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

To: outlawcam

While a healthy skepticism for the media is a good thing, it isn’t good at grand conspiracies. But if it helps, just look at what the media says the anti-gay-marriage people were saying after the ruling.

You won’t find any of this “ruling is meaningless” stuff, you’ll see the community screaming about how they had instituted gay marriage, and how we needed a constitutional amendment to stop them.

It’s only a few mitt-haters who now claim that we needed NOTHING to stop them.


91 posted on 02/04/2008 8:49:51 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies ]


To: CharlesWayneCT
It’s only a few mitt-haters who now claim that we needed NOTHING to stop them.

I'm not a Mitt "hater," but I agree with the premise that he was wrong in acting as he did.

That Romney misinterpreted his role is not unique to Mitt, unfortunately. A lot of people would have done the same thing. To many, there is nothing as close to an act of God than an opinion of the Supreme Court.

But you'll notice at least one group who agrees with Keyes' view, and that is the Massachusetts Court that made the ruling. It made special care to note that it was not changing Massachusetts law, and that such changes should be left to the legislature.

Said the court, "There is no reason to believe that legislative processes are inadequate to effectuate legal changes in response to evolving evidence, social values, and views of fairness on the subject of same-sex relationships." - Goodridge v Dept. of Public Health

If the Supreme Court specifically states it's the legislature's job to change the law, and the legislature expressly fails to do so, and if the Supreme Court also is not changing the law (and it may not), then the old law is still binding, and the ONLY CONCLUSION one can legitimately draw is that Romney acted inappropriately -- enforcing an OPINION that wasn't legally binding on him or the state.

What's more, even if the court came out and said that he MUST allow gay marriage (which it did not), without the approval of the legislature, if he is sworn to uphold both the federal and state constitutions (which he was), he MUST refuse.

But Romney acted without authority -- before even the court deadline had expired. I know it's not pleasant if you're a conservative and a Romney supporter, but as you can plainly see, it's the truth.

92 posted on 02/04/2008 9:13:30 AM PST by outlawcam (Would you rather shout at the devil from across the aisle, or have him whisper in your ear?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies ]

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