Gov. Mitt Romney tried last week to sound principled on the homosexual "marriage" ruling. In two separate speeches, he questioned the Supreme Judicial Court justices' motives, and their lack of grounding in the constitution and precedent. But it didn't come off -- because he was too soft on this issue in the beginning. It's two years too late for him to be taking a stand.
It won't work with informed conservatives, who lobbied him just after the ruling to stand up to the court. He should have pointed out then, in 2003 and 2004, that the SJC had no Constitutional authority to speak on matters of marriage. He should have ordered his Dept. of Public Health and Justices of the Peace NOT to perform homosexual "marriages" then. He had the authority, and chose not to use it. (For that matter, he could still use this authority!) So why should we listen to these pretty speeches now?
All he accomplished in the last few days was to give the homosexual lobby/Boston Globe crowd a new occasion to plaster their silly arguments all over. Sure enough, they dragged out the idea that "marriages" based on unnatural sexuality have to do with "human rights", and praised Empress Margaret's great wisdom in denying that moral codes have anything to do with the law.
Romney's criticism of SJC marriage ruling, "Romney rips SJC's justices on values; Says personal views swayed marriage ruling" (Globe, Nov. 11)
Boston Globe lead editorial, "Romney's Rant" (Nov. 12)
"Romney tempers criticism of justices" (Globe, Nov. 12)
