©2006 MassResistance (11-23-06)
Mitt Romney demonstrates his commitment to homosexual "rights" before becoming Governor of Massachusetts in January 2003:
o 1994 Campaign vs. Ted Kennedy for U.S. Senate: Romney pledged he “will provide more effective leadership” than Kennedy on homosexual rights; endorsed by Log Cabin Republicans.
o 2000-2002: As head of Salt Lake City Olympic Committee, Romney banned Boy Scouts from participating.
o 2001 Called first citizens' petition to define marriage “too extreme” and “bigoted” because it banned civil unions.
o 2002 campaign for Governor: Romney makes promises to GLBT community, according to leading Boston homosexual newspaper; endorsed by homosexual activist Log Cabin Republicans.
o Nov. 18, 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) rules that same-sex marriage is protected in the Mass. Constitution, and gives the Legislature 180 days to act (“Goodridge” ruling).
o Nov. 18, 2003 Romney responds to SJC ruling with four-sentence statement implicitly recognizing SJC’s authority, says only remedy will be a constitutional amendment: “I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to make that expressly clear. Of course, we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman.”
o Nov.-Dec. 2003 Romney reportedly working with Legislators promoting “civil unions”.
o Jan. 2004 Romney silent on proposal to remove four SJC justices through Bill of Address (put forward by Article 8 Alliance / MassResistance).
o Feb. 4, 2004 SJC tells Legislature that civil unions for same-sex couples will not satisfy its interpretation of the Mass. Constitution; only full-fledged marriage will do.
o Feb. 5, 2004 Romney publishes editorial in Wall Street Journal laying all blame on the SJC for problem in Massachusetts. Suggests other states strengthen marriage statutes and pass constitutional amendments. Says don’t “attack … gays, singles or non-traditional couples.”
o Feb. 2004 Romney’s Legal Counsel tells Justices of the Peace (under Romney’s authority) they will be able to claim “conscientious objector” status and refuse to perform same-sex marriages.
o Feb.-May 2004 Pro-family leaders and columnists urge Romney to defy court, and issue Executive Order to block same-sex marriage; no public comment from Romney.
o March 12, 2004 As Legislature postures on constitutional amendments, Romney continues to say amendment to Mass. Constitution is solution.
o March 26, 2004 Word leaks out that Romney’s Dept. of Public Health (DPH) and attorneys are planning training sessions for Town Clerks and preparing same-sex marriage licenses.
o March 29, 2004 Romney tells Republicans in Mass. legislature to vote for Travaglini-Lees “compromise amendment” which would ban same-sex marriage but establish civil unions (and would not go to voters before Nov. 2006). Republican legislators had earlier opposed this amendment because of the civil unions clause, and it passed only due to their changed votes.
o March 29-31, 2004 Romney seeks stay of SJC ruling until constitutional amendment issue is settled, but Atty. General Reilly refuses to take Governor’s case before SJC. [Did Romney believe that same court that issued Goodridge ruling would seriously consider his request for a stay?]
o March 30, 2004 Romney says he’ll “abide by the law of the land as it exists on May 17” and says he would not order town clerks to defy court edict. Romney says he’d not explored the Constitution section giving him power over “causes of marriage” and whether it gives him any legal power to stop same-sex marriage (according to spokesman).
o April 12, 2004 Romney spokesman says training sessions for town clerks will begin “with plenty of room to spare before May 17.” Ron Crews of Mass. Coalition for Marriage states hope for an Executive Order to halt the marriages.
o April 15, 2004 Romney files emergency bill in Legislature to seek stay of SJC ruling, and is rebuffed and reprimanded by Senate President Travaglini.
o April 15, 2004 Romney’s DPH Registrar of Vital Records informs town clerks by letter of training sessions before SJC ruling becomes effective.
o April 16, 2004 Romney announces his administration is scheduling training sessions for May 5-12 with licenses changed from “husband/wife” to “Party A/Party B”.
o April 17, 2004 Mass. Dept. of Revenue (under Romney) declares SJC ruling the new “law”.
o April 22, 2004 Romney does not comment on Rep. Goguen's filing of Bill of Address for Article 8 Alliance/MassResistance to remove the 4 SJC judges, or Article 8’s revelation of Chief Justice Marshall’s violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct. (Marshall had appeared as keynote speaker at homosexual advocacy group dinner in 1999 advocated extension of “rights” for homosexuals, and failed to recuse herself from ruling on same-sex marriage though she had publicly expressed her bias.)
o April 26, 2004 Romney’s chief Legal Counsel, Daniel Winslow, issues directive to Justices of the Peace to resign (or be fired, fined, or sued) if they are unwilling to perform same-sex marriages (exact date not given on document).
o April 29, 2004 Romney writes to 49 other Governors to inform them he’ll uphold section of Mass. marriage statutes banning same-sex marriages for out-of-state couples.
o May 5-12, 2004 Town clerk training sessions held. [GLAD – Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders -- is only source on content of sessions; perhaps they were responsible for content?]
o May 15, 2004 Romney issues proclamation: May 15 is “Gay/Straight Youth Pride Day”. Romney’s “Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth” events include parade, GLBT activism (with prominent transsexual radical activists), and a GLBT prom – two days before same-sex marriages are to begin.
o May 17, 2004 Same-sex marriages begin across Massachusetts. Romney issues brief statement: “All along, I have said an issue as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage should be decided by the people. Until then, I intend to follow the law and expect others to do the same.” [What law? Original marriage statutes clearly defining marriage as between a man and a woman were –and are -- still on the books, unchanged by the Legislature. So Romney is not enforcing the actual law—just a court opinion.]
o May 18, 2004 Romney begins enforcement of section of marriage statute banning out-of-state couples marrying in Mass. if that marriage would be illegal in their home state, while other intact sections of the marriage statute (“man” and “woman”) are ignored.
o June 22, 2004 Romney testifies before US Senate Judiciary Committee for federal marriage amendment and blames Court for situation in Massachusetts.
o Oct. 29, 2004 Romney signs new law eliminating blood test for STDs as requirement for marriage license (Ch. 388 of Acts of 2004). [Note: this is the only part of marriage statutes changed to satisfy demands of same-sex marriage]
o Dec. 2004 Romney has no comment on bills filed by Article 8 Alliance / MassResistance for 2005-6 session: to remove four SJC judges; strengthen definition of marriage in statute; and declare same-sex marriages since May 17, 2004 null/void and without statutory basis.
o Feb. 21, 2005 Romney makes speech before South Carolina Republicans, then is accused of “flip-flopping” on civil unions by homosexual lobby. Romney also negatively refers to demands by the homosexual activists that birth certificates be changed to read “Parent A/Parent B” (instead of “father/mother”), arguing he had no authority to make such a change [though he had no such qualms about changing the marriage license].
o June 16, 2005 Romney joins VoteOnMarriage (VOM) amendment effort, which would recognize same-sex marriages prior to amendment taking effect, and not ban civil unions. (Romney says VOM is superior to the Travaglini-Lees compromise amendment.) Romney also announces support of VOM’s proposed bill promoting partnership benefits for any couple wanting them (see “Benefits Fairness Act” filed Jan. 2006). Romney says he’s opposed to removing the four SJC judges. Calls for a “high degree of respect and tolerance for people whose lifestyle and choices and orientation is as they may choose.”
o July 22, 2005 Romney says only Legislature can change birth certificates from “father/mother” to “Parent A/Parent B”.
o Sept. 14, 2005 Travaglini-Lees compromise amendment defeated in Legislature.
o Nov. 2005 Romney tells Federalist Society that judiciary must be grounded in Constitution and law and precedents, and only the Legislature and people can change that base.
o Jan. 2, 2006 Boston Globe reports Romney issued special Governor’s ceremonial marriage licenses to 189 same-sex couples in 2005 (including to homosexual activist state senator), claiming he did not refuse because he was evenly applying the “statute”. [Note: There is no new statute establishing same-sex marriage.]
o Jan. 11, 2006 Romney files “Benefits Fairness Act” with VoteOnMarriage, which is roundly criticized by GLBT lobby, and shelved in Committee as late-filed bill.
o March 10-14, 2006 Romney says laws require Catholic Charities not to discriminate against same-sex parents in its adoption placements [but there’s only an administrative regulation]. He says same-sex couples have "a legitimate interest" in adopting children.
o June 2, 2006 Romney sends letter to US Congress arguing for federal marriage amendment.
o June 28, 2006 Romney urges Legislature to vote on VOM amendment, and addresses importance of following Constitution.
o Sept. 30, 2006 Romney says he has to “follow the law,” and accept Mass. Superior Court ruling stating Rhode Island lesbian couple can marry in Massachusetts (following an earlier SJC ruling addressing Rhode Island’s lack of prohibition of same-sex marriage).
o Oct. 15, 2006 Romney addresses nationally broadcast “Liberty Sunday” (Family Research Council) event in Boston. Blames SJC for Mass. problems, says we need an outpouring of respect and tolerance for all people regardless of different choices they make, and as a nation we must reject discrimination and bigotry. Calls for support of federal marriage amendment.
o Nov. 19, 2006 Romney holds rally on State House steps announcing he’s delivering a copy of the Constitution to every Legislator who voted to recess the Constitutional Convention (to avoid the vote on the VOM amendment required by state Constitution). Romney also announces he’s appealing to the courts. [But he says nothing about the SJC precedent of Dec. 20, 2002, ruling that the Legislature must vote in this situation, which already affirms that he should call Legislators back.]
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query romney. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query romney. Sort by date Show all posts
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Romney's 2004 Letter: Part III - Romney Ignored Our Voices and the Constitution
Citizens rally in West Springfield on a cold day in late February 2004, calling on our Legislature and Governor to block homosexual "marriage".
For sources, see our reports: How Mitt Romney brought "gay marriage" to Massachusetts and The Mitt Romney Deception Report.
Part III: Gov. Mitt Romney Ignored Our Voices -- and the Constitution
Many well remember the feelings of panic and desperation that gripped pro-family citizens throughout the state in late 2003 and early 2004. We went to rally after rally in freezing January, February, and March weather in front of the Supreme Judicial Court, on the Boston Common, in front of the State House, while Romney sat in his cozy corner office and looked down on us. We called, e-mailed, and sent letters to our legislators and the Governor.
Citizens rally at State House calling on Legislature to propose a "clean" amendment with no civil unions. Their voices were ignored by Romney, who worked for civil unions from Nov. 2003 on. [MassResistance photo]
Citizens rally at State House calling on Legislature to propose a "clean" amendment with no civil unions. Their voices were ignored by Romney, who worked for civil unions from Nov. 2003 on. [MassResistance photo]
We were all wondering: Why doesn’t Gov. Romney say something? Do something? Why the silence from the Governor's Office? Why doesn’t he at least make statements supporting our rallies and demonstrations for removal of the judges, and for a strong marriage amendment? We were all continuing to hope against hope that Romney was working behind the scenes to halt the insanity.
We didn't know then that he had promised his homosexual Republican activist friends (while campaigning in 2002) that he would not oppose the expected Supreme Judicial Court ruling for homosexual "marriage." And we didn't fully understand that he was working in late 2003 and early 2004 with the unethical Senate President, Robert Travaglini, and Senate Minority Leader, Brian Lees, to write civil unions into the Massachusetts constitution (through their phony compromise "marriage" amendment) -- as a little insurance policy should anything keep the May "marriages" from going forward.
Senators Travaglini and Lees (seen in late 2003) worked with Romney to craft an unacceptable "marriage" amendment which would have enshrined civil unions in the Constitution. [MassResistance photo]
People were pleading with the Governor to say: "No, Judges, you cannot order either of the other two branches of government to do anything! You may not make law! Nothing will change on May 17. Current law allows for marriage only between one man and one woman, and that is the law I will continue to enforce." But there was only silence. All Romney said was that an amendment to the Constitution should be voted on. (How it should be worded, he never said publicly.) Then on that score, we all pleaded: The amendment must be pure, and not include establishment of “civil unions” alongside one man/one woman marriage! But he bragged in his April 2004 letter of the compromise amendment that included “civil unions”!
Article 8 Alliance [now MassResistance] Press Conference at State House in April 2004, calling for the Legislature and Governor to vote on a Bill of Address to remove the four Supreme Court judges, and revealing Chief Justice Marshall's ethical violations. [MassResistance photo]
Where was Romney in April 2004, when Article 8 Alliance presented shocking information on Chief Justice Margaret Marshall's violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct? Her appearances at fundraising events for groups supporting homosexual "marriage" were not allowed under the code, and she had publicly revealed her bias on the issue. Why didn't he comment on Rep. Emile Goguen's filing of the Bill of Address to remove the four Supreme Judicial Court judges who ruled that John Adams included "homosexual marriage" in his Massachusetts Constitution? What did he believe should happen when judges so flagrantly violate the constitutional separation of powers?
All the while, through February, March, and April 2004, Gov. Romney and his team were busy betraying us, while stringing us along with pretty words on “democracy” and “letting the people vote” on marriage (possibly, some day in the distant future...). Only those paying closest attention noticed the stories in the Boston Globe about Romney’s people working behind the scenes, secretly holding meetings with state officials, to be sure all the paperwork (and threats to state officials of fines or firing) were in place to ensure the homosexual “marriages” began on May 17. Not one word from Romney himself about these plans, only a few leaks from Town Clerks, Justices of the Peace, or an occasional cryptic comment from a spokesman.
Gov. Romney's Chief Legal Counsel Daniel Winslow ran training sessions for Town Clerks and Justices of the Peace, threatening fines or firing if they didn't uphold the "law". Winslow confirmed with MassResistance that our timeline is accurate.
All the while, through February, March, and April 2004, Gov. Romney and his team were busy betraying us, while stringing us along with pretty words on “democracy” and “letting the people vote” on marriage (possibly, some day in the distant future...). Only those paying closest attention noticed the stories in the Boston Globe about Romney’s people working behind the scenes, secretly holding meetings with state officials, to be sure all the paperwork (and threats to state officials of fines or firing) were in place to ensure the homosexual “marriages” began on May 17. Not one word from Romney himself about these plans, only a few leaks from Town Clerks, Justices of the Peace, or an occasional cryptic comment from a spokesman.
Gov. Romney's Chief Legal Counsel Daniel Winslow ran training sessions for Town Clerks and Justices of the Peace, threatening fines or firing if they didn't uphold the "law". Winslow confirmed with MassResistance that our timeline is accurate.
On April 15, 2004 (the same day he wrote the letter to his constituents) Romney created another diversion to make it appear he was trying to halt the homosexual “marriages.” He filed an emergency bill in the Legislature to appeal to the same rogue Court which issued the homosexual “marriage” ruling, to seek a stay on the start date for the “marriages” -- thus acknowledging the Court’s power to enact and enforce “law”! Romney surely knew this bill would be shelved, in any case. (But it would come in useful when he ran for President, to bolster his claim that he did what he could to save marriage.)
Margaret Marshall (impersonator) shreds Constitution before the Supreme Judicial Court building in Boston. Unknown protester on left complains about the $150 million price tag on the renovation of Emperor Margaret's Imperial Judicial Palace. [MassResistance photo]
Lately, Mitt Romney has been shedding tears publicly. Well, many of us shed real tears as May 17 approached, and we knew that Romney was shafting us, our constitutional government, our society. We were in a state of disbelief, feeling helpless and abandoned. How could a Republican Governor be doing this to us?
May 17, 2004 came, and the pseudo-marriages began. Many of us felt the evil that took hold of the state that day. A large group from Article 8 Alliance/MassResistance rallied on Boston City Hall Plaza that day, praying, speaking of the Constitution, and even crying. (Massachusetts Family Institute told its supporters not to attend the rally ... because they had made a strategic alliance with Romney, we later understood.)
And what brief statement did Mitt Romney issue on that hideous day that he made possible? “All along, I have said an issue as fundamental to society as the definition of marriage should be decided by the people. Until then, I intend to follow the law and expect others to do the same.” What “law” was he speaking of? Not the law on the books then, or even now. Homosexual “marriage” is still not legal in Massachusetts!
No one in America was better placed than Gov. Romney in 2003-2006 to take a forceful stand for Constitutional separation of powers and against judicial activism, but he failed miserably. He could have issued an Executive Order to halt the "marriages" -- or simply ignored the ruling. He could have rallied national support to remove the judges, and bring such shame on the Legislature that they'd have to take up the cause. It was a profound failure of leadership and moral courage on Romney's part. As Professor Hadley Arkes said of Romney on “marriage” D-Day, May 17, 2004, he was the “missing Governor" and exemplified "Republican leaders [who have] lost their confidence on basic moral matters.” (That article was published in National Review before they went into denial about Romney's true record as Governor.)
After the "marriages" began, our group focused on the effort to remove the “homosexual marriage” judges. (The marriage amendment proposals were clearly being commandeered by the compromisers, and were not worth investing in.) But Romney never communicated with the 25 legislators who eventually sponsored the Bill of Address to remove the judges. His first public comment came in answer to a question at a June 2005 press conference:
After the "marriages" began, our group focused on the effort to remove the “homosexual marriage” judges. (The marriage amendment proposals were clearly being commandeered by the compromisers, and were not worth investing in.) But Romney never communicated with the 25 legislators who eventually sponsored the Bill of Address to remove the judges. His first public comment came in answer to a question at a June 2005 press conference:
"I'm not looking to recall the judges. I do however believe that justices should not legislate from the bench any more than legislators should adjudicate from the legislature. And I believe that there should be a separation of powers and responsibilities, and I believe that in this case that the Supreme Judicial Court engaged in legislating. I believe it was an improper decision on their part, and that's why I believe that ultimately the citizens should have the opportunity to make this choice, or their elected representatives."
Romney did admit the judges behaved contrary to the Constitution, yet he refused to support the effort to remove them (without giving a reason), and he failed to ignore their ruling. So much for his supposed opposition to activist judges that he is now touting all over America. He simply kicked the can down the road, told the citizens to chase after an elusive marriage amendment, and diverted most eyes from his failure to act as the Constitution required.
If only this had happened ... [MassResistance photo]
Romney made few public statements on marriage during his administration, but they always included a command to respect all citizens, no matter the choices they may make in their lives. So, we must respect the choice of sodomy, or the characteristic promiscuity in the homosexual community? And we must recognize the legitimacy of “families” with same-sex “parents”?
Mitt Romney’s dishonest maneuvering is breathtaking. He undermined the Massachusetts Constitution he swore to uphold, betrayed the institution of marriage, and did not communicate honestly with concerned citizens. He continued to ignore pleas from conservative leaders around the country, 44 of whom urged him to issue an Executive Order overturning his mistaken actions leading to the homosexual "marriages" before he left office (in December 2006). He had one last chance to set it right. But he was silent upon receiving that letter as well.
What else did Romney let loose in Massachusetts that's now adversely affecting our country? GLBT activists everywhere have been energized by what their movement got away with in Massachusetts -- with Romney's help. They are now moving beyond homosexual "marriage", on to "transgender rights." In Massachusetts, they're chanting the mantra, "Gay marriage is legal -- so we have to teach diversity" to our youngest children in the public schools. While Romney stated that Lexington parent David Parker is within his legal rights to demand notification when homosexuality and transgenderism topics are in his children's curriculum, he failed to order his Dept. of Education to enforce Massachusetts law in Parker's defense. Romney's failure on marriage has ripple effects we're only just beginning to see.
GLBT activists in Lexington, Nov. 2004, crashing Article 8 Alliance/MassResistance event on the first anniversary of the Goodridge ruling. Two school committee members and a UU fellow were not very welcoming. Mitt Romney handed over the public schools of Massachusetts to these people.
THANKS, MITT.
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Is Romney Working with Log Cabin Republicans to Remove Stories from Web?
What's happened to the 2002 Bay Windows story on Mitt Romney and his "gay" Log Cabin Republican supporters? (Bay Windows is the Boston GLBT newspaper.) It used to be readily available on the web. (And Bay Windows used to have a neat section called "The Romney Files" -- which they've also removed, along with their archives search page! Hmm...) Now, a search for "Gay GOP touts Romney as good for the community" pulls up a blank page... But we've saved it! And we're reprinting it here for all you Republican primary voters.
Bay Windows
Gay GOP touts Romney as good for the community
By Laura Kiritsy, 3/28/2002
Mitt Romney rode his wild success organizing this year's Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah, all the way back to Massachusetts and right onto center stage as the Republican candidate for governor. But the Olympic gold dust has begun to settle -- Democrats have already taken aim at his inconsistent stance on abortion and criticized his positions on a host of other issues, from fixing the state's budget crisis to managing the Big Dig. And now that gay-friendly Governor Jane Swift has bowed out of the running, gay voters may also be wondering: Is Mitt good for gays?
Good enough, said several gay Republicans who spoke with Bay Windows, including Abner Mason, Swift's deputy chief of staff. "I am absolutely confident that as governor he would continue the commitment to gay equality that was started with [former Republican Governor William] Weld and continued with [former Republican Governor Paul] Cellucci and Swift," said Mason. "He will equal, if not better, the record of Weld, Cellucci and Swift." Mason recently met with Romney in his capacity as Swift's chief policy adviser, and said they discussed ``a wide range of policy issues including gay rights." He declined to disclose the details of that conversation.
Lt. Governor candidate Patrick Guerriero, Swift's gay former running mate, agreed that Romney would be appealing to gay voters. Guerriero noted that Romney did receive support from gay Republicans in his failed 1994 bid for U.S. Senate and currently has gay Republican Jon Spampinato, who actively worked to recruit Romney in the governor's race, on his campaign staff. "The reality is there's a difference between 1994 and now," Guerriero told Bay Windows. "The issues are much more talked about. All the candidates will be called upon to clearly state their positions on gay issues" and the next few months will be a defining period, said Guerriero. "I think you'll see that his policies and stands are going to be rooted in the party of Abraham Lincoln."
Romney got his first chance to prove himself when, just days after announcing his candidacy in the driveway of his Belmont home, it was revealed that his wife, son and daughter-in-law had signed a petition to put the anti-gay "Protection of Marriage" constitutional amendment on the statewide ballot in 2004. Romney campaign spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom told Bay Windows that the family members signed the amendment petition -- which would not only ban gay marriage, but all legal protections for same-sex couples in Massachusetts -- without realizing how restrictive the amendment actually is. "They read the bold print," said Fehrnstrom. "They did not read the fine print."
Romney was unaware his family members had signed the amendment petition, said Fehrnstrom, and he does not support the "Protection of Marriage" amendment. "He is opposed to gay marriage, but in the case of the 'defense of marriage' amendment Mitt believes it goes too far in that it would outlaw domestic partnership for non-traditional couples. That is something he is not prepared to accept." Asked whether Romney supported the domestic-partnership legislation -- which would provide health insurance benefits to the same-sex partners of state employees and give municipalities the choice to do the same -- currently pending before the state legislature's House Ways and Means Committee, Fehrnstrom said he was unsure. In the week since announcing his candidacy, he added, Romney has been involved in "an intense series of issues briefings" intended to bring him up to speed on issues currently facing Massachusetts citizens.
"I think it's very good that Mitt Romney came out and said he opposes the ballot initiative because it goes too far and is extreme," said Gary Daffin, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, a non-partisan organization. But he also adds, "I think we have some more work to do with Mitt Romney" on gay issues.
While Romney's stance against gay marriage -- which is consistent with his position during his '94 senate campaign -- is typical of many political candidates of both major parties, Daffin may have a point. Romney has had to fend off accusations from his fellow members of the Mormon Church that he called gays "perverse" in 1993, and has repeatedly denied the charge. In 1994 he expressed support for "don't ask, don't tell," the U.S. military's ban on openly gay soldiers.
He did, however, pledge to support the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would ban job discrimination based on sexual orientation, and other civil rights protections for gays in the areas of housing and credit. He also promised to bring the initiatives begun in Massachusetts to protect gay and lesbian youth to the federal level.
But what struck the gay GOP during that campaign, according to Massachusetts Log Cabin Republicans (LCR), was Romney's accessibility to and comfort within the local gay community. Romney and his Republican primary opponent, John Lakian, attended an LCR-sponsored candidate's forum during the campaign, where they both competitively vied for the organization's endorsement -- which Romney eventually won. During the course of his campaign, LCR member and former president Mark Goshko told Bay Windows, Romney held several meetings with group members and at least two LCR members joined his staff. Though gay Republicans were by no means running Romney's campaign, "it was really a multi-level involvement," Goshko stated. "Our people were very involved officially and outside of [the campaign]." Given that past level of involvement, said Goshko, "I have no reason to think that things won't develop similarly this time." Goshko and LCR's current president Chris Ferguson, said they have spoken with Romney campaign advisers and are hoping to schedule a sit-down meeting in the coming weeks.
Romney has also come under suspicion for his Mormon beliefs, given the church's leadership on anti-gay efforts in the U.S., and its generally conservative reputation. His opponents have attempted to use his religion to paint him as conservative on social issues, a characterization both Fehrnstrom and Ferguson said is unfair. "There's a rush to characterize Mitt Romney as a right-wing social conservative. I don't think that's entirely fair," said Ferguson. "There may be a lot of reasons at the end of the day not to support him or not to like him, but he should have the opportunity to define for himself what his positions are and not to have people mischaracterize him," he said.
Bay Windows
Gay GOP touts Romney as good for the community
By Laura Kiritsy, 3/28/2002
Mitt Romney rode his wild success organizing this year's Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah, all the way back to Massachusetts and right onto center stage as the Republican candidate for governor. But the Olympic gold dust has begun to settle -- Democrats have already taken aim at his inconsistent stance on abortion and criticized his positions on a host of other issues, from fixing the state's budget crisis to managing the Big Dig. And now that gay-friendly Governor Jane Swift has bowed out of the running, gay voters may also be wondering: Is Mitt good for gays?
Good enough, said several gay Republicans who spoke with Bay Windows, including Abner Mason, Swift's deputy chief of staff. "I am absolutely confident that as governor he would continue the commitment to gay equality that was started with [former Republican Governor William] Weld and continued with [former Republican Governor Paul] Cellucci and Swift," said Mason. "He will equal, if not better, the record of Weld, Cellucci and Swift." Mason recently met with Romney in his capacity as Swift's chief policy adviser, and said they discussed ``a wide range of policy issues including gay rights." He declined to disclose the details of that conversation.
Lt. Governor candidate Patrick Guerriero, Swift's gay former running mate, agreed that Romney would be appealing to gay voters. Guerriero noted that Romney did receive support from gay Republicans in his failed 1994 bid for U.S. Senate and currently has gay Republican Jon Spampinato, who actively worked to recruit Romney in the governor's race, on his campaign staff. "The reality is there's a difference between 1994 and now," Guerriero told Bay Windows. "The issues are much more talked about. All the candidates will be called upon to clearly state their positions on gay issues" and the next few months will be a defining period, said Guerriero. "I think you'll see that his policies and stands are going to be rooted in the party of Abraham Lincoln."
Romney got his first chance to prove himself when, just days after announcing his candidacy in the driveway of his Belmont home, it was revealed that his wife, son and daughter-in-law had signed a petition to put the anti-gay "Protection of Marriage" constitutional amendment on the statewide ballot in 2004. Romney campaign spokesman Eric Fehrnstrom told Bay Windows that the family members signed the amendment petition -- which would not only ban gay marriage, but all legal protections for same-sex couples in Massachusetts -- without realizing how restrictive the amendment actually is. "They read the bold print," said Fehrnstrom. "They did not read the fine print."
Romney was unaware his family members had signed the amendment petition, said Fehrnstrom, and he does not support the "Protection of Marriage" amendment. "He is opposed to gay marriage, but in the case of the 'defense of marriage' amendment Mitt believes it goes too far in that it would outlaw domestic partnership for non-traditional couples. That is something he is not prepared to accept." Asked whether Romney supported the domestic-partnership legislation -- which would provide health insurance benefits to the same-sex partners of state employees and give municipalities the choice to do the same -- currently pending before the state legislature's House Ways and Means Committee, Fehrnstrom said he was unsure. In the week since announcing his candidacy, he added, Romney has been involved in "an intense series of issues briefings" intended to bring him up to speed on issues currently facing Massachusetts citizens.
"I think it's very good that Mitt Romney came out and said he opposes the ballot initiative because it goes too far and is extreme," said Gary Daffin, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, a non-partisan organization. But he also adds, "I think we have some more work to do with Mitt Romney" on gay issues.
While Romney's stance against gay marriage -- which is consistent with his position during his '94 senate campaign -- is typical of many political candidates of both major parties, Daffin may have a point. Romney has had to fend off accusations from his fellow members of the Mormon Church that he called gays "perverse" in 1993, and has repeatedly denied the charge. In 1994 he expressed support for "don't ask, don't tell," the U.S. military's ban on openly gay soldiers.
He did, however, pledge to support the federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which would ban job discrimination based on sexual orientation, and other civil rights protections for gays in the areas of housing and credit. He also promised to bring the initiatives begun in Massachusetts to protect gay and lesbian youth to the federal level.
But what struck the gay GOP during that campaign, according to Massachusetts Log Cabin Republicans (LCR), was Romney's accessibility to and comfort within the local gay community. Romney and his Republican primary opponent, John Lakian, attended an LCR-sponsored candidate's forum during the campaign, where they both competitively vied for the organization's endorsement -- which Romney eventually won. During the course of his campaign, LCR member and former president Mark Goshko told Bay Windows, Romney held several meetings with group members and at least two LCR members joined his staff. Though gay Republicans were by no means running Romney's campaign, "it was really a multi-level involvement," Goshko stated. "Our people were very involved officially and outside of [the campaign]." Given that past level of involvement, said Goshko, "I have no reason to think that things won't develop similarly this time." Goshko and LCR's current president Chris Ferguson, said they have spoken with Romney campaign advisers and are hoping to schedule a sit-down meeting in the coming weeks.
Romney has also come under suspicion for his Mormon beliefs, given the church's leadership on anti-gay efforts in the U.S., and its generally conservative reputation. His opponents have attempted to use his religion to paint him as conservative on social issues, a characterization both Fehrnstrom and Ferguson said is unfair. "There's a rush to characterize Mitt Romney as a right-wing social conservative. I don't think that's entirely fair," said Ferguson. "There may be a lot of reasons at the end of the day not to support him or not to like him, but he should have the opportunity to define for himself what his positions are and not to have people mischaracterize him," he said.
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Globe Refuses to Mention MassResistance as Source of "Romney Buzz"
Our print edition of today's Boston Globe didn't include the piece, "New questions on Romney's stance on gays; Letter to Log Cabin group expressed his support in '94," which we just found online. Just as we said in our earlier post today, the media wishes we'd go away, and refuses to acknowledge OUR report on Romney as the instigator of the national "buzz" on Romney's pro-homosexual positions!
Note that today's Globe article does quote MassResistance president Brian Camenker at the end, but fails to note that the report is OURS, not our good friend Peter LaBarbera's whom they do cite (though he posted it on his site, Americans for Truth, on Nov. 28, clearly crediting us -- a week after we sent it out on the internet). And the New York Times guest column by Thomas B . Edsall today, "The Rascals on the Right," and the AP article in today's New York Times, "Gov. Romney's Record on Gays Questioned," fail to identify MassResistance as the "rascals on the right"!
Edsall (in the NY Times) reports some of the truth: "Although Romney has evidently led an uneventful [def: no affairs or bribery scandals?] private life, he is trying to forcibly reinvent himself from his incarnation as a Massachusetts governor who favored abortion rights and gay rights."
The New York Times/AP quotes Tony Perkins (Family Research Council -- which hosted Romney as a pro-family star at their Liberty Sunday event October 15, AFTER our associates had explained to him that Romney was severely compromised by his unconstitutional, illegal implementation of gay marriage). Seems that Mr. Perkins has finally had his eyes opened by MassResistance's efforts to out the TRUTH:
NO -- we have a national voice now. And the Globe had better recognize that the internet and blogosphere have overturned their monopoly on the "news".
The Globe reports today:
... But the reaction to the comments from the 1994 Massachusetts Senate race indicate that some conservatives may be reassessing Romney. "This is quite disturbing," Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council and an influential conservative, told the Times.
Romney's views on gays have stimulated considerable chatter in the conservative blogosphere, where some have wondered aloud if he has hurt his standing with conservative voters.
"Will it sink the Romney campaign? I have a hard time seeing him win in the South," wrote the UtahConservative blog in reaction to a Nov. 26 Globe column about Romney's views on gays, which also cites the letter to the Massachusetts Log Cabin group.
Americans for Truth, a conservative group that opposes gay rights, posted an essay late last month saying, "Romney has a long record of supporting homosexual and abortion 'rights' despite his Mormon religion." [What the Globe doesn't say is that this posting on Americans for Truth accompanies OUR report!] ...
In a recent posting titled "The Mitt Romney deception" that touches on Romney's gay rights positions, local conservative activist Brian Camenker wrote: "Despite recent statements across the country by Governor Mitt Romney claiming he's pro-life, pro-family and a committed conservative, a broad investigation of his actual statements, actions, and public positions over the years indicates that he has spent his entire career speaking and governing as a liberal."
Note that today's Globe article does quote MassResistance president Brian Camenker at the end, but fails to note that the report is OURS, not our good friend Peter LaBarbera's whom they do cite (though he posted it on his site, Americans for Truth, on Nov. 28, clearly crediting us -- a week after we sent it out on the internet). And the New York Times guest column by Thomas B . Edsall today, "The Rascals on the Right," and the AP article in today's New York Times, "Gov. Romney's Record on Gays Questioned," fail to identify MassResistance as the "rascals on the right"!
Edsall (in the NY Times) reports some of the truth: "Although Romney has evidently led an uneventful [def: no affairs or bribery scandals?] private life, he is trying to forcibly reinvent himself from his incarnation as a Massachusetts governor who favored abortion rights and gay rights."
The New York Times/AP quotes Tony Perkins (Family Research Council -- which hosted Romney as a pro-family star at their Liberty Sunday event October 15, AFTER our associates had explained to him that Romney was severely compromised by his unconstitutional, illegal implementation of gay marriage). Seems that Mr. Perkins has finally had his eyes opened by MassResistance's efforts to out the TRUTH:
Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Family Research Council, said Romney's comments were ''quite disturbing. This is going to create a lot of problems for Governor Romney,'' he told The New York Times in Saturday's editions. ''He is going to have a hard time overcoming this.''
Noted conservative Paul Weyrich told The Times, ''Unless he comes out with an abject repudiation of this, I think it makes him out to be a hypocrite.''
Romney was wrapping up a weeklong trip to Asia on Saturday and could not be reached for comment.
Arline Isaacson, co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said she cautioned gay and lesbians against believing Romney's overtures in 1994, and said conservatives shouldn't trust him, either. ''He can't be trusted,'' she said. ''Because if it is politically expedient for him to swing to his right or swing to his left, he will do it.''
Our report went out to millions BEFORE Thanksgiving, though it was not posted on our website until just after the holiday weekend. So the blogs and mainstream media have had this information long before the recent Bay Windows regurgitation, or the very recent Globe reports! We've been in touch with "Utah conservatives" (mentioned in the Globe) re: Romney for several weeks now! But the Globe only mentions us at the end of their article, as if we're just a local voice piping in!NO -- we have a national voice now. And the Globe had better recognize that the internet and blogosphere have overturned their monopoly on the "news".
The Globe reports today:
... But the reaction to the comments from the 1994 Massachusetts Senate race indicate that some conservatives may be reassessing Romney. "This is quite disturbing," Tony Perkins, head of the Family Research Council and an influential conservative, told the Times.
Romney's views on gays have stimulated considerable chatter in the conservative blogosphere, where some have wondered aloud if he has hurt his standing with conservative voters.
"Will it sink the Romney campaign? I have a hard time seeing him win in the South," wrote the UtahConservative blog in reaction to a Nov. 26 Globe column about Romney's views on gays, which also cites the letter to the Massachusetts Log Cabin group.
Americans for Truth, a conservative group that opposes gay rights, posted an essay late last month saying, "Romney has a long record of supporting homosexual and abortion 'rights' despite his Mormon religion." [What the Globe doesn't say is that this posting on Americans for Truth accompanies OUR report!] ...
In a recent posting titled "The Mitt Romney deception" that touches on Romney's gay rights positions, local conservative activist Brian Camenker wrote: "Despite recent statements across the country by Governor Mitt Romney claiming he's pro-life, pro-family and a committed conservative, a broad investigation of his actual statements, actions, and public positions over the years indicates that he has spent his entire career speaking and governing as a liberal."
Saturday, December 29, 2007
Romney's Governing Style Not Trustworthy: Too Little Oversight, Too Much Absenteeism
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney is always assuring us he'll appoint excellent advisors (or judges) to help him run our government according to his supposedly conservative principles. This is highly questionable.
Look what happened here: MassDevelopment, the state's economic development agency, just granted a big loan to Planned Parenthood for a new abortion clinic in Worcester. Though the deal was finalized in February 2007, just after Romney left office, crucial earlier action was taken while Romney was still Governor in November 2006, when a $5 million tax-exempt bond was approved that "laid the groundwork for Planned Parenthood to begin planning the center..." Where was Romney's oversight then? The Romney campaign said the Governor "was not aware [the loan] was under consideration" in November.
The economic development agency, MassDevelopment, "is an autonomous authority, [but] it was controlled by Romney appointees," according to the Boston Globe. "Several of its 11-member board were top officials in the Romney administration..."
His agency appointees must not have shared his supposed pro-life views. Maybe he appointed them before he converted? And Romney's abseenteeism while Governor was a continuing concern here in Massachusetts. How would he know what was going on in his agencies if he was never around? Romney was out of Massachusetts for most of his last year in office (at least 219 days out of 365). So much for his vaunted oversight of complex organizations.
"Romney officials approved clinic loan; Worcester facility to provide abortions," Boston Globe, 12-29-07.
See also, on Romney's absenteeism while Governor:
"Report: Romney out of state 212 days so far in 2006," Boston Globe, 12-25-06:
Gov. Mitt Romney, who is preparing for a possible run for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, has spent all or part of 212 days outside Massachusetts in 2006 ... Romney plans to spend the rest of the year vacationing with his family in Utah, putting him on track to be away from Massachusetts for all or part of 219 days this year. Since announcing he would not seek re-election a year ago, Romney has traveled to 35 states and eight countries -- and been out of the state an average of more than four days each week ... New Hampshire, home to the first presidential primary contest and Romney's summer home, is one of the states he visited more than 10 times in 2005....
"Romney says new post won't hinder duties; Named vice chair of GOP group," Boston Globe, 11-20-04:
...the chair of the state Democratic Party criticized him as an absentee governor interested only in furthering his ambitions...."I've been around for 30 years, and I can't remember any governor traveling this much, except when Dukakis was actually running for president," he said.... Romney has repeatedly emphasized his commitment to serving out all of his first term, which ends in 2006.... He has said he expects to run for reelection, but has not committed to a second term....
Look what happened here: MassDevelopment, the state's economic development agency, just granted a big loan to Planned Parenthood for a new abortion clinic in Worcester. Though the deal was finalized in February 2007, just after Romney left office, crucial earlier action was taken while Romney was still Governor in November 2006, when a $5 million tax-exempt bond was approved that "laid the groundwork for Planned Parenthood to begin planning the center..." Where was Romney's oversight then? The Romney campaign said the Governor "was not aware [the loan] was under consideration" in November.
The economic development agency, MassDevelopment, "is an autonomous authority, [but] it was controlled by Romney appointees," according to the Boston Globe. "Several of its 11-member board were top officials in the Romney administration..."
His agency appointees must not have shared his supposed pro-life views. Maybe he appointed them before he converted? And Romney's abseenteeism while Governor was a continuing concern here in Massachusetts. How would he know what was going on in his agencies if he was never around? Romney was out of Massachusetts for most of his last year in office (at least 219 days out of 365). So much for his vaunted oversight of complex organizations.
"Romney officials approved clinic loan; Worcester facility to provide abortions," Boston Globe, 12-29-07.
See also, on Romney's absenteeism while Governor:
"Report: Romney out of state 212 days so far in 2006," Boston Globe, 12-25-06:
Gov. Mitt Romney, who is preparing for a possible run for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, has spent all or part of 212 days outside Massachusetts in 2006 ... Romney plans to spend the rest of the year vacationing with his family in Utah, putting him on track to be away from Massachusetts for all or part of 219 days this year. Since announcing he would not seek re-election a year ago, Romney has traveled to 35 states and eight countries -- and been out of the state an average of more than four days each week ... New Hampshire, home to the first presidential primary contest and Romney's summer home, is one of the states he visited more than 10 times in 2005....
"Romney says new post won't hinder duties; Named vice chair of GOP group," Boston Globe, 11-20-04:
...the chair of the state Democratic Party criticized him as an absentee governor interested only in furthering his ambitions...."I've been around for 30 years, and I can't remember any governor traveling this much, except when Dukakis was actually running for president," he said.... Romney has repeatedly emphasized his commitment to serving out all of his first term, which ends in 2006.... He has said he expects to run for reelection, but has not committed to a second term....
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Romney Burning Through His Millions
After personally receiving 8 or 10 campaign mailings from the Romney campaign already, it's not surprising to see the Boston Globe this morning: "Romney money going fast" (4-14-07). The latest mailing was a glossy photo of the Romney family with a response page headed "Family Photo Confirmation" and we're asked to check off this statement along with the donation amount:
"Thank you so much for your family photo. It's good to know that someone who asks for my trust on such important matters has the family background to support his words!"
But one look at that family photo, with those adorable grandchildren, brings to mind the incongruity of Romney's past (and recent, and current?) support of abortion "rights". How could a loving husband, father, and grandfather who is religiously grounded ever have subscribed to such a horrific position?
Back to Romney's high "burn rate" on his campaign spending:
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney burned through more than half of the $20.7 million he raised for his presidential bid in the first three months of this year ... Romney's fund-raising total placed him first in the GOP presidential money race in the first quarter of 2007. But his spending left him with $11.9 million in the bank at the beginning of this month -- a figure that includes a $2.35 million loan Romney himself floated to his campaign....
Kevin Madden, a Romney campaign spokesman, said the campaign's early expenditures have helped build a fund-raising operation that will allow Romney to bring in far greater sums in the months to come. "We're building a national campaign and investing the resources needed to sustain its growth and its continued success," Madden said. "The resources we've invested in building the grass-roots network and the fund-raising infrastructure are designed to yield a greater return."
Also this week, we noticed in the Weekly Standard that Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina was unusual for his early endorsement of Romney:
As for the future of the party, while most politicians have refrained from taking sides in the '08 primaries this early, DeMint has already pitched his stake in Mitt Romney's tent. He calls Romney a "values-based conservative," saying "no one stands taller" in terms of character and record. DeMint especially praises Romney's original health care plan.
That would be Romney's socialist "universal" health insurance plan that greatly expands taxpayer-funded abortions in Massachusetts, and which is reported to have a serious new problem every week. For example, the Globe just reported (4-12-07):
To remove the threat of a public backlash, the state plans to exempt nearly 20 percent of uninsured adults from the state's new requirement that everyone have health insurance. The proposal, expected to be approved by a state board today, is based on calculations that even the lowest-cost insurance would not be affordable for an estimated 60,000 people with low and moderate incomes who do not qualify for state subsidies. [So the poorest citizens still won't be covered, and Romney's promise of a workable "universal" plan falls flat.]
And back to DeMint, no mention by the Weekly Standard that Romney's Commonwealth PAC gave DeMint's campaign fund a donation of $5,000 in 2006 ... even though DeMint's not up for re-election till 2010. Of course, South Carolina is a very important Republic primary state. From the Boston Globe (12-24-06):
The stated purpose of the Commonwealth PAC is to elect GOP candidates, but its indirect goal of raising Romney's profile and amassing chits, or at the very least good will, is apparent from an analysis of PAC spending this year. For example, the PAC chipped in $5,000 to the campaign committee of freshman US Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who wasn't on the ballot this year and won't be until 2010.
Another good business investment.
"Thank you so much for your family photo. It's good to know that someone who asks for my trust on such important matters has the family background to support his words!"
But one look at that family photo, with those adorable grandchildren, brings to mind the incongruity of Romney's past (and recent, and current?) support of abortion "rights". How could a loving husband, father, and grandfather who is religiously grounded ever have subscribed to such a horrific position?
Back to Romney's high "burn rate" on his campaign spending:
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney burned through more than half of the $20.7 million he raised for his presidential bid in the first three months of this year ... Romney's fund-raising total placed him first in the GOP presidential money race in the first quarter of 2007. But his spending left him with $11.9 million in the bank at the beginning of this month -- a figure that includes a $2.35 million loan Romney himself floated to his campaign....
Kevin Madden, a Romney campaign spokesman, said the campaign's early expenditures have helped build a fund-raising operation that will allow Romney to bring in far greater sums in the months to come. "We're building a national campaign and investing the resources needed to sustain its growth and its continued success," Madden said. "The resources we've invested in building the grass-roots network and the fund-raising infrastructure are designed to yield a greater return."
Also this week, we noticed in the Weekly Standard that Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina was unusual for his early endorsement of Romney:
As for the future of the party, while most politicians have refrained from taking sides in the '08 primaries this early, DeMint has already pitched his stake in Mitt Romney's tent. He calls Romney a "values-based conservative," saying "no one stands taller" in terms of character and record. DeMint especially praises Romney's original health care plan.
That would be Romney's socialist "universal" health insurance plan that greatly expands taxpayer-funded abortions in Massachusetts, and which is reported to have a serious new problem every week. For example, the Globe just reported (4-12-07):
To remove the threat of a public backlash, the state plans to exempt nearly 20 percent of uninsured adults from the state's new requirement that everyone have health insurance. The proposal, expected to be approved by a state board today, is based on calculations that even the lowest-cost insurance would not be affordable for an estimated 60,000 people with low and moderate incomes who do not qualify for state subsidies. [So the poorest citizens still won't be covered, and Romney's promise of a workable "universal" plan falls flat.]
And back to DeMint, no mention by the Weekly Standard that Romney's Commonwealth PAC gave DeMint's campaign fund a donation of $5,000 in 2006 ... even though DeMint's not up for re-election till 2010. Of course, South Carolina is a very important Republic primary state. From the Boston Globe (12-24-06):
The stated purpose of the Commonwealth PAC is to elect GOP candidates, but its indirect goal of raising Romney's profile and amassing chits, or at the very least good will, is apparent from an analysis of PAC spending this year. For example, the PAC chipped in $5,000 to the campaign committee of freshman US Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina, who wasn't on the ballot this year and won't be until 2010.
Another good business investment.
Saturday, February 19, 2011
Mitt Romney's Deception: His Stealth Promotion of ‘Gay Rights’ and ‘Gay Marriage’ in Massachusetts (NEW BOOK)
[7-20-2011 NOTE: The E-book edition is no longer available.]
Contrada details how Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney supported the homosexual and transgender agenda on same-sex ‘marriage,’ sexual-radical indoctrination in the schools, and societal transformation – while posing as a defender of the Constitution and traditional family values.
Just Published: A Hard-Hitting Book on Mitt Romney’s Pro-Homosexual Record while Governor of Massachusetts
Massachusetts pro-family activist Amy Contrada has just released her definitive study of Mitt Romney’s role in implementing ‘gay marriage,’ promoting GLBT ‘rights,’ and supporting the sexual-radical agenda in the Massachusetts schools while Governor. The book is now available at Amazon.
Mitt Romney’s Deception: His Stealth Promotion of ‘Gay Rights’ and ‘Gay Marriage’ in Massachusetts
By Amy L. Contrada
$9.99 at Amazon Kindle (2nd Kindle Edition, March 2011)
Contrada details how Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney supported the homosexual and transgender agenda on same-sex ‘marriage,’ sexual-radical indoctrination in the schools, and societal transformation – while posing as a defender of the Constitution and traditional family values.
Mitt Romney is no conservative, despite his attempts to appeal to that element in the Republican Party. He is an ‘establishment fixer’ – a preserver of the status quo at best, or a promoter of social liberal causes and institutions at worst. In Massachusetts, the establishment – protected and advanced by Romney – was uniquely committed to the radical homosexual and transgender agenda.
Conservatives will find Contrada’s research invaluable in evaluating Romney as a Presidential candidate. Even those uninterested in Romney will find this a fascinating record of sexual-radical activism, whether for same-sex ‘marriage’ or school programs promoting GLBT ‘rights.’ The book is a rare combination of political history and analysis, enlivened by uncompromising commentary from a front-line activist.
Focusing on the issue of ‘gay rights,’ Contrada documents Romney’s largely untold history as Governor of Massachusetts:
• How Romney implemented same-sex ‘marriage’ while ignoring the Massachusetts Constitution.
• How Romney followed a constitutional amendment strategy doomed to failure, while ignoring the possibility of removing the judges who ruled for same-sex ‘marriage.’
• How Romney undermined the principle of religious freedom and failed to defend Catholic Charities in the ‘homosexual adoptions’ fiasco.
• How Romney implemented radical homosexual and transgender programs in his Department of Social Services and Department of Public Health.
• How Romney funded and promoted homosexual and transgender indoctrination in the public schools through his Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, and his Department of Education ‘Safe Schools’ programs.
• How Romney worked directly with radical homosexual activists to promote their self-defined ‘rights.’
• And much more.
The book is superbly documented with over 900 detailed footnotes directly linked to sources. It includes a compendium of Romney’s public statements related to ‘gay rights’; contemporary commentary; a detailed timeline covering Romney’s implementation of same-sex marriage; extensive detail on sexual-radical indoctrination in the Massachusetts schools; and many previously unpublished photographs. It is a unique resource by an activist on the front lines of the culture war during Romney’s term as Governor.
Contrada holds a B.A. summa cum laude (Tufts University), an M.A.T. (Brown University), and a Diploma in Violin Making. She is a 40-year resident of Massachusetts. Contrada has been a reporter, researcher, writer, and office staffer for the pro-family organization MassResistance (Waltham, MA) since 2004.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Romney's 2004 Letter: Part II - Analysis
MassResistance's statement at Romney's Photo-Op Rally,Mass. State House, Nov. 2006 [MassResistance photo]
In March 2004, constituents wrote to Governor Romney asking him to please:
(1) defy the Court ruling, as it is only an illegitimate opinion and there is no new law for him to enforce;
(2) issue an Executive Order barring issuance of homosexual “marriage” licenses starting May 17, 2004; and
(3) support the Bill of Address to remove the four errant Judges.
And here is the response they received from Romney, dated April 15, 2004:
Thank you for your letter regarding same-sex marriage. Over the past several months, many people have taken the time to contact my office with their thoughts and concerns on this issue. I am happy to have this opportunity to respond.
Recently, the State Legislature met in a rare joint session and passed an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. For this amendment to become part of our Constitution, it must be passed by the Legislature again and then be approved by the people of Massachusetts in November 2006.
As you know, the definition of marriage is of great concern to many citizens. On a matter of such significance and with such tender sentiment involved, we must show respect and consideration for those with different opinions. There are real people, including traditional couples, gay couples and children, who are deeply affected by this issue.
But, even as we disagree, we must not forget that at the core of American democracy is the principle that the most fundamental decisions in society should ultimately be decided by the people themselves. I support giving the people the opportunity to decide this issue.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact my office.
(1) defy the Court ruling, as it is only an illegitimate opinion and there is no new law for him to enforce;
(2) issue an Executive Order barring issuance of homosexual “marriage” licenses starting May 17, 2004; and
(3) support the Bill of Address to remove the four errant Judges.
And here is the response they received from Romney, dated April 15, 2004:
Thank you for your letter regarding same-sex marriage. Over the past several months, many people have taken the time to contact my office with their thoughts and concerns on this issue. I am happy to have this opportunity to respond.
Recently, the State Legislature met in a rare joint session and passed an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. For this amendment to become part of our Constitution, it must be passed by the Legislature again and then be approved by the people of Massachusetts in November 2006.
As you know, the definition of marriage is of great concern to many citizens. On a matter of such significance and with such tender sentiment involved, we must show respect and consideration for those with different opinions. There are real people, including traditional couples, gay couples and children, who are deeply affected by this issue.
But, even as we disagree, we must not forget that at the core of American democracy is the principle that the most fundamental decisions in society should ultimately be decided by the people themselves. I support giving the people the opportunity to decide this issue.
Again, thank you for taking the time to contact my office.
Sincerely,
Mitt Romney
Mitt Romney
At first reading, Romney’s letter – written just a month before homosexual “marriages” began in Massachusetts -- may seem just another milquetoast response from a politician. But since this man is now running for President and posing as a conservative committed to Constitutional principles, it bears closer study.
Its historical context is all-important. It was written at the same time that Romney’s Executive branch officers were traveling around the state conducting training sessions for Town Clerks and Justices of the Peace, and his Department of Public Health printing presses were churning out illegitimate “marriage” licenses reading “Party A & Party B” -- with bare notice by the public.
Romney’s letter reveals his blindness to the most outrageous instance of judicial tyranny since Roe v. Wade, his incomprehensible spirit of resignation in face of the Court’s activism, his utter disregard for the Massachusetts Constitution, his ignorance of the meaning of “the rule of law” (i.e., existing statutes), and an almost breezy attitude towards the looming disaster in his state – and all of America.
Its historical context is all-important. It was written at the same time that Romney’s Executive branch officers were traveling around the state conducting training sessions for Town Clerks and Justices of the Peace, and his Department of Public Health printing presses were churning out illegitimate “marriage” licenses reading “Party A & Party B” -- with bare notice by the public.
Romney’s letter reveals his blindness to the most outrageous instance of judicial tyranny since Roe v. Wade, his incomprehensible spirit of resignation in face of the Court’s activism, his utter disregard for the Massachusetts Constitution, his ignorance of the meaning of “the rule of law” (i.e., existing statutes), and an almost breezy attitude towards the looming disaster in his state – and all of America.
MassResistance (then Article 8 Alliance) demonstrator in Feb. 2004 in Boston, reminding Gov. Romney and the Legislature that the Court does not make law. [MassResistance photo] Was Romney unaware that his oath to uphold the Constitution of Massachusetts required that he enforce only laws on the books? Since the Legislature passed no new marriage law (as the Court unconstitutionally advised it to do), there was no reason Romney should act to implement homosexual “marriages.” (The Court never even told him to do anything!)
Demonstration outside the Supreme Judicial Court, Feb. 2004:Ruling Null & Void -- Remove the Judges
[MassResistance photo]
He implies that his only recourse for preserving real marriage was to pass a constitutional amendment, which could only have taken effect long after the looming date of May 17, 2004. He says nothing about what constituents might expect on that date, just a month away, neglecting to mention that he was in fact facilitating a cataclysmic event for all of America.
In this April 2004 letter, Romney seems like a sleepwalker traversing a minefield. Was he really so ignorant of his proper Constitutional role as Governor? Or was there something deeper, even unethical, going on? Was he hoping we all wouldn’t notice that he was, in fact, implementing the unconstitutional Court ruling – perhaps in order to keep his promise to homosexual activists?
A recent article in the New York Times ("Romney’s Tone on Gay Rights Is Seen as Shift," Sept. 8, 2007) may shed light on Romney’s bizarre actions (and vacuous letter) during early 2004. The article reveals that in 2002, he had actually promised his “Log Cabin Republican” (homosexual activist) friends that he would
…obey the courts’ ultimate ruling and not champion a fight on either side of the issue. “I’ll keep my head low,” he said, making a bobbing motion with his head like a boxer … And, in the aftermath of the Massachusetts court decision, Mr. Romney, though aligning himself with the supporters of a constitutional amendment, did order town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some members of Log Cabin Republicans say that in doing so, he ultimately fulfilled his promise to them despite his own moral objections.
Another Log Cabin member said Romney did not “[carry] the flag with missionary zeal” for either side of the issue. That describes a man without principle on the crucial issues of judicial activism and marriage. And it squares with his statement to the Log Cabin Republicans “that his perspective on gay rights had been largely shaped by his experience in the private sector where, he said, discrimination was frowned upon.” His approach to “gay rights” was thus apparently not a moral issue for him, but shaped by his business interests.
(Earlier, in 1994 when running for the Senate, he had promised the Log Cabin Republicans: “… as we seek to establish full equality for America's gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent” – which, as a Republican and Mormon, he would be able to get away with better than Kennedy.)
In his April 2004 letter, Romney equates natural families with unnatural families (headed by same-sex couples), uses the word “gay” and the squishy phrase “tender sentiment.” He instructs us to tread lightly around the “tender sentiment” of “gay couples” -- which could mean that society should never ban “gay marriage” because it would upset some people -- so we should let anyone who says the word “love” do anything they want. And, if two sodomites feel “tender sentiment” towards each other, that means they can be “married”!
Is Romney saying sentiment should rule, not what’s best for society, children, or the public health? If someone, somewhere is “deeply affected” by something, should this overrule rational, principled, moral discourse and lawmaking? “Tender sentiment” is highlighted, but the Constitution is only indirectly referenced in the context of a proposed amendment, and there is no reference to existing law.
Romney avoids mention of the flawed, compromised nature of the proposed amendment, which would have codified same-sex “civil unions” in the Mass. Constitution at the same time that it defined marriage as “one man + one woman.” He blissfully ignores the fact that many in the state knew that final passage of that amendment was highly unlikely, in part because true pro-family forces (as well as die-hard homosexual activists unwilling to settle for civil unions) would not support it. For him to portray this amendment (which still had to pass two more big hurdles)as the only possible solution to the “marriage” crisis was dishonest. 
Feb. 2004 outside Mass. State House. Mass. Family Institute president Kris Mineau, in trench coat, apparently opposed civil unions at that time, though MFI's later VoteOnMarriage amendment proposal intentionally would not have outlawed civil unions. Romney would twist Republican legislators' arms at the Constitutional Convention in March to support the "compromise" amendment, which would have embedded civil unions in our Constitution if it had eventually passed.
Romney ends his letter with the sop that it’s all about our “democracy.” Leaving aside the issue of republic vs. democracy, why didn’t Romney say that at the core of our government is the Constitutional basis on which it stands? Shouldn’t his first point of reference be the Massachusetts Constitution, his oath to preserve the separation of powers, and his required enforcement of existing law (not imaginary, Court-invented “law”)? He could not bring this up, because that would have exposed that his ongoing implementation of homosexual “marriage” was illegitimate.
Romney’s focus on “giving the people the opportunity to decide this issue” was a ploy to deflect attention from the larger issues of activist judges (whom he should have opposed), and his responsibility as Chief Executive to enforce only actual law (the marriage statute as it existed then). Since the Legislature had not changed the marriage statute after the 2003 ruling, one-man/one-woman marriage was still clearly the only form allowed in May 2004! (And the law still hasn’t changed. The homosexual lobby has a bill pending to allow homosexual “marriage” – House Bill #1710 .)
[MassResistance photo]
For sources, see our reports: How Mitt Romney brought "gay marriage" to Massachusetts and The Mitt Romney Deception Report.
Read more in Part III.
Saturday, November 24, 2007
Romney's Hypocrisy on Judges & "Gay Marriage"
Candidate Romney is calling for a Massachusetts judge he appointed to resign, because she released without bail a former murderer -- who just allegedly murdered again across the country. Besides calling into question his judgment on judicial appointments, this also raises another huge question:
Why didn't Governor Romney call on the four JUDGES of the Mass. Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) to resign in 2003, 2004 or 2005, after they violated the Massachusetts Constitution -- and put all of America on course of societal destruction, enshrining sodomy as a basis for marriage? They weren't just releasing one murderer; they were creating chaos for all of America.
Mitt Romney refused to support removal of the Mass. judges who ruled
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?
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.
Mitt Romney refused to support removal of the Mass. judges who ruled homosexual "marriage" was a right
in the Massachusetts Constitution!
Romney is shown here at a State House press conference
in June 2005, where he announced his support for a flawed
(and doomed) marriage amendment.
[MassResistance photo]
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?
Don't forget this in the New York Times, "Romney’s Tone on Gay Rights Is Seen as Shift" (9-8-07) :
Mitt Romney seemed comfortable as a group of gay Republicans quizzed him over breakfast one morning in 2002. Running for governor of Massachusetts, he was at a gay bar in Boston to court members of Log Cabin Republicans. Mr. Romney explained to the group that his perspective on gay rights had been largely shaped by his experience in the private sector, where, he said, discrimination was frowned upon. When the discussion turned to a court case on same-sex marriage that was then wending its way through the state’s judicial system, he said he believed that marriage should be limited to the union of a man and a woman. But, according to several people present, he promised to obey the courts’ ultimate ruling and not champion a fight on either side of the issue.
“I’ll keep my head low,” he said, making a bobbing motion with his head like a boxer, one participant recalled....
“I’ll keep my head low,” he said, making a bobbing motion with his head like a boxer, one participant recalled....
And, in the aftermath of the Massachusetts court decision, Mr. Romney, though aligning himself with the supporters of a constitutional amendment, did order town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Some members of Log Cabin Republicans say that in doing so, he ultimately fulfilled his promise to them despite his own moral objections.
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.
From today's Boston Globe:
Twenty months after he put a career prosecutor on the Massachusetts Superior Court bench, confident in her law-and-order credentials, Mitt Romney called yesterday for the judge to resign because she released without bail a convicted killer who went on to allegedly kill again.
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. . . .
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. . . .
When Romney appointed her in April 2006, he was under pressure to put more women on the bench. A registered Democrat, she had worked since 1989 as a prosecutor in Essex County, where she was director of the family crimes and sexual assault unit.
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."
Excerpts:
"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.
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."
Excerpts:
"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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)