Friday, December 9, 2011

Mitt Romney Has Been Consistent In Upholding Traditional Marriage

Maggie Gallagher, founder of the National Organization for Marriage, has penned an excellent article defending Mitt Romney's record on gay marriage:
In the summer of 2003, when I learned the Massachusetts courts were likely to make gay marriage a reality, I quit my job and started up a think tank to work full time on the marriage issue. I traveled to Massachusetts multiple times to confer with local leaders, testify before the legislature, address grassroots gatherings, meet with policymakers.
Mitt Romney didn't just oppose court-ordered same-sex marriage with words, he fought hard, including behind the scenes.
When the people of Massachusetts mobilized the most massive signature-gathering operation in the state's history in support of a marriage amendment defining marriage as one man and one woman, Romney supported the effort.
Under that state's constitution, 25 percent of the legislators must vote twice to approve a proposed amendment before it goes to a vote of the people.
The fact is, that against incredible shenanigans by many pro-gay marriage Democrats, while Romney was governor, the marriage amendment made progress. On Jan. 2, 2007, a few days before Romney left office, more than 25 percent of legislators DID approve the marriage amendment.
After he left office, the Democrats succeeded through a massive arm-twisting campaign to kill off the marriage amendment in the second vote.
If Romney had had another term as governor, the people of Massachusetts would have won the right to overrule their court and reverse gay marriage, as the people of California did.
And on the federal marriage amendment? In June of 2004, Romney testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee in favor of the federal marriage amendment, something Newt Gingrich never did. Ron Paul actively opposed a federal marriage amendment, even though it's the only way to prevent the Supreme Court from imposing gay marriage on all 50 states. Only Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann have a record of concrete deeds on marriage that exceeds Romney's.
Romney's new mailer in Iowa says he opposes same-sex marriage and supports a federal marriage amendment.
This is not a flip-flop; it's the truth. On gay marriage he's been a rock.
Maggie Gallagher claims that alot of shenanigans took place by pro-marriage democrats to make gay marriage happen in Massachusetts. What kind of stunts did the Democrats pull? Lets find out:
Here is a little back-story about how gay marriage was forced on the Mass. residents.
Most Americans know that Massachusetts is the only state that allows gay marriage. And they probably also know that Mitt Romney was governor when gay marriage was legalised. What I’m not sure many people know around the country is how this came to pass. This was not a bill that passed through the state house and senate, then on to Romney’s desk for a signature. This was a case of liberal, activist judges instituting their own personal policy preferences onto the citizens of Massachusetts, where they had no right to do so. They forced Mass. residents to accept something that polls show a vast majority of residents don’t want.
A citizen’s group gathered up more than enough signatures to have this issue go to the citizens for a vote in 2008 on this issue and have the constitution amended according to the vote. This meant that there had to be a constitutional convention,which there was, where a vote would have to be taken to put this issue on the ballet by Mass. law.
The constitutional convention, knowing Romney wasn’t running for re-election, illegally filibustered and the issue was never voted on in committee. Romney then filed a complaint with the state supreme court to have the committee reconvened and force a vote on the issue.
Unfortunately Romney was out of office before the final verdict came down. That is probably where he let Mass. residents down, if he did at all, by not running for re-election.
When gov. Patrick took office, the first thing he did was to kill the whole controversy by basically telling his law makers to ignore the law, and the wishes of the people, and not vote or send the issue to the voters.
The New York Times confirms this version of events:
With only a month before same-sex marriages are to become legal in Massachusetts, Gov. Mitt Romney made a last-ditch effort on Thursday to keep them from taking place for at least two and a half years.
Mr. Romney said he would ask state lawmakers to pass emergency legislation allowing him to petition the state's Supreme Judicial Court to stay its ruling making gay marriage legal as of May 17. The governor wants the court to postpone same-sex marriages until a constitutional amendment banning them has a chance to be approved by voters. That would not be until November 2006, because the amendment must be passed again in the 2005-6 legislative session.
''This is the sole step that I believe can be taken, within the bounds of the law, to preserve the right of the citizens to decide whether we'll have same-sex marriage in the commonwealth,'' Mr. Romney said at a news conference.
Some people claim that Mitt Romney should have done more in fighting to protect traditional marriage after the Massachusetts Supreme Court made Gay Marriage legal in that state. However, Mitt Romney did all that he could do within his power to uphold traditional marriage:
Conservative leaders including Pat Buchanan and Mike Huckabee argue that Mitt Romney should have defied the order of the Massachusetts Supreme Court and refused to allow gay marriage ceremonies to take place in the state (Buchanan argues defiance:;  Huckabee says Romney could have stopped it without specifics:  There is a problem with these views.  The people of Massachusetts elected Mitt Romney to carry out the law as interpreted by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.  Mitt Romney was not elected to take a position of conscience against the ordered society of Massachusetts, and his role as governor was to carry out the law as interpreted by the Court.
If Romney had defied the court in ways advocated by Pat Buchanan and Mike Huckabee (neither of whom is a licensed attorney in any state), Governor Romney could have been held in contempt, impeached and lost his license to practice law in the state.   The senior counsel for the American Center of Law and Justice shares my interpretation of Romney’s conflict:  Taking a position of conscience in defiance to a public administrative duty completely goes against the concept of civil society.  When a soldier refuses to serve in active duty on a position of conscience, he receives a dishonorable discharge.  Should we really expect an elected Governor to defy a court order of his own state? 
The people of Massachusetts have a legal right to overturn any ruling on individual rights in Massachusetts by the amendment process of the state constitution.  After the Court ordered civil unions to be recognized between same-sex couples, Governor Romney led an effort to amend the constitution to define a civil union to exist only between a man and a woman.    The state legislature refused bring the issue to a vote.  After Romney ran into this opposition, he didn’t sit back:  he filed suit (  Romney sued the legislature as a citizen to bring the constitutional effort to a vote, but he could not succeed.  These efforts by Romney shows a man deeply troubled and offended at the concept of gay marriage. Suggesting he supported gay marriage is simply not true.
Sometimes, the best evidence doesn't come from supporters of Mitt Romney but his opponents. Below is a clip of Mitt Romeny speaking at a Pro-Traditional marraige rally:
Here's a video of Mitt Romney with Chris Matthews back in April 12, 2006 stating that he supports Pro-Traditonal marraige:
In the end, Mitt Romney has been consistent in fighting for traditional marriage. That is why he signed the a pledge from the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) supporting marriage between a woman and man. As a result, Mitt Romney has been the strongest and consistent supporter of traditional marraige. That is clear from the facts and from those who served with Mitt Romney in Massachusetts.

1 comment:

  1. Cain drops in polls, numbers go to other man, both (shall I say three) of them experienced the same
    thing in the nineties . An ex adulterer in the oval office and a first lady who had an affair with a married man. Is this the kind of role model that we want our children see? Hypocracy is the buzz word here.
    Protect our children. They are not political ( pandering expediency etc) and they need a God fearing leader in the white house as their role model.