‘Gay Marriage’ Is Legal in Massachusetts Only if Gov.
Romney Continues to Allow It, He Made the Wall Street Journal
Look Foolish in Saturday’s Weekend Edition
By MassNews Staff
A large two-column
story of Mitt Romney and picture appeared in Saturday’s “Weekend
Edition” of the Wall Street Journal where the newspaper repeated
without comment, the Governor’s ridiculous claim that gay marriage
is legal in Massachusetts.
Most observers
in the state realize it is legal only if the Governor continues
to allow it. They question whether Romney has the fortitude
to take charge of the state to which he moved and to which he
promised that he would enforce its Constitution.
Many in the
executive branch of this country have refused to enforce court
decisions which were invalid.
Abraham Lincoln in his first inaugural address refused to enforce
the Dred Scott decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which did
not recognize a free Negro before the Civil War.
Thomas Jefferson also challenged that same court in Marbury
v. Madison where it declared a law to be unconstitutional.
Many similar refusals can be found in the law books of this
country.
Serious
Flaws
The serious flaws in the Journal
story on Saturday are:
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney had just finished a speech
when he was asked how religion would affect his campaign should
he run for president in 2008.
"’You may have heard that I'm Mormon," Mr. Romney
told the crowd, adding that it's ‘very difficult being Mormon
in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage is legalized.’”
But that is not true.
Gay marriage is “legalized” here only if the Governor
decides that it is legal and he will enforce it. There were
six Associate judges who heard the case with three approving
gay marriage and three vehemently opposing it, saying it was
illegal for the court to even consider such a ruling. This required
the Chief Justice, Margaret Marshall, to rule even though she
was not allowed to do so because she had already decided the
case in that she had indicated to a homosexual group in 1999
that she would vote for gay marriage if such a case ever came
before her.
“Though he failed in a bid to unseat Sen. Edward Kennedy
in 1994, Mr. Romney won election as governor in the heavily
Democratic state in 2002, erased the state's $3 billion deficit
without raising taxes and launched a health-care plan to cover
all state residents.”
Romney failed in his bid against Kennedy only because he
ran a terrible campaign. In his first big debate, he turned
to Kennedy and said, “And what are you going to do about the
“glass ceiling?” Everyone gasped. That one moment was the end
of Romney as a serious candidate. Kennedy believed that there
should be stricter laws to help women in employment. Everyone
knew except for Mitt Romney.
He still doesn’t understand that he became Governor
in 2002 only because all the Democratic candidates came out
in favor of gay marriage in this heavily Catholic state and
Romney won by default although he is thoroughly disliked by
the conservative base here, which would do nothing to help him.
The reason he is running for President is that even he understands
he could never be re-elected to anything in this state.
Romney erased the state deficit because the economy suddenly
started booming everywhere because of President Bush’s tax policies.
His health care proposal will prove within a year to be
a socialist disaster like Hillary Clinton's did in 1992 when
she almost destroyed her husband’s Presidency and retreated
to decorating the White House for two years while she was rehabilitated.
The article mentions Mike Murphy, a political consultant
who has worked in the past with Mr. Romney. But it doesn’t mention
that Murphy dropped Romney because he picked McCain as a possible
winner, not Romney.
“As Mr. Romney and his wife posed for photos and chatted
with a crowd of about 75 people.”
The article does not mention that when running for Governor,
Romney embarrassed his wife, son and daughter-in-law because
they were among the 130,000 successful signers of the Protection
of Marriage Amendment in 2001 which would probably have stopped
Judge Marshall from enacting gay marriage. It failed in 2001
only because the Democratic legislature violated the state’s
constitution (according to a unanimous opinion of the state
Supreme Court) and refused to allow a vote to take place in
the legislature to send it to the voters for their approval
(only 25% of legislators were required to approve it in the
legislature)
|