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

To: Ticonderoga34

Interesting video but it seems to be erroneous in parts regarding gay marriage. At least if this time line is correct:

http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/timeline.html

There was in fact a court ruling that same-sex marriage is protected in the Mass. Constitution. It appears Romney did resist complying although he does seem to be OK with civil unions. Right or wrong, there are many conservatives that support that view. Even Limbaugh is open to that option. Either way, it doesn’t make Romney a liberal.

As for his views on abortion, his position is probably not relevant. Even presidents that claim the pro-life banner don’t do much about it. The main factor that would effect that would be nominating Conservative originalists to the court which Romney would do more then likely. The country is moving towards a more pro-life position so there has been major progress on that battle.


29 posted on 06/21/2010 8:13:14 PM PDT by driveinsummer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]


To: driveinsummer
The main factor that would effect that would be nominating Conservative originalists to the court which Romney would do more then likely.

Only 25% of Governor Romney's appointed judges were republicans.

31 posted on 06/21/2010 8:17:03 PM PDT by ansel12 (Mitt: "I was an independent during the time of Reagan-Bush. I'm not trying to return to Reagan-Bush")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies ]

To: driveinsummer
Romney usurped the Mass Constitution (America's oldest) because he is a fascist and could.

Romney destroyed a Constitution before Obama. Romney IS the preObama (which is why he attacked Gov. Palin through surrogates)

"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."

35 posted on 06/22/2010 3:44:17 AM PDT by Diogenesis (Article IV - Section 4 - The United States shall protect each of them against Invasion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | 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