The "Catholics for Romney" shtick has had a setback and at lease one of their blogs have been pulled down.
I didn't follow the controversy as carefully as I should have as it was Fourth of July weekend - but the Reader's Digest version is, several local Catholics from Boston began commenting on the blog that gay marriage is actually still illegal here in Massachusetts - Romney was told by lawyers the legal reasons why the SJC had no authority in the matter and he should have prevented the issuance of marriage certificates and stated the Truth in the Public Square.
As New York has just issued the finding -The SJC has no authority, the Legislature has to make the law. The Massachusetts Legislature gathered, the amendment to the Constitution was never voted on. There is no gay marriage law in Massachusetts - ergo, it's all null and void and Romney is all smoke and mirrors and a coward.
The people who owned the blogs went ballistic attacking the people posting as "misguided", etc., they blocked the comment board (so much for democracy).
AS soon as New York issued its finding - the blog came down.
The Truth shall set us free.
Here's a synopsis from one commenter:
Comment from: Robert Paine, Esq. [Visitor] · http://robertpaine.blogspot.com/ I think it is great that Mitt Romney is attempting to protect marriage in other states, however.
I would like Mitt Romney to explain why he is running around the country claiming he is against gay marriage when he is actually the person RESPONSIBLE FOR GAY MARRIAGE coming to America; not (as he would like everyone to think) our imperialist judges.
Did the SJC reformulate not just the definition of marriage but also the definition of separation of powers? Is Mitt Romney, not one of the three "co-EQUAL" branches of Government? Does he not have the legal/constitutional duty to uphold current Massachusetts law? What then is the current state of Massachusetts law?
Either the SJC rewrote the marriage statute, which is clearly unconstitutional, or they did not. If they did not, Romney had no legal duty to order the issuance of marriage licenses. If they did, Romney had a legal obligation to ignore their unconstitutional legislative act (because the Massachusetts Constitution states that only the legislature may create laws). That limitation against legislating (by the way) applies to Mitt Romney as well. He as the chief executive (the executive branch) has no legal authority to enforce laws that DO NOT EXIST. If there is a law in Massachusetts that permits same-sex marriage, please I would like Mr. Romney to point it out.
Contrary to a popular misconception (except for certain lawyers and judges who are very much aware of this), gay marriage currently is not legal in Massachusetts. The SJC interpreted the marriage statute to NOT PERMIT same sex marriage. The SJC declared the marriage statute “unconstitutional” BUT they did not strike that law (read the Goodridge case). It remains a statute on the books as it was originally written and intended. The Massachusetts Constitution clearly states that a law that remains on the books is the law until it is repealed by the Legislature. The SJC simply changed the “common law” meaning of the term marriage but because that term already exists in the statute and in the Constitution, the SJC’s “common law” declaration of a new meaning did not and could not change the statute nor the words of the Constitution because common law is subordinate to statutory and constitutional law. The SJC acknowledged this in the Goodridge case saying that they could not legislate and therefore gave the legislature 180 days to act. The legislature neither repealed the “unconstitutional” marriage law nor changed the law by way of a change to the statute nor by allowing the Constitutional Amendment to go through in 2005. Therefore the “law,” the marriage statute, that forbids same-sex marriage, continues to forbid it.
The only reason why same-sex marriage licenses are being handed out in Massachusetts (and as a result are coming to the rest of America) is because Mitt Romney ORDERED them to into existence . . . but he did that without legal authority under any statute. This is confirmed by the fact that the Massachusetts Legislature currently has two opposing bills pending before it; one that promotes same-sex “marriage” (H977/S967) and the other that defines marriage as the union of one man to one woman (H654). If same-sex marriage” was currently legal, there would be no reason to have either of these opposing bills pending before the Massachusetts Legislature.
Mitt Romney could END GAY MARRIAGE simply by revoking his illegal order (ordering town clerks and justices of the peace to violate Massachusetts law by handing out marriage certificates to same-sex couples when Massachusetts law does not permit them from being issued -- and against the moral conscience of decent public servants [TC's and JP's]). He should be ashamed at claiming to "stand up" against judicial tyranny as a political “position.” If he were an honest man, he would end gay marriage today and actually stand up against judicial tyranny, even though it might cost him a little politically. I believe, however, if he would have the moral character and courage to do what is right, he would easily sail into the White House. Indeed, he is looking a gift horse in the mouth by not taking full advantage of his opportunity that would distinguish him from all of his other opponents. But every day that passes is a day he has failed to uphold his constitutional and sworn duty to uphold the laws of Massachusetts. It is a shame. 07/01/06 @ 21:42 Comment from: Jeff [Member] · http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com FWIW, Robert Paine and John Haskins from MassResistance have been scanning the "for Romney" blogging community and pasting in their misguided opinions for some months now. They seem to want to convince everyone that "Romney is the father of gay marriage" . . . seemingly trying to imply that he devised a plan to secretly get his life-long desire of helping same-sex couples unite while appearing to be against it the whole time (he's a gifted politician to be sure . . . but nobody could orchestrate that one!)
Taking a step back from their convoluted claims and looking at the "big picture" it all doesn't make any sense, espescially highlighted by four points:
1) If Romney could have found a way to legally stop Gay Marriage in MA (and believe me, he tried and tried and tried again) he absolutely would have as he would be every social conservative's "darling" and a "shoe in" for the GOP nomination (which he has been eyeing for some time).
2) The homosexual community hates Romney. I scan articles and blogs about Romney and HAVE NOT FOUND ONE from a homosexual source that speaks highly of Gov. Romney.
3) The entire Anti-gay marriage community (except for this tiny faction) lauds Romney as one of the strongest and the most articulate supporters of traditional marriage. See quote below from the most prominent activist supporting traditional marriage: “Mitt Romney is a brave man. While the GOP glitterocracy attended the first gay wedding of one of their own, Gov. Romney was in Washington, D.C., making the single most eloquent and articulate defense of our traditional understanding of marriage I have heard from an American politician. (Maggie Gallager -- President of the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy)
4) See for yourself how the whole gay marriage issue played out in the Boston news. Go to http://cbs4boston.com/video/ and there is a blue "Search" tab by all of the video clip thumbnails. Click on that and then type in "Romney Gay Marriage." 12 video clips will pop up in reverse chronology. Scanning the headlines chronologically will tell you that Romney kept coming up with new attempts to legally thwart gay marriages from happening in Massachusetts. Watch all of the video clips (most are just a couple of minutes long) and tell me if you are not 100%, completely, and totally convinced that Romney did everything in his power (legally) to prevent gay marriages from occurring. Tell me if the gays and/or liberals quoted seem happy with Romney (some even calling him "a Religious Zealot" for his opinions/actions).
I'm going to play their game and paste in this reply where ever I see them pasting in their missives. If they respond, though, I probably will not waste any time trying to convince them of their errors (they've obviously made up their minds and are "crusading" against Romney). Just wanted to get this information here for anyone that may be confused on the issues. Any reader with half a brain will realize whose side of the argument holds water and whose does not. 07/03/06 @ 03:59