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.
John Adams made it very clear in the Massachusetts constitution that the courts CANNOT legislate or co-opt the power of the executive. He was so emphatic about it that it is repeated several times, in fact.
Even the leftist Goodridge court knew this. That’s why they did nothing more than issue an opinion about the meaning of the marriage law.
The idea that a court can force a legislature to pass a law, or an executive to breach his sworn duty to the constitution, is anathema to our form of republican self-government.
Gay marriage is bad enough. But the damage done by the judicial supremacists is overriding.
Very, very well expressed.
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.
Another person who hasn't READ THE DECISION!!! Taking a quote out of context and distorting what they decided.
Here's what they decided: 1) The existing law, as commonly interpreted, violated the civil rights of homosexuals.
2) Overturning existing law (MA 207) would be too disruptive a remedy for (1), because it would wipe out legal marriage in MA.
3) They would therefore finesse the law by changing the operative common law interpretation of "civil marriage" and leave the existing code in place. If the legislature disagreed with the interpretation, they had 180 days to act to clarify the definition in the civil code.
The old law IS still in place, and Romney WAS bound by it. But the MEANING of marriage as used by the law had changed. The existing law said he had to issue licenses to all "parties" who applied and were legally entitled. Those not entitled were A) blood relations; B) those already married; C) minors without permission; and D) people coming from out of state to marry, where it would violate their home state's laws to do so (written to originally keep interracial couples from entering the state to marry).