Is Mitt Romney The Father of Gay Marriage? Twenty-Four Reasons Why He Is (July 25, 2011)

www.RomneyExposed.com ^ | July 25, 2011 | Rino Hunter

[SoConPubbie]

As Mitt Romney prepares for his second presidential campaign and gay marriage threatens to undermine America’s Judeo-Christian culture, there’s a raging debate about the role he played in instituting gay marriage in Massachusetts during his gubernatorial term. This is important because Governor Romney has positioned himself as a champion of traditional values and claims to have been an opponent of homosexual marriage his entire career.

When the Massachusetts Supreme Court issued a decision in favor of homosexual marriage, — the Goodridge case — Romney unilaterally ordered his state agencies to implement homosexual marriage in Massachusetts. The court did not order him to do this nor had the legislature codified this ruling. Combined with a promise by President Obama to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, this action by Romney has led significantly contributed to the spread of homosexual marriage nationwide.

Make no mistake; Romney’s action was utterly illegal. In four different parts of the Massachusetts Constitution, it is clearly stated that only the legislature can change laws and one section specifically states that the marriage statutes are determined by the legislature, not by the courts. Even the Supreme Court itself stated that it could not order the legislature to act. All Romney had to do was to declare the court had no authority to enforce its unconstitutional opinion and ignore its decision.

But instead of doing that, Romney abruptly claimed the court opinion was now the law of the land and ordered his Town Clerks and Justices of the Peace to marry homosexuals — even though the legislature never acted to codify the ruling. Indeed, according to a Fox News/AP story, the attorney for the homosexual plaintiffs in Goodridge, held the view that the legislature would have to codify the Goodridge ruling:

[SoConPubbie]

[sand lake bar]

Here’s what Wiki says; quite a bit of a different picture.

At the beginning of his governorship, Romney opposed same-sex marriage and civil unions, but advocated tolerance and supported some domestic partnership benefits.[143][151][152]

Faced with the dilemma of choosing between same-sex marriage or civil unions after the November 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision legalizing same-sex marriages (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health), Romney reluctantly backed a state constitutional amendment in February 2004 that would have banned same-sex marriage but still allow civil unions, viewing it as the only feasible way to ban same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.[153]

In May 2004, Romney instructed town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but citing a 1913 law that barred out-of-state residents from getting married in Massachusetts if their union would be illegal in their home state, no marriage licenses were to be issued to out-of-state same-sex couples not planning to move to Massachusetts.[151][154]

In June 2005, Romney abandoned his support for the compromise amendment, stating that the amendment confused voters who oppose both same-sex marriage and civil unions.[151]

Instead, Romney endorsed a petition effort led by the Coalition for Marriage & Family that would have banned same-sex marriage and made no provisions for civil unions.[151] In 2004 and 2006, he urged the U.S. Senate to vote in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment.[155][156]

[sand lake bar]

Here’s what Wiki says; quite a bit of a different picture.

At the beginning of his governorship, Romney opposed same-sex marriage and civil unions, but advocated tolerance and supported some domestic partnership benefits.[143][151][152]

Faced with the dilemma of choosing between same-sex marriage or civil unions after the November 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision legalizing same-sex marriages (Goodridge v. Department of Public Health), Romney reluctantly backed a state constitutional amendment in February 2004 that would have banned same-sex marriage but still allow civil unions, viewing it as the only feasible way to ban same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.[153]

In May 2004, Romney instructed town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but citing a 1913 law that barred out-of-state residents from getting married in Massachusetts if their union would be illegal in their home state, no marriage licenses were to be issued to out-of-state same-sex couples not planning to move to Massachusetts.[151][154]

In June 2005, Romney abandoned his support for the compromise amendment, stating that the amendment confused voters who oppose both same-sex marriage and civil unions.[151]

Instead, Romney endorsed a petition effort led by the Coalition for Marriage & Family that would have banned same-sex marriage and made no provisions for civil unions.[151] In 2004 and 2006, he urged the U.S. Senate to vote in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment.[155][156]

[Goreknowshowtocheat]

Thanks for exposing Romney. I am voting for Obama.

[SoConPubbie]

Here’s what Wiki says; quite a bit of a different picture.

Yeah, who would have thought that left-leaning site like Wiki would have left out so many details that conclusively prove that Romney IS the Father of Gay Marriage and purposefully skewed the picture in favor of Romney:

Here's the timeline will all of the details that your article left out and provides damning evidence of the perfidy of Mitt Romney, his penchant for saying the conservative thing, while doing his best to implement the left-wing solution:

[NOTE: This timeline is greatly expanded in Amy Contrada's book Mitt Romney's Deception, published in July 2011. See detail here and video preview here.]

I. Mitt Romney demonstrates his commitment to homosexual "rights" before becoming Governor of Massachusetts in January 2003:

1994 Campaign vs. Ted Kennedy for U.S. Senate: Romney pledged he “will provide more effective leadership” than Kennedy on homosexual rights; endorsed by Log Cabin Republicans.

2000-2002: As head of Salt Lake City Olympic Committee, Romney banned Boy Scouts from participating.

2001 Called first citizens' petition to define marriage “too extreme” and “bigoted” because it banned civil unions.

2002 Campaign for Governor: Romney makes promises to GLBT community, according to leading Boston homosexual newspaper; endorsed by homosexual activist Log Cabin Republicans.

II. Nov. 18, 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) rules that same-sex marriage is protected in the Mass. Constitution, and gives the Legislature 180 days to act (“Goodridge” ruling).

Nov. 18, 2003 Romney responds to SJC ruling with four-sentence statement implicitly recognizing SJC’s authority, says only remedy will be a constitutional amendment: “I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to make that expressly clear. Of course, we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman.”

Nov.-Dec. 2003 Romney reportedly working with Legislators promoting “civil unions”.

Jan. 2004 Romney silent on proposal to remove four SJC justices through Bill of Address (put forward by Article 8 Alliance / MassResistance).

Feb. 4, 2004 SJC tells Legislature that civil unions for same-sex couples will not satisfy its interpretation of the Mass. Constitution; only full-fledged marriage will do.

Feb. 5, 2004 Romney publishes editorial in Wall Street Journal laying all blame on the SJC for problem in Massachusetts. Suggests other states strengthen marriage statutes and pass constitutional amendments. Says don’t “attack … gays, singles or non-traditional couples.”

Feb. 2004 Justices of the Peace are told by their professional association they will be able to claim “conscientious objector” status and refuse to perform same-sex marriages -- though this was never agreed to by Romney administration.

Feb.-May 2004 Pro-family leaders and columnists urge Romney to defy court, and issue Executive Order to block same-sex marriage; no public comment from Romney.

March 12, 2004 As Legislature postures on constitutional amendments, Romney continues to say amendment to Mass. Constitution is solution.

March 26, 2004 Word leaks out that Romney’s Dept. of Public Health (DPH) and attorneys are planning training sessions for Town Clerks and preparing same-sex marriage licenses.

March 29, 2004 Romney tells Republicans in Mass. legislature to vote for Travaglini-Lees “compromise amendment” which would ban same-sex marriage but establish civil unions (and would not go to voters before Nov. 2006). Republican legislators had earlier opposed this amendment because of the civil unions clause, and it passed only due to their changed votes.

March 29-31, 2004 Romney seeks stay of SJC ruling until constitutional amendment issue is settled, but Atty. General Reilly refuses to take Governor’s case before SJC. [Did Romney believe that same court that issued Goodridge ruling would seriously consider his request for a stay?]

March 30, 2004 Romney says he’ll “abide by the law of the land as it exists on May 17” and says he would not order town clerks to defy court edict. Romney says he’d not explored the Constitution section giving him power over “causes of marriage” and whether it gives him any legal power to stop same-sex marriage (according to spokesman).

April 12, 2004 Romney spokesman says training sessions for town clerks will begin “with plenty of room to spare before May 17.” Ron Crews of Mass. Coalition for Marriage states hope for an Executive Order to halt the marriages.

April 15, 2004 Romney files emergency bill in Legislature to seek stay of SJC ruling, and is rebuffed and reprimanded by Senate President Travaglini.

April 15, 2004 Romney’s DPH Registrar of Vital Records informs town clerks by letter of training sessions before SJC ruling becomes effective.

April 16, 2004 Romney announces his administration is scheduling training sessions for May 5-12 with licenses changed from “husband/wife” to “Party A/Party B”.

April 17, 2004 Mass. Dept. of Revenue (under Romney) declares SJC ruling the new “law”.

April 22, 2004 Romney does not comment on Rep. Goguen's filing of Bill of Address for Article 8 Alliance/MassResistance to remove the 4 SJC judges, or Article 8’s revelation of Chief Justice Marshall’s violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. (Marshall had appeared as keynote speaker at homosexual advocacy group dinner in 1999 advocated extension of “rights” for homosexuals, and failed to recuse herself from ruling on same-sex marriage though she had publicly expressed her bias.)

April 26, 2004 Romney’s chief Legal Counsel, Daniel Winslow, issues directive to Justices of the Peace to resign (or be fired, fined, or sued) if they are unwilling to perform same-sex marriages (exact date not given on document).

April 29, 2004 Romney writes to 49 other Governors to inform them he’ll uphold section of Mass. marriage statutes banning same-sex marriages for out-of-state couples.

May 5-12, 2004 Town clerk training sessions held. [GLAD – Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders -- is only source on content of sessions; perhaps they were responsible for content?]

May 15, 2004 Romney issues proclamation: May 15 is “Gay/Straight Youth Pride Day”. Romney’s “Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth” events include parade, GLBT activism (with prominent transsexual radical activists), and a GLBT prom – two days before same-sex marriages are to begin.

May 17, 2004 Same-sex marriages begin across Massachusetts. Romney issues brief statement: “All along, I have said an issue as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage should be decided by the people. Until then, I intend to follow the law and expect others to do the same.” [What law? Original marriage statutes clearly defining marriage as between a man and a woman were –and are -- still on the books, unchanged by the Legislature. So Romney is not enforcing the actual law—just a court opinion.]

May 18, 2004 Romney begins enforcement of section of marriage statute banning out-of-state couples marrying in Mass. if that marriage would be illegal in their home state, while other intact sections of the marriage statute (“man” and “woman”) are ignored.

June 22, 2004 Romney testifies before US Senate Judiciary Committee for federal marriage amendment and blames Court for situation in Massachusetts.

Oct. 29, 2004 Romney signs new law eliminating blood test for STDs as requirement for marriage license (Ch. 388 of Acts of 2004). [Note: this is the only part of marriage statutes changed to satisfy demands of same-sex marriage]

Dec. 2004 Romney has no comment on bills filed by Article 8 Alliance / MassResistance for 2005-6 session: to remove four SJC judges; strengthen definition of marriage in statute; and declare same-sex marriages since May 17, 2004 null/void and without statutory basis.

Feb. 21, 2005 Romney makes speech before South Carolina Republicans, then is accused of “flip-flopping” on civil unions by homosexual lobby. Romney also negatively refers to demands by the homosexual activists that birth certificates be changed to read “Parent A/Parent B” (instead of “father/mother”), arguing he had no authority to make such a change [though he had no such qualms about changing the marriage license].

June 16, 2005 Romney joins VoteOnMarriage (VOM) amendment effort, which would recognize same-sex marriages prior to amendment taking effect, and not ban civil unions. (Romney says VOM is superior to the Travaglini-Lees compromise amendment.) Romney also announces support of VOM’s proposed bill promoting partnership benefits for any couple wanting them (see “Benefits Fairness Act” filed Jan. 2006). Romney says he’s opposed to removing the four SJC judges. Calls for a “high degree of respect and tolerance for people whose lifestyle and choices and orientation is as they may choose.”

July 22, 2005 Romney says only Legislature can change birth certificates from “father/mother” to “Parent A/Parent B”.

Sept. 14, 2005 Travaglini-Lees compromise amendment defeated in Legislature.

Nov. 2005 Romney tells Federalist Society that judiciary must be grounded in Constitution and law and precedents, and only the Legislature and people can change that base.

Jan. 2, 2006 Boston Globe reports Romney issued special Governor’s ceremonial marriage licenses to 189 same-sex couples in 2005 (including to homosexual activist state senator), claiming he did not refuse because he was evenly applying the “statute”. [Note: There is no new statute establishing same-sex marriage.]

Jan. 11, 2006 Romney files “Benefits Fairness Act” with VoteOnMarriage, which is roundly criticized by GLBT lobby, and shelved in Committee as late-filed bill.

March 10-14, 2006 Romney says laws require Catholic Charities not to discriminate against same-sex parents in its adoption placements [but there’s only an administrative regulation]. He says same-sex couples have "a legitimate interest" in adopting children.

June 2, 2006 Romney sends letter to US Congress arguing for federal marriage amendment.

June 28, 2006 Romney urges Legislature to vote on VOM amendment, and addresses importance of following Constitution.

Sept. 30, 2006 Romney says he has to “follow the law,” and accept Mass. Superior Court ruling stating Rhode Island lesbian couple can marry in Massachusetts (following an earlier SJC ruling addressing Rhode Island’s lack of prohibition of same-sex marriage).

Oct. 15, 2006 Romney addresses nationally broadcast “Liberty Sunday” (Family Research Council) event in Boston. Blames SJC for Mass. problems, says we need an outpouring of respect and tolerance for all people regardless of different choices they make, and as a nation we must reject discrimination and bigotry. Calls for support of federal marriage amendment.

Nov. 19, 2006 Romney holds rally on State House steps announcing he’s delivering a copy of the Constitution to every Legislator who voted to recess the Constitutional Convention (to avoid the vote on the VOM amendment required by state Constitution). Romney also announces he’s appealing to the courts. [But he says nothing about the SJC precedent of Dec. 20, 2002, ruling that the Legislature must vote in this situation, which already affirms that he should call Legislators back.]

©2006 MassResistance (11-23-06)

[BlatherNaut]

The gays shopped around for a state from which to launch the “gay marriage” campaign and settled on MA. They knew that the leftist hacks on the Supreme Court (such as Margaret Marshall, South African-born liberal married to NYT columnist Anthony Lewis) would find “gay marriage” constitutional.

Romney opposed it. A pair of lesbians (since “divorced”, I believe) met with him at his office and asked him what they could tell “their daughter” about why they couldn’t legally get married, and he said something like, “Tell her what you’ve been telling her already for the past X years”). He went before the legislature at the con con and opposed “gay marriage”.

Unfortunately, MA is a one-party state. The Court and legislature were in the pocket of the gays. Gay marriage was a done deal. Should Romney have opposed the SC? If The USCC throws out Obamacare and Obama flouts their decision, people would have a problem with that. It cuts both ways.

Could Romney have been more forceful in his opposition to “gay marriage”, even though it was going to happen in MA, no matter what he did or didn’t do (short of ignoring the SC)? For sure. It was disappointing.

[sand lake bar]

Wiki makes more sense.

[jonno]

The first one I looked at:
2000-2002: As head of Salt Lake City Olympic Committee, Romney banned Boy Scouts from participating.

I quickly found a number of articles with plausible explanations - first one (basically you gotta be 18 yrs old to volunteer at the Olympics - and the original sources backed down from the allegation):
http://evangelicalsformitt.org/2006/12/sekulow-addresses-false-boy-scout-allegation/

Your list has too many holes. Instead of just posting allegations, come up with some citations.

Without citations, you're critiques are worthless. You can't just pound your chest and scream that [my] source is worthless. When you do that you sound like a lib...

[TheOldLady]

Click any Horse

Wild Horses Couldn’t Drag You Away From Free Republic
So Why Not Donate Monthly to Keep Things Going Strong?

Sponsors will pony up $10 each time a new monthly donor signs up

[af_vet_rr]

Here’s what Wiki says; quite a bit of a different picture.

I'd bet money that all of the candidates have some staffer watching Wikipedia like a hawk and making sure that their views of themselves are the "proper" ones.

[SoConPubbie]

The first one I looked at: 2000-2002: As head of Salt Lake City Olympic Committee, Romney banned Boy Scouts from participating.

I quickly found a number of articles with plausible explanations - first one (basically you gotta be 18 yrs old to volunteer at the Olympics - and the original sources backed down from the allegation): http://evangelicalsformitt.org/2006/12/sekulow-addresses-false-boy-scout-allegation/

Your list has too many holes. Instead of just posting allegations, come up with some citations.

Well, like most lies Romney tells, he shades the truth in half-truths, A.K.A. lies.

Since your search must have been cursory, since all you found was the standard line provided by the Romney folks, let me point you to an article where the auther actually did some credible research.

NewsMax: Monday, Dec. 18, 2000 | David M. Bresnahan

Exclusive: 2002 Salt Lake Committee Bans Boy Scouts From Olympics (Romney was CEO of Olympics)

"Our state has a strong volunteer heritage that has endured – like the Olympic Spirit – for generations," said Romney in a published appeal for volunteers.

"The 2002 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games will provide a chance for thousands of Utahns to participate through volunteering. And it is only through volunteer support that we can succeed in 2002."

Although Romney would not respond to repeated requests for an interview, Olympic Committee spokeswoman Caroline Shaw did call to deny that the Scouts have been turned away because of the gay controversy.

"The reality is we would love to take those volunteers, but we have an age requirement of our volunteers. I believe it’s 18," Shaw said in a phone interview.

She said Scouts and their adult leaders were welcome to apply as volunteers individually on their own, as long as they don’t apply as a group representing the Boy Scouts.

They also may not work as a volunteer if they wear a Scout uniform, she said.

NewsMax.com learned that the claim of age is not quite accurate. There are children under 18 who will be a part of the Olympic ceremonies, but Olympic officials do not consider them to be volunteers. Instead they are called "cast members."

"You know, they can certainly go on line and apply. That’s the one area where we are looking for younger adults and children to participate, and they can submit requests through going online to be cast members and so forth," Shaw said in a phone interview.

Once again, the standard lie/excuse provided by Romney, and his supporters is proven untrue.

So, care to provide any other inaccuracies or "holes" in my list, or are you just going to continue to ignore the evidence and continue to pimp that lying, left-wing, Progressive Liberal Mitt Romney

[SoConPubbie]

Could Romney have been more forceful in his opposition to “gay marriage”, even though it was going to happen in MA, no matter what he did or didn’t do (short of ignoring the SC)? For sure. It was disappointing.

That is where you are wrong.

The deadline opposed by the Supreme Court was unconstitutional and illegal as did an end-run around the MA Constitution that required the Legislation to create all laws concerning Marriage.

Mitt knew this, he was reminded of this fact publicly by many conservative groups.

Mitt was obligated legally to refuse to comply with the "law" created by the Supreme Court. He did not.

So he lied and pretended about his opposition to gay marriage and refused to do what he knew was the right thing, call for the legislature to act on the issue, refuse to break the law of the constitution of MA, and call for the ouster of the MA supreme court justices that were breaking the law.

[SoConPubbie]

Wiki makes more sense.

Oh that is rich, accept the "opinion" of a left-wing website over a listing of HISTORICAL FACTS concerning the events that happened.

But since you are supporting a man whose record is one of left-wing, Progressive Liberal activism, I can see why you would compromise any conservative principles you have to believe the "story" that supports your bad choice of a candidate.

[BlatherNaut]

call for the legislature to act on the issue

Romney aside, NO WAY the MA legislature had the numbers to oppose gay marriage, so if they "acted on the issue" the result would be the same, (or maybe worse). Don't forget, this issue was popping up everywhere, and "civil unions" had already passed in VT. A constitutional amendment wasn't going to happen in MA. Might as well spit into the wind. The con con was televised, and the corrupt, puerile, self-serving, manipulative, egotistical fools that represent the people of MA were on full display. It was painful and disgusting to watch their moronic "debate".

It would have been great theater if Romney had led a march and chained himself to the state house door, but at the end of the day, MA would still be the "gay state", because in MA, the legislature rules.

[jonno]

Did you happen to notice that the same NewsMax article you cite is refuted by the link that I gave you:
http://evangelicalsformitt.org/2006/12/sekulow-addresses-false-boy-scout-allegation/

Personally, I would never rely on NewsMax (only) as a source. They are entertaining at times, but have proven over and over to be sensationalist - even Unreliable.

Such is the case here...

[LoneRangerMassachusetts]

So you are getting yourself all worked up posting an article by a blogger who only uses a pseudonym to identify himself. Come November who do you vote for Obama? Obviously Romney is too distasteful for you. Maybe you won't vote thereby not negating another liberal.

I watched this unfold closeup. The blog makes it seem that Romney is out promoting homosexuals. The reality is that he bent to political pressures in Massachusetts. It would be fair to say he doesn't lay his life on the line for conservative causes. It's disingenuous to say he is promoting perversion. Romney is more of a situational leader and goes with the flow. So go beat up on him. Do Obama's job to weaken Romney. Be a good boy for the left. In other words be a useful idiot.

[SoConPubbie]

So you are getting yourself all worked up posting an article by a blogger who only uses a pseudonym to identify himself. Come November who do you vote for Obama? Obviously Romney is too distasteful for you. Maybe you won't vote thereby not negating another liberal.

Boring!

It would seem that the Romney pimps, such as yourself, having only two bullets in their Gun:

1. One labeled "Who are you going to vote for, Obama?"
2. And another one labelerd "At least Romney's not as bad as Obama"?



Otherwise, you have no ammunitition.

There is nothing in Romney's record that recommends him to conservatives and his lying, left-wing Progressive Liberal record is going to be used by Obama and the Media as a club upside his head 24/7 until election day to turn his candidacy into a bloody pulp and put his poll numbers in the toilet.

The only thing inevitable about Mitt Romney is that he guarantees the re-election of Obama.

[SoConPubbie]

http://evangelicalsformitt.org/2006/12/sekulow-addresses-false-boy-scout-allegation/

Personally, I would never rely on NewsMax (only) as a source. They are entertaining at times, but have proven over and over to be sensationalist - even Unreliable.

Oh, were you referring to this group:

Personally, I would never rely on evangelicalsformitt at all as a serious source. They seem to be tightly connected to the Romney camp and certainly cannot be portrayed as objective in this matter:

Though David and Nancy French deny it, campaign finance experts say the couple’s group looks like a thinly disguised extension of the Romney campaign. “They appear to be able to spend lots of money, but won’t say where it comes from,” says Fred Wertheimer, founder and President of Democracy 21. “It is circumstantial evidence, but it suggests this is a shell group for a Romney operation.”

Indeed, what is perhaps most interesting about Evangelicals for Mitt is how apparent its links to Romney Central are. Nancy French worked for Romney’s 2008 campaign and partnered with Romney’s wife, Ann, on an unpublished book. The couple also served as steering committee vice chairs on Romney’s 2008 National Faith and Values Steering Committee.

The Frenchs are also quietly linked to two wealthy Romney donors in Massachusetts, John Kingston and Kurt Keilhacker, and all four have close ties to Romney’s campaign funding organization through a web of companies and nonprofits. Among other things, the four operate a Christian nonprofit organization that raises money out of a building in Beverly, Mass., at 138 Conant Street. The company that handles the Romney campaign’s finances shares that same address.

[SoConPubbie]

It would have been great theater if Romney had led a march and chained himself to the state house door, but at the end of the day, MA would still be the "gay state", because in MA, the legislature rules.

Not really the point, is it.

It was Romney's legal DUTY to refuse to go along with the MA Supreme Court's illegal and unconstitional ruling.

It was a convenient and cowardly escape route for Romney to support the Gay Agenda as he had already stated he would do during his campaign for Governor and his promises to the Log Cabin Republicans (Gay Group).