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

Skip to comments.

To the Members of the Log Cabin Club (Romney's Smoking Gay Gun)
MR.org ^ | 6 Oct 94 | Mitt Romney

Posted on 01/07/2008 10:57:48 AM PST by xzins

To the Members of the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts:

I am writing to thank the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts for the advice and support you have given to me during my campaign for the U.S. Senate and to seek the Club’s formal endorsement of my election. The Log Cabin Club has played a vital role in reinvigorating the Republican Party in Massachusetts and your endorsement is important to me because it will provide further confirmation that my campaign and approach to government is consistent with the values and vision of government we share.

I am pleased to have had an opportunity to talk with you and to meet many of you personally during your September meeting. I learned a great deal from those discussions and the many thoughtful questions you posed. As a result of our discussions and other interactions with gay and lesbian voters across the state, I am more convinced than ever before that as we seek to establish full equality for Americas gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.

I am not unaware of my opponent’s considerable record in the area of civil rights, or the commitment of Massachusetts voters to the principle of equality for all Americans. For some voters it might be enough for me to simply match my opponent’s record in this area. But I believe we can and must do better. 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.

We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden to include housing and credit, and the bill to create a federal panel to find ways to reduce gay and lesbian youth suicide, which I also support. 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.

As we begin the final phase of this campaign, I need your support more than ever. By working together, we will achieve the goals we share for Massachusetts and our Nation.

Sincerely,

W. Mitt Romney


TOPICS: Editorial; Extended News; Front Page News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: gayagenda; homosexualagenda; liberal; logcabinrepublicans; romney; romneytruthfile; samesexmarriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last
Mitt begins by saying he "shares values" with the Gay Agenda Rinos. He goes on to say that he wants to be MORE LIBERAL than Ted Kennedy (his opponent).

He mentions a "number of steps" they will take to bring about open gay service in our military.

This man should not be put in charge of our military.

1 posted on 01/07/2008 10:57:51 AM PST by xzins
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All

“Gay Marriage,” Gay Adoption and Pro-Homosexuality Propaganda In Schools

Issue #1. In another flagrant lie about the law, Romney told Catholic Charities’ adoption and foster agency they had to give children to homosexuals even when normal mother-father families were lined up to give them a home. Again, he deployed his standard smokescreen, gallantly proposing a “special exemption,” with a wink of his eye to the militantly pro-homosexuality legislature. Again, he got caught. Former governor Dukakis pointed out that the “state law” that Romney was citing as requiring gay adoption was non-existent. It was merely an executive regulation that a governor can rescind with a few strokes of his pen. Romney was apparently fulfilling secret 2002 campaign promises ( http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2007/12/is-romney-working-with-log-cabin.html ) to Republican homosexual power brokers whose endorsement he coveted and received. He had sought no backing from social conservatives.

Issue #2. Romney says the Boy Scouts should accept homosexual scoutmasters and that homosexuals have “a legitimate interest” in adopting or producing and raising children.

Issue #3. Though Romney pretends he opposed homosexual “marriage,” he did the opposite. In 2002 he opposed a marriage amendment that would have prevented homosexual “marriage.” 120,000 citizens, including his wife, son and daughter-in-law signed the amendment petition. Romney’s militant pro-homosexuality Republican predecessor, Governor Jane Swift, and Democrat legislators openly violated the constitution to deny the citizens their right to vote on the amendment. Even the ultra-liberal Massachusetts court ruled that they were violating their oaths and the Constitution. Romney failed to oppose their subversion of the law or to defend the people’s right to amend their own Constitution. ( www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/may/07051409.html )

Issue #4. Since the notorious Goodridge court opinion discovering a constitutional right to “gay marriage,” Romney has methodically lied about the judges’ legal authority and his own legal duty to enforce the Constitution. As professor of jurisprudence Hadley Arkes pointed out, under the state Constitution, the court has no jurisdiction over marriage law. An opinion issued without jurisdiction is legally void and cannot be “enforced.” Romney also knew that the same judges had recently admitted they have no power over the legislature or governor.

The Legislature never “obeyed” the judges by changing the marriage statute to legalize “gay marriage.” Under the state constitution that was the end of the line. The court neither ordered nor even suggested any intervention by the governor. Many lawyers and law professors (including Hugh Hewitt: http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2007/12/hugh-hewitt-told-romney-to-defy-mass.html ) told Romney to ignore the unconstitutional Goodridge opinion and embarrass the judges. Mysteriously, Romney rejected their advice. Why? The New York Times finally revealed four years later that, to win a coveted endorsement, Romney secretly promised the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans in 2002 that he would not defend the constitution against an illegal attempt by the judges to sneak same-sex “marriage” past the voters. ( www.nytimes.com/2007/09/08/us/politics/08romney.html?_r=3&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin )

When the Legislature did not legalize homosexual “marriage,” to fulfill his secret promise, Romney claimed that the judges had. This is a blatant lie plainly refuted by the state constitution Romney swore to uphold! He quickly found willing “conservative” lawyers, pundits and “pro-family leaders” to back him up. Rather than challenge the motives, integrity and “expertise” of their own friends and colleagues, most of the conservative establishment suddenly went silent. Ignoring his oath to faithfully enforce the statutes, Romney ordered officials to violate the marriage statutes and perform homosexual “marriages.” His Department of Public Health illegally bypassed the legislature by changing the marriage certificates from “husband” and “wife” to “Party A” and “Party B.”

Romney gave orders that illegally usurped the exclusive constitutional authority of the Legislature, as proven in this devastating “Letter to Governor Mitt Romney from Pro-Family Leaders.” ( www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/dec_letter/letter.pdf ). He violated multiple Articles of the Massachusetts Constitution, including one of the most vital principles of American government, which John Adams stated more forcefully than anywhere else in American law:

“In the government of this commonwealth…the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, …the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, …to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men. — Article XXX, Part The First

We deplore the glaring refusal of the “conservative” establishment to face the implications of a devastating article by a leading constitutional scholar, illuminating why pro-establishment attorneys have covered up Romney’s unconstitutional actions:

“The deeper failure must go to the man who stood as governor, holding the levers of the executive. And if it is countdown for marriage…it is countdown also for Mitt Romney, whose political demise may be measured along the scale of moves he could have taken and the record of his receding, step by step… [I]t became clear that even conservative lawyers had come to incorporate, and accept, the premises that gave to the courts a position of supremacy in our constitutional schemes.” — Hadley Arkes, Professor of Jurisprudence, Amherst College ( The Missing Governor, National Review Online May 17, 2004 )

We equally deplore the refusal to acknowledge the obvious truth in highly respected conservative attorney Phyllis Schlafly’s assessment:

“Massachusetts public officials … are groveling before the four judges… (Romney) said: ‘We obviously have to follow the law as provided by the [Court] and … decide ‘what kind of statute we can fashion which is consistent with the law.’
But what ‘law’? There is no law that requires or even allows same-sex marriages.” — Phyllis Schlafly ( It’s Time To Rebuke The Judicial Oligarchy (EagleForum.org, Dec. 3, 2003 )

Schlafly was right, as any honest and competent lawyer knows. The Massachusetts Constitution powerfully refutes Romney’s entire story that the judges changed marriage law and forced him to give unconstitutional orders:

“[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.” Article X, Part the First of the Massachusetts Constitution

“The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature…” Article XX, Part the First of the Massachusetts Constitution

Mitt Romney created homosexual “marriage.” His “conservative” legal experts are aggressively covering up both his role and the plain language of the Supreme Law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Issue #5. Though Romney admitted the Goodridge opinion was not based on the Constitution and that the judges had exceeded their power, he opposed a citizen’s drive to remove the four rogue judges who violated their oaths. ( http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2007/09/iowa-patriots-seek-to-remove-gay.html )

Issue #6. Though Romney says same-sex “marriage” will damage religious freedom and harm children, who need both a mother and a father, he personally issued more than 190 special one-day certificates to allow homosexual “marriages” to be performed by legally unqualified persons. He claims he was “just applying the marriage statutes evenly.” But as Phyllis Schlafly reminded America, and even the outlaw Goodridge judges admitted, the Massachusetts statutes do not allow homosexual “marriages,” despite Romney’s false claim that the court “legalized” homosexual “marriage. Moreover, a governor is not obliged to issue any special marriage certificates to anyone. Since Romney says same-sex “marriage” will harm children and erode religious freedom, why did he violate the marriage statutes and issue hundreds of special permits? ( www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/ )

Issue #7. As governor, to please Massachusetts’ militant homosexual groups, Romney aggressively BOOSTED government funding for pro-homosexuality indoctrination, starting in kindergarten. He refused to defend schoolchildren and parents’ rights against this indoctrination. He refused to order his education officials to obey the law guaranteeing that parents’ can protect their children from sexual brainwashing. ( www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/ ) This is a continuation of his views since 1994 when he opposed congressional efforts to protect children by banning federal funding to public schools that encourage “homosexuality as a positive lifestyle alternative.” His deference to militant homosexual groups’ “right” to indictrinate other people’s children was jaw-dropping:

“I think that’s a dangerous precedent in general. I would have opposed that. It also grossly misunderstands the gay community by insinuating that there’s an attempt to proselytize a gay lifestyle on the part of the gay community. I think it’s wrong-headed…” ( www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2006/12/romneys_thought.html )

With their silence about the illegal actions and toxic legacy of Mitt Romney, the elites are assisting a political cancer that has profound consequences for our future. If anyone has convinced themselves that so-called “same sex marriage” is a fringe issue and not a grave threat to the rule of law and to children they should read Maggie Gallagher’s stunning article “Banned in Boston.” They should also investigate the pro-homosexuality indoctrination of Massachusetts children (“It’s 1984 in Massachusetts – And Big Brother Is Gay”) which had been covert, but in the aftermath of Romney’s illegal orders imposing homosexual marriage, is swallowing up parents’ most fundamental right to protect their children and control their moral education. To remain silent about the re-engineering of the human family and child psychology, and the active and dishonest role Romney has played, is a dereliction of our highest duties.

We are among those who believe that same-sex “marriage,” homosexual adoption and pro-homosexuality indoctrination of schoolchildren hasten the decline of Western Civilization in its most crucial aspects, whether the elites face that and comprehend it or not. Yet many who have the greatest obligation are cowering in the shadows or even aiding the deception. Our silence is a fatal abdication of duty to our children and future generations, a breech of faith. It is a betrayal of the honor of young soldiers dying overseas for principles that we decided in our hearts long ago require no profound sacrifice from the elites.

The truth is this: Mitt Romney’s fictional defense of natural marriage, childhood innocence, life in the womb and constitutional governance is sustained only by our silence in the face of overwhelming propaganda. Edmund Burke famously said, “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”

Dante went further: “The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality.”

It is very telling of today’s “conservatism” — an endless regression of sophist ironies and nuances, dissolving, in the end, into absolutely nothing at all — that dire warnings from ancient voices seem like faint, distant echoes bouncing absurdly against rock walls far below our feet, beneath a precipice that we scaled long ago in the conceits of our modern conservative minds.

To continue in silence or in support of the craftiness and ruthless ambition of Willard Mitt Romney betrays generations past, present and future, including our own children and grandchildren.


2 posted on 01/07/2008 10:58:23 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain! True Supporters of Our Troops Support the Necessity of their Sacrifice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Seriously, the parenthetical addition to the title really, really leaves some bad imagery.


3 posted on 01/07/2008 11:01:33 AM PST by kevkrom (All those in favor of Thompson, don't raise your hand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

and the Log Cabin crowd is running ads against Romney. They didn’t think he went far enough in their favor.


4 posted on 01/07/2008 11:03:18 AM PST by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Rhino Alert!! bump


5 posted on 01/07/2008 11:04:05 AM PST by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins

6 posted on 01/07/2008 11:04:41 AM PST by trumandogz (Hunter Thompson 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
"This is my rifle, this is my gun . . . "


7 posted on 01/07/2008 11:05:01 AM PST by Bluegrass Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy
They didn’t think he went far enough in their favor.

Considering that he did everything except literally bend over backwards from them, I can't imagine what problem they'd have with him.

Unless it's just a smokescreen to make him look more "conservative" to primary voters.

8 posted on 01/07/2008 11:08:11 AM PST by kevkrom (All those in favor of Thompson, don't raise your hand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: xzins
You cannot find a single Log Cabin Republican who supports Mitt Romney after he fought them tooth and nail in Massachusetts!

You will not because they HATE ROMNEY for digging up a 1913 Mass law that made it illegal for people from other states to get married in Massachusetts if that marriage would be illegal in their home states.

Mitt Romney is the man who stopped Massachusetts from being the Gay Marriage Mecca the Log Cabin Republicans wanted and the Mass Supreme Court tried to establish.
9 posted on 01/07/2008 11:09:19 AM PST by elizabetty ("Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm." .Ralph Waldo Emerson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
You cannot find a single Log Cabin Republican who supports Mitt Romney after he fought them tooth and nail in Massachusetts!

You will not because they HATE ROMNEY for digging up a 1913 Mass law that made it illegal for people from other states to get married in Massachusetts if that marriage would be illegal in their home states.

Mitt Romney is the man who stopped Massachusetts from being the Gay Marriage Mecca the Log Cabin Republicans wanted and the Mass Supreme Court tried to establish.
10 posted on 01/07/2008 11:09:32 AM PST by elizabetty ("Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm." .Ralph Waldo Emerson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom

Hmmmmmmm.....

LOL


11 posted on 01/07/2008 11:09:35 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain! True Supporters of Our Troops Support the Necessity of their Sacrifice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: elizabetty

Issue #6. Though Romney says same-sex “marriage” will damage religious freedom and harm children, who need both a mother and a father, he personally issued more than 190 special one-day certificates to allow homosexual “marriages” to be performed by legally unqualified persons. He claims he was “just applying the marriage statutes evenly.” But as Phyllis Schlafly reminded America, and even the outlaw Goodridge judges admitted, the Massachusetts statutes do not allow homosexual “marriages,” despite Romney’s false claim that the court “legalized” homosexual “marriage. Moreover, a governor is not obliged to issue any special marriage certificates to anyone. Since Romney says same-sex “marriage” will harm children and erode religious freedom, why did he violate the marriage statutes and issue hundreds of special permits? ( www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/ )


12 posted on 01/07/2008 11:11:39 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain! True Supporters of Our Troops Support the Necessity of their Sacrifice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: xzins

Thanks for posting.


13 posted on 01/07/2008 11:18:07 AM PST by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
notice FreeRepublic has RomneyTruthFile now to go along with GiulianiTruthFile

GiulianiTruthFile | RomneyTruthFile |

FreeRepublic is the best source of information on the web.
14 posted on 01/07/2008 11:24:48 AM PST by FreedomProtector
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: xzins
"we seek to establish full equality for Americas gay and lesbian citizens,"

Based upon previous liberal actions, I would believe that this would mean quotas. Gay quotas. Affirmative action Gay(ism).

Thanks Mitt.

(Is he stupid, out to lunch, a sociopath or what? Who would sign such statements? What do they teach at Harvard Law?
Really, I don't get him. The guy is crazy. You can not be that educated and stupid at the same time. There's some lobe Drain Bamage here somewhere folks.)

15 posted on 01/07/2008 11:31:11 AM PST by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leisler

What offends me is when everyone tries to pretend it doesn’t matter that he said this or signed that, like it all is over because he said at the beginning of this campaign: “Oh...er...by the way...I’ve changed my mind on those things....”


16 posted on 01/07/2008 11:40:21 AM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain! True Supporters of Our Troops Support the Necessity of their Sacrifice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: xzins
It just so happened on the road to the White House.
How, how convenient.
17 posted on 01/07/2008 11:47:40 AM PST by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kevkrom
Seriously, the parenthetical addition to the title really, really leaves some bad imagery.

He just wanted the 'members' to know he's a 'stand-up' guy...

18 posted on 01/07/2008 11:50:21 AM PST by rfp1234 (Phodopus campbelli: household ruler since July 2007.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: massgopguy

The person posting this anti-Romney letter must think that we all are stupid. This letter was written in 1994!!! Boy if a person cannot change their opinions in 14 years there really is no Christian redemption for sin or forgiveness for anyone is there. We all want to be forgiven for past sins and mistaken thinking when perhaps we didn’t have all the facts to make an intelligent decision or choice. Let’s give Romney his opportunity to change too. A person who never changes his thinking when new evidence and information is presented is a dull ignorant hardhead.


19 posted on 01/07/2008 12:21:18 PM PST by conservative blonde (Fred Thompson is the only authentic Conservative GOP candidate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: conservative blonde
Poor Conservative Mitt, then a 46 year old man, Harvard Law, Harvard MBA, Stanford, elite prep, Honors BYU major in English. He didn’t understand.
20 posted on 01/07/2008 12:46:35 PM PST by Leisler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-85 next last

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.

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