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.
