MassResistance's statement at Romney's Photo-Op Rally,Mass. State House, Nov. 2006 [MassResistance photo]
(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.
Mitt Romney
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] 
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.
