CNS News is pointing out something I've said about Mitt Romney before: he was pretty spineless when the royal Mass. Supreme Court decreed that homosexuals should be able to "marry."
former state legislator Brian Camenker claims that Romney's moves during the period leading up to the May 17 implementation of the court's order actually helped grease the skids for gay marriage in the Bay State.
The November 2003 Massachusetts high court ruling said that the rights and privileges of marriage had to be applied to everyone -- including same-sex couples -- under the state constitution. It gave the Massachusetts Legislature 180 days to act on a homosexual marriage law.
By April 2004, lawmakers had not acted. But Romney had. Camenker said not only had the governor ordered JPs to perform gay marriages, but he also issued new marriage certificates that replaced the titles "husband" and "wife" with "Party A" and "Party B."
"The legislature never acted. He didn't have to do anything," said Camenker, who is currently president of MassResistance, a suburban Boston-based anti-gay marriage group. "Romney was a major force in creating same-sex marriage."
Of course Romney claims he had no choice but to do this. But the Supreme Court had zero authority to order this, as evidenced by the fact that the court told the legislature it had to act; if such a decision already had a legal basis, there would have been no need for the legislature to do anything.
And if the courts get to create law (which they they have no authority to do), then why could they not decree that a man could marry his cat, or that a woman could marry her son? If the source of authority for what's right and wrong depends on a court majority, then these would be just as legitimate as a decree that two men can shack up, have sex with each other and call it "marriage."
We don't need a president who lets himself be led around by the nose by people who have no authority.
2 comments:
Hogwash. The Court issued an unambiguous ruling and the JPs took an oath to uphold the law. Are you suggesting that it's OK to violate an oath before the Lord? By urging the JPs to uphold their oath and follow the law, Romney was able to have city and town clerks follow the law when he forced them to stop issuing licenses for out of state gay marriages. Had he been inconsistent, he would have been unable to stop the export of gay marriage to other states. As it turns out, Romney succeeded in large part in his effort based on his "follow the law" argument.
Anonymous, you seem to be missing the point that THERE WAS NO LAW TO FOLLOW IN THE FIRST PLACE.
The Mass. constitution didn't mandate the concept of homosexual "marriage" despite the desires of the liberal court, and there was no law of any kind on the book mandating it.
Just because some judge or group of judges wants something to be law, doesn't make it law--that's an oligarchy.
As further proof that there was no law, the court decreed that the legislature MAKE a law. Why would they need to make a law allowing homosexual marriage if such a right already existed? These judicial emperors really showed that they had no clothes when they demanded that.
We live in a country of laws, with our constitutions being the highest of all laws. Men or groups of men can't just say something and make it "law."
Post a Comment