Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney has positioned himself as a pro-life, pro-family "social conservative," and has received the endorsement of some prominent social conservatives. But Massachusetts-area grassroots Catholics familiar with his record as governor are mystified by that support.
Their view of Romney is that his "conversion" to social conservatism was pragmatic, a tactic to win the presidential nomination. The liberal policies that made Romney governor of Massachusetts -- including a pro-abortion and pro-gay marriage platform -- could not win him the Republican presidential nomination, so sweeping changes in his political philosophy were necessary.
Romney, the presidential candidate, is a politician vastly different from Romney, the governor of Massachusetts.
I've already questioned Romney's pro-life conversion. Anyone who simultaneously supports both the adoption of frozen embryos and destroying them for scientific research is not to be trusted on this issue.
His record on the campaign trail only corroborates my concerns. For example, he campaigns as a fiscal conservative but promised a $20 billion taxpayer bail-out to the Detroit auto industry on the eve of the Michigan primary.
I have a hard time believing a President Romney would shed all the liberal bad habits he exhibited as governor -- the same habits that pop up regularly on the campaign trail as he tells local audiences what they want to hear.
In a series of interviews with pro-life Catholics in Massachusetts, I uncovered a long list of concerns with Mitt Romney -- and they are dead-set in their opposition to him. This is the story they told me.
Romney on Abortion
Today Romney describes himself as "pro-life," and explains he converted to this position in late 2004. But his public statements and actions present a mixed history of pro-choice vs. pro-life positions.
During his 1994 Senate campaign against Ted Kennedy and in his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney campaigned as a pro-choice candidate. In a televised debate against Kennedy in October of 1994, Romney said he felt "abortion should be safe and legal in this country," and he believed this because his mother took that position in her 1970 U.S. Senate campaign.
When Kennedy labeled his opponent "multiple choice," Romney rebutted that, since the time of a close relative's death from an illegal abortion years ago, "My mother and my family have been committed to the belief that we can believe as we want, but we will not force our beliefs on others on that matter, and you will not see me wavering on that."
Romney thus suggested he may have previously been neutral or pro-life, but he became pro-choice two years before Roe v. Wade (Conversion No. 1). He maintained that pro-choice position through his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, when he answered to Planned Parenthood and NARAL questionnaires by saying he supported "the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade," and "I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. . . . Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's."
Oddly, Romney refused to answer the candidate questionnaire sent to him that year by Massachusetts Citizens for Life.
By spring of 2005, Romney was highlighting his personal opposition to abortion in out-of-state speeches. "I'm in a different place than I was probably in 1994, when I ran against Ted Kennedy, in my own views on that." On May 23, 2005, Romney was quoted in USA Today saying he was "personally pro-life" but declined to say more. "I choose not to elaborate on those because I don't want to be confusing to people in my state."
Massachusetts Citizens for Life was "unimpressed with those moves," and still considered Romney an abortion-rights supporter.
Romney has attributed his pro-life conversion (Conversion No. 2) to a November 2004 stem cell research discussion with a Harvard researcher. He now claims he has joined company with other political figures such as Ronald Reagan and Henry Hyde who changed their views.
Tom McClusky of the Family Research Council summarized his view: "For a lot of people, especially Christian conservatives, it's one of those black and white issues. You're either pro-life or not. That's the trouble with Governor Romney -- he's gray."
Romney on Emergency Contraception
The Boston Globe claims that a visible result of Romney's abortion shift was his July 2005 veto of a bill making the "morning-after pill" (Plan B) available over-the-counter at state pharmacies and requiring hospitals to offer it to rape victims.
If Governor Romney has indeed suddenly become committed to the culture of life in the past two years, why did he eliminate the conscience exemption allowing Catholic hospitals to opt-out of the intrusive law that his own Department of Public Health decided to grant them?
On December 7, 2005, the Globe reported that Romney's Department of Public Health had determined Catholic and other privately run hospitals could opt out of giving the morning-after pill to rape victims because of religious or moral objections. A statute passed in previous years said that privately run hospitals could not be forced to provide abortions or contraception, and indeed, Article II of the Massachusetts Constitution guarantees such freedom of religious practice.
When pro-choice groups complained, Romney immediately caved-in -- or "flip-flopped," as Massachusetts Democrats described it, saying that after legal review, his own lawyer found all hospitals in the state would be forced to provide the morning-after pill to rape victims.
On December 9, 2005, the Boston Globe reported, "Governor Mitt Romney reversed course on the state's new emergency contraception law. . . . The decision overturns a ruling made public this week by the state Department of Public Health that privately run hospitals could opt out of the requirement if they objected on moral or religious grounds."
Why did Governor Romney not simply abide by the state constitution and the decision of his own Public Health Department? He instead abandoned Catholic hospitals, setting them up for possible court battles if they upheld their constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion.
Romney on Gay Rights
Romney has become a crusader against same-sex marriage and activist judges. But his gay-friendly positions from his 1994 campaign against Senator Kennedy have recently come back to haunt him, and documents held by Massachusetts pro-family activists and the Boston-area gay newspaper, Bay Windows, show how Romney's pro-gay actions as governor have not matched his conservative rhetoric.
Romney has become a crusader against same-sex marriage and activist judges. But his gay-friendly positions from his 1994 campaign against Senator Kennedy have recently come back to haunt him, and documents held by Massachusetts pro-family activists and the Boston-area gay newspaper, Bay Windows, show how Romney's pro-gay actions as governor have not matched his conservative rhetoric.
Romney's previous comments reported by the New York Times, Boston Globe, and other papers are troubling on their own. In 1994, Romney won the endorsement of the gay-advocating Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts, saying he would be a stronger advocate for gays than Senator Kennedy. "We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will."
During his 2002 run for governor, Romney supported full domestic partnership benefits for gay and lesbian couples, which had been opposed by Democratic legislative leadership, and his campaign distributed pink flyers during Gay Pride events promoting equal rights for all citizens regardless of their sexual preference.
During that same 2002 run, Romney also denounced as "too extreme" an effort by pro-family groups to enact a state Marriage Protection Amendment banning gay marriage, civil unions and same-sex domestic-partnership benefits which could have preempted the November 2003 same-sex marriage court decision.
Romney's inactions as governor that allowed the gay agenda to advance among young people are even more troubling. For example, the Governor's Commission for Gay and Lesbian Youth promotes gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender (GLBT) education in schools via speaking presentations, films, books, dances (such as transgender proms), handouts, and establishment of GLBT clubs.
Although Romney had legal control over the entity, he never tried to limit its use of funding, impact the membership, or dissolve the commission until after the legislature created a redundant commission several months before the end of his four-year term in office. In fact, Romney's fiscal 2006 budget included $250,000 for the commission, twice what he proposed spending in 2005. Romney signed annual proclamations recognizing Youth Gay Pride Day.
Romney's Department of Public Health supported publication of "The Little Black Book: Queer in the 21st Century," a pamphlet that includes graphic instructions about safely performing gay sex acts, which even liberal Boston Herald columnists described as "filled with crude vulgarities" and a "vile little pamphlet . . . dirt, dummied-down poison to the mind."
Romney's Department of Education provides extensive instructions to schools on forming Gay/Straight Student Alliances; advocates that school children attend gay pride parades; proposes agendas for a gay/lesbian "Day of Awareness, including a panel of transgender individuals talking about transvestite/transsexual issues; and suggests top ten Gay Straight Alliance meeting topics such as "What would the world be like if 10 percent of its people were straight and 90 percent were gay?" and "What would it be like if parents wanted their children to grow up gay?"
Romney on Judicial Appointments
During his 2002 run for governor, Romney supported full domestic partnership benefits for gay and lesbian couples, which had been opposed by Democratic legislative leadership, and his campaign distributed pink flyers during Gay Pride events promoting equal rights for all citizens regardless of their sexual preference.
During that same 2002 run, Romney also denounced as "too extreme" an effort by pro-family groups to enact a state Marriage Protection Amendment banning gay marriage, civil unions and same-sex domestic-partnership benefits which could have preempted the November 2003 same-sex marriage court decision.
Romney's inactions as governor that allowed the gay agenda to advance among young people are even more troubling. For example, the Governor's Commission for Gay and Lesbian Youth promotes gay/lesbian/bisexual/transgender (GLBT) education in schools via speaking presentations, films, books, dances (such as transgender proms), handouts, and establishment of GLBT clubs.
Although Romney had legal control over the entity, he never tried to limit its use of funding, impact the membership, or dissolve the commission until after the legislature created a redundant commission several months before the end of his four-year term in office. In fact, Romney's fiscal 2006 budget included $250,000 for the commission, twice what he proposed spending in 2005. Romney signed annual proclamations recognizing Youth Gay Pride Day.
Romney's Department of Public Health supported publication of "The Little Black Book: Queer in the 21st Century," a pamphlet that includes graphic instructions about safely performing gay sex acts, which even liberal Boston Herald columnists described as "filled with crude vulgarities" and a "vile little pamphlet . . . dirt, dummied-down poison to the mind."
Romney's Department of Education provides extensive instructions to schools on forming Gay/Straight Student Alliances; advocates that school children attend gay pride parades; proposes agendas for a gay/lesbian "Day of Awareness, including a panel of transgender individuals talking about transvestite/transsexual issues; and suggests top ten Gay Straight Alliance meeting topics such as "What would the world be like if 10 percent of its people were straight and 90 percent were gay?" and "What would it be like if parents wanted their children to grow up gay?"
Romney on Judicial Appointments
For all of Romney's rhetoric about activist judges, his own judicial appointments also leave much to be desired. The Boston Globe reported in July of 2005 that Romney had "passed over GOP lawyers for three-quarters of the 36 judicial vacancies he has faced, instead tapping registered Democrats or independents -- including two gay lawyers who have supported expanded same-sex rights."
In May of 2005, Romney selected for a district court judgeship Stephen Abany, a former board member of the Massachusetts Lesbian and Gay Bar Association who organized the group's opposition to a 1999 bill to outlaw same-sex marriage. The MLGBA is "dedicated to ensuring that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision on marriage equality is upheld, and that any anti-gay amendment or legislation is defeated."
Ironically, the Globe reports that two days before Abany's nomination, Romney was lamenting the liberal tilt of the state's bench, telling Fox News that "our courts have a record here in Massachusetts . . . of being a little blue and being Kerry-like."
Catholics would no doubt also be surprised to hear another Romney choice for the bench was Marianne C. Hinkle, who described herself as a longtime active member of Dignity/USA, a group that wants to reform the Catholic Church's views and teachings on gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender activity.
Romney on Gay Adoption
Massachusetts Catholics say that Governor Romney's positions on adoption of children by homosexual couples are contradictory at best, and that inaction on his part contributed to Catholic Charities of Boston exiting their adoption ministry in 2006 after more than 100 years of service.
In terms of his public rhetoric, Romney tries to have it both ways. He has been dismissive of same-sex parenting to South Carolina Republicans, saying sarcastically that some gay and lesbian couples "are actually having children born to them," while in Massachusetts, he says he recognizes that homosexual couples "have a legitimate interest in being able to receive adoptive services."
Romney's action and inaction on this issue has been different from his stated position. In late 2005 and early 2006, when Catholic Charities of Boston was under fire for having complied with a state regulation requiring adoption agencies to broker adoptions for homosexual couples, Romney initially claimed he could not unilaterally exempt them, as an exemption would require legislation "and would not be something I would be authorized to do on a personal basis." Since legislative leaders had previously declared such legislation would be effectively dead on arrival, Catholic Charities proceeded to exit the adoption business, and Romney's subsequent decision to file legislation asking for the exemption indeed went nowhere, with zero benefit to the agency.
Romney refused to use his executive powers to change the regulation, and even former Gov. Michael Dukakis weighed in to say Romney's legislation was "unnecessary," in that "the state's anti-discrimination statutes do not preclude an exemption for the Catholic organization." Abortion is constitutionally protected, yet Catholic hospitals that do not perform abortions on religious principle are not prevented from being reimbursed for Medicaid-eligible services.
The liberal Governor Dukakis, who signed the original gay rights bill during his tenure, said there was nothing mandated in this area and observed, "Governors can change regulations if they want to, that's up to them." So why did Romney back down?
Romney on Gay Marriage
On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled in Goodridge vs. Dept. of Public Health that same-sex couples should not be denied the right to marry in Massachusetts. Since that time, Romney has pushed aggressively for a marriage-protection amendment in Massachusetts. This amendment passed its first round in the legislature on January 2, 2007, but failed to pass in June of 2007, killing that amendment and hopes of any rollback of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts for at least four years, if not forever.
Governor Romney, however, previously opposed a 2002 marriage-protection amendment that would have preempted the court ruling of November 2003.
Romney has also been one of the more outspoken politicians on the national scene in favor of defining marriage as between one man and one woman, and against activist judges whose rulings paved the way for gay marriage.
But what many people don't know, and what is most overlooked by the media, is that John Adams had the foresight in 1780 to write specific provisions in the Massachusetts Constitution, the world's oldest functioning written constitution, to prevent judicial activism of this sort.
Unfortunately, Romney made no attempt to exercise most of his constitutional options in order to block same-sex marriages before they began or stop them while in office, and Catholic activists would like to know why.
Romney could have declared the ruling null and void, and therefore unenforceable, immediately after it was handed down in November of 2003. How? Article 5 of the Massachusetts Constitution says, "All causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony . . . shall be heard and determined by the governor and council." Romney could have said that the court simply had no jurisdiction to rule over the definition of marriage.
The Massachusetts Constitution also has specific provision for removing judges without cause via a "bill of address." Instead of responding to a problem of activist judges by going through a lengthy process of amending the Constitution, the offending judges can simply be removed from office for distorting the Constitution to impose their own views.
Such a procedure has been successfully used several times in the past in Massachusetts. In the spring of 2004, Romney could have supported the active grassroots effort and Democratic-sponsored legislation to remove the judges who wrote the Goodridge decision.
If Romney was genuinely troubled by the role of "activist judges" in the same-sex marriage issue, why did he refuse to support this move in 2004?
Interestingly, on the campaign trail in New Hampshire on November 24, 2007, Romney publicly called for the resignation of a Massachusetts judge after the judge released a violent criminal who then apparently murdered a Washington state couple. Should Catholics assume that the Goodridge judges' radically unconstitutional redefinition of marriage for all of society is not sufficiently serious a matter for Romney to have called for their resignation any time in the past four years?
Next, Romney could have followed the precedent of Abraham Lincoln in the 1857 Dred Scott case -- which Romney himself referred to in a Wall Street Journal editorial -- and respected the decision of the Court with regard only to the litigants in that specific case.
As Hadley Arkes explained in National Review, Lincoln and his party did not try to set the slave Dred Scott free once the Supreme Court had confirmed him to remain in slavery. Lincoln only accepted the ruling for the parties in the specific case, and he did not allow the public policy of the whole country to be affected by the Supreme Court's decision.
Romney could have announced that he would respect the decision for the plaintiffs, but he could have insisted then that clerks issue licenses of marriage only to couples who had come through comparable litigation and received a comparable order from a court.
If Romney was such an enthusiast for Lincoln's response to the Dred Scott decision and so determined to block same-sex marriage, why didn't he pursue the same strategy to try and block same-sex marriage from propagating beyond the small group of Goodridge litigants?
Finally, and most importantly, since the ruling stopped short of changing the previous marriage law, a strong governor could have simply refused to do anything.
Article X of the Massachusetts Constitution provided Romney clear justification for ignoring the court order. "The people of this Commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent." And Article XX says, "The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the Legislature."
The justices who wrote the Goodridge decision knew this -- which is why they specifically did not strike down the previous law. The legislature was then given 180 days in which to act.
GLAD Attorney Mary Bonauto, representing the seven gay couples who sued the state, said immediately after the 2003 Goodridge ruling, "The only task assigned to the Legislature is to come up with changes in the law that will allow gay couples to marry at the end of the 180-day period."
All three branches of government concurred. The SJC clarified their ruling in February of 2004, writing to the Senate: "The purpose of the stay was to afford the Legislature an opportunity to conform the existing statutes to the provisions of the Goodridge decision."
Romney himself in April of 2004 said, "The Legislature has yet to follow a directive from the SJC to change the state's marriage laws. I believe the reason that the Court gave 180 days to the Legislature was to allow the Legislature the chance to look through the laws . . . and see how they should be adjusted . . . for purposes of same-sex marriage; the Legislature didn't do that."
And State Sen. Bruce E. Tarr, a gay-marriage supporter, said in April 2004 that he believed the legislature would ultimately pass bills that would insert gender-neutral language into the state's marriage laws in time for the May 17, 2004, deadline. "No one should interpret inaction thus far with the idea that no action is forthcoming."
But the Massachusetts legislature never acted to change the law. What happened between April 2003 and May 2004 when Romney decided a "new law" existed and ordered town clerks to follow it by issuing same-sex marriage licenses?
And since the court ruling never ordered the governor to do anything, why did Romney order justices of the peace to perform the unions or resign their positions if they objected on moral grounds?
Even if some people not familiar with the Massachusetts Constitution felt that somehow the court did change the law, since the court had violated its constitutional authority, what would have happened if Romney had had the courage to stand up and defy it?
Virtually every pro-family conservative in the country urged Romney to stand strong at the time and defy the court. The Family Research Council said, "Most important right now is for the governor to stand firm [and] not allow any marriage licenses to be handed out on May 17."
Concerned Women for America urged Romney to intervene via executive order and "put the brakes on this madness. He needs to make it clear that the law has not changed, and that on May 17 homosexual couples cannot make a mockery of God's institution of marriage."
Patrick Buchanan called on Romney to declare, "There is no basis for it [the court's decision] in law . . . in the letter or spirit of the Constitution of our Commonwealth. . . . And as I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the Commonwealth, I intend to disregard the court order of last November."
The Massachusetts Catholic Conference went on the record saying the SJC "exceeded their authority," and Governor Romney failed in his duty to "uphold the Constitution."
Instead of standing up for his supposedly strong beliefs on marriage and defending the Constitution, Romney exercised his leadership by ordering justices of the peace to perform same-sex marriages.
This is consistent with his 2002 campaign promise to the Massachusetts Log Cabin Republicans, who, according to the New York Times, Romney courted at a gay bar and promised if a same-sex marriage court case worked its way through the judicial system, he would "obey the court's ultimate ruling and not champion a fight on either side of the issue," telling those gathered that he would "keep [his] head low," according to one participant.
Romney has countered that he was "forced" into implementing homosexual marriages, but he refused to pursue other options backed by pro-family conservatives and his own state Constitution.
Now Romney campaigns against the same-sex marriages he himself, not the court, made a reality. In short, he is campaigning as a social conservative against, and in spite of, his own record as governor.
Pro-life Catholics in Massachusetts are increasingly bitter that social conservatives are ignoring Romney's record and listening only to his promises. I can't blame them.
Deal W. Hudson is the director of InsideCatholic.com and the author of Onward, Christian Soldiers: The Growing Political Power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States (Simon and Schuster, March 2008).
⇒ Note: Columns, articles, and reviews reflect the opinions of the authors alone. InsideCatholic.com does not endorse political candidates.
Catholics would no doubt also be surprised to hear another Romney choice for the bench was Marianne C. Hinkle, who described herself as a longtime active member of Dignity/USA, a group that wants to reform the Catholic Church's views and teachings on gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender activity.
Romney on Gay Adoption
Massachusetts Catholics say that Governor Romney's positions on adoption of children by homosexual couples are contradictory at best, and that inaction on his part contributed to Catholic Charities of Boston exiting their adoption ministry in 2006 after more than 100 years of service.
In terms of his public rhetoric, Romney tries to have it both ways. He has been dismissive of same-sex parenting to South Carolina Republicans, saying sarcastically that some gay and lesbian couples "are actually having children born to them," while in Massachusetts, he says he recognizes that homosexual couples "have a legitimate interest in being able to receive adoptive services."
Romney's action and inaction on this issue has been different from his stated position. In late 2005 and early 2006, when Catholic Charities of Boston was under fire for having complied with a state regulation requiring adoption agencies to broker adoptions for homosexual couples, Romney initially claimed he could not unilaterally exempt them, as an exemption would require legislation "and would not be something I would be authorized to do on a personal basis." Since legislative leaders had previously declared such legislation would be effectively dead on arrival, Catholic Charities proceeded to exit the adoption business, and Romney's subsequent decision to file legislation asking for the exemption indeed went nowhere, with zero benefit to the agency.
Romney refused to use his executive powers to change the regulation, and even former Gov. Michael Dukakis weighed in to say Romney's legislation was "unnecessary," in that "the state's anti-discrimination statutes do not preclude an exemption for the Catholic organization." Abortion is constitutionally protected, yet Catholic hospitals that do not perform abortions on religious principle are not prevented from being reimbursed for Medicaid-eligible services.
The liberal Governor Dukakis, who signed the original gay rights bill during his tenure, said there was nothing mandated in this area and observed, "Governors can change regulations if they want to, that's up to them." So why did Romney back down?
Romney on Gay Marriage
On November 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruled in Goodridge vs. Dept. of Public Health that same-sex couples should not be denied the right to marry in Massachusetts. Since that time, Romney has pushed aggressively for a marriage-protection amendment in Massachusetts. This amendment passed its first round in the legislature on January 2, 2007, but failed to pass in June of 2007, killing that amendment and hopes of any rollback of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts for at least four years, if not forever.
Governor Romney, however, previously opposed a 2002 marriage-protection amendment that would have preempted the court ruling of November 2003.
Romney has also been one of the more outspoken politicians on the national scene in favor of defining marriage as between one man and one woman, and against activist judges whose rulings paved the way for gay marriage.
But what many people don't know, and what is most overlooked by the media, is that John Adams had the foresight in 1780 to write specific provisions in the Massachusetts Constitution, the world's oldest functioning written constitution, to prevent judicial activism of this sort.
Unfortunately, Romney made no attempt to exercise most of his constitutional options in order to block same-sex marriages before they began or stop them while in office, and Catholic activists would like to know why.
Romney could have declared the ruling null and void, and therefore unenforceable, immediately after it was handed down in November of 2003. How? Article 5 of the Massachusetts Constitution says, "All causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony . . . shall be heard and determined by the governor and council." Romney could have said that the court simply had no jurisdiction to rule over the definition of marriage.
The Massachusetts Constitution also has specific provision for removing judges without cause via a "bill of address." Instead of responding to a problem of activist judges by going through a lengthy process of amending the Constitution, the offending judges can simply be removed from office for distorting the Constitution to impose their own views.
Such a procedure has been successfully used several times in the past in Massachusetts. In the spring of 2004, Romney could have supported the active grassroots effort and Democratic-sponsored legislation to remove the judges who wrote the Goodridge decision.
If Romney was genuinely troubled by the role of "activist judges" in the same-sex marriage issue, why did he refuse to support this move in 2004?
Interestingly, on the campaign trail in New Hampshire on November 24, 2007, Romney publicly called for the resignation of a Massachusetts judge after the judge released a violent criminal who then apparently murdered a Washington state couple. Should Catholics assume that the Goodridge judges' radically unconstitutional redefinition of marriage for all of society is not sufficiently serious a matter for Romney to have called for their resignation any time in the past four years?
Next, Romney could have followed the precedent of Abraham Lincoln in the 1857 Dred Scott case -- which Romney himself referred to in a Wall Street Journal editorial -- and respected the decision of the Court with regard only to the litigants in that specific case.
As Hadley Arkes explained in National Review, Lincoln and his party did not try to set the slave Dred Scott free once the Supreme Court had confirmed him to remain in slavery. Lincoln only accepted the ruling for the parties in the specific case, and he did not allow the public policy of the whole country to be affected by the Supreme Court's decision.
Romney could have announced that he would respect the decision for the plaintiffs, but he could have insisted then that clerks issue licenses of marriage only to couples who had come through comparable litigation and received a comparable order from a court.
If Romney was such an enthusiast for Lincoln's response to the Dred Scott decision and so determined to block same-sex marriage, why didn't he pursue the same strategy to try and block same-sex marriage from propagating beyond the small group of Goodridge litigants?
Finally, and most importantly, since the ruling stopped short of changing the previous marriage law, a strong governor could have simply refused to do anything.
Article X of the Massachusetts Constitution provided Romney clear justification for ignoring the court order. "The people of this Commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent." And Article XX says, "The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the Legislature."
The justices who wrote the Goodridge decision knew this -- which is why they specifically did not strike down the previous law. The legislature was then given 180 days in which to act.
GLAD Attorney Mary Bonauto, representing the seven gay couples who sued the state, said immediately after the 2003 Goodridge ruling, "The only task assigned to the Legislature is to come up with changes in the law that will allow gay couples to marry at the end of the 180-day period."
All three branches of government concurred. The SJC clarified their ruling in February of 2004, writing to the Senate: "The purpose of the stay was to afford the Legislature an opportunity to conform the existing statutes to the provisions of the Goodridge decision."
Romney himself in April of 2004 said, "The Legislature has yet to follow a directive from the SJC to change the state's marriage laws. I believe the reason that the Court gave 180 days to the Legislature was to allow the Legislature the chance to look through the laws . . . and see how they should be adjusted . . . for purposes of same-sex marriage; the Legislature didn't do that."
And State Sen. Bruce E. Tarr, a gay-marriage supporter, said in April 2004 that he believed the legislature would ultimately pass bills that would insert gender-neutral language into the state's marriage laws in time for the May 17, 2004, deadline. "No one should interpret inaction thus far with the idea that no action is forthcoming."
But the Massachusetts legislature never acted to change the law. What happened between April 2003 and May 2004 when Romney decided a "new law" existed and ordered town clerks to follow it by issuing same-sex marriage licenses?
And since the court ruling never ordered the governor to do anything, why did Romney order justices of the peace to perform the unions or resign their positions if they objected on moral grounds?
Even if some people not familiar with the Massachusetts Constitution felt that somehow the court did change the law, since the court had violated its constitutional authority, what would have happened if Romney had had the courage to stand up and defy it?
Virtually every pro-family conservative in the country urged Romney to stand strong at the time and defy the court. The Family Research Council said, "Most important right now is for the governor to stand firm [and] not allow any marriage licenses to be handed out on May 17."
Concerned Women for America urged Romney to intervene via executive order and "put the brakes on this madness. He needs to make it clear that the law has not changed, and that on May 17 homosexual couples cannot make a mockery of God's institution of marriage."
Patrick Buchanan called on Romney to declare, "There is no basis for it [the court's decision] in law . . . in the letter or spirit of the Constitution of our Commonwealth. . . . And as I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the Commonwealth, I intend to disregard the court order of last November."
The Massachusetts Catholic Conference went on the record saying the SJC "exceeded their authority," and Governor Romney failed in his duty to "uphold the Constitution."
Instead of standing up for his supposedly strong beliefs on marriage and defending the Constitution, Romney exercised his leadership by ordering justices of the peace to perform same-sex marriages.
This is consistent with his 2002 campaign promise to the Massachusetts Log Cabin Republicans, who, according to the New York Times, Romney courted at a gay bar and promised if a same-sex marriage court case worked its way through the judicial system, he would "obey the court's ultimate ruling and not champion a fight on either side of the issue," telling those gathered that he would "keep [his] head low," according to one participant.
Romney has countered that he was "forced" into implementing homosexual marriages, but he refused to pursue other options backed by pro-family conservatives and his own state Constitution.
Now Romney campaigns against the same-sex marriages he himself, not the court, made a reality. In short, he is campaigning as a social conservative against, and in spite of, his own record as governor.
Pro-life Catholics in Massachusetts are increasingly bitter that social conservatives are ignoring Romney's record and listening only to his promises. I can't blame them.
Deal W. Hudson is the director of InsideCatholic.com and the author of Onward, Christian Soldiers: The Growing Political Power of Catholics and Evangelicals in the United States (Simon and Schuster, March 2008).
⇒ Note: Columns, articles, and reviews reflect the opinions of the authors alone. InsideCatholic.com does not endorse political candidates.
Readers have left 30 comments.
Pat Buchanan seems to be as infactuated with Romney as his sister Bay is. Buchanan stated on MSNBC that Romney has "seen the light" on the illegal immigration issue because he stated his position to Bay and Tom Tancredo for a whole hour!! Wonder who the flip-flop governor spent time with to come to his current positon on Life and The Family?? What is the matter with a good solid Catholic boy like Patrick supporting such a liar as Romney?
Written by Paul Nagy
Who can know for sure what this guy, Romney, stands for? I'm so disappointed.
Thanks for doing the homework.
Written by Teri B
Deal,
Thank you for shedding light on Romney - you've done us a great service. On another note, your articles seem to contain a great Deal of negativity. Is something positive in the works?
Thank you for shedding light on Romney - you've done us a great service. On another note, your articles seem to contain a great Deal of negativity. Is something positive in the works?
Written by Carson Weber 2008 is about winning. Hillary cannot be president, and Obama will be Jimmy Carter with a nice personality.
Mitt Romney is the only candidate who can beat Democrats. McCain is a train wreck....
Mitt Romney is the only candidate who can beat Democrats. McCain is a train wreck....
Written by Matt
Carson, funny you should ask that because I had noticed the same thing -- yes, some positive stories are on the way, one on Catholic education, another on Catholics who make movies.
Written by Deal Hudson
The issue is the next President of the US. If someone brings out things like a prospective President's ideas on abortion or gay marriage, it is NOT "negative." It is info I need to know to make a decision. Would you have avoided stories of the Holocaust during WW2 because it was "negative.?" ........thank you.
Written by Don
Thanks for the input Deal. It's tough to determine which Republican candidate serves the best interest to the pro-life/pro-family movement. You article clears away some of the fog.
Written by Bob F.
Thanks Deal for speaking the truth.
Incidently, do you remember when Christ preached the Beatitudes and people who think life is meant to be an amusement ride spoke out against His "negativity"? Some people have the vocation of John the Baptist. It is a thankless vocation. A misunderstood vocation, even by well-intended people. John the Baptist lived in the desert because of the animosity of the people but Christ called him the greatest man who ever lived. Keep your hand to the plow. Your website is filled with many positive things and balances very nicely with the role you play for Christ's Church.
Friends, do check out the Boston Globe today and see Romney in his cuban shirt saying that his entire life has been lived to pursue and overthrow Castro. For those living in an intellectual vaccum, he sure is the dude.
I'm positively fascinated when I hear people articulating the idea that with a focus of the economy in the Presidential race that Romney (or any Republican) could beat a Democrat. If there is any hope that a prolifer will take the White House, he better have a solid record of tangible prolife work that reaches well before the candidates pursuit of the Presidency because the grassroots is just not going to get on board.
Those of us with no reserves in the bank, no money in the Caymens, struggling in this economy due to Bush's ignorance and unwillingness to do anything about it before we it reached the brink of a catastrophe - we are simply not willing to embrace a wealthy liar hoping he'll change his modus operandi which he has lived his entire political career. We will vote Democrat, as most of the nation will.
Happy Feast of St. Thomas Aquinas!
Incidently, do you remember when Christ preached the Beatitudes and people who think life is meant to be an amusement ride spoke out against His "negativity"? Some people have the vocation of John the Baptist. It is a thankless vocation. A misunderstood vocation, even by well-intended people. John the Baptist lived in the desert because of the animosity of the people but Christ called him the greatest man who ever lived. Keep your hand to the plow. Your website is filled with many positive things and balances very nicely with the role you play for Christ's Church.
Friends, do check out the Boston Globe today and see Romney in his cuban shirt saying that his entire life has been lived to pursue and overthrow Castro. For those living in an intellectual vaccum, he sure is the dude.
I'm positively fascinated when I hear people articulating the idea that with a focus of the economy in the Presidential race that Romney (or any Republican) could beat a Democrat. If there is any hope that a prolifer will take the White House, he better have a solid record of tangible prolife work that reaches well before the candidates pursuit of the Presidency because the grassroots is just not going to get on board.
Those of us with no reserves in the bank, no money in the Caymens, struggling in this economy due to Bush's ignorance and unwillingness to do anything about it before we it reached the brink of a catastrophe - we are simply not willing to embrace a wealthy liar hoping he'll change his modus operandi which he has lived his entire political career. We will vote Democrat, as most of the nation will.
Happy Feast of St. Thomas Aquinas!
Written by Carol McKinley
I applaud Carol for at least telling the truth about her real intentions (unlike Deal is willing to do). It is all about electing a Democrat - regardless of thier positions on life issues. Lets see you do the same kind of "homework" on Hillary and Oboma! And I wonder what the Massachuesetts Pro Lifers have to say about these two individuals - pure as the wind driven snow I bet.
Written by Ted Swoboda
Ted,
All about electing a Democrat?
I'm not sure which is more fun thought, that my objective is to put a Democrat into office, or Deal Hudson's objective is to put a Democrat into office.
You have either misread and misunderstood or have had too much coffee this morning. Relax and permit me to restate with a parable:
If Mommy's stop buying Pokeman cards, the people making Pokeman cards engineer a new product if they want to continue to be rich and powerful.
GOP cleans up a prochoice wealthy liar.
Prolifers say we are not voting lesser than two evils this time around
Prolifers will send wealthy GOP's money, which they spent cleaning up Romney's image, circling the toilet.
Objective: 2012 - wealthy GOPers will put their money behind an authentic prolife candidate for decades into the future. We're helping the institution giving us the candidates recognize what we will no longer purchase.
Consequence: Wealthy GOP learns lesson and more children are saved from 2012 in perpetuity - rather than spending perpetuity voting for the lesser of two evils and ending up with something like... women and children being force fed Plan B abortifacients and emergency contraception, gay marriage, trying to convince themselves we have somehow made progress under george w.
We are all much worse off and now heading into a major recession, if not depression.
Deal is trying to let people know the plans of the prolife grassroots. There is no need to be hostile!
Take his advice as you will. The GOP has one slim chance to win the White House - give prolifers a candidate with a history of prolife work that is demonstrable for a very long time. Period. Otherwise, in terms of the "economy", the poor and middle income will be served much better with Obama, whose ideology is no different that the Real Mitt Romney.
All about electing a Democrat?
I'm not sure which is more fun thought, that my objective is to put a Democrat into office, or Deal Hudson's objective is to put a Democrat into office.
You have either misread and misunderstood or have had too much coffee this morning. Relax and permit me to restate with a parable:
If Mommy's stop buying Pokeman cards, the people making Pokeman cards engineer a new product if they want to continue to be rich and powerful.
GOP cleans up a prochoice wealthy liar.
Prolifers say we are not voting lesser than two evils this time around
Prolifers will send wealthy GOP's money, which they spent cleaning up Romney's image, circling the toilet.
Objective: 2012 - wealthy GOPers will put their money behind an authentic prolife candidate for decades into the future. We're helping the institution giving us the candidates recognize what we will no longer purchase.
Consequence: Wealthy GOP learns lesson and more children are saved from 2012 in perpetuity - rather than spending perpetuity voting for the lesser of two evils and ending up with something like... women and children being force fed Plan B abortifacients and emergency contraception, gay marriage, trying to convince themselves we have somehow made progress under george w.
We are all much worse off and now heading into a major recession, if not depression.
Deal is trying to let people know the plans of the prolife grassroots. There is no need to be hostile!
Take his advice as you will. The GOP has one slim chance to win the White House - give prolifers a candidate with a history of prolife work that is demonstrable for a very long time. Period. Otherwise, in terms of the "economy", the poor and middle income will be served much better with Obama, whose ideology is no different that the Real Mitt Romney.
Written by Carol McKinley
One thing I do know about the Church of Jesus Christ (of Latter Day Saints)is that they hold and have held an immoveable position against homosexuality and abortion from day one. It may or may not get you ex-communicated (based on the discretion of the presiding figure in one's area), but it will exempt you from being allowed to participate in Temple ordinances. When I first began to hear of Romney's "pro-abortion" views etc, I really wondered about the validity of the charges. After all, he isn't just an ordinary member. He has held high positions such as Bishop and Stake President. How could he possibly support those other things?
I believe that politics is a vicious game where compromise is sometimes forced. When the 13 colonies were meeting together to figure out a way to get out from under British rule, decades of time were lost because each colony wanted everything their way. Besides religious squabbles (which Romney quoted John Adams response to) there was the heinous crime of slavery that put a serious divide in the discussion of the new country. On and on the arguing went until someone pointed out that until we get rid of the British, the whole arguement is meaningless. We have to put some issues on the back-burner and unite around a common cause and common goal. It worked. (Then we went back to arguing about slavery)
As I've read about Romney, I do believe he has always been contrary to homosexual marriage and abortion, but may have tempered his views to get elected as Governor. Taking a harder stance may have alienated many liberal voters and given the election to a liberal. I wonder if the early patriots were accused of being pro-slavery when they promised not to interfere with slavery just so we could get some progress on first getting a country. Better to have a moderate conservative than a full-blown liberal. Romney did get a lot of good things done for his state. A liberal would have done worse on our issues AND wrecked the economy!
In short, I believe that we ARE hearing Romney giving his true views now. He had to pander a bit in a liberal-infested state to at least accomplish some objectives. I do wish he would be a bit more thunderous on the border issue.
I believe that politics is a vicious game where compromise is sometimes forced. When the 13 colonies were meeting together to figure out a way to get out from under British rule, decades of time were lost because each colony wanted everything their way. Besides religious squabbles (which Romney quoted John Adams response to) there was the heinous crime of slavery that put a serious divide in the discussion of the new country. On and on the arguing went until someone pointed out that until we get rid of the British, the whole arguement is meaningless. We have to put some issues on the back-burner and unite around a common cause and common goal. It worked. (Then we went back to arguing about slavery)
As I've read about Romney, I do believe he has always been contrary to homosexual marriage and abortion, but may have tempered his views to get elected as Governor. Taking a harder stance may have alienated many liberal voters and given the election to a liberal. I wonder if the early patriots were accused of being pro-slavery when they promised not to interfere with slavery just so we could get some progress on first getting a country. Better to have a moderate conservative than a full-blown liberal. Romney did get a lot of good things done for his state. A liberal would have done worse on our issues AND wrecked the economy!
In short, I believe that we ARE hearing Romney giving his true views now. He had to pander a bit in a liberal-infested state to at least accomplish some objectives. I do wish he would be a bit more thunderous on the border issue.
Written by Eric Crandall Carol,
It seems to me that you have left a gaping hole in your consequences section--what about the time between 2008--2012. Do you not see that we have to deal in the here and now in order to be able to engineer future consequences. Your formula for "objective" and "consequences" for 2012, goes against reality and logic. Deal has done his homework and has given us some good input to think about, but in the end Matt has the right idea. Unfortunately we have no perfect candidate, but some are less problematic than others. The pro-life movement has made some inroads toward changing some hearts and minds of the culture of death, slowly to be sure, but steadily. If anyone thinks that electing Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is more desirable (read more evil) than Romney or even McCain(read less evil) then one is making choices based on emotion rather than reason. We are compelled to choose the lesser of two evils. If we do not, we choose the greater evil by default. You simply cannot try to win by loosing--I doubt that Deal Hudson would recommend advocating putting Clinton or Obama in the White House to "teach the Republicans a lesson." It just doesn't work that way except in fairy tales.
It seems to me that you have left a gaping hole in your consequences section--what about the time between 2008--2012. Do you not see that we have to deal in the here and now in order to be able to engineer future consequences. Your formula for "objective" and "consequences" for 2012, goes against reality and logic. Deal has done his homework and has given us some good input to think about, but in the end Matt has the right idea. Unfortunately we have no perfect candidate, but some are less problematic than others. The pro-life movement has made some inroads toward changing some hearts and minds of the culture of death, slowly to be sure, but steadily. If anyone thinks that electing Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama is more desirable (read more evil) than Romney or even McCain(read less evil) then one is making choices based on emotion rather than reason. We are compelled to choose the lesser of two evils. If we do not, we choose the greater evil by default. You simply cannot try to win by loosing--I doubt that Deal Hudson would recommend advocating putting Clinton or Obama in the White House to "teach the Republicans a lesson." It just doesn't work that way except in fairy tales.
Written by Patty
Carol, I applauded you for your honesty not your intellegence so please save the lecturing for someone who is a bit more nieve. You only have to justify your vote with your maker not with me. I can not absolve you if you vote for a pro chice candidate - even if you are "trying" to teach the GOP a leson.
But I do not know of any plan to teach the GOP a lesson in my "grass roots" pro life organization. What I do know is that George Bush gave us Samual Alito and Johm Roberts. What will Hillary and Obama give us? And finally, if you look up the definition of recession you will find that we are in fact not in one. Be careful about what you hear from the liberal media.
But I do not know of any plan to teach the GOP a lesson in my "grass roots" pro life organization. What I do know is that George Bush gave us Samual Alito and Johm Roberts. What will Hillary and Obama give us? And finally, if you look up the definition of recession you will find that we are in fact not in one. Be careful about what you hear from the liberal media.
Written by Ted Swoboda
Mr. Deal,
You have provided valuable research to all of us seeking to make a responsible choice of candidates in this election. Romney does indeed appear untrustworthy. It occurs to me that he has also not been true to his own Mormon faith, thereby adding to his untrustworthiness. His liberal positions in Massachusetts outlined in your article (abortion, gay marriage and adoption, ...) were definitely at variance with those of his church. He has not even been a faithful Mormon, much less a faithful conservative.
You have provided valuable research to all of us seeking to make a responsible choice of candidates in this election. Romney does indeed appear untrustworthy. It occurs to me that he has also not been true to his own Mormon faith, thereby adding to his untrustworthiness. His liberal positions in Massachusetts outlined in your article (abortion, gay marriage and adoption, ...) were definitely at variance with those of his church. He has not even been a faithful Mormon, much less a faithful conservative.
Written by Deacon Franklin Osgood
Thank you for the article on Romney.
I would like to humbly suggest that Catholics consider supporting Ron Paul for President. The media tend to ignore him, so there is a lot you may not know about him. But don't believe he can't win. His support is very deep & committed. He is more financially responsible than the other Republicans, and can outflank the Democrats on war issues. A quick summary of Paul for Catholics:
For more, see here:
http://snipurl.com/catholicsronpaul
I would like to humbly suggest that Catholics consider supporting Ron Paul for President. The media tend to ignore him, so there is a lot you may not know about him. But don't believe he can't win. His support is very deep & committed. He is more financially responsible than the other Republicans, and can outflank the Democrats on war issues. A quick summary of Paul for Catholics:
- He has been married to his wife Carol for 50 years. They have 5 children, 18 grandchildren, and 1 great-grandchild.
- Like Popes John Paul II and Benedict, he opposed the Iraq war. If elected, he would begin to withdraw troops immediately.
- His philosophy on war is firmly grounded in Christian Just War Theory - and he actually discusses this in appearances and debates.
- He is a pro-life doctor who delivered over 4,000 babies in his career. He recently was endorsed by pro-life activist Norma McCorvey, the "Jane Roe" of Roe v. Wade (whom you should know had a change of heart on the issue many years ago and has since worked tirelessly for the pro-life cause).
- He is committed to responsible government spending to get us out of the debt mess we are in. The national debt is now over $9 trillion, and the dollar has been falling rapidly. If we do not get control of spending, we will face serious financial consequences. Some would say the crisis has already begun. Ron Paul has never voted for an unbalanced budget in his 10-term career in Congress. He has never voted to raise Congressional pay. He also returns a portion of his annual congressional office budget to the U.S. treasury every year.
For more, see here:
http://snipurl.com/catholicsronpaul
Written by Jim Waddell This was a very enlightening piece. Thank you for exploring this issue in some greater depth than we've seen elsewhere.
There doesn't seem to be a horse in this race for true conservatives unless they don't care about winning. Carol has the logic almost right in teaching the GOP a lesson, but we musn't vote for a Democrat in order to accomplish this. It would be more wise to make a statement by voting your conscience. (Not to mention that Obama or Clinton would be disastrous for the economy. Democratic economic policies are socialist in nature and are incredibly damaging in the long run.)
For the record, the only candidate I've seen Pat Buchanan supporting enthusiastically is Ron Paul, whom he describes on his blog as conservative republicans "only" choice. (http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=831)
And Ted, when push comes to shove, I don't think Alito and Roberts are who you think they are. They both acknowledge that Roe is legal precedent, and they will not move to overturn it without some strong external push.
There doesn't seem to be a horse in this race for true conservatives unless they don't care about winning. Carol has the logic almost right in teaching the GOP a lesson, but we musn't vote for a Democrat in order to accomplish this. It would be more wise to make a statement by voting your conscience. (Not to mention that Obama or Clinton would be disastrous for the economy. Democratic economic policies are socialist in nature and are incredibly damaging in the long run.)
For the record, the only candidate I've seen Pat Buchanan supporting enthusiastically is Ron Paul, whom he describes on his blog as conservative republicans "only" choice. (http://buchanan.org/blog/?p=831)
And Ted, when push comes to shove, I don't think Alito and Roberts are who you think they are. They both acknowledge that Roe is legal precedent, and they will not move to overturn it without some strong external push.
Written by Steve Skojec Patty,
I understand your frustration, but we are already in the hole. This isn't really about "teaching the GOP a lesson" – it is about the inhumanity of continuing to support the same empire.
George W supported Plan B, he supported giving emergency contraception to children without our knowledge or permission, he looked the other way when the Massachusetts Legislature and SJC violated the supremacy of law, dignity, truth and morality. The country is demoralized, the economy is a mess, the foreclosures rival the depression, the homeless are in numbers likes of which I have never witnessed in my 50 years of living, etc.
Pretending a proven liar, who either is uneducated in the constitutional powers or deliberately hijacks them – who shut down our Catholic adoption agency rather than give Catholics their lawful right to perpetuate the faith through our adoption agency, who unlawfully took away Catholics' right to refer a woman to a facility five minutes away to obtain emergency abortifacients rather than violate the oath of their religion, who deliberately is deceiving anyone and everyone about his positions – it makes sense to put the democrats in office to protect the poor as much as we possibly can, to end the war, to restore the economy so that people will be housed and have food on the table.
By the way, have you never read in your history books the fairy tale involving a country and tea in a Boston Harbor?
There are an awful lot of people underestimating the unrest and the resolve in the grassroots.
I understand your frustration, but we are already in the hole. This isn't really about "teaching the GOP a lesson" – it is about the inhumanity of continuing to support the same empire.
George W supported Plan B, he supported giving emergency contraception to children without our knowledge or permission, he looked the other way when the Massachusetts Legislature and SJC violated the supremacy of law, dignity, truth and morality. The country is demoralized, the economy is a mess, the foreclosures rival the depression, the homeless are in numbers likes of which I have never witnessed in my 50 years of living, etc.
Pretending a proven liar, who either is uneducated in the constitutional powers or deliberately hijacks them – who shut down our Catholic adoption agency rather than give Catholics their lawful right to perpetuate the faith through our adoption agency, who unlawfully took away Catholics' right to refer a woman to a facility five minutes away to obtain emergency abortifacients rather than violate the oath of their religion, who deliberately is deceiving anyone and everyone about his positions – it makes sense to put the democrats in office to protect the poor as much as we possibly can, to end the war, to restore the economy so that people will be housed and have food on the table.
By the way, have you never read in your history books the fairy tale involving a country and tea in a Boston Harbor?
There are an awful lot of people underestimating the unrest and the resolve in the grassroots.
Written by Carol McKinley
Thanks for the great article Deal. Makes me reconsider this upcoming primary in NJ.
Written by Catholic Priest
Ted,
If you are implying that it is sinful under the cirumstances of two prochoice candidates, one of them a liar with a history of grave injustices against the sanctity of life - that anyone realizing if Romney is the GOP nominee that the only thing for a Catholic left is protecting the poor to the best of our ability, then you are out of sync with the Catechism.
There are no excuses for putting a snake at our feet and telling us we must comply with his lip service. There are several autentic pro-life candidates which the GOP can and should advance. Deal is doing a service to alert the GOP of the underground grassroots intentions - which I believe you are tragically unaware.
We will not sacrifice our poverty stricken in this country to a man who has no intention of protecting the poor.
I believe that leaves me in good standing with My Maker.
If you are implying that it is sinful under the cirumstances of two prochoice candidates, one of them a liar with a history of grave injustices against the sanctity of life - that anyone realizing if Romney is the GOP nominee that the only thing for a Catholic left is protecting the poor to the best of our ability, then you are out of sync with the Catechism.
There are no excuses for putting a snake at our feet and telling us we must comply with his lip service. There are several autentic pro-life candidates which the GOP can and should advance. Deal is doing a service to alert the GOP of the underground grassroots intentions - which I believe you are tragically unaware.
We will not sacrifice our poverty stricken in this country to a man who has no intention of protecting the poor.
I believe that leaves me in good standing with My Maker.
Written by Carol McKinley
Carol has the logic almost right in teaching the GOP a lesson, but we musn't vote for a Democrat in order to accomplish this. It would be more wise to make a statement by voting your conscience. (Not to mention that Obama or Clinton would be disastrous for the economy. Democratic economic policies are socialist in nature and are incredibly damaging in the long run.)
Steve,
I'd have to disagree with you that the poor and middle class are in better hands with the Republicans, economically.
At the end of the day, I do believe this is down to providing food and shelter to the needy because Romney will do less than nothing to protect the sanctity of life. There isn't an ounce of difference between him and the two democratic candidates, except Romney is a liar.
If the GOP cleaned up a so-called reformed Nazi, this conversation wouldn't even be taking place. the insititution has lost it's mission and we should no longer support the executions being done right under our noses while we all sit complacent with the lies.
Peace!
Written by Carol McKinley
Here's Todd Aglialoro's response, from the Inside Blog:
http://tinyurl.com/2wpfpg
You can also click the globe icon to the bottom right of this sentence.
http://tinyurl.com/2wpfpg
You can also click the globe icon to the bottom right of this sentence.
Written by Brian Saint-Paul Thanks Brian!
"Certain quarters"!
Well! I never!!
Todd, don't let the sound advice of the man who led the GOP to victory by knowing the grassroots get in the way.
After all, the luminaries who came after Deal have done a swell job knowing how to tap into the sentiments of the grassroots,haven't they.
I'm quite sure we shall be able to convince Catholics and other prolifers that the GOP has prettied up a fraud, a liar and a phony baloney and the only Catholic teaching we must now execute is making sure our poor are clothed and fed.
I do believe, however, that our black brothers and sisters will be quite glad Romney sang who let the dogs out and bling bling talk, rather than fried chicken and watermelon. I'm sure they'll find it refreshing.
"Certain quarters"!
Well! I never!!
Todd, don't let the sound advice of the man who led the GOP to victory by knowing the grassroots get in the way.
After all, the luminaries who came after Deal have done a swell job knowing how to tap into the sentiments of the grassroots,haven't they.
I'm quite sure we shall be able to convince Catholics and other prolifers that the GOP has prettied up a fraud, a liar and a phony baloney and the only Catholic teaching we must now execute is making sure our poor are clothed and fed.
I do believe, however, that our black brothers and sisters will be quite glad Romney sang who let the dogs out and bling bling talk, rather than fried chicken and watermelon. I'm sure they'll find it refreshing.
Written by Carol McKinley
Among most of my friends and fellow students, the big issue influencing their votes is concern about the economy. They believe Romney has the experience and know how to bring the USA into a better position buisnesswise. For some reason they are willing to sacrafice all of their other beliefs for what they feel is what america needs. I really can't see how a rich liar and flip-flopper can be what america needs now.
Written by A student
Supposition and conjecture on whether Mitt will carry the water for us when he never has before is silly.
Google "Romney" "Big Dig" "budget" "ceiling collapse" during his tenure in Massachusetts if you're looking for his record on how he handles governmental agencies under his leadership.
Google "Romney" "Big Dig" "budget" "ceiling collapse" during his tenure in Massachusetts if you're looking for his record on how he handles governmental agencies under his leadership.
Written by Greg
I found this video about Romney's record as governor.
Written by Bobby Bankston May I suggest an article from Catholic Online, By Robert Stackpole, STD, titled, "The Only "Catholic" on the Ballot" Here is an exerpt:
"In a recent document entitled “Forming Consciences for Faithful citizenship” (2007), the US Conference of Catholic Bishops provided the faithful with a voter’s guide that can help them exercise their democratic responsibilities in accordance with the Church’s social teachings.
Of course, the Bishops of the Church offer no detailed social program; they claim no expertise in the finer points of economics or foreign policy. What they do provide, however, is an outline of general moral and social principles, clearly laid out and prioritized in a way that can enable Catholics — and, indeed, all people of good will—to apply those principles to the great issues of the day.
Here is a salutary exercise for every Catholic who wants to cast a well-informed vote this year: go to each candidate’s website, and read over their public statements of where they stand on the issues. Then, immediately after that, read the Bishops’ statement on “Faithful Citizenship.” Compare and contrast what you find.
When this exercise is done fairly and without prejudice, many Catholics will be surprised to discover that the presidential candidate whose viewpoints seem most “in sync” with the Church’s guidance is none other than the most devout Evangelical in the race: Mike Huckabee."
Please visit catholic.org to find other commentaries suggesting that Mike Huckabee is the most qualified candidate for those who value life.
"In a recent document entitled “Forming Consciences for Faithful citizenship” (2007), the US Conference of Catholic Bishops provided the faithful with a voter’s guide that can help them exercise their democratic responsibilities in accordance with the Church’s social teachings.
Of course, the Bishops of the Church offer no detailed social program; they claim no expertise in the finer points of economics or foreign policy. What they do provide, however, is an outline of general moral and social principles, clearly laid out and prioritized in a way that can enable Catholics — and, indeed, all people of good will—to apply those principles to the great issues of the day.
Here is a salutary exercise for every Catholic who wants to cast a well-informed vote this year: go to each candidate’s website, and read over their public statements of where they stand on the issues. Then, immediately after that, read the Bishops’ statement on “Faithful Citizenship.” Compare and contrast what you find.
When this exercise is done fairly and without prejudice, many Catholics will be surprised to discover that the presidential candidate whose viewpoints seem most “in sync” with the Church’s guidance is none other than the most devout Evangelical in the race: Mike Huckabee."
Please visit catholic.org to find other commentaries suggesting that Mike Huckabee is the most qualified candidate for those who value life.
Written by Terry Summers
I see some positive change in attitude on the life issue among the younger (under 35) generation in some of the recent movies, but also in some personal contact. A song called "A Dream A Lot Like Mine" has been chosen as part of the "multi-media" links at http://www.fatherhoodforever.org and I'd like to share it with whomever would like to listen. It is also available at http://www.myspace.com/emmettgrayson. Of course, it's free to listen
Written by Emmett Grayson McCarthy It has been suggested that Romney took pro-gay and pro-abortion positions just to get elected governor. And to some extent, I recall that the left wing groups often accused him of that and being a closet conservative.
Now the shoe is on the other foot and the question remains. Who is the real Mitt Romney. it is so hard to tell. Perhaps it would be better to elect someone with more clarity. Unfortunately, that person isn't running.
Now the shoe is on the other foot and the question remains. Who is the real Mitt Romney. it is so hard to tell. Perhaps it would be better to elect someone with more clarity. Unfortunately, that person isn't running.
Written by Steve Dear Deal,
Thanks for your insights into Romney. I am still struggling with why I should vote for McCain but my husband, Joe, has some points with pondering that he shares below . . .
I think both McCain and Romney have problems on the pro-life issues.McCain supported embryonic stem cell research and reportedly told some prominent conservative attorneys that he would be happy to appoint someone like Justice Roberts to the Supreme Court, but was not likely to appoint another judge like Justice Alito because Justice Alito(according to what McCain reportedly said) wears his conservativism too much on his sleave.
McCain also has a long-standing, not-so-quiet feud with National Right to Life over the McCain-Feingold campaign financing bill.
On the other hand, Romney has his own problems explaining why he appointed fairly liberal judges to the courts in Massachusetts. Plus Anne Fox, Rod Murphy and several other pro-lifers in Massachusetts came out against Romney publicly shortly after he announced for the presidency and, in an open letter, insisted that Romney is not to be trusted on abortion or gay marriage.
At the same time, some fairly prominent conservatives and pro-lifers (e.g., Judge Bork) have thrown their hats in with Romney.
On a range of other issues, I have the same basic sense and concerns about both McCain and Romney: Neither one really comes from the socially conservative wing of the party and neither one has ever convinced me that they have a burning desire to fight the battles that will have to be fought or that they understand some of the more important subtleties that can arise in, for instance, finding and appointing the right judges or understanding the real importance of some peripheral issues that can become important.
At the same time, McCain has a life-long record of voting pro-life on most issues arising in Congress, and Romney has made a strong personal investment in being seen as pro-life which would be very difficult for him to back down from once he became president. In a word, I think both candidates are likely to be significantly more pro-life than either Clinton or Obama, but neither is likely to be perfect.
So the race, for me, comes down to electability and other issues. And I have decided to vote for McCain. It is very clear that McCain appeals much more strongly to independents and conservative Democrats than Romney and I'm seeing evidence in the Weekly Standard, the Wall Street Journal, etc. that suggest McCain can patch up his rift with conservatives. That makes McCain more electable.
On the issues, I also prefer McCain. To me, the most important issues(1) winning in Iraq; (2) protecting the country from Al Quaeda and other terrorists; and (3) immigration reform. McCain is by far and away the best candidate remaining on the issues of winning in Iraq and protecting us from terrorists. McCain has shown his willingness, in being one of the earliest and strongest proponents of the surge, to take courageous positions even at risk to his own political future to protect the country. He also is willing to fight when fighting is necessary; I do not think that we can protect our country against international terrorists unless we take the fight to them. McCain understands this consistently; he has fought, and not just talked about fighting. I also feel strongly that McCain is right on immigration and Romney is wrong. (See part 2)
Thanks for your insights into Romney. I am still struggling with why I should vote for McCain but my husband, Joe, has some points with pondering that he shares below . . .
I think both McCain and Romney have problems on the pro-life issues.McCain supported embryonic stem cell research and reportedly told some prominent conservative attorneys that he would be happy to appoint someone like Justice Roberts to the Supreme Court, but was not likely to appoint another judge like Justice Alito because Justice Alito(according to what McCain reportedly said) wears his conservativism too much on his sleave.
McCain also has a long-standing, not-so-quiet feud with National Right to Life over the McCain-Feingold campaign financing bill.
On the other hand, Romney has his own problems explaining why he appointed fairly liberal judges to the courts in Massachusetts. Plus Anne Fox, Rod Murphy and several other pro-lifers in Massachusetts came out against Romney publicly shortly after he announced for the presidency and, in an open letter, insisted that Romney is not to be trusted on abortion or gay marriage.
At the same time, some fairly prominent conservatives and pro-lifers (e.g., Judge Bork) have thrown their hats in with Romney.
On a range of other issues, I have the same basic sense and concerns about both McCain and Romney: Neither one really comes from the socially conservative wing of the party and neither one has ever convinced me that they have a burning desire to fight the battles that will have to be fought or that they understand some of the more important subtleties that can arise in, for instance, finding and appointing the right judges or understanding the real importance of some peripheral issues that can become important.
At the same time, McCain has a life-long record of voting pro-life on most issues arising in Congress, and Romney has made a strong personal investment in being seen as pro-life which would be very difficult for him to back down from once he became president. In a word, I think both candidates are likely to be significantly more pro-life than either Clinton or Obama, but neither is likely to be perfect.
So the race, for me, comes down to electability and other issues. And I have decided to vote for McCain. It is very clear that McCain appeals much more strongly to independents and conservative Democrats than Romney and I'm seeing evidence in the Weekly Standard, the Wall Street Journal, etc. that suggest McCain can patch up his rift with conservatives. That makes McCain more electable.
On the issues, I also prefer McCain. To me, the most important issues(1) winning in Iraq; (2) protecting the country from Al Quaeda and other terrorists; and (3) immigration reform. McCain is by far and away the best candidate remaining on the issues of winning in Iraq and protecting us from terrorists. McCain has shown his willingness, in being one of the earliest and strongest proponents of the surge, to take courageous positions even at risk to his own political future to protect the country. He also is willing to fight when fighting is necessary; I do not think that we can protect our country against international terrorists unless we take the fight to them. McCain understands this consistently; he has fought, and not just talked about fighting. I also feel strongly that McCain is right on immigration and Romney is wrong. (See part 2)
Written by Eileen Cosby
Part 2 Joe Cosby
I also feel strongly that McCain is right on immigration and Romney is wrong. I feel that on immigration, we have made it much too easy to violate the law and much too difficult to obey it. I think we need a comprehensive reform that gives immigrants a system that we can realistically expect them to comply with, not just a system that punishes them for failing to comply with unrealistic laws that are poorly and confusingly administered. I would be willing based on this issue alone to vote for McCain just in the hopes that a McCain victory would help to strengthen the debate on immigration and propel us to better reforms.
(BTW, I think McCain's position on immigration also makes him more electable, since Hispanic votes will be very important and are likely not to be available to Romney.)
I also feel strongly that McCain is right on immigration and Romney is wrong. I feel that on immigration, we have made it much too easy to violate the law and much too difficult to obey it. I think we need a comprehensive reform that gives immigrants a system that we can realistically expect them to comply with, not just a system that punishes them for failing to comply with unrealistic laws that are poorly and confusingly administered. I would be willing based on this issue alone to vote for McCain just in the hopes that a McCain victory would help to strengthen the debate on immigration and propel us to better reforms.
(BTW, I think McCain's position on immigration also makes him more electable, since Hispanic votes will be very important and are likely not to be available to Romney.)
Written by Eileen Cosby