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
No burnt grass here . You have summed up how I feel about Romney . He is a true Conservative contender and it will proven as the time goes on .
The "Sunnis" are in control of the legisature in Massachusetts.
He is conservative on the social issues. He would crush any Democrat in the Midwest, where his style comes across best. But he can, and has, won northeastern suburbs.
For libs, the rule of law means packing the courts.
Romney is a gun banner.
The Massachusetts constitution, you mean? It's a straight popular vote? No other requirements?
Oh give me a break...take that kind of bs and troll it somewhere else.
He has NO CHANCE, NO WAY... He will be painted as another "Massachussetts Liberal", especially if, as I suspect, Bayh is the Dem nominee.
Haha...you can't paint a Massachusetts Republican as a "Massachusetts liberal." Besides, Bayh's record? It's out there with Ted Kennedy. All Romney has to do is compare the Democratic nominee's voting record to Ted Kennedy to refute the charge. It'd be classic.
An assault weapon? The Second Amendment is not absolute, just as the First Amendment is not absolute.
Many papers were written back in the days that the 2nd Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights. Basically anything that a soldier was issued qualified as an arm that a citizen could bare. The 2nd Amendment is NOT about hunting.
Kerry, Kennedy, Franks........ Just to name a few.
That's a pretty specious argument, given that the guns of the day took a minute or more to load. The type of assault weapons we are discussing are quite different.
Stevio, I never said it was about hunting; at the same time, I did not say it was about the right to carry weapons that are specifically designed to kill people.
Yep! That's how these arrogant judges see themselves. As heroes advancing "individual rights". Of course, for every "right" they advance they take away another more established right, but we're not supposed to notice that.
The modern era of judicial aggression (activism is too mild a word) can be traced back to FDR. After several of his New Deal proposals were declared unconstitutional, he set about to replace the existing judges with liberal ideologues. He failed in his plan to expand the size of the Supreme Court, but by virtue of his longevity in office he was able to ultimately fill the court with his type of judge.
They proceeded to overturn many precedents, allowing New Deal legislation to stand. These rulings were constitutionally dubious, of course, but admittedly they were popular. The New Deal did have strong public support, so most people applauded these new rulings. By the late forties, this was the established judicial trend. In addition, the media and academic communities were increasingly leftist, and they heartily applauded this new direction.
Soon, the liberal judges began to think more aggressively. If we can uphold unconstitutional laws that we like, why can't we get rid of constitutional laws that we don't like? If the news reporters and college profs praise us for expanding the Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause to permit more government programs, won't they worship us even more if we declare war on laws they dislike? That was the thought process, and it grew stronger when a totally unqualified third-rate intellect named Earl Warren became Chief Justice, thanks to what President Eisenhower later described as the biggest damn fool mistake he ever made.
The High Court found what they wanted in the vaguely worded 14th Amendment. Its original intent was rather modest, but through a little "creative" reading this amendment became a battering ram for crushing any law the liberals didn't like. The court even created a new doctrine (out of thin air) called the "compelling state interest" doctrine to justify their conduct. It was announced that any law that discriminated against certain groups was "unconstitutional" unless the legislature could provide a "compelling" interest for enacting it. Not every group was covered, just ones the Supreme Court wanted to cover. Women weren't included until the rise of the feminist movement circa 1970, when the justices decided to "add" them in to stay on the PC side of the liberal trends. Gays weren't included until they became all the rage in the late 90's among the cocktail party crowd. Currently, people who want to have sex with animals aren't included, but if they become fashionable in 2025, liberal judges will add them in.
Of course, almost every law discriminates in some way. Many of them discriminate in ways that liberals approve of. The liberal judges weren't interested in getting rid of those laws. They only wanted to get rid of the ones they didn't like. The doctrine of "compelling state interest" thus proved invaluable. The court simply announced that there was a "compelling" interest for the discriminatory laws they liked, but not for the ones they didn't like.
Of course, this still required some additional creative language. In the Brown ruling, the court said the Constitution prohibited assigning students to schools on the basis of race. A few years later, the court ordered forced busing on the grounds that the Constitution required students to be assigned to schools on the basis of race. In a single recent ruling, the court held that it's okay for the Ten Commandments to be posted in their own court, but not in local court houses.
The public has hated most of these aggressive rulings, but with strong support from academia and the media, combined with Congress lacking the balls to reign the courts in, we're now having to fight to keep our 5,000 year old institution of marriage from being judicially trashed.
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.