We've documented in our "Mitt Romney Deception" report that Romney refused to support our effort to remove the four errant SJC justices. (Read his June 2005 press conference here.) But he wouldn't explain why he wouldn't support their removal! Maybe because he promised the "gay" Log Cabin Republicans that he wouldn't do anything to hamper the expected marriage ruling by the SJC?
“I’ll keep my head low,” he said, making a bobbing motion with his head like a boxer, one participant recalled....
Romney's 2005 press conference sheds light on this. It proves that he did understand that the SJC acted unconstitutionally in its 2003 marriage ruling, and that it ordered only the Legislature to act, not the Governor! . . . So why did HE take it on himself to implement sodomy "marriage", when the Legislature (as he admits) did nothing prior to May 17, 2004 (and did NOT change the laws which still authorize only a man and a woman to be married).
While Romney said that the SJC failed to follow the "separation of powers" and "engaged in legislating" and "it was an improper decision on their part," he also shrugged off his responsibility to enforce only laws passed by the Legislature. He tried to wriggle out of his responsibility, and hand it over to the citizens. Remember: no homosexual "marriage" law has yet been passed in Massachusetts. But Romney went on to "enforce" the SJC ruling, instructing his executive departments to issue new marriage licenses and perform the marriages!
Romney also said at the 2005 press conference that the main problem with homosexual "marriage" was not the rightness or wrongness of homosexual acts themselves: "I don't believe that the institution of marriage, meaning in the sense of people being able to combine as adults, is the primary factor at stake. I believe instead it's the development of future generations which is involved primarily in the definition society places on marriage."
Whoa . . . What does that phrase "combine as adults" mean, after all? In the case of male homosexuals, we all have a pretty good idea. But Romney doesn't believe that was all that important to talk about. Either sodomy is a serious moral wrong, or it isn't. Which is it, Mitt? If it is a serious moral wrong, how can it not be a primary factor when we speak of the basis of "marriage"?
Primary voters should take a close look at Romney's bizarre actions -- and inactions -- in that period from November 2003 through the end of his reign.
Eric Fehrnstrom, a Romney spokesman, said yesterday that Judge Kathe M. Tuttman should never have freed Daniel T. Tavares Jr. on personal recognizance in July, after he was charged with assaulting two prison guards. Tavares, 41, was near the end of a 16-year sentence for stabbing his mother to death in 1991 and had threatened in a letter - intercepted by prison officials in February 2006 - to kill Romney and other state officials, Fehrnstrom said.
On Monday, after five months in hiding, Tavares was arrested for allegedly shooting to death Brian Mauck, 30, and Beverly Mauck, 28, newlyweds who lived near him in a rural area south of Tacoma, police said. . . .