenged voters to look at his record. RoeGone.org has done just that," said spokesperson Sharon Blakeney, a lawyer in Boerne, Texas.

Blakeney said the group is raising money to place the ad on television in Super Tuesday states later this week. The group also plans to produce ads addressing other politicians' stand on similar issues, she said.

RoeGone.org is a pro-life organization committed to the appointment of judges who will support overturning Roe v. Wade.

---

Full script of ad:

In the Florida debate, Governor Mitt Romney said:

"I can point to a very simple way to find out exactly where I stand, and that is look at my record as governor."

Really?

As governor, Mitt Romney issued an executive order forcing justices of the peace to perform homosexual weddings, or resign. Then he ordered marriage licenses changed to read “party A” and “party B” -- instead of “husband” and “wife.”

As governor, Romney appointed a board member of the Lesbian and Gay Bar Association to the bench, and appointed more Democrat judges than Republicans.

As governor, Romney authored and signed a mandatory heath insurance plan backed by Ted Kennedy -- including taxpayer-funded abortion on demand.

As governor, Romney overruled his own health department and forced Catholic hospitals to distribute the morning after abortion pill.

Homosexual marriage? Tax-funded abortions? Catholic hospital morning after pills? Homosexual activist judges?

"Look at my record as governor."

[CharlesWayneCT]

The devil is in the details, or in this case, in the part you represent by "//////":

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. See Mayor of Boston v. Treasurer & Receiver Gen., 384 Mass. 718, 725 (1981); Dalli v. Board of Educ., 358 Mass. 753, 759 (1971). See also G. L. c. 4, § 6, Eleventh.

[ED: Note they are changing the law. They "preserve" as much as they can, and change the rest]

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.[34]

[Ed note: They assert the right to throw out the law, and say that this would be too harsh a remedy].

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 par. (36), 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 common-law rule of construction of "issue"); Lewis v. Lewis, 370 Mass. 619, 629 (1976) (abolishing common-law rule of certain interspousal immunity).

[Ed note: They are not re-writing the law, they are "refining" it, and asserting their right to do so as a common-law principle.]

We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others.

[Ed note: In that sentence, they REWROTE the law, by redefining the term "man and woman" to be "two persons". They did so by calling it a "refinement", and by saying it was how the words "man and woman" would be CONSTRUED, thus not having to change the words in the statute.]

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).

The assertion that the court's ruling actually did nothing at all is both false, and ludicrous. To suggest that defendents spent millions of dollars on a court case, and in the end WON that case but got nothing out of it, is absurd. The clear reading of the case above shows that the court redefined the terms "man and woman", thus making it the LAW. No longer could anybody in the government reject two persons from getting a license, because the court RULED that the term "man and woman" MEANT "two persons".

The smokescreen about "legislature given 180 days" is just that. The court allowed time for the legislature to try to fix things if it wanted. Courts often do that when they change a law. In this case, the court relied on the idea that "man and woman" was a common-law statement, and not a strict meaning. The legislature COULD have responded by changing the words of the statute to clearly indicate an opposite-gender relationship.

The court, judging by the details of the ruling, would probably still have ruled against them, but it would have a better chance because the court would have had to actually RULE on the state's compelling interest.

The legislature did not act because they wanted same-sex marriage.

Everybody knew that the ruling imposed same-sex marriage, and that it would start in 180 days. That's what all the news articles said, that's what the conservatives all said, that's what the liberals all said. NOBODY stood up a week after the ruling and said "Oh, never mind, they didn't actually DO anything". Instead, everybody said we had to get a constitutional amendment passed to stop it.

MassResistance has zero credibility based on their brazenly shoddy lawyering on this issue.

[AFA-Michigan]

Yo, Charles, we meet again.

Please list for us, Charles, all the pro-life groups that have endorsed Mitt Romney...

(sound effect of birds chirping and crickets cricketing while we wait)

No, Mass Citizens for Life doesn’t count. They used to count when they told the truth about his record, i.e., that he was pro-abortion on demand. They did not count past the point of taking a $10,000 contribution from Romney and suddenly declaring that they, like Mitt, had seen the light.

For a real sense of Mitt’s hutzpah in now claiming how pro-life he is, watch the video below to see how adamantly, insistently, and indignantly he rejected and rebuked Mass Citizens for Life’s endorsement in 2002...

Watch the whole astounding thing, or fast forward to 3:45 of the video to hear him specifically reject Mass Cit for Life endorsement:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_w9pquznG4

And now, by comparison, let’s list the “real pro-life organizations” that have endorsed Huckabee for president:

GA Right to Life, MO Right to Life, AR Right to Life, MT Right to Life, TN Right to Life, AZ Right to Life, Floridians for Life, Michigan Chooses Life, and then yesterday’s statement by National Right to Life...

...you know, that “real” Right to Life group that was everybody’s hero here on FR because they endorsed Fred...

“National Right to Life is grateful for the strong pro-life record established by Mike Huckabee as governor of Arkansas, and recognizes that Governor Huckabee has taken the STRONGEST pro-life position on all of the life issues of ANY OF THE REMAINING CANDIDATES for president.”

(birds still chirping, and getting hungry, waiting on Charles to list any “real” pro-life groups that have endorsed Romney...)

[CharlesWayneCT]

They haven’t done ANYTHING to help the cause. They started out with an attack on a pro-life republican. Their existance is NOT to help pro-life causes, but to help Mike Huckabee.

[inkling]

Inkling: “I’m sick of Huck & Ed Rollins’ dirty tricks.” Yeah, yeah, yeah. Now after you’re through stomping your foot, the content of the ad either is or is not true. Whether it was Marshall Dillon or Madame Butterfly who recited it. Your liking or not liking Huck or Rollins or Joe Namath is irrelevant to the truth of the content of the ad.

An equally damning ad could be made about Huckabee. But you know why it hasn't been made? Because he's irrelevant, penniless and will drop out a week from tomorrow.

[DBrow]

The original question was, did the court order Romney to take steps to start homosexual marriage, and the answer was in the last paragraph of the decision- no it did not.

Thanks for the informative clips.

[AFA-Michigan]

“In view of the fact that such respected people as Jay Sekulow, Ann Coulter, Robert Bork, Bob Jones and Paul Weyrich support Romney, I should think one might want to question your credibility on the question.”

I stand more than ready to test my conservative credentials by comparison to ANY of the above. All of the above have tarnished their credentials by endorsing a candidate with a pro-abortion, pro-homosexual agenda, pro-gun control record such as Romney’s.

[AFA-Michigan]

Well, let me clear it up for you. It is not funded by George Soros.

Who, by the way, supports abortion on demand and the homosexual agenda.

[redgirlinabluestate]

Here is Nancy French

Co-founder EvangelicalsForMitt.com

Nancy is the author of Red State of Mind: How a Catfish Queen Reject Became a Liberty Belle (Time Warner, 2006). She began her writing career as a Philadelphia City Paper columnist tackling politics, religion, and culture with a light, humorous touch; her articles have also appeared in the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Philadelphia Daily News. Nancy is an alumna of David Lipscomb University, an evangelical college in Nashville, and New York University, where she studied English and philosophy. Her writer's website can be found at NancyFrench.com and her grassroots political site at TNforMitt.com. Nancy and her husband, David, live with their two children in Columbia, Tenn. and are members of Zion Presbyterian Church.

In the summer of 2007, Nancy became involved in a book project with Ann Romney. Nancy was also hired as a consultant for the campaign from October until December of 2007, working to get Governor Romney on the primary ballot in her home state

_______________________

This is David French.

Captain French in Iraq, Co-founder EvangelicalsForMitt.com

David French is a Harvard Law School graduate and a leading constitutional attorney with the non-profit Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). David is also a Captain in the Judge Advocate General’s Corps of the United States Army Reserve. Captain French was deployed to Iraq in late October, 2007.

Nancy on David's deployment:

Many of you have sent warm regards for me and the kids in David's absence. If I've neglected to respond personally, know that I really appreciate all the kind words. Although I'm not sure exactly where David is, I think from the photo he sent he's no longer in Tennessee.

(The '08 election has just taken on a more urgency for us, although I never thought that would be possible.)

Thanks for all the prayers, as well. I think we're adjusting well enough. Although we're repeatedly late to school and have skipped church this week, the kids seemed a bit brighter this week, I have begun jogging with my friend in the mornings, and I fixed a toilet all by myself.

One week down, fifty-one to go.

http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/front_page/david_writes_an_nro_article_fr_1.php
DAVID WRITES AN NRO ARTICLE FROM DIYALA PROVINCE

___________

Why We Suppport Governor Romney

[AFA-Michigan]

“where did you get that FL address?”

From the heading of the e-mail news release issued by RoeGone.

[CharlesWayneCT]

The “informative clips” were the rest of the JUDGMENT section of the ruling, the part you left out.

You quote the last paragraph. THey had already ruled that the law was changed to allow marriage. But then they also noted that the petitioners had asked they rule that the law was unconstitutional. SO they went ahead and did that as well.

The court didn’t just write the rest of the judgment section for the fun of it. It amazes me that ANY person could possibly believe that the result of the Mass. Supreme Court ruling was that absolutely NOTHING changed.

But that is the argument, apparently, that some are accepting here. Next we’ll here that abortion is still illegal because the supreme court couldn’t actually MAKE it legal.

[AFA-Michigan]

Charles: “They started out with an attack on a pro-life republican.”

Reading from the Romneyphile Annotated Dictionary again, Charles?

That’d be the only place that a guy who endorsed Roe, promised to defend a woman’s “right to choose,” signed a $50 co-pay for abortions into law and says he supports embryonic stem cell research AFTER claiming to change his mind would be defined as “pro-life.”

[curiosity]

The Mass Supreme Court issued no court order that Romney do anything.

The Supreme Judicial Court of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts ruled it was unconstitutional for the Commonwealth to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

If Romney hadn't started giving the licenses, he'd be in defiance of a court ruling.

If you think defying court rulings is a good strategy, I suggest you go tilt at windmills with Judge Moore and leave politics to the adults.

[CharlesWayneCT]

You are wrong. A person could do all those things and be pro-life. In fact, other than the first two, a person could do those things WHILE BEING pro-life.

Pro-life judges actually rule to allow girls to get abortions. Why? because the law requires it. We don’t call them abortionists because they rule according to the law.

Unfortunately, a lot of pro-life people support embryonic stem cell research. Romney’s “support” is very limited. He opposes federal funding (McCain, who is also called “pro-life” actually supports federal funding). He only supports use of already discarded embryos, which means they aren’t being killed for the procedure, they were being killed by being discarded.

We’ve been through this before I believe. The pure pro-life position is that there should be no embryos available, because NO embryo should be created without being implanted. Once you have frozen them, you have bought into the pro-death movement. I have little interest in tearing down a good pro-life politician over the argument as to whether a previously frozen and now dead embryo for research is worse than the person who froze the living being and NEVER thawed them out again.

Romney opposes Roe, no longer supports a woman’s right to choose, supports HLA, will appoint judges that will overturn Roe, opposes federal funding for embryonic research.

NO candidate is calling to ban embryonic research, so whether Romney would support that or not is moot, except as an academic argument over who is MORE pro-life on the theoretical things that cannot be changed. Thompson wouldn’t push HLA because he said it couldn’t change, but Thompson supported abortion for rape and incest, so he wasn’t 100% to begin with.

Romney is a pro-life republican. Especially as that term is used by the pro-life organizations who have worked tirelessly on this for 30 years trying to get Roe overturned.

Any group that pops up in the last minute and leads to a democratic president who appoints pro-roe justices will have the blood of the innocent on their hands.

[AFA-Michigan]

Curiosity,

Let me respond this way:

“With the Dred Scott case, decided four years before he took office, President Lincoln faced a judicial decision that he believed was terribly wrong and badly misinterpreted the U.S. Constitution. Here is what Lincoln said: ‘If the policy of the government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their government into the hands of that eminent tribunal.’ By its decision, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts circumvented the Legislature and the executive, and assumed to itself the power of legislating. That’s wrong.”

If you think the above reasoning is not adult, I’ll leave it to you to take it up with the author.

[AFA-Michigan]

“Romney is a pro-life republican. Especially as that term is used by the pro-life organizations who have worked tirelessly on this for 30 years trying to get Roe overturned.”

Then you should have no trouble listing all the pro-life organizations who are endorsing Mitt Romney.

(birds still chirping)

[restornu]

Grig can you find out who owns this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peFGA_HN3Yc&feature=PlayList&p=FD9F88028457D175&index=0

[AFA-Michigan]

Charles: “Any group that pops up...and leads to a democratic president who appoints pro-roe justices will have the blood of the innocent on their hands.”

The surest way to ensure the election of Clinton or Obama would be to nominate Romney, who’d be eviscerated by the flip-flop characterization, who 48% of Americans say they would never vote for under any circumstance no matter who else is on the ballot (Rasmussen), and who would put even some Southern states (beginning with Arkansas) at risk against the former First Lady of Arkansas.

Point being, those of us opposed to Romney’s being nominated are entirely comfortable that our efforts will result in his not being elected, and in the best chances that a Dem will not be elected.

[torchthemummy]

I think most wise conservatives will take the word of David French over Brain Camenker and his ilk (associate with this 527) any day of the week.

Weeding the truth from the fiction always takes more time. Lieing is easier because it is more apt to play on emotions.

[AFA-Michigan]

O.K., Torch, as you weed through the truth, your first burden is to present evidence that Camenker is in any way associated with RoeGone.

[Jeff Head]

Thanks. Good stuff from good people.