Romney's 2004 Letter: Part II - Analysis

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

(Read Part I and Part III.)

Part II - Analysis of Romney's Letter on Eve of "Gay Marriage"

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.

Sincerely,
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.

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 .)

Across from Mass. State House, March 2004. Many citizens knew they were being jerked around by the Court, the Legislature, and Governor Romney.
[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.

Letter from Mitt Romney on Eve of "Gay Marriage" - April 2004

Left: Governor Mitt Romney's letter to constituents on "homosexual marriage" in April 2004; read in PDF here.

Part I

In April 2004, just one month before "homosexual marriages" were to begin in Massachusetts by order of Gov. Mitt Romney, he sent this appalling letter to concerned constituents. They had written him pleading that he issue an Executive Order to his departments not to allow any such "marriages" to go forward, and to support the effort underway to remove the four errant judges behind the Goodridge ruling. The constituents pointed out to the Governor that there was no new "law" for him to uphold! And this was his empty response. [Read Romney's letter here.]

Over the next few days, we will print our analysis of this letter. For now, read it yourself and ponder that this is how a man who would be president "thinks" about the most profoundly illegitimate court ruling since Roe v. Wade, and how he condescendingly responded to his constituents while failing to address their concerns. Romney seems like a sleepwalker traversing a minefield in this letter.

First ask: How serious is Mitt Romney about reigning in bad judges, upholding Constitutions, and blocking “homosexual marriage”? His record in Massachusetts is revealing, as much through his silence and inaction as through his sparse and mystifying actions. In the end, he totally failed to lead as a conservative on these issues, but rather was complicit in foisting on our state a most radical, destructive social experiment called “homosexual marriage” -- while pretending to defend the natural family.

MassResistance demonstration outside Supreme Judicial Court in Feb. 2004 upholding the separation of powers written into the Mass. Constitution by John Adams.

Mitt Romney recently called for one of his own Massachusetts judge appointees to resign, after she released a convicted murderer who went on to murder again. But when Romney had the chance -- and constitutional duty -- to call for the dismissal of four rogue Massachusetts Supreme Court justices who ruled “homosexual marriage” was protected by the Massachusetts constitution, he did nothing! He refused to join the effort to remove the judges by Constitutional means (the Bill of Address, eventually sponsored by 25 Legislators), and never even commented on the effort until asked at a press conference in June 2005. And while the Constitution required the Governor to enforce only laws passed by the Legislature, Romney chose to “enforce” a pseudo-law pronounced by four unelected judges. (And the Legislature to this date has not changed the marriage statute in Massachusetts!)

Demonstration banner from Spring of 2004, made by MassResistance (then Article 8 Alliance) activist

Romney violated the Massachusetts Constitution when he started “homosexual marriages” here. So can he be trusted with the United States Constitution? Can his complaints about judicial activism be sincere? Can anything he says about his commitment to preserve marriage be believed?

MassResistance (then Article 8 Alliance) demonstration at State House, after Romney implemented unconstitutional "homosexual marriages," calling for removal of the four judges:

"Remove the SJC4" & "Courts are not Legislatures"

For more on Romney's betrayal of pro-family values and constitutional principles: See Part II and Part III in this series.

For sources, see our reports: How Mitt Romney brought "gay marriage" to Massachusetts and The Mitt Romney Deception Report.

More on Bork Endorsement of Romney

Check out BizzyBlog's posting:
Objectively Unfit Mitt Romney’s Bork Endorsement: A Very Painful Critique

Threats to Natural Family Threaten Peace

The Culture of Life, including the natural family, promotes peace. This is an obvious truth which many in this wacky state deny. Most on the dark side have been overtaken by emotion and passion, can't think straight, are in denial, or for some reason just won't give this idea fair consideration. But we offer this New Year's message from the Pope for those in the middle, and to encourage those of us already on board with God's plan. Excerpts from the Pope's speech to be given on New Year's Day, 2008 [from CNS News, 12-11-07]:

... the pope said the fact that a strong, healthy family is the basis of a healthy society is not simply a slogan.

"In a healthy family life we experience some of the fundamental elements of peace: justice and love between brothers and sisters; the role of authority expressed by parents; loving concern for the members who are weaker because of youth, sickness or old age; mutual help in the necessities of life; readiness to accept others and, if necessary, to forgive them....

"Everything that serves to weaken the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman, everything that directly or indirectly stands in the way of its openness to the responsible acceptance of a new life, everything that obstructs its right to be primarily responsible for the education of its children, constitutes an obstacle on the road to peace.

"The first form of communion between persons is that born of the love of a man and a woman who decide to enter a stable union in order to build together a new family. But the peoples of the earth, too, are called to build relationships of solidarity and cooperation among themselves, as befits members of the one human family.... [The family] is in effect the primary agency of peace ...

Judge Bork's Unfathomable Endorsement of Romney

Is Judge Robert Bork a flip-flopper, like the fellow he just endorsed? It seems Bork has forgotten his own thinking on judicial tyranny in endorsing Mitt Romney! If there ever was a great and appropriate opportunity for a principled Executive to stand up to judicial activism, the 2003 "homosexual marriage" ruling in Massachusetts was it. But Romney was missing in action. Silent. Hoping no one would notice. (Though as we've pointed out, pundits including Hugh Hewitt, Phyllis Schlafly, and Pat Buchanan noticed at the time ... along with Professor Hadley Arkes. But they -- along with the conservative "intelligentsia" -- seem to have "forgotten" they ever thought these thoughts.)

Here's Romney's web site on Bork's unfathomable endorsement:

"I greatly admired his leadership in Massachusetts in the way that he responded to the activist court's ruling legalizing same-sex 'marriage.' His leadership on the issue has served as a model to the nation on how to respect all of our citizens while respecting the rule of law at the same time."

How old is Bork now? What is the average mandatory retirement age around the country for judges? How could this be the same man who wrote Slouching towards Gomorrah?)

Here's Judge Bork ruminating on judicial tyranny back in November 1996 (the good old days) in First Things magazine. (Thanks to BizzyBlog for digging this up.) --
Only a change in our institutional arrangements can halt the transformation of our society and culture by judges. Decisions of courts might be made subject to modification or reversal by majority vote of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Alternatively, courts might be deprived of the power of constitutional review. Either of those solutions would require a constitutional amendment. Perhaps an elected official will one day simply refuse to comply with a Supreme Court decision.

That suggestion will be regarded as shocking, but it should not be. To the objection that a rejection of a court's authority would be civil disobedience, the answer is that a court that issues orders without authority engages in an equally dangerous form of civil disobedience. The Taney Court that decided Dred Scott might well have decided, if the issue had been presented to it, that the South had a constitutional right to secede. Would Lincoln have been wrong to defy the Court's order and continue the Civil War? Some members of the Supreme Court were edging towards judging the constitutionality of the war in Vietnam. Surely, we do not want the Court to control every major decision and leave only the minutiae for democratic government.

Calling for a "Mea Culpa" from Mitt Romney

An excellent summary of Mitt Romney's failure to act as a conservative when he was Governor here. Listen up, New Hampshire and Iowa!!! You cannot trust this guy. Posted on Renew America, by R. T. Neary, Director of Pro-Life Massachusetts and past president of Massachusetts Citizens for Life. (Excerpts:)

Please Mitt, at least a mea culpa
An open letter to our former Massachusetts governor
By R.T. Neary (12-17-07)

... On the campaign trail, you're asserting that you are "pro-life" because you are now in favor of overturning Roe v Wade. Are you asking us to believe that this posture is tantamount to being Pro-Life? Your current stance, which is the same as some of your competitors, is a states' rights position which doesn't interfere at all with the right to abort the life of a newly created human being. Why don't you make a firm pronouncement in favor of a Human Life Amendment, an uncompromising call for the protection of all innocent human life? This would be a genuine Pro-life position — and there's still time.

For decades, there has been a culture war raging nationally, and this state where you governed has been the site of major battles. During your tenure, over 100,000 of our future citizens were legally destroyed in this so-called commonwealth. Close to 10,000 couples of the same gender were issued "marriage" licenses, children were subjected to the vilest of sexual practices in tax-funded public schools, and one parent was jailed for voicing objections to it. Mitt, were you blind to all of this?

Are you still blind to the fact that to allow parents to donate embryos for scientific stem cell research is to sanction the willful destruction of an innocent human being? Yet, you're trying to make a fine point that you are opposed to "creating" embryos for scientific stem cell research. Sorry, it skirts the moral issue and doesn't wash. Even the scientists involved in the research have not denied to us that an embryo has all its DNA in place. All that is needed for him or her to breath like you or I do is that two conditions be met: provide the proper environment and the necessary time....

With regard to your opposition on the presidential campaign trail to same-sex "marriage," as Governor of Massachusetts, you literally had your finger on the switch. And you pushed the full speed ahead, rather than locking in the stop lever. You, as a Harvard Law School graduate, knew that the Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) had no authority under the Massachusetts constitution to pervert this millennia-old cornerstone of our society....

I reflect on the many calls I made under that Golden Dome on Beacon Hill, attempting to get support from your office for Pro-Life bills and especially a bill which would require advance parental permission for subjecting children to gross perversion in Sex Education in public schools. Never once could we get beyond the lowest contact level. Nor could we get even a discussion about the need for curriculum transparency, and the need for signed parental approval before subjecting children's minds to psychologically damaging material....

Read more ...

Romney's Bargain Abortions

Kathryn Jean Lopez of National Review online commented on receiving a press release from the Thompson campaign about this last week. And now LifeSite News has linked to it. It was MassResistance that first put out the info on this. (See our report, "Gov. Romney's universal health care program for Massachusetts includes taxpayer-funded abortions.")

Romney supposedly became pro-life long before signing the Massachusetts health care law --which offers baby-killing services for a mere $50.

Romney -- $50 Abortions in Massachusetts
Contact: Press Office, 571-730-1010; www.Fred08.com

MC LEAN, Va., Dec. 12 /Christian Newswire/ -- Romney claims to be pro-life. But under his health care plan, Massachusetts residents now have access to taxpayer-funded abortions for $50.

Romney's Health Care Plan:

Provides Taxpayer-Funded Abortions. Abortions are covered in the Commonwealth Care program that Romney created as Governor. Under the program, abortions are available for a copay of $50. (Menu of Health Care Services: www.mass.gov/Qhic/docs/cc_benefits1220_pt234.pdf)

Guarantees Planned Parenthood A Seat At The Table. Romney's legislation created an advisory board and guarantees, by law, that Planned Parenthood has a seat at the table. Romney's plan established a MassHealth payment policy advisory board, and one member of the Board must be from Planned Parenthood. No pro-life organization is represented. (Chapter 58 Section 3 (q) Section 16M (a), www.mass.gov/legis/laws/seslaw06/sl060058.htm)

Romney used his line-item veto authority to strike eight sections of the bill that he found objectionable, including the expansion of dental benefits to Medicaid recipients. Yet, he did not strike Planned Parenthood's guaranteed Board representation and he did nothing to prohibit taxpayer-funded abortions as part of his plan. ("Romney's Health Care Vetoes," Associated Press, 4/12/06)

Roe v Wade and Fuzzy Thinking on the "Rule of Law"

Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America has another good piece in WorldNetDaily: "Do You Really Know Roe"? The better people understand what this 35-year-old ruling actually said, the more likely they are to oppose it, he explains. But here's another point Barber does not make:

This horrible Supreme Court ruling did not actually "legalize" abortion, but in fact just ushered in an era of fuzzy "thinking" across America about the power of the Court and the true meaning of words. A whole nation (in including nominal Republicans and "conservatives") has been trained by the media to say and believe that "a woman's right to choose" to murder her own child is the "law of the land."

Roe v. Wade laid the groundwork for the public's acceptance of future outrageous court rulings, including the Goodridge homosexual "marriage" ruling here in Massachusetts. It allowed former Gov. Mitt Romney to enact this radical social plan now transforming all of America -- while claiming he was just "following the law."

From Barber's article:

Due to circumstances beyond our control, the term "September 11th" almost instantly became a household phrase. It represents a day of great tragedy and outrage wherein over 3,000 people were murdered at the hands of Islamic extremists who callously chose to sacrifice innocent human life to further a narrow and selfish political agenda.
But another date, Jan. 22, which is not so well-known, signifies an equally outrageous and solemn occasion. Jan. 22, 2008, marks the 35th anniversary of what is, unquestionably, one of the U.S. Supreme Court's most highly controversial and divisive rulings in its 200-plus year history – Roe v. Wade.
The Roe decision, authored by Justice Harry Blackmun, found for the first time that the U.S. Constitution somehow guaranteed the phantom "right" for a mother to have the innocent child which grew within her summarily killed.
Since that time, what seems an endless string of misguided women and innocent children have been victimized by this much more subtle, yet equally deadly form of politically motivated violence. And those to blame are, once again, extremists with an almost religious zeal who callously "choose" to sacrifice innocent human life to further a narrow and selfish political agenda. ...
The number of those slaughtered as a direct result of Roe far exceeds that of Americans killed in all U.S. wars combined. Yet, in this war – the war for our culture – it is innocent children whose bodies are strewn across the battlefield, buried – unceremoniously – in mass graves behind the local Planned Parenthood. ...
Matt Barber is one of the "like-minded men" with Concerned Women for America. He is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law and serves as CWA's policy director for cultural issues.

Mass. Commission on Gay & Lesbian Youth Designing "Safe Schools" Programs

Here are two prominent "transsexual/transgender" members of the Mass. Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. You can learn more about their vision for our children at the Commission's next public meeting coming up Monday, Dec. 17, 7-9 p.m. at the Brockton Holiday Inn.


Grace Sterling Stowell, Vice Chairman of the Commmission on Gay and Lesbian Youth, and Executive Director of BAGLY (Boston Alliance of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Youth), which puts on the annual Queer/Trans prom at Boston City Hall, ending the Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth's Pride Day celebration every May. Until we brought attention to it, Stowell directed youth to a "male-to-female" surgery web site on the BAGLY resource page.

Gunner Scott, founder of GenderCrash and trans activist about town, is pushing hard for the "Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes" Bill H1722 now filed in the Mass. Legislature. Here's Scott, profiled in Bay Windows: Scott believes that there is a whole group of people who are trans amorous (even if those individuals don’t comprise an identifiable community) and these “transam” folks also face transphobia. Scott, who now identifies as a genderqueer female-to-masculine person, speaks from experience on both sides of that romantic situation. “Before I came out as trans I was partnered with a transwoman. I was lesbian-identified and I lost more [queer] friends being with her than I did when I first came out [as trans].” Scott hopes that his trans activism will help create a world in which all people feel free to live in the identity that they most relate to....

Now, the Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth is looking for new members. Their plan is to increase the number of youth members and "transgender" commissioners. The new transgender members will probably be in addition to the four openly trans members already on the Commission.

We're not sure if the Commission has re-defined "youth" yet, as Scott proposed at a meeting last March, to include ALL public school students, grades K-12. But possibly we'll soon be seeing a kindergartner or 1st-grader on the Commission! We're sure his contributions will be on a par with the current members' thoughtful ideas for inclusive, diverse, and safe schools.

Here's a list of current Commission members.

[From Bay Windows:] Mass. Youth Commission to meet in Brockton (12-12-07)

The Massachusetts Commission on GLBT Youth will meet Dec. 17 at the Holiday Inn in Brockton , the latest in a series of meetings held in different regions of the state to conduct commission business and meet with local youth and advocates to assess the situation of LGBT youth in Massachusetts. Thus far the commission has held meetings in Boston, Hyannis and Worcester, and in March the commission will hold a meeting in Springfield.

Jason Smith, chair of the commission, said a group of local youth will address the commission at the Brockton meeting and talk about the issues facing LGBT youth in their city. Prior to the public meeting the commission will also hold a private discussion forum with local LGBT and allied youth to hear firsthand about their experiences at schools, in their families and in their neighborhoods. The commission held a similar event at the Worcester meeting in October that brought out about 20 young people involved in local gay/straight alliances....

The meeting will include discussion of LGBT youth funding in the fiscal year 2009 budget and the state of the Department of Education’s Safe Schools program. Commissioners will also vote on a slate of new candidates to fill the slots of commissioners who have resigned. Smith said he was unsure how many prospective commissioners were on the slate, but many of them help the commission achieve its goal of increasing representation of various communities, including LGBT youth themselves.

"Most of the commissioners that have applied and that we’re looking at are youth or potential commissioners who are transgender, and there’s also a lot of people representing Western Mass," said Smith, who added that there are commissioners from southern Mass. and Cape Ann as well. "We’re definitely looking to regionalize." [emphasis added]

The Commission's next meeting (open to the public) is taking place at the Holiday Inn in Brockton next Monday, Dec. 17, from 7-9 p.m.

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.

Polyamory On the Way

We've reported before on polygamy/polyamory activists in Massachusetts. See "Polygamy & BDSM Advocate Behind Anti-Bullying Programs in Schools" (2-6-07):

Valerie White (see her web site) is an activist for "alternative sexual expression" -- including polygamy, polyamory, and BDSM (torture, sadomasochism, dangerous sexual perversions, etc.). She's a board member of the Unitarian pro-polyamory group called "Unitarian Universalists for Polyamory Awareness," and an ordained "Humanist" minister. (Now recall that the Unitarians have been a huge prime mover for "homosexual marriage." Their national headquarters building is immediately adjacent to the Mass. State House; how convenient!) White has set up a legal foundation to defend practitioners of "alternative sexual expression," including BDSM, the Sexual Freedom Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc. (See "BDSM & the law" ...)

Recently, NARTH (Nat'l Assoc for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) brought our attention to "Poly Pride Week" in New York last October. Polyamorous NYC ("Expanding the depth of human relationships with strength in numbers") hosted a big event in Central Park including a huge "cuddle party" for "all orientations and genders." (The Massachusetts activist noted above, Valerie White, is also associated with the NY group.)

Polyamorous NYC will host the 7th Annual Poly Pride Day on Great Hill in Central Park, Sat., Oct. 6th from Noon to 6 p.m. The organizers are planning multiple polyamorous events for the entire weekend. All poly-friendly, poly-curious and polyamorous people welcome! "Nuclear families are beginning to disappear. Non-traditional relationships, often involving three or more consenting adults are taking their place" says Polyamorous NYC member, Barbara Foster. "Poly Pride Day gives us an opportunity to publicly celebrate these non-traditional families."

Resources on Polyamorous NYC's web site -- all available on Amazon -- include:
The Ethical Slut: A Guide to Infinite Sexual Possibilities
Polyamory: The New Love Without Limits: Secrets of Sustainable Relationships
Redefining Our Relationships: Guidelines for Responsible Open Relationships

Sandy Rios Challenges Mitt Romney

John Haskins, political analyst for the Parents' Rights Coalition, comments on Sandy Rios's great new column (excerpt below):

As so often before, Sandy boldly stands up and tells the unvarnished truth -- when so many mercenary "pro-family leaders" and "conservative" super-lawyers remain silent about one of the biggest, best funded and most socially destructive cover-ups in modern American politics. If you are too lazy to read the letter Sandy references, and see how Romney brilliantly trashed the oldest functioning constitution in the world, I sure hope you are also too lazy to vote!

What Sandy is reporting here is the absolute truth. I can personally vouch for the fact that it's been affirmed by numerous constitutional experts. They include Professor Herbert Titus and Alan Keyes, whose Harvard Ph.D. in constitutional governance makes him far more qualified than the celebrity "conservative" lawyers who are dishonestly steering people away from the plain English in the state constitution that Romney gutted. Much of the pro-family establishment is failing in their sacred duty at this decisive moment in American history. As I've written before, our constitutions are not for "legal experts" to lock away from your prying eyes. They were written for you --for ordinary citizens as protection against the lawyers, judges and politicians who are telling you that judges make the law and have absolute tyrannical power over our elected representatives.

Romney has spread huge amounts of money around the conservative and "pro-family" movement to buy silence and even loyalty. The financial incentives and other pressure to keep the people's eyes off the absolute proof in the Massachusetts Constitution are intense! One reason is that so many respected "conservative" lawyers committed gross malpractice by failing to do due diligence and actually read the Massachusetts Constitution. Once they went on record in support of Romney's blatant lies, they found themselves unable to publicly backtrack without a huge loss of prestige. They are now putting their own reputations over their sacred duty to defend the rule of law under our state and federal constitutions, from outlaw politicians and judges who routinely lie to the people.

Here's the letter Sandy referred to -- that she signed, with many other social conservatives and veteran pro-family leaders and activists. It seems TownHall.com removed the link from Sandy's letter to discourage people from reading it. TownHall, National Review, Human Events, Fox News and most of the blindly pro-Republican establishment media have betrayed conservatives and constitutionalists by refusing to inform people about how Romney brilliantly used the court's non-binding opinion as a smokescreen to illegally impose "gay marriage." They are dominated by career "conservatives" including lawyers like Hugh Hewitt, who have been aggressively steering people away from the absolute proof in the Massachusetts Constitution that Mitt Romney misrepresented his constitutional duty and gave illegal orders to town clerks and justices of the peace and thereby, himself unconstitutionally imposed homosexual "marriage."

As Sandy points out, while desperately seeking the endorsement of the homosexual activist group the Log Cabin Republicans in 2002, Romney secretly promised to ignore the state constitution and violate his solemn oath to defend it against arrogant judges. That's right, folks. Mitt Romney, according to eyewitnesses -- including one of his own former staff members -- secretly promised homosexual activists that he would step aside and let the court reach far beyond its constitutional jurisdiction and unconstitutionally get sodomy-based "marriage" past the legislature and the people.


Mitt Romney May Have Had No Choice, But I Do
By Sandy Rios
Monday, December 10, 2007

Exactly one year ago I signed a letter of challenge to Mitt Romney along with Paul Weyrich and 42 other pro-family leaders asking the governor to use the time he had left in office to “reverse the damage that has been done to the sacred institution of marriage.” We urged him to “declare immediately that homosexual ‘marriage’ licenses issued in violation of the law are illegal and to issue an order to all state and local officials to cease violating the law.”

Why did we make such a difficult and uncomfortable request? After all, Governor Romney had done everything he could to stop homosexual marriage, hadn’t he? And as he explained to the people of Massachusetts and to the country, he had “no choice” but to “execute the law.” He had no choice when he ordered marriage licenses changed from “husband and wife” to “party A and party B”… no choice when he ordered city officials to immediately begin performing same-sex marriages … no choice when he threatened them with losing their jobs if they didn’t comply … no choice but to be the very instrument, the expeditor, the person responsible for ushering in same-sex marriage.

You will find our letter filled with passages from the Massachusetts Constitution quite convincing, but you can also read the words penned by Hugh Hewitt at the time in an article he wrote in The Weekly Standard on November 20, 2003.

It was titled “Just Say ‘No.’ ” Hugh begins with a quote attributed to President Andrew Jackson in the aftermath of a Supreme Court decision he disliked: “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.” “Romney should seriously consider indifference,” Hugh wrote. “The ruling is also absurd in its reasoning and breathtaking in its arrogance…. The decision is illegitimate, and the appropriate response will be to ignore it. Romney and the legislature ought to stand back and say no.” Hugh continued, “In fact, if the court threatens with penalties, they ought to threaten back.” ... (Read more of Sandy Rios's column.)

Rhode Island Gets It: Laws Are Passed by Legislatures Only

Rhode Island's high court has just ruled that a lesbian couple supposedly "married" in Massachusetts may not be granted a divorce in Rhode Island, because R.I. does not recognize the validity of their "marriage."

The only thing missing from this story is the recognition, by Alliance Defense Fund attorneys involved (and other "conservatives") that this "marriage" wasn't valid in Massachusetts either, for the same reason it wasn't valid in Rhode Island: THE LEGISLATURE NEVER CHANGED THE LAW to allow same-sex "marriage" here!

The majority on the R.I. Court, the R.I. Governor, and even the attorney for GLAD (Gay & Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, who pushed "homosexual marriage" in Massachusetts), understood that only the R.I. legislature could change the law there.

So why is it any different in Massachusetts??? That's the question we've been asking for three years now. Our legislature NEVER changed our law, which clearly recognizes marriage as between a man and a woman. Why did the Alliance Defense Fund not point that out in this case? Could it have something to do with some of their members' support for Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, who sneaked "homosexual marriage" through here without it ever being legalized?

See the Boston Globe, "R.I. won't let gay couple divorce" (12-8-07; emphasis added):

... The court concluded that a key 1961 Rhode Island law defines marriage as an legal union between a man and a woman, not same-sex couples. Unless and until the Legislature changes the wording, same-sex couples married in Massachusetts cannot get divorced in Rhode Island family courts, it said.

Cassandra Ormiston, who married Margaret Chambers in Fall River in 2004 after Massachusetts became the first state in the country to legalize same-sex marriages, denounced the ruling, saying it discriminates against same-sex couples....

In a statement, Governor Donald L. Carcieri of Rhode Island and at least one group that opposes gay marriage praised the ruling. "I believe this is the appropriate result based on Rhode Island law," Carcieri said. "It has always been clear to me that Rhode Island law was designed to permit marriage, and therefore divorce, only between a man and a woman."

The lawyer for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian-based group, said the ruling affirms that marriage is between a man and woman and anything else is "counterfeit." "Not only is today's ruling a victory for marriage, it's also a tremendous step forward against judicial activism," Austin R. Nimocks, a lawyer for the Arizona group, said in a statement....

Karen Loewy, a staff lawyer with GLAD, which filed an amicus brief siding with the couple, said she was "incredibly distressed" for them. Short of persuading the Rhode Island General Assembly to legalize gay marriage, she said, the only certain way the couple can get a divorce is for one of the spouses to move to Massachusetts and establish legal residency....

The court's majority said the Legislature, not the courts, should change state law.

Bishop Gene Robinson: "I always wanted to be a June bride!"

"I always wanted to be a June bride," gushed Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire recently at a speech in Florida. Robinson is going to be legally joined to his long-time sodomy partner next June. New Hampshire legalized "civil unions" there starting this January.

Unlike New Hampshire, Massachusetts has still not legalized either "civil unions" or "homosexual marriage." They're just a fiction of some GLBT activists, four judges, and a former Massachusetts governor named Romney. So Bishop Robinson must be thanking his god that he's in a state where he can legally become a bride this June.

(photo source: Nova Southeastern Shepard Broad Law Center)

Gay Episcopal Bishop Prepares for June Wedding

by Priscilla Greear

U/Miami News Service

Tuesday Dec 4, 2007

The nation’s first openly gay Episcopal bishop told a crowd of about 200 that come June he’s marching down the aisle with his longtime male partner Mark Andrew. "I always wanted to be a June bride," said Bishop Gene Robinson at a talk on Nov. 27 at Nova Southeastern University.

"It may take many years for religious institutions to add their blessing for same-sex marriages and no church, mosque or synagogue should be forced to do so. But that should not slow down progress for the full civil right to marry," Robinson said. "Because New Hampshire will have legal unions beginning in January, my partner of 20 years and I will enter into such a legal union next June." ...

Wearing a raspberry clergy shirt with a cleric collar and pectoral cross, Robinson characterized the "religious right" as close-minded, taking a literal interpretation of Bible condemnation of homosexuality."The greatest single hindrance to achievement of full rights for gays and lesbians can be laid at the doorstep of the three Abrahamic faiths-- Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It’s going to take people of faith to end discrimination," said Robinson, who was invested as the ninth bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of New Hampshire in 2004.... [emphasis added]

Now if an Episcopal Bishop slams the supposed foundation of his own faith ("the three Abrahamic faiths -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam"), to what faith does he now plan to appeal to bolster his belief in sodomy "marriage"?

Mitt Romney's Legacy in Massachusetts

By John Haskins

This insight of T. S. Eliot, Christian convert and great poet of the 20th Century, explains so perfectly the stubborn, self-serving, relentless whitewashing of Willard Mitt Romney's actions in Massachusetts by placebo conservatives, pundits, "legal experts," and surrender-addicted "pro-family leaders":

“Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don’t mean to do harm – but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves.”
- T. S. Eliot

These mercenaries have squandered -- or sold -- every last remnant of moral or intellectual authority they may once have had. First as a clique, then a cabal, now almost a political mafia, they've hijacked organized moral conservatism in America and turned it into a string of commercial franchises like MacDonald's. They are capping two or three decades of blind, vision-less, rationalized faux-pragmatism (read "capitulation") with their current cover-up of the massive and fundamental damage Mitt Romney did to constitutionalism, marriage, the natural human family, and indisputable the right of children not to be laboratory rats injected with the poisonous Stalinist brainwashing of the most fanatical sexual anarchists on earth -- the scandalously over-funded sodomy "tolerance" revolution, before whose blitzkrieg all constitutional rights are being flattened.

As governor, Mitt Romney held a political auction and sold to the highest bidders the very things he now claims to have heroically defended. His lies are not marginal. They are not "spin." They are black and white falsehoods with only the faintest veneer of justification. He is a master of the "Big Lie."

He liquidated the heart and soul of oldest functioning constitution in the world. He liquidated the inalienable right of the people to rule themselves free of judicial dictatorship. He liquidated the right of every child to have a mother and a father. He liquidated the right of Catholic hospitals not to issue abortifacients, the right of citizens not to fund the killing of human babies in the womb, and the right of citizens with common sense and moral boundaries to withhold their official seal of approval from sodomy-based marriage, homosexual adoption and all the consequences that these will bring. With these he auctioned off freedom of religion and freedom of conscience.

In Massachusetts, Mitt Romney held a going-out-of-business sale for Western Civilization, and pocketed the political capital he got in return. But his precious proceeds are now slipping through his desperate fingers like worthless sand. The people are saying "NO" to Slick Willard and his "elite" Praetorian Guard of mercenary faux-conservatives.

I voted for Mitt Romney, then watched him betray everything he solemnly swore in the name of God to defend. His actual record is beyond the pale. To endorse him or vote for him -- or to even remain silent as friends and colleagues do -- is a betrayal of constitutional governance and the needs of children, and mocks the deaths of soldiers and sailors who defend our inalienable right to govern ourselves according to the values that preserve society and families.

John Haskins is a political analyst for the Parents' Rights Coalition of Massachusetts.

Radio Interviews with John Haskins on Romney's Violation of Mass. Constitution

Do the people have a right to know who is selling off their state and federal constitutions -- and their right of self-government? The process of outing the "social conservatives," "pro-family" leaders, pundits, lawyers and law professors who are busy covering up Mitt Romney's dirty deed continues apace! Outed in Haskins' interview are: Mass. Family Institute, Mass. Citizens for Life, and Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ (American Center for Law & Justice).

Sandy Rios (Culture Campaign), Gregg Jackson (Pundit Review), and WorldNetDaily are some of the rare media personalities and outlets with the courage to speak the truth on Romney.

Don't miss this interview from the Sandy Rios show out of Chicago:
Download MP3 Tue 11/06/2007 Hour #2: John Haskins of the Parents' Rights Coalition re: Paul Weyrich endorsement of Mitt Romney, GOP presidential candidate.

And from Pundit Review Radio, with Gregg Jackson (on Boston's WRKO AM680):

Posted by Gregg on Dec 4, 2007 @ 09:00
John Haskins of the Parents Rights Coalition
I had the pleasure of speaking with pro-family activist and political analyst for the Parents’ Rights Coalition Mr. John Haskins regarding how Mitt Romney shredded the Massachusetts’ Constitution by illegally imposing same sex marriage on the citizens of the Commonwealth and how he signed a healtcare bill that included tax payer subsidized abortion after his supposed “pro-life epiphany.” ...

Romney Leads In Staw Poll Corruption

Watch these videos from a recent straw poll in Florida, and make your own judgment. Not a Ron Paul supporter here, but these videos are revealing.

ReasonTV, "How to buy a straw poll:: http://reason.tv/roughcut/show/180.html
See also: http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZzFnrLvszFw
Ron Paul supporters' video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8wjJieSib0

We know from Mitt Romney's record in Massachusetts that he doesn't follow the rules ... like the supreme rule book, the Constitution.

Hugh Hewitt Told Romney to Defy Mass. Marriage Ruling in 2003, Now Fully Backs Romney

[photo: BizzyBlog.com]

So ... in November 2003, Hugh Hewitt, pseudo-conservative talk show host and columnist, told then Governor Mitt Romney to defy the unconstitutional Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court homosexual "marriage" ruling.

Could this be the same Hewitt who has written a fawning biography of Romney (which for some reason is not on his list of books on his TownHall site)? The same Hewitt who constantly sings his praises? The same Hewitt who has demeaned the MassResistance "Romney Deception" report? What could po$$ibly have changed hi$ mind on $omething a$ ba$ic a$ whether a pre$idential candidate re$pect$ and uphold$ the Constitution he $wore to uphold? Maybe Hewitt doesn't think constitutions matter any more?

It's always fun going through old files. Here's what we found, written just two days after the Goodridge ruling from the Massachusetts Court. (Excerpts; emphasis added:)

Just Say "No": Calling Governor Romney and the elected representatives of Massachusetts
by Hugh Hewitt
The Weekly Standard
11/20/2003

"JOHN MARSHALL has made his decision," Andrew Jackson is said to have remarked in the aftermath of a Supreme Court decision he disliked, "now let him enforce it."

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney would be well advised to ponder that line long and hard over the Thanksgiving holidays.

It is an interesting time for the Massachusetts Supreme Court to have seized control of the elected branches in its state, given the connection between Thanksgiving and the Bay State....Now, in the aftermath of Tuesday's radical diktat from four justices to Massachusetts' elected representatives, Americans are interested in the state's future as well.

Romney should seriously consider indifference. The governor noted that the ruling declaring same-sex marriage a mandate of the Massachusetts constitution is contrary to the sweep of recorded history, but it is more than that. The ruling is also absurd in its reasoning and breathtaking in its arrogance....
The decision is illegitimate, and the appropriate response will be to ignore it.... Editorial writers will shout. Senator Kennedy may even brand Romney a Neanderthal, as he did Justices Brown, Owen, and Judge Kuhl earlier this month.

But the storm will pass and the people of Massachusetts will applaud. They didn't sign up for a banana republic run by pretenders in robes, and no one in the state's illustrious history ever sacrificed life or limb--from Boston Harbor to Concord, Antietam or the battlefields of Europe and Asia--for the proposition that four judges get to change everything when they decide to conjure up a reason for doing so.

Romney and the legislature ought to stand back and say no. In fact, if the court threatens with penalties, they ought to threaten back. An outrageous overreach is only as strong as the passivity with which it is greeted.

This isn't primarily about gay marriage, and it isn't primarily about Massachusetts. It is primarily about self-government and limiting courts to their constitutional duties. And Massachusetts, again, has a central role to play.

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.

Transgender Push In Maine Protected by State Law

Maine has a problem. In 2005, discrimination on the basis of "actual or perceived gender identity or expression" was outlawed. Now, regular people don't understand why gender-neutral bathrooms, and public library events exploring and celebrating homosexuality and transgenderism are starting to pop up. Maine's trans activists are on the march.

GLAD, Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, the same group that argued for "homosexual marriage" in Massachusetts, is helping secure "transgender rights" in Maine. From their web site:

April 2 , 2007 -- GLAD Civil Rights Project Director Mary Bonauto today presented testimony in favor of proposed regulations for implementing Maine's ant-discrimination law. The law, ratified by voters in 2005, provides protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity and expression in employment, housing, public accommodations, credit and education. The regulations are significant in providing a working definition of gender identity and gender expression. Read Mary Bonauto's testimony.

This may soon be coming to Massachusetts. In January of February, as we've reported, the Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the "Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes Bill" H1722. Get ready.

Here's a recent story from Maine:

Controversy erupts over GLBTQ program at York Public Library
Library board member quits; donors on fence
October 31, 2007

YORK, Maine — A controversial program on homosexuality has caused the York Public Library to alter its sponsorship policy for outside groups, prompted a trustee to resign in protest and impelled donors to threaten to withhold financial support for the library.

The York Diversity Forum and York High School civil rights team on Saturday will hold the program focused on gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered and questioning people regardless....

Julie Edminster resigned from the York Public Library board of trustees because of the program. She said she has struggled to make a principled, public stand against the program, while still worrying about the backlash she expects from a "politically correct" community. "This is the type of program and tactic that was used throughout Massachusetts that enabled gay marriage to become legal," Edminster wrote in an e-mail to The York Weekly.

"The library conference rooms should only be used as meeting space, and (the library) should not take sides on any political issue by offering staffing, (public relations), and its e-mail database to the Diversity Forum," she wrote. The library, she said, is breaking its own rules "through the use of free space for at least nine-plus hours, free press releases, free space on the Web site, a free e-mail marketing campaign and free staffing support."
[Read more...]

Transgender Rights Bill Hearing Coming in Late January

Left: Holly Ryan of the Mass. Transgender Political Coalition (MTPC)

Bay Windows is reporting that H1722, the "Transgender Rights and Hate Crimes" bill, will come up for a hearing before the Judiciary Committee in late January or early February, according to State Rep. Carl Sciortino. Sciortino advises the GLBT community never to compromise on their demands, but always ask for everything they can imagine: "...the LGBT community should always push their lawmakers to deliver the ideal, even if those lawmakers claim it cannot be done."

If you think things are bad now, get ready for unthinkable craziness on the street, in your place of work, in the courts. Some examples: If a "transgender" person applies for (or holds) a job in your company, and is not hired (or is fired) for some reason completely divorced from his sexuality, watch out for a lawsuit anyhow. We'll see girls' bathrooms in public elementary schools used by boys -- if they say they feel like girls that day. Women's health club locker rooms will be forced to allow she-males. If you can imagine it, it will come -- because "gender identity or expression", the fanciful concept (not reality) protected by this bill, is undefined. If passed, this bill will bring further chaos to Massachusetts (then move on to the rest of the country).

From Bay Windows, "Trans Activists Call for an End to Violence" [what violence?]:
... The afternoon before the Day of Remembrance ceremony MTPC held a town hall meeting at the church to talk about its political priorities, particularly House Bill 1722, a bill that would add gender identity and expression to the state’s anti-discrimination and hate crimes laws. Rep. Carl Sciortino, one of the bill’s sponsors, said the bill will likely come before the judiciary committee for a hearing in late January or early February.

Sciortino urged the audience to be uncompromising in their push for full equality. Citing the federal fight for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, in which House leadership passed the bill after stripping out trans-inclusive language, Sciortino said that the LGBT community should always push their lawmakers to deliver the ideal, even if those lawmakers claim it cannot be done.

"Elected officials in that crazy world in the State House or in Congress down in D.C., we’re forced sometimes, given circumstances, to make compromises. But as a community you should never, ever say it’s okay to compromise on civil rights. If our organizations and we as individuals go to our elected officials say, it’s okay to compromise me now as long as we get there eventually, you’re not doing justice then to push them to the next level," said Sciortino. He said that the fight for H.B. 1722 will be challenging and that the LGBT community needs to be prepared to stand firm and push their lawmakers to back full equality for the transgender community.

Holly Ryan, co-chair of MTPC, said the loss of gender identity language in ENDA shows the importance of pushing for those protections at the state level. "The reason we need to pass this now is the federal government isn’t going to protect you now, but the Massachusetts legislature can," said Ryan.

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.

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. . . .

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.