Posted on 09/12/2012 8:56:15 AM PDT by scottjewell
... Romney sat stone-faced and almost entirely silent.
“Is there anything else?” Romney asked when they finished. With that, the meeting was over.
“It was like talking to a robot. No expression, no feeling,” recalls David Wilson, one of the plaintiffs in the case who met with Romney that day. “People were sharing touching stories, stories where you’d expect recognition in the other person’s face that they at least hear what you’re saying — that there’s empathy. He didn’t even shake his head. He was completely blank.”
Occasionally Romney would say something.
“I didn’t know you had families,” remarked Romney to the group, according to Wilson.
The offhanded remark underscored that Romney, the governor of the first state prepared to grant same-sex marriage, hadn’t taken the time to look at what the landmark case was really about. By this point the plaintiff’s stories had been widely covered by national media — in particular, Julie Goodridge’s heartrending tale of how her then-partner, Hillary, was denied hospital visitation following the precarious birth of daughter Annie. It was the ignorance of these facts — and Romney’s inaccurate, insensitive answer to her parting question, that pushed Julie Goodridge to her breaking point.
“I looked him in the eye as we were leaving,” recalls Goodridge. “And I said, ‘Governor Romney, tell me — what would you suggest I say to my 8 year-old daughter about why her mommy and her ma can’t get married because you, the governor of her state, are going to block our marriage?’”
His response, according to Goodridge: “I don’t really care what you tell your adopted daughter. Why don’t you just tell her the same thing you’ve been telling her the last eight years.”
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Given the current political climate, this entire story may be fabricated.
We know Romney was pro-gay as governor. We know, as nominee, he has been trying not to offend gays. Now we’re supposed to believe he was Mr. tough-unsympathetic-guy?
It’s more likely this story is out there as bait to get Romney entangled into a gay-rights story (and take the focus off the economy...again).
If Romney responds it isn’t true, then he comes across as trying to appease gay-rights supporters (and damages his support with the base). If Romney confirms the story, he comes across as cold and unsympathetic (damaging him with independents).
This is liberal bait. Best just stay away from it.
It’s the economy stupid. Stay on target.
I think I’ll stick with ‘MR. TOUGH’, Barack Hussein Obama. /SARCASM LOL!
“Can we get a REAL Republican nominee for President, please?”
Too late for that type of thinking. What are your thoughts on defeating Obama?
Yes, and that is a point very strongly in Romney’s favor.
Yes, much too late. We must support one of the false sets of leftist choices shoved down our throats by the establishment or risk the criticisms of the internet partybot enforcers.
ROLFMAO.
I hope that freepers understand that this is liberal media trying to paint Romney as unfeeling. Please bring out your smallest violin available.
Every time Romney makes a major score against Obama, some article that designed to annoy conservatives is published.
Anyone here on FR knows of this stuff. Knows that romney has issues on this issue. That said, it is clear regardless that romney is better than obama.
I don’t see Romney hesitating or APOLOGIZING when a US Ambasador is murdered and his body dragged through the streets. I don’t see Romney hesitating when our embassies sovereign soil is violated. (or taking two days to send in the marines)
I do see the MSM having a hissy fit and trying to distract. This Boston glob article is just that, a distraction.
There is only ONE reason, compelling or otherwise, to vote for Romney.
He isn’t Obama.
That’s it.
And, I’m going to.
All pro-homosexual newspaper stories follow the same formula. Start with an anecdote, create emotion, argue “its for the children”, give some insane statistic.
BTW the advertisements fort homosexual tv show call “the new normal” never mentions it is about homosexuals. Advertising via deception.
So Willard tells a birthmother that she only adopted her own flesh and blood...
Well hes made up for that nasty crack since then..
Hes all for gays adopting...
Hes all for gays having what he calls “loving relationshios”
and hes still the father of gay marriage...
Whatever the spin on his meetinbg, he went out and made an EO legalizing gay marriage in MASS...
and called for gays to serve openly in the military...
Actually NO -it is everything comprising our founding principles. A one trick pony can not be a leader -case in point recent events in Libya & Egypt. The focus is now on international policy...
Principled leadership requires principles that are non negotiable, promoted and defended ALL OF THE TIME.
Romney is as pro-homosexual as they come, he recently restated his support for homosexual scout leaders. Mitt was for homosexualizing the military long before many liberal leaders.
QUOTE: “If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.”
“One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share.”
Any public official (elected or beaurcratic) that tries to solve everyone’s problems after hearing their heartfelt plea is a fool. Immediate reactive solutions may apease the complainer but usually cause unforeseen problems somewhere down the road.
Sounds like a bunch of whiny homosexual professional victims looking to provoke some sort of negative response from romney. Romney’s lack of a response must have driven them nuts. I would has done the same thing if I was in his shoes. You can’t reason with irrational people.
I agree. I think his response was perfect, and I hope he will get back to acting like that if he is elected.
"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.)In hearing the Goodridge case and issuing an opinion, four of the seven judges violated the Supreme Law of Massachusetts. Massachusetts courts have admitted, on other occasions, that neither they nor legislators, nor the governor are authorized to violate the Constitution:
[The words of the Constitution] are mandatory and not simply directory. They are highly important. There must be compliance with them.h (Town of Mount Washington v. Cook 288 Mass. 67)Nevertheless, after these judges issued an illegal opinion, you told the citizens of Massachusetts and all of America that you had no choice but to "execute the law." Oddly, you were not referring to a law, but to the judgesf opinion.
"[T]he people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent." (PART THE FIRST, Article X.)The Constitution also disproves your assertion to the nation that the marriage statute (M.G.L. Chapter 207) was somehow suspended or nullified by the four judges:
"The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for." (PART THE FIRST, Article XX.)In light of both your actions and your explanations, it comes as a great surprise to many of us to learn that, under the Massachusetts Constitution, judges cannot suspend or alter statutes. This principle is clearly fundamental to Massachusetts' system of government and is restated in multiple ways.
"The judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men." (PART THE FIRST, Article XXX.)We note that the Massachusetts Constitution so completely protects citizens from the rule of judges that even laws passed in the Colonial period before the Constitution itself was ratified cannot be suspended by judges:
"All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used and approved c shall still remain and be in full force, until altered or repealed by the legislaturec" (PART THE SECOND, Article VI.)We note, Governor, that in all of your justifications to the nation, there was no mention of these parts of the Constitution which you swore to defend. Why? Even this same court is forced to admit:
"The Constitution as framed is the only guide. To change its terms is within the power of the people alone." (Opinion of the Justices, 220 Mass. 613, 618)We note Massachusetts Chief Justice Hutchison's words in 1767: "laws should be established, else Judges and Juries must go according to their Reason, that is, their Will" and "[T]he Judge should never be the Legislator: Because, then the Will of the Judge would be the Law: and this tends to a State of Slavery.' " As Judge Swift put it in 1795, courts "ought never to be allowed to depart from the well known boundaries of express law, into the wide fields of discretion."
"The courts [instructing] when and how to perform...constitutional duties" (mandamus) "is not available against the Legislature [or] against the Governor)."We also note this ruling in 1969: "an unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary is an act that is gnot only not warranted but, indeed, [is] precluded.h (Commonwealth v. Leis)
"The...principles expressed in...the Massachusetts Constitution...call for the judiciary to refrain from intruding into the power and function of another branch of government." (LIMITS v. President of the Senate, 414 Mass. 31, 31 n.3, 35 (1992)
gHere, 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: gWe conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.h
"But the statute, so long as it stands, imposes upon both branches [of the Legislature] uniformity of procedure so far as concerns this particular matter. One branch cannot ignore it without a repeal of the statute. A repeal can be accomplished only by affirmative vote of both branches and approval by the governor." (Dinan v. Swig, 223 Mass. 516, 519 (1916)Nevertheless, with no legislation authorizing you to do so, you ordered the Department of Public Health to change the words on marriage licenses from "husband" and "wife," to "Partner A" and "Partner B." Stunningly, you later admitted that without enabling legislation you cannot change birth certificates in a similar way.
. they violated the oath of office, a constitutional felony, and
. as a citizensf constitutional petition, that initiative remains pending until brought to one of the five final actions the Constitution requires and
. therefore their crime against the Constitution is perpetual and without statute of limitations
. unless they vote, you will call them into session on that original marriage petition and
. will order the state police to arrest them and bring them to the chambers to vote (as the Governor of Texas ordered in May 2003 when Texas legislators refused to convene a quorum).
You’re so silly, don’t you know Mitt is perfect...
Well I guess this means Romney can kiss the gay vote goodbye.
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.