Posted on 06/28/2006 6:35:36 PM PDT by NutCrackerBoy
Romney/Marriage Watch
Governor Mitt Romney made the following statement today regarding the Massachusetts Protection of Marriage Amendment:
“Our elected representatives in the Legislature will soon hold a historic vote. It regards the institution of marriage.
But it will not be a vote for or against same sex marriage.
No, it will be a vote for or against democracy.
The people here today have followed the law, followed the process established in the Constitution, and gathered an astounding 170,000 signatures. Their effort means that the people, the citizens, will be free to choose how marriage is defined in Massachusetts.
This is democracy pure and simple.
Of course, democracy can be squashed. Only one fourth of the legislators must vote for democracy, for this question, this choice, to be given to the people. But it is conceivable that some will try to block a vote by the people by blocking a vote of the legislature.
We here are speaking for democracy and the rule of the law. Whether you agree that marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman or not, surely you can agree that the course of democracy, established by the Constitution, must be followed. Is there anything more fundamental to this Commonwealth and this country than the principle that power is reserved to the people, that government is the servant, not the master?
We ask for one thing: the constitutionally prescribed vote of the Legislature. Let the people speak.”
Posted at 12:57 PM
Who couldn't agree with that?
There are those who think that judges are Constitutionally empowered to advance government protection of individual rights even, maybe especially, when their decisions are politically unpopular. Hence the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's Goodridge decision. They feel that any attempt to define marriage as between one man and one woman attempts to write discrimination into law, a tyranny of the majority.
I disagree with it. The Constitution did not establish democracy. It established republicanism.
Slightly off topic, but why does Romney think he has a chance in he** of being the nominee for President? I can stand looking at him about as much as I can stand looking at Waxley Clark.
I don't know...and you think George Allen is Presidential? I think of him as President and laugh hysterically.
Romney is innovative and has new ideas that truly work .He can hold his own and it will be proven in the debates . He will emerge as a true contender in '08 .
The current FR poll has remained unanswered by me. Where did you get the idea I support Allen?
You're right , I can't see Allen as being able to shine in the debates, much less win the '08 election . He's a good Conservative , just not Presidential material .
The Mittster is a political opportunist who has taken Kerry's flip-flopping trait and perfected it to a T; I have a front-row seat of this clown's actions up here in the Northeast. He ran as a Lincoln Chaffee clone in 2002, and has wandered rightward ever since.
Not that that rightward is a bad thing of course, far from it. But he's over here now because he senses it is the best political seat to sit in, not because he is a true believer.
I think Romney is the best bet actually.
Romney was on Hugh Hewitt's show tonight and explained that there is a move afoot by some liberal pro-homo activists to get legislators to not show up for the vote. There must be a quorum (101 legislators) present and at least 25% (50) must vote for putting the measure on the ballot. If they fail to get a quorum present then there is no vote and the measure will not get on the ballot. It is believed the pro-ballot forces have the 50 votes, so the antis are trying to prevent the quorum. Real democratic, eh?
Why the burnt grass? The GOP has got a deep bench of viable Presidential candidates (the Dems have dwarves). Mitt Romney is a very good-looking, well-spoken, intelligent candidate who understands and practices leadership. OK, he's a politician with Presidential aspirations and acts accordingly. I see slight flaws there, but nothing fatal.
Actually, you missed something critically important in disclosing fully just how illegitimately premised the leftist platitude you I assume sarcastically posted is in regards to advancing and promoting special rights for those that declare they suffer from the homosexual disorder...
REWRITE:
There are leftists who think that judges are Constitutionally empowered to impose government recognition of and protection of homosexual rights even, maybe especially, when their decisions are politically unpopular. Hence the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's Goodridge decision. They feel that any attempt to define marriage as between one man and one woman attempts to write discrimination into law, a tyranny of the majority AND they are delusional...
Massachusetts' constitution requires a plebiscite under certain conditions. Those conditions have been met. Now we'll see how liberals respect the infamous rule of law.
Thus far in the process they have not respected it at all.
"Romney is the ultimate stick-your-finger-to-the-wind politician. I would not trust his motivations or his fortitude."
NOT TRUE
"He is more interested in the voters of Iowa and South Carolina at this point in his career than he is in his constituents in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts."
As are all possible Presidential contenders when they are preparing for a run .
I completely agree . I've been saying "watch Romney" for 2 years now . If he lets his true Conservative leanings come to the forefront , he can and will win . He will have to let his true Conservative nature come out on the social issues and he will have that chance as he separates from liberal Mass where he has Governed quite effectively .
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.