Steele: GOP won't endorse 'civil unions' 'What would we do that for? What are you, crazy?'

WorldNetDaily ^ | February 26, 2009

[GonzoII]

The chairman of the Republican National Committee has shot down hopes by minority homosexual groups that the party will open its "big tent" to endorse "civil unions" or homosexual marriage.

"What would we do that for? What are you, crazy? No." Michael Steele told radio talk show host Mike Gallagher.

[fwdude]

His execution was a little pedestrian, though. I would have preferred a more rigorous, well-thought-out response than the emotional bent it obviously carried.

Yes, emotions are involved, but lead by logic and sound morality.

[Diogenesis]

Sorry Bucko, but you are wrong. And you know it.

..... Romney imposed gay marriage crushing the Clerks and Mass. Constitution (unbelievable fascist)

As usual, TeamROMNEY blames everyone else for Romney's misdeeds.
[Similarly, Romney blamed Seamus when he abused and tormented the poor dog, too].
Mitt Romney personally, as in himself, as in alone, destroyed the Massachusetts Constitution (the oldest in the USA).

"Experts: Credit Romney for homosexual marriage"
"What he (Governor Bishop Mitt Romney) did was exercise illegal legislative authority'

"While former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney claims he did everything possible to throttle homosexual marriage in his state – his campaign now saying he took "every conceivable step within the law to defend traditional marriage" – several constitutional experts say that just isn't so.

"What Romney did [was] he exercised illegal legislative authority," Herb Titus said of the governor's actions after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court released its opinion in the Goodridge case in 2003. "He was bound by what? There was no order. There wasn't even any order to the Department of Public Health to do anything."

Titus, a Harvard law graduate, was founding dean of Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School. He also worked with former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, ...

Romney's aides have told WND that after four of the seven court members reinterpreted the definition of marriage, he believed he had no choice but to direct clerks and others to change state marriage forms and begin registering same-sex couples.

Some opponents contend that with those actions, Romney did no more or less than create the first homosexual marriages recognized in the nation. And Titus agrees."

"....But the court's decision conflicts with the constitutional philosophy of three co-equal branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial, Titus said. It also violates with the Massachusetts Constitution, which states: "The power of suspending the laws, or (suspending) the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..."

And it cannot even be derived from the opinion itself, asserts the pro-family activist group Mass Resistance, which says the decision did four things:

* First, it acknowledged that the current law does not permit same-sex marriage.

"The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."

* Second, it said it is NOT striking down the marriage laws (among other things, the Massachusetts Constitution forbids a court to change laws)

"Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."

* Third, it declared that not allowing same-sex marriages is a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution.

"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."

* And fourth, given that the court is not changing any laws, the SJC gave the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."

"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."

After the Legislature did nothing during the 180 days, Romney then took action "on his own," the group said.

"Gov. Romney's legal counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace that they must perform same-sex marriages when requested or 'face personal liability' or be fired," the group said."

[fwdude]

The wailing and howling is about to begin. Gird your loins Mr. Steele!

The wailing and howling pack of hyenas has already begun lambasting Steele. I only hope he has the fortitude to stand strong and not back down from "his insensitive statement," which seems to be the habit of most "conservatives" nowadays.

[chuck_the_tv_out]

“well thought-out” would have come across as pussyfooting. there’s nothing to think out! this is exactly the kind of response we have needed, and it’s genuinely good to see it from the GOP.

[Diogenesis]

A gleeming, glorious carpetbagger, chameleon RINO Romney installs BOTH socialized medicine and gay marriage
changing the face of America to fascist socialism (in the image of Romney).

[nhwingut]

Hey “Bucko” — Can you provide a link to that so-called report? It looks like a blog/opinion hit piece from a Romney hater, and not a legitimate news report.

Nice try.

[Diogenesis]

Seems like Romney finally was informed that he screwed up royally (again).

Of course, what you posted was Romney's attempt to "spin history", and never happened.
Why? It was too late.

FACT: Romney, himself, and no one else, spit on,
urinated on, and then overturned, the Mass Constitution
which states"The power of suspending the laws,
or (suspending) the execution of the laws,
ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..."
and it was ignored by Gov. Romney who issued an Order to the Justices of the Peace
that they must perform same-sex marriages when requested
or 'face personal liability' or be fired".

.

[Diogenesis]

From the "'How Romney is that'-Department"

You live in New Hampshire.
How did you feel about Romney raising taxes in NH
while he was Gov. of Massachusetts?

How Romney is that?

[WorkingClassFilth]

Unless Steele openly rebukes Specter, Collins and Snowe and pulls GOP endorsements and support, the Party is the same ol’ same ol’.

[nhwingut]

What I posted was an AP story, not exactly a Romney-loving wire service.

You are the one posting garbage.

You may hate Romney, he may not be your ideal candidate. But to say he “singelhandedly” signed off on gay marriage is shear lunacy.

Ronald Reagan was a certified/registered Democrat at one time. Is he a phony too?

Please. Your argument is intellectually bankrupt.

[Admin Moderator]

AP material may not be posted in its entirety. Please make a note of it.

[GonzoII]

"If the purpose of civil unions is to confer most of the benefits of marriage"

I say let the benefits of marriage stay with the married, (Man+Woman), that is where it belongs. PERIOD.

Does a citizen have the right to the benefit of Secret Service protection.

[nhwingut]

You are so uninformed, it’s sad.

More tax revenue does not equate to “raising taxes.” It’s called more jobs, bringing in more tax revenue.

Get a clue.

[Diogenesis]

Each timely report shows that Romney imposed gay marriage himself
by LACK OF ACTION.

Claiming that people who post Romney's record are "haters"
reveals the emptiness of your argument, Bucko.

[asked you about Romney's tax increases to NH, Bucko. (sound of crickets)]

[GonzoII]

"this is exactly the kind of response we have needed"

Dittos. It takes on the PC crowd also, in my opinion.

[NewJerseyJoe]

> Why not allow civil unions for widow sisters who look out after each other? Why not a group of three anything

Because that's NOT the purpose of "civil unions" -- the purpose is coerced acceptance of homosexual practices and all the associated deviancies.

[theBuckwheat]

The topic of civil unions is a wonderful opportunity to teach a liberty lesson.

Anyone who goes to web sites of groups that advocate these unions should notice the reasons that are given. For example, if you go to the site for the Human Rights Campaign (www.hrc.org), and dig a bit, you will find that most reasons have to do with the tax code, such as employer benefits and the death tax.

Why is this a liberty issue? Answer: when we allow government to tax incomes and then tax people who are married differently from those who are not, it is natural that government must define “marriage”. And because of the very nature of Leviathan, government policymaking tends to set the standard for everyone's behavior on the subject.

When we allow government to tax a person's estate at their death and exempt his spouse, we must allow government to usurp the person's authority to say who his spouse and heirs are.

The liberty-oriented solution is simple: get government out of the business of defining who is “married” and who is a “spouse”. All taxes must be levied without regard to those two considerations. The easiest way to do this is to abolish the income and death tax and to adopt the Fair Tax.

This puts marriage back in its original sphere: God defined marriage, and God recognizes marriage to such an extent that it is a directly named factor in two of the Ten Commandments. The State, and especially the Leviathan parasitic State we presently have, is a secular invention that came way after marriage. People can get married without the permission, regulation, or even the presence of a State. Get the State out of Marriage to put the State in its place on the issue of taxes and personal liberty.

[Timeout]

Ooops, it’s been so long since the GOP primary that I’d forgotten Romney has horns and a tail and always carries a pitchfork!

Thank goodness we have scrupulous posters like you to keep us all out of his clutches. I mean, your arguments are soooooo persuasive (especially when you use the RED text!)~~LOL!