Showing posts with label activist judges. Show all posts
Showing posts with label activist judges. Show all posts

Sunday, July 17, 2011

Mitt Romney's Deception: First edition (2011)



MITT ROMNEY'S DECEPTION:
His Stealth Promotion of "Gay Rights" and
"Gay Marriage" in Massachusetts
(2011 edition)

by Amy L. Contrada
 
Mitt Romney's Deception reveals the former Massachusetts Governor's promotion of "gay rights," his unconstitutional implementation of "gay marriage," and his support for sexual-radical programs in the Massachusetts schools. The outrages Romney failed to halt set horrible precedents for radical leftist victories nationwide. Contrary to his claim that he defended marriage, the Constitution, traditional values, and religious freedom, he actually undermined them.

Contrada's research will prove invaluable in assessing Mitt Romney as a Presidential candidate. Focusing on the issue of "gay rights," Contrada documents his largely untold history as Governor. During those years (2003-2006), Romney:
* worked closely with homosexual activists and pro-gay rights advisors
* implemented "gay marriage," violating the Massachusetts Constitution
* pushed a constitutional amendment strategy doomed to failure, and ignored the call to remove the "gay marriage" judges
* funded and promoted GLBT indoctrination in the public schools through his Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, and his Department of Education "Safe Schools" programs
* undermined religious freedom, failing to defend Catholic Charities in the "homosexual adoptions" fiasco
* continued or implemented radical GLBT programs in his executive departments

This superbly documented history has over 900 detailed footnotes. It is a unique resource by an activist on the front lines of the culture war during Mitt Romney's term as Governor.

Note: Adult content.

Publication Date: Jul 16 2011
ISBN/EAN13:1461028078 / 9781461028079

Saturday, September 18, 2010

Romney's Pro-"Gay Rights" Legal Counsel Endorsed by Radical GLBT Lobby

The GLBT lobby – including its transgender members – have just unanimously endorsed former Gov. Mitt Romney’s Chief Legal Counsel for State Representative. That would be Daniel Winslow, Esq.

We always knew that Romney’s legal staff was really working for “gay rights” while pretending to just enforce the “law” (the unconstitutional Goodridge marriage Court ruling). It was Winslow who himself made law (with the Governor’s assent), changing the marriage licenses in May 2004 – without the required Legislative authorization – to read “Party A & Party B” instead of “Bride & Groom”. Unbelievable.

 logo

For those new to MassResistance, we’ve pointed out since 2004 that same-sex marriage is still not legal in Massachusetts. The marriage statute still reads “man/woman”, and the GLBT lobby can’t get their bill allowing marriage “regardless of gender” to a vote (as confirmed by Winslow). The Court told the Legislature (not Winslow and Romney) to make that change, but they never have!

Winslow’s website makes no mention of social issues. (He’s right in line with the state Republican establishment on that!) He does show off his old bike in a sappy nod to the Scott Brown truck.

That’s all we need: another RINO in the State House! Our old friend, Tom Lang (another RINO) at KnowThyNeighbor.org had a long conversation with Winslow at the Mass. Gay & Lesbian (& Tranny) Political Caucus meeting recently:

The Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus (MGLPC), the Leading LGBT Lobby Organization and Key Architect for the Strategy Securing Marriage Equality, Has Endorsed Republican Daniel Winslow (9th Norfolk) And Former Mitt Romney's Chief Legal Counsel Over Democrat Challenger Stanley Nacewicz For the Massachusetts House of Representatives

Led by Co-Chair Arline Isaacson, the MGLPC voted unanimously in last week's annual meeting to endorse the Republican, Daniel Winslow over his Democratic challenger, Stan Nacewicz for the Massachusetts House Seat representing the 9th Norfolk District in Fall 2010. This District seat was formerly held by Richard Ross (R) [who marched in Boston Pride this year] who vacated it when he succesfully ran for Scott Brown's (R) Massachusetts Senate Seat after Brown's historic victory took him to Washington, DC.

Arline Isaacson touted Republican Dan Winslow for his support of The Goodridge Decision, his zero tolerance of hate crimes and told the Caucus gathering, "Winslow is what we need," in terms of a Republican that understands LGBT issues.  Isaacson also gave a bit of insight into Winslow's history as the Romney attorney that changed our state's marriage license wording from "Bride and Groom" to "Party A and Party B"

But what was interesting was that Isaacson provided the Caucus with Winslow's answers to her standard nine topic questionnaire on civil rights issues that all candidates are given.  Dan Winslow answered "Yes" to all subjects ranging from Gay and Lesbian Civil Rights to HIV Funding to Opposition of DOMA to Choice except one...the Transgender Civil Rights and Hate Crimes Bill. …

So what does KnowThyNeighbor [Tom Lang] think about this?  I interviewed Dan Winslow extensively after the Caucus endorsement meeting.  On the subject of Marriage Equality post Goodridge, Winslow says that Massachusetts needs legal updates.  Winslow told me that during the Romney days many within the administration insisted that MA marriage licenses continue to read "Bride and Groom" as, according to Winslow, some wanted same gender couples to "have to decide which would be the bride and which would be the groom" or in other words force same-sex couples to humiliate themselves.  Winslow was the one who pushed the "Party A/Party B" nomenclature as one of respect and dignity for same sex couples and a general equality for all parties entering into marriage.  Winslow wanted to make me understand that he has 3 important legal changes to state laws post Goodridge that to him are of the utmost urgency.  One, changes to current birth certificates which would recognize same sex couples.  Two, the inclusion of "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships" as impediments to MA marriages (currently, two people of the same gender could be married to one another in MA while being part of a dom partnership in Washington State to another person).  And Three, that MA courts must retain the jurisdiction of divorce when it comes to our same-sex marriages. … [emphasis in original]

(Read the complete post here.)

Winslow is even moving towards supporting the Transgender Rights bill. Now that’s what we call extreme. (We thought the Republican Party didn’t want to associate with “extremists”.)  

Why do these guys have an R next to their name? They’re really fifth columnists, working to undermine traditional values from within the Republican Party.

What more is needed than this to prove that Mitt Romney was actively working for “gay rights” while Governor? He surely understood his Chief Counsel’s bias, and most likely, shared it. Lots more on that soon.

Meanwhile, Romney has the gall to continue to present himself to the gullible conservatives attending Family Research Council’s “Values Voters” conference in D.C. this weekend. “Protect Marriage” and “Champion Life”!!! Yeah, right.

++++++++++

P.S. Dan Winslow commented on Tom Lang's post on 9/17:


Dan Winslow said...
Many thanks Tom. Just to clarify, the "bride/groom" discussion refers to others outside the administration who were lobbying me against changing the form. I was not referring to conversations within the administration. This endorsement means a lot to me personally and I am proud to have the support of Democrats as well as Independents and Republicans on these issues as well. We need to work together to move forward.


Wednesday, December 12, 2007

National Review's Romney Endorsement -- Our Challenge

After their fawning endorsement of their donor, Mitt Romney, we sent this note to the National Review Online editors (for whom we had emails):

You have a whole blog dedicated to judicial activism … yet your magazine just endorsed Mitt Romney, who is guilty of causing the worst incidence of judicial activism since Roe v Wade to be treated as “law”. Professor Hadley Arkes even wrote an important piece in NATIONAL REVIEW highly critical of Romney on the day the “homosexual marriages” began in Massachusetts (thanks to Romney’s orders):
"The Missing Governor" by Hadley Arkes (May 17, 2004). Arkes asked: "Have Republican leaders lost their confidence on moral matters?"

Does no one remember that prominent conservatives pleaded with Romney in 2003-4 to uphold the Mass. Constitution, and defy the illegitimate Court ruling on homosexual "marriage"? Phyllis Schlafly, Pat Buchanan, Mat Staver (Liberty Counsel), and even HUGH HEWITT (Weekly Standard, 11-20-03) told Romney to stand up against judicial tyranny. But Romney ignored them and singlehandedly began homosexual "marriage" in Mass. (The Legislature still has not changed our statutes to allow it, as ordered by the Court...which didn't even tell Romney to do anything!)

Why did Romney issue orders to his executive branch officials to change the marriage licenses and perform the marriages? There was no new LAW to enforce! If we couldn't trust Romney with the Mass. Constitution, how can we trust him with the U.S. Constitution? See our report: http://massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/

Only one of the 19 editors contacted, Jim Geraghty of their "Campaign Spot" blog, has responded: "Mass e-mailing editors who had nothing to do with the endorsement just pisses them off."

We answered: "I would love to know how NR arrived at a decision to endorse, if the editors weren't involved? Seriously, what was the process? (P.S. I don't appreciate language like "p off" – lots of us regular people still don't talk like that.)"

He then said: "I think I don't appreciate mass e-mails berating me for a decision I had no role in about as much as you don't appreciate the term 'pisses them off.' " (He just had to repeat that.) And then he sent us to his earlier post:

Wednesday, December 12, 2007
MIKE HUCKABEE, MITT ROMNEY
Another Thought On The Endorsement [by Jim Geraghty, on NRO's Campaign Spot]
Last night Rich [Lowry, editor-in-chief] explained a bit about NR's endorsement process to Hugh Hewitt:

HH: Take me inside first the process by which National Review arrived at its endorsement.
RL: (laughing) I don’t know, Hugh. It’s a really tightly held process here. It’s like selecting the Pope. We can’t reveal too much, but…
HH: How many people got a say in this?
RL: Well, it’s our senior editors, our publisher, our president and our Washington editor and myself. And we’ve been talking about it the last two weeks or so, just because this is our, through the quirks of our publication schedule, this is our last issue before people vote in Iowa and New Hampshire.

[Geraghty continues:]
So complaining to anybody else at NR or NRO is not really going to do any good. In fact, complaining won't do any good, period. If the magazine endorsed somebody besides your guy, you say, "I disagree," you hope it does Romney as much good as it did Phil Gramm, and then life goes on....


In other words, no feedback, no discussion welcome. The court has ruled, and that's that. (And he even continues with silly putdowns of Ron Paul's and Mike Huckabee's campaigns.) But these people rarely answer the substance of the question. Maybe Geraghty could do a little research on this all-important fact in Romney's record as Governor, then get back to us with a little more thoughtful response. He is the editor of NR's Campaign blog, after all.

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
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....
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.
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. . . .
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.