Romney Exposed By MassResistance

MassResistance posted a partial transcript from the Howie Carr Show (12-21-07) where former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney is asked by WRKO talk show host & conservative writer Gregg Jackson about the Mittmeister’s role in the birthing of “gay marriage” within the Bay State. Check it out:…

It’s well known in these parts that MassResistance has been gunning for Romney (especially since he’s been running for President). What makes the chase interesting is that MassResistance has some damning evidence to back up its charges against Romney (as you can see in the aforementioned link). Stuff like this is trickling its way up into Iowa & New Hampshire. If the “Stormin’ Mormon” stumbles & falls in those states, he can always blame the folks at MassResistance (& not himself) for the demise of his candidacy.

About ConcernedVoterInMass

  • Mitt Romney: Gregg, I’m afraid, is slightly delusional.

    What the Mass Resistance people wanted Mitt to do was to take the legal advice of Hadley Arkes and pull a Lincoln.  And if that failed, then to pull a Wallace.

    The governor’s legal counsel concluded that the 1860s and the 1960s were over, and that’s why Romney took the steps that he did.  I’m not a lawyer so I can’t comment on the soundness of Arkes’ legal theory, but he seemed to be the sole person making such an argument.  During the whole marriage debate I paid fairly close attention to Volokh – and no one suggested anything close to what Arkes was.  That’s the conservative legal blog as far as I can tell.

    As to the specific claim by Mass Resistance that Goodridge didn’t change the law or order anything, that seems to misstate things.  It reformulated the common law definition of marriage.

    We concur with this remedy, which is entirely consonant with established principles of jurisprudence empowering a court to refine a common-law principle in light of evolving constitutional standards. See Powers v. Wilkinson, 399 Mass. 650, 661-662 (1987) (reforming common-law rule of construction of “issue”); Lewis v. Lewis, 370 Mass. 619, 629 (1976) (abolishing common-law rule of certain interspousal immunity).

    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.

    During the second Con Con, it was my impression that Mitt did nothing.  He was out of state and tried to distance himself as much as possible from the issue.  If in fact he did do nothing then it would seem absolutely right to criticize him about his actions during that particular time.    It’s questionable in my mind whether he could have done anything to help much during the second Con Con, so in total his actions were as best as could be expected.

  • wavemaker

    I could be mistaken (and I fully expect He Who Is Most Arrogant to chime in here on His Favorite Topic), but I don’t think the SJC was telling the legislature to do anything — there was nothing to be done insofar as the opinion held what it held. What the SJC meant when it gavr the legislature 180 days to take whatever action it thought necessary was to review and amend whatever statutes it might think appropriate to make the laws consistent with the newly declared constitutional interpretation. Of course the legislature didn’t have to do anything — that only meant that those citizen caught in the confusion resulting from the difference between statute and court opinion would end up in court themselves, seeking an application of a general constitutional declaration to the words of an existing, inconsistent statute.

    The legislature, as usual, has punted.