Posted on 02/03/2008 4:31:28 AM PST by Tigen
Republican presidential candidate Alan Keyes may not get invited to the televised debates but that doesn't mean he's going stay out of the fray or attack his opponents when he believes they've abandoned his party's values – particularly on the issue of same-sex marriage.
On his campaign website this week, Keyes blasted former Gov. Mitt Romney for being "single-handedly responsible for instituting same-sex marriage in Massachusetts" for the way he responded to a state court ruling in 2003.
"Most people are unaware of the way Massachusetts came to adopt same-sex marriage," the former Reagan administration diplomat said. "They think the state's Supreme Judicial Court forced it to happen. That's incorrect."
"The court merely issued an opinion stating that, in its view, the existing marriage law was unconstitutional because it failed to allow persons of the same sex to marry," Keyes said. "The court then gave the legislature 180 days to 'take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion' – implicitly telling lawmakers to come up with a new marriage statute."
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Rollo, you simply do not know what you are talking about. Because the Legislature DIDN'T act, the court ruling became effective and the interpretation handed down was let stand.
The Court said "civil marriage" shall include homosexual unions. The Legislature had 180 days to clarify existing law to re-exclude them, similarly to incest or polygamy laws. They didn't. After 180 days, the issuing clerks had to obey existing code (MA 207) and issue to homosexuals. If they had not, they would have been liable for a Federal Civil Rights suit for failure to equally apply the State law.
Romney changed nothing. The Legislature changed nothing in the law. The only thing that changed was what the legal definition of "civil marriage' was.
If the Supreme Court specifically states it's the legislature's job to change the law, and the legislature expressly fails to do so, and if the Supreme Court also is not changing the law (and it may not), then the old law is still binding, and the ONLY CONCLUSION one can legitimately draw is that Romney acted inappropriately -- enforcing an OPINION that wasn't legally binding on him or the state.
What's more, even if the court came out and said that he MUST allow gay marriage (which it did not), without the approval of the legislature, if he is sworn to uphold both the federal and state constitutions (which he was), he MUST refuse.
Another person who hasn't READ THE DECISION!!! Taking a quote out of context and distorting what they decided.
Here's what they decided: 1) The existing law, as commonly interpreted, violated the civil rights of homosexuals.
2) Overturning existing law (MA 207) would be too disruptive a remedy for (1), because it would wipe out legal marriage in MA.
3) They would therefore finesse the law by changing the operative common law interpretation of "civil marriage" and leave the existing code in place. If the legislature disagreed with the interpretation, they had 180 days to act to clarify the definition in the civil code.
The old law IS still in place, and Romney WAS bound by it. But the MEANING of marriage as used by the law had changed. The existing law said he had to issue licenses to all "parties" who applied and were legally entitled. Those not entitled were A) blood relations; B) those already married; C) minors without permission; and D) people coming from out of state to marry, where it would violate their home state's laws to do so (written to originally keep interracial couples from entering the state to marry).
It was a court opinion, one the court itself admitted that they had no authority or ability to enforce.
It was the MAJORITY opinion of a court DECISION. And no court has enforcement authority. Neither does the legislature. That doesn't mean the enforcement branch of the Government, the Executive, is free to ignore them and enforce only what it chooses.
The Executive has a sworn duty to the constitution, not to the suggestions of a leftist court.
Keyes’ point stands: If Rommey had done nothing, nothing would have happened. Which makes him solely responsible for the imposition of gay marriage.
He's not only "free" to, he's obligated to, if his conscience tells him that to execute such opinions would be to violate his sworn oath.
So, in Romney's case, that leaves two possibilities:
1) He knew the court's opinion was unconstitutional, and implemented it anyway, making him an oath-breaker and destroyer of the balance of powers in the state government of Massachusetts.
Or...
2) He agreed with their reinterpretation of what the word "marriage" means, which makes him as bad as the members of the court.
In either case, Mitt Romney is unfit for high office.
The judiciary is not authorized to change the meaning of a law, because that would be writing a new law.
If the existing law was sufficient and needn't be changed in order to accommodate "civil unions," then there would be no REASON to direct the legislature to change it. Because the legislature decided not to change it, the law STILL DID NOT accommodate civil unions.
As EV said, the governor's duty is to the Constitution, and whenever an opinion of the court violates the principle terms of that Constitution, he is bound by his oath to defy it. Checks and balances are in place to prevent abuse of this executive discretion.
I must have missed the Jean Kirkpatric and John Bolton administrations. Were they before or after Bush Sr.?
Neither Jeane Kirkpatrick nor John Bolton moved from their awesome work in the foreign policy arena into tireless years-long activity on behalf of the entire conservative movement and agenda across America. And neither of those American heroes come, or came, close to Alan’s ability to communicate what conservatives believe in.
...nor have they ever gone through the necessary step of... I don’t know... declaring their candidacy.
That too! ;-)
Of course, Jeane’s passed on, but your point stands...
Dr. Keyes is addressing a rally in Lubbock, Texas tonight. You might keep him, and the event, in your prayers...
Will do... Please let us know how it goes.
Will do.
If the existing law was sufficient and needn't be changed in order to accommodate "civil unions," then there would be no REASON to direct the legislature to change it.
It becomes obvious that neither you nor EV have read the Goodrich decision, nor the MA Marriage code in question. The legislature was not, let me repeat that for the hard of hearing, WAS NOT directed to change anything. That is spin. It is a misrepresentation. It is a fib, a lie, a falsehood.
The existing law failed to define its terms. It assumed male/female unions and did not bother to make that explicit IN THE CODE. This lack of specificity allowed the Court a pretext for saying what the operative definition would be for the state of MA. It was a legislative loophole.
Knowing it was a legislative loophole, the Court directed that its decision would be held in abeyance for 180 days, in order to give the legislative branch a chance to assert their authority to express the definition by law, but DID NOT direct them to do anything. The legislature declined, thereby tacitly agreeing that the court was correct in their interpretation of the existing statute.
As EV said, the governor's duty is to the Constitution, and whenever an opinion of the court violates the principle terms of that Constitution, he is bound by his oath to defy it.
He has neither the delegated authority nor legal standing to ignore both the Court and the Legislature because he doesn't like the law. His constitutional duty was to enforce the existing law, as interpreted by the Courts and the Legislature. Which he did, while introducing measures to over ride both by amendment.
What a load.
To believe that, you have to do exactly what the Goodridge court did: Pretend that the word "marriage" means something different from what it has always meant.
You, the leftist judges, and Mitt Romney, have redefined marriage.
The court said that in order for their opinion to have any force of law, the legislature would have to change the law. They refused to do so, knowing that even in liberal Massachusetts, their constituents would have their hide.
And again, if a court makes an unconsitutional decision, the executive has a sworn duty to oppose them.
The form of government you are advocating is not a republican one, it is a judicial oligarchy.
Saddens me to see a fellow Catholic telling bald faced lies.
Keyes is over; has been over since 2000, and only confirmed the fact in his Senate race. His one debate appearance this year was frankly embarrassing. He recklessly squandered whatever good will and political capital he had remaining.
Get back to me when you actually read the base documents. There’s several places I’ll fault Romney, notably on the AWB stance, but on this one, he’s being unfairly maligned. I know because I took the time to understand what happened by reading the stuff myself, instead of swallowing the spin.
In other words, he accurately described Mitt Romney.
"Mitt Romney IS Giuliani. He's just lying about 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.