Posted on 11/21/2009 5:12:09 AM PST by markomalley
More than 150 leaders across a spectrum of conservative Christianity on Friday released a 4,700-word document vowing civil disobedience if they are forced to take part in "anti-life acts" or bless gay marriages.
Called the "Manhattan Declaration," the six-page, single-spaced document was drafted by Prison Fellowship founder Charles Colson, an evangelical, and Princeton University professor Robert P. George, a Roman Catholic, and included a bevy of Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox bishops, archbishops and cardinals as signatories along with dozens of clergy and laity.
Archbishop of Washington Donald W. Wuerl is one of the signatories.
"Throughout the centuries, Christianity has taught that civil disobedience is not only permitted, but sometimes required," says the document which cited civil rights icon Martin Luther King and his willingness to go to jail for his beliefs.
"Because we honor justice and the common good," it states, "we will not comply with any edict that purports to compel our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide or euthanasia or any other anti-life act; nor will we bend to any rule purporting to force us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriages or the equivalent, or refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we know it, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family."
When pressed to say what sorts of civil disobedience the writers were proposing, its originators were vague on the details at Friday's news conference during which the document was released.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Untrue. He did nothing to stop it, but he did not impose it.
You’re simply wrong.
The argument is often advanced, that as governor, Mitt Romney in ordering Justices of the Peace to perform “same sex marriages” or be fired and ordering his Department of Health to change the marriage certificates from “husband” and “wife” to “partner A” and “partner B,” was merely “enforcing the law” and doing what “law and order” conservatives are supposed to do.
Unfortunately this argument is bogus. And here is why. Only the legislature has the constitutional authority to make law. The judiciary has the power to interpret the laws on an individual case basis but has NO CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY TO MAKE LAWS. Here is what the Massachusetts Constitution says:
“All causes of marriage…shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision.” (PART THE SECOND, Ch. III, Article V.)
When then Governor Romney declared after the Goodridge ruling (that was inaccurately said to “legalize same sex marriage”) that he had “no other choice but to enforce the law,” Romney violated his sworn oath to uphold the Massachusetts Constitution authored by John Adams by claiming that the court’s opinion was “law” and was “binding.”
As the following “Joint Letter to Governor Mitt Romney from Pro-Family Leaders” which was hand-delivered to the Governor’s staff on Dec. 20, 2006 shows, by issuing “homosexual marriage” licenses, Romney violated his sworn oath to enforce the state laws of the Commonwealth. The original marriage statute (Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 207) never allowed for “same sex marriage” as even the court acknowledged in their majority opinion in Goodridge. And I quote from the Joint Letter to Romney from the Pro-Family leaders:
We note that even the Goodridge majority said they were not suspending the marriage statute:
“Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief.”
In fact, they admitted that under the statute, Chapter 207 of the Massachusetts General Laws, homosexual marriage is illegal: “We conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.”
Thus, the only way that “gay marriage” could have become “legal” would have been if the Massachusetts legislature actually repealed or amended the existing marriage statute 207. They were “ordered” to do so within 180 days (which in and of itself was unconstitutional) but took no action. Therefore, the existing marriage statute 207 which never allowed for “same sex marriage” remained in effect (and still does to this day).
As governor, Romney had the constitutional obligation to enforce the current laws of the state. And the current law didn’t (and still doesn’t) allow for “same sex marriages.”
But Romney had already made promises to the Log Cabin Republicans when running for Governor in 2002 that, as reported recently by the NY Times, that he would not lead a campaign against gay marriage.
Calling Mr. Romney a flip-flopper on gay rights would be overly simplistic, Mr. Spampinato said. But he conceded that his old boss had promised the Log Cabin members that he would not champion a fight against same-sex marriage.
So, instead of enforcing the current laws as was his sworn constitutional duty as chief executive, Romney actually subverted the law and violated his oath by forcing Justices of the Peace and other public officials to marry same sex couples or be fired even though doing so was a clear violation of current Massachusetts law. He then went even further and ordered his Department of Health to change the marriage certificates from “husband” and “wife” to “partner A” and “partner B” even though there was no law requiring him to do so.
Candidate Romney is running around the country campaigning as the “family values” candidate and talks about how he favors a “federal marriage amendment” to protect the sanctity of marriage. The truth is that as governor, Romney not only called a similar state marriage amendment that would have defined marriage as between “one man and one woman,” and I quote, “too extreme” but he went out of his way to actually facilitate same sex marriage behind the scenes by abdicating his constitutionally sworn duty to enforce the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Since the legislature never amended any marriage law to allow for same sex marriage, Mitt Romney engaged in executive tyranny by usurping the legislative authority and by his own actions imposing homosexual marriage on the citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Mitt Romney made a few public appearances proclaiming his support for traditional marriage as he was leaving office to campaign for president, but the truth is that if Mitt Romney had not forced the Justices of the Peace to perform those same sex marriage ceremonies there would be no “same sex marriage” in Massachusetts. Mitt Romney was not just “enforcing the laws” as he and the other Romniacs claim. Romney was breaking them and the voters who he is daily deceiving (with the aid of his obsequious “conservative” cheerleaders in the media -Hannity, Hewitt, Seculow et al) deserve to know the truth.
Which came first? The judicial interference or Romney’s acceptance?
"Same-sex marriage in the U.S. state of Massachusetts began on May 17, 2004, as a result of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that it was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts constitution to allow only heterosexual couples to marry... The court gave the Massachusetts Legislature 180 days in which to "take such action as it may deem appropriate" following its November 18, 2003 ruling. Gov. Mitt Romney ordered town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses on May 17, 2004."
Read the article I just posted. It contains the facts of the matter. The letter linked therein fills in any other possible gaps.
Romney used the power of his office to impose gay marriage. Period.
Your post reinforces my point.
One thing I asked in a paper I wrote on legalizing gay marriage was what’s going to happen to a church that refuses to wed them or speaks out against it.
Pretty much, the answer from supporters was that they either didn’t care what happened, believed they would deserve whatever happened to them, or hoped they would be punished.
“Interesting response! Care to expound further?”
He’s an ally of the other side, but if we win will suddenly claim to be a leader in the Resistance. Not to be trusted.
Courts don’t make laws, and they can’t tell the legislative branch they must make laws.
And the Executive is bound by his constitutional oath made before God and nothing else.
Romney was fulfilling his promises to the Log Cabin Republicans, and he and his enablers have been spinning it ever since.
To the great detriment of our entire form of government and to the understanding of the people.
If the government confiscates my business and empty bank accounts, will they fix the leaking roof and feed me while I’m in jail? It just might be worth it.
Thank you, I share your sentiments; I even found it peculiar that there are so many messagethreads about the Manhattan Declaration that had few or no keywords that would bring them all up as one batch, so that via TITLE and KEYWORD searches - and a bit of my free time, for all the messagethreads that I was finally able to locate, I added 'manhattandeclaration' and 'chuckcolson' for keywords -- if they weren't already among the keywords.
I hadn't heard anything about this in the news, so was surprised that even the NY Times has an article about it - & of course, there's LOTS of threads here at FR, but I'd missed the earlier ones.
I read elsewhere that Christy garnered 38% of the Jewish vote. That's a good beginning. They can't steal an election unless the vote is close. Remember that, all you idealogues who stayed home last Novemeber because they saw no difference between the Parties.
We haven’t even begun to bring out the incredible extent to which Romney, his associates, and their money, are deeply embedded into the NRTL, Family Research Council, et al universes. There are only so many hours in a day...
Thank you. You are so correct. WE can thank “third party” voters for socialized health care. They teamed up with RATS to destroy this country. They’re idiots.
He’s going to do his best to be a threat in the 2012 election.
You’re welcome! I’m a huge fan of Chuck Colson and Robbie George.
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.