News Blog for social, fiscal & national security conservatives who believe in God, family & the USA. Upholding the rights granted by God & guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution, traditional family values, "republican" principles / ideals, transparent & limited "smaller" government, free markets, lower taxes, due process of law, liberty & individual freedom. Content approval rests with the ARRA News Service Editor. Opinions are those of the authors. While varied positions are reported, beliefs & principles remain fixed. No revenue is generated for or by this "Blog" - no paid ads - no payments for articles.Fair Use Doctrine is posted & used. Blogger/Editor/Founder: Bill Smith, Ph.D. [aka: OzarkGuru & 2010 AFP National Blogger of the Year] Contact: editor@arranewsservice.com (Pub. Since July, 2006)Home PageFollow @arra
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics
is that you end up being governed by your inferiors. -- Plato
(429-347 BC)
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
Did Gov Mitt Romney (R-MA) chose to support 'gay' marriage?
A leader of the Parents' Rights Coalition in Massachusetts says he believed all along that Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) chose to implement "gay" marriages in that state, and now a court has confirmed that it did not have the power to order that change. John Haskins, associate director of the family-support organization, told WorldNetDaily that three years after the Goodridge decision by the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts, "Americans merely have to note that the judges admit now ... that they have no power over the other branches of government, and that the state constitution says that only the legislature can suspend laws" . . .[Click for more]Romney to File Papers on Wednesday to Run for President Tags:Election 2008, Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, parent rights, presidential candidate, RepublicanTo share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. Thanks!
The contention that Mitt Romney chose to implement "gay" marriages is completely falacious. The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the existing state constitution/laws allowed for gay marriages. There was nothing for Mitt Romney to implement. See http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/front_page/mitt_romney_chose_gay_marriage.php for details on this topic.
In the debate on the issue of "Did Gov. Mitt Romney chose to support Gay marriage?" each person will need to gather and review the facts. To provided further clarification of the actual Massachusetts Supreme court decision visit http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/supremejudicialcourt/goodridge.html to read Hillary GOODRIDGE & others [FN1] vs. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & another. [FN2] SJC-08860.
In summary, the court said: "We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. This reformulation redresses the plaintiffs' constitutional injury and furthers the aim of marriage to promote stable, exclusive relationships. It advances the two legitimate State interests the department has identified: providing a stable setting for child rearing and conserving State resources. It leaves intact the Legislature's broad discretion to regulate marriage. See Commonwealth v. Stowell, 389 Mass. 171, 175 (1983)."
"In their complaint the plaintiffs request only a declaration that their exclusion and the exclusion of other qualified same-sex couples from access to civil marriage violates Massachusetts law. We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution. We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion. See, e.g., Michaud v. Sheriff of Essex County, 390 Mass. 523, 535-536 (1983)."
What the legislature did in the 180 days from the decision is open to further research.
One side may argue the Gov. Romney was required to act. Another side may argue that the Courst has no jurisdiction to enforce action on the Executive Branch under seperation of poweres in the State of Massachusetts.
Since Gov. Romney is considering running for President, we hope readers will research and provide their input -- hopefully not all using the "anonymous" option.
Personal Tweets by the editor: Dr. Bill - OzarkGuru - @arra
#Christian Conservative; Retired USAF & Grad Professor. Constitution NRA ProLife schoolchoice fairtax - Editor ARRA NEWS SERVICE. THANKS FOR FOLLOWING!
To Exchange Links - Email: editor@arranewsservice.com!
Comments by contributing authors or other sources do not necessarily reflect the position the editor, other contributing authors, sources, readers, or commenters. No contributors, or editors are paid for articles, images, cartoons, etc. While having reported on and promoting principles & beleifs beliefs of other organizations, this blog/site is soley controlled and supported by the editor. This site/blog does not advertise for money or services nor does it solicit funding for its support.
Fair Use: This site/blog may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of political, human rights, economic, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as provided for in section Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107 of the US Copyright Law. Per said section, the material on this site/blog is distributed without profit to readers to view for the expressed purpose of viewing the included information for research, educational, or satirical purposes. Any person/entity seeking to use copyrighted material shared on this site/blog for purposes that go beyond "fair use," must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
A leader of the Parents' Rights Coalition in Massachusetts says he believed all along that Gov. Mitt Romney (R-MA) chose to implement "gay" marriages in that state, and now a court has confirmed that it did not have the power to order that change. John Haskins, associate director of the family-support organization, told WorldNetDaily that three years after the Goodridge decision by the Supreme Judicial Court in Massachusetts, "Americans merely have to note that the judges admit now ... that they have no power over the other branches of government, and that the state constitution says that only the legislature can suspend laws" . . . [Click for more] Romney to File Papers on Wednesday to Run for President
2 Comments:
The contention that Mitt Romney chose to implement "gay" marriages is completely falacious. The Massachusetts Supreme Court ruled that the existing state constitution/laws allowed for gay marriages. There was nothing for Mitt Romney to implement. See http://www.evangelicalsformitt.org/front_page/mitt_romney_chose_gay_marriage.php for details on this topic.
In the debate on the issue of "Did Gov. Mitt Romney chose to support Gay marriage?" each person will need to gather and review the facts. To provided further clarification of the actual Massachusetts Supreme court decision visit http://www.mass.gov/courts/courtsandjudges/courts/supremejudicialcourt/goodridge.html to read Hillary GOODRIDGE & others [FN1] vs. DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH & another. [FN2] SJC-08860.
In summary, the court said:
"We construe civil marriage to mean the voluntary union of two persons as spouses, to the exclusion of all others. This reformulation redresses the plaintiffs' constitutional injury and furthers the aim of marriage to promote stable, exclusive relationships. It advances the two legitimate State interests the department has identified: providing a stable setting for child rearing and conserving State resources. It leaves intact the Legislature's broad discretion to regulate marriage. See Commonwealth v. Stowell, 389 Mass. 171, 175 (1983)."
"In their complaint the plaintiffs request only a declaration that their exclusion and the exclusion of other qualified same-sex couples from access to civil marriage violates Massachusetts law. We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution. We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion. See, e.g., Michaud v. Sheriff of Essex County, 390 Mass. 523, 535-536 (1983)."
What the legislature did in the 180 days from the decision is open to further research.
One side may argue the Gov. Romney was required to act. Another side may argue that the Courst has no jurisdiction to enforce action on the Executive Branch under seperation of poweres in the State of Massachusetts.
Since Gov. Romney is considering running for President, we hope readers will research and provide their input -- hopefully not all using the "anonymous" option.
Post a Comment
<< Home