Romney unilaterally implemented “gay” marriage in Massachusetts

by Jack Minor –

While Massachusetts is credited as the first state to permit “gay” marriages, a researcher into the issue has said the state never actually legalized the practice.

During the recent Republican debates, Romney comes across as a skilled debater and establishment Republicans laud him as the candidate for 2012. However, mainstream Republican voters seem to have a problem with him. A closer examination of Romney’s record reveals their concern is well founded.

When Romney was governor, Massachusetts became the first state to permit “gay” marriage. This opened the door for other states to follow suit, and began the debate over whether any state could now forbid such marriages under the “full faith and credit” clause of the Constitution.

In the midst of this debate, many may not realize that, while a homosexual couple can travel to Massachusetts and obtain a marriage license, the state legislature has never authorized such unions, even for its own citizens. The licenses are instead issued because of a directive issued by Romney that bypassed the legislature.

Amy Contrada, author of “Mitt Romney’s Deception,” has thoroughly documented how “gay” marriage was permitted in the state.

In a timeline posted on the site, Mass Resistance, Contrada says that Romney’s commitment for the “gay” agenda began during his 1994 campaign for the U.S. Senate. During the campaign, Romney was endorsed by the Log Cabin Republicans after promising to “provide more effective leadership” than Kennedy on homosexual rights.

Amy Contrada

On Nov. 18, 2003, The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) issued a ruling in the Goodridge case. The case was brought by seven same sex couples who sued the Massachusetts Department of Health for denying them marriage licenses. The SJC issued the first ever ruling by a state’s high court declaring same-sex couples had a right to marry.

In its ruling, the court stated that same-sex marriage was protected under the state constitution and gave the legislature 180 days to change the law to accommodate the ruling.

That same day Romney issued a four-sentence statement recognizing the court’s authority. “I disagree with the Supreme Judicial Court. Marriage is an institution between a man and a woman. I will support an amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution to make that expressly clear. Of course, we must provide basic civil rights and appropriate benefits to nontraditional couples, but marriage is a special institution that should be reserved for a man and a woman.”

While this statement appears to be a statement against same-sex marriage, Contrada said Romney’s actions would show this statement to be nothing more than window dressing.

Following the ruling, Romney was reportedly working with the legislature to permit civil unions, similar to Vermont. In February, 2004, the SJC told the legislature that civil unions would not satisfy the ruling and that only full-marriage rights would be acceptable.

During this time, Romney pushed for a state constitutional amendment limiting marriage to a man and woman. “While this may seem as an affirmation for traditional marriage, Romney was calling for the amendment to allow civil unions. He knew this would be a poison pill for voters,” Contrada said.

What many may not realize is that, to this day, the Massachusetts legislature still has not acted on the court’s opinion. The only law Romney signed relating to same-sex marriage was legislation eliminating a required blood test for sexually transmitted diseases before couples could obtain a marriage license.

In other words, same sex marriage is still illegal in the state.

The licenses that have been issued by town clerks since the ruling came about by a directive issued by Romney’s office, despite the court’s never having ordered him to do so.

Steve Baldwin, a Senior Fellow with the Inter-American Institute, says that Romney’s directive was blatantly unconstitutional.

In an article titled “Is Mitt Romney the father of gay marriage? Twenty-four reasons why he is” Baldwin says, “When the Massachusetts Supreme Court issued a decision in favor of homosexual marriage, — the Goodridge case — Romney unilaterally ordered his agencies to implement homosexual marriage in Massachusetts. The court did not order him to do this nor had the legislature codified this ruling.”

Baldwin continued, “All Romney had to do was to declare the court had no authority to enforce its unconstitutional opinion and ignore its decision. But instead of doing that, Romney abruptly claimed the court opinion was now the law of the land and ordered his Town Clerks and Justices of the Peace to marry homosexuals — even though the legislature never acted to codify the ruling.”

The SJC stated in the Goodridge ruling that, while same-sex marriage was legal for residents, the state did not have to issue licenses to couples from out of state.

In 2006 a Superior court judge ruled that “gay” couples from Rhode Island could marry in the state. Romney issued another order stating, “I have to follow the law.” Baldwin said, “What law? There isn’t any law on the books (in Massachusetts) allowing homosexual marriage.”

Following Romney’s order, several other states began to allow same-sex marriages; Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, New Hampshire, New York and Washington D.C.

 The Romney campaign did not return requests for comment.


Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Trackback  •  Posted by Jack Minor in General News category

 
  • Truth says:

    An absolute dishonest analysis. The Massachusetts Supreme Court legalized gay marraige in Massachusetts. Romney can not just say well I’m going to ignore the Supreme Court. We are a country of law and order. Any honest analysis would recognize that Romney was a champion of Traditional Marraige. He gave speeches and held rallies in favor of traditional marriage. He fought to put the issue up to a vote of the people. After the Supreme Court legalized Gay Marriage it was widely assumed that gay people across the country would come to Massachusetts to get Married. Romney was able to find an old law on the books that said you had to be a Massachusetts citizen to get married there, further angering Gay rights activists. Romney has been 100% consistant on this issue.

  • MrSpock says:

    The court’s ruling specifically said it was the responsibility of the legislative, not the executive branch to pass legislation to support the ruling.

    Romney had no right to assume the role of legislature. the courts never even said he had to do anything.

    Using this logic, the president can at any time bypass Congress whenever a court makes a ruling. So would you liberals like it if a conservative president or governor were to issue an executive order repealing all federal and state gun control laws on the basis of the Heller decision? The principle is the same.

    Don’t come back and try to say that Heller mentioned “reasonable gun control,” it still said owning a gun was a Constitutional right.

    If you are saying Romney was right and a governor can pass laws anytime he chooses simply based on a courts say so then why even have a legislative branch.

    The correct solution would have been for the courts to order the legislature to pass the law. The court could even write the legislation and order them to pass it. If they don’t then throw them all in jail for contempt of court.

    If you say that would be unconstitutional and violates the separation of powers, that is no more unconstitutional than what Romney did.

  • Lou says:

    I agree with “Truth” above.

    Amy Contrada’s version of the way things happened in Massachusetts is off base.

    As a matter of fact, Amy Contrada is off base.

    What are her credentials and qualifications? Is she a journalist? Writer? Sociologist?

    Nada.

    Amy Contrada has no credibility, and even other right wing organizations in Massachusetts avoid dealing with her….

    Buyer beware. Reader beware.

  • Joseph Smith says:

    By Amy Contada’s analysis ( remember she is not a lawyer or has any legal training) interracial marriage is still legal in many places in the south because those states never never legalized it.

    This is such a stupid analysis. The Mass SJC gave the state legislature 180 days to change the law otherwise the current marriage law would apply to both opposite and same same couples. Massrsistance is the only group in the nation still believing in this invalid argument.

Please leave a reply...



You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>