Friday, June 16, 2006

Catholics for Romney? Only If They Don't Understand the Constitution!

Last Sunday's Boston Globe ran an article on Gov. Mitt Romney's savvy way around federal presidential campaign fundraising regulations, namely his "Commonwealth PAC." "Romney has PAC affiliates in Iowa, Michigan, South Carolina, New Hampshire, and, formerly, in Arizona. Particularly beneficial to Romney are the affiliates in Iowa and Michigan, where there are no limits on how much an individual can give."

This aroused the curiosity of a few concerned Massachusetts Catholics, and they came across the
Catholics for Romney blog. Read the FUN comments on the Monday, May 22 posting, "A site to bookmark." Massachusetts Catholics explain how Gov. Romney was responsible for the homosexual "marriages" through his order to Justices of the Peace and Town Clerks to issue "marriage" certificates -- which Romney had redesigned (without authority) to read "Party A" and "Party B". But the loyal Romneyites on that blog can't handle the truth!

And some mean things are said about MassResistance!!! ...
"There's an anti-Romney group (MassRessistance---and they are essentially "spamming" every site and discussion board possible with this same sorry story) that has made it their crusade to bash Romney on every possible occasion because he did not do an illegal 'George Wallace' style barring of the courthouse to prevent Gay Marriages from occurring."


"WIN" wrote:
I am a Catholic and I have a problem with Mitt Romney seeking Catholic votes when he has been responsible for gay marriage. Contrary to a popular misconception created (except for lawyers and judges who are very much aware of this) which was created by Mitt Romney, gay marriage currently is not legal in Massachusetts. The SJC interpreted the marriage statute to NOT PERMIT same sex marriage. The SJC declared the marriage statute “unconstitutional” BUT they did not strike that law. It remains a statute on the books as it was originally written and intended. The Massachusetts Constitution clearly states that a law that remains on the books is the law until it is repealed by the Legislature. The SJC simply changed the “common law” meaning of the term marriage but because that term already exists in the statute and in the Constitution, the SJC’s “common law” declaration of a new meaning did not and could not change the statute nor the words of the Constitution because common law is subordinate to statutory and constitutional law. The SJC acknowledged this in the Goodridge case saying that they could not legislate and therefore gave the legislature 180 days to act. The legislature neither repealed the “unconstitutional” marriage law nor changed the law by way of a change to the statute nor by allowing the Constitutional Amendment to go through in 2005. Therefore the “law,” the marriage statute, that forbids same-sex marriage, continues to forbid it. The only reason why same-sex marriage licenses are being handed out is because Mitt Romney ordered them to be but he did that without legal authority under any statute. This is confirmed by the fact that the Massachusetts Legislature currently has two opposing bills pending before it; one that promotes same-sex “marriage” (H977/S967) and the other that defines marriage as the union of one man to one woman (H654). If same-sex marriage” was currently legal, there would be no reason to have either of these opposing bills pending before the Massachusetts Legislature. Romney knows this. He was told before May 17, 2004 and he has been told repeatedly, by prominent and not so prominent lawyers and others. He has a sworn duty to uphold the Massachusetts Constitution and the marriage statute. Every day that goes by is another day that he has violated massachusetts law.

Jeff responds:
I am not one for censorship . . . but the above post is so filled with misinformation that it will confuse people who do not understand the issue and should be removed . . . there's an anti-Romney group (MassRessistance---and they are essentially "spamming" every site and discussion board possible with this same sorry story) that has made it their crusade to bash Romney on every possible occasion because he did not do an illegal "George Wallace" style barring of the courthouse to prevent Gay Marriages from occurring.

carol said...
Jeff, Why do you refer to prolifers as "these people"? I know WIN (as do most of us here in the Boston area who have been fighting prolife and profamily issues at the State House). You're not coming out of the starting gate with a good strategy if you are going to attack us. I know this is disappointing, but most of us have alerted the RNC that the prolife movement will not stand behind Mitt Romney and we have told them the reasons why. WIN have given you the reasons why. We are dissatisfied with public statements and letters when we all know that he has the power to take the actions that protect the authentic U.S. Constitution. While his paper statements look good in a publicity campaign, we find them disingenuous and most, if not all of the Catholic prolifers I know here in MA long ago dismissed him as a prochoicer with the spin. It's not going to fly. Too many times we put the papers under his nose, pulled MGL and US Constitution and showed him we knew he had the authority - and asked him to take the actions. He refused. He flipped flopped and he has left prolife Catholic families to be chewed and mauled by the dogs. You will excuse us, I'm sure, as we take his statements and throw them in the trash. Lots of luck to the RNC if they select Mitt. They can kiss Catholic prolifers goodbye.

WIN wrote:
If there is a flaw in my legal analysis, please let me know what it is. Did the SJC reformulate not just the definition of marriage but also the definition of separation of powers? Is Mitt Romney, not one of the three "co-EQUAL" branches of Government? Does he not have the legal duty to uphold current Massachusetts law? What then is the current state of Massachusetts law? Please let me know? Either the SJC rewrote the marriage statute, which is clearly unconstitutional, or they did not. If they did not, Romney had no legal duty to order the issuance of marriage licenses. If they did, Romney had a legal obligation to ignore their unconstitutional legislative act (because the Massachusetts Constitution states that only the legislature may create laws). That by the way also applies to Mitt Romney. He as the executive branch has no legal authority to enforce laws that DO NOT EXIST. If there is a law in Massachusetts that permits same-sex marriage, please point it out. Read the Goodridge case and show me where the SJC did anything of the sort (ordering town clerks or even the legislature to do anything). They did not, but they are easy people for someone like Mitt Romney who needs a punching bag as he runs for president, to punch and claim that it is activist judges who changed the law. Why did Romney order Town Clerks to go against their religious beliefs and conscience and comply with Goodridge? What authority did he have to do that? There is no legal authority right now, in Massachusetts for same-sex "marriage." The licenses are illegal (VOID) and Romney is violating the Constitution. If he is not, please show me the legal authority or censor youself for not adding anything of value to this discussion.