Elections Blog

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/11/19/romney_wants_courts_to_force_legislature_to_vote_on_gay_marriage/?p1=MEWell_Pos5 BOSTON –Gov. Mitt Romney said Sunday he would ask the state’s highest court to order an anti-gay marriage amendment question onto the ballot if legislators fail to vote on the matter when they reconvene in January.

Romney said he would file a legal action this week asking a justice of the Supreme Judicial Court to direct the secretary of state to place the question on the ballot if lawmakers don’t vote directly on the question on Jan. 2, the final day of the session.

Romney, an opponent of gay marriage who decided not to seek re-election as he considers running for president, made his announcement to the cheers of hundreds of gay marriage opponents at a rally on the Statehouse steps.

“The constitution quite plainly states that when a qualified petition is placed before them, the Legislature ’shall vote.’ It does not say ‘may vote,’ or vote if procedures permit a vote, or vote if there are enough of the members in the chamber. It says, ’shall vote.’” Romney said.

More than 170,000 people had signed a petition in support of the ballot question, which would define marriage as between only a man and a woman.

Romney has criticized lawmakers since they voted 109-87 earlier this month refusing to take up the question during a joint session, voting instead to recess until Jan. 2 and all but killing the measure.

“The issue now before us is not whether same-sex couples should marry,” Romney said. “The issue before us today is whether 109 legislators will follow the constitution.”

Jeff

That’s right! Call them out for their tricks and games. Get this issue on the ballot!

[Read more →]

June 4, 2006 6:58 PM

The Importance of Protecting Marriage
Romney encourages the Senate on FMA.

An NRO Primary Document

Editor’s Note: Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney has sent the following letter to United States senators on Friday in anticipation of this week’s vote in the Senate on a Federal Marriage Amendment.

Dear Senator,

Next week, you will vote on a proposed amendment to the United States Constitution protecting the institution of marriage. As Governor of the state most directly affected by this amendment, I hope my perspectives will encourage you to vote “yes.”

Americans are tolerant, generous, and kind people. We all oppose bigotry and disparagement, and we all wish to avoid hurtful disregard of the feelings of others. But the debate over same-sex marriage is not a debate over tolerance. It is a debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage.

Attaching the word marriage to the association of same-sex individuals mistakenly presumes that marriage is principally a matter of adult benefits and adult rights. In fact, marriage is principally about the nurturing and development of children. And the successful development of children is critical to the preservation and success of our nation.

Our society, like all known civilizations in recorded history, has favored the union of a man and a woman with the special designation and benefits of marriage. In this respect, it has elevated the relationship of a legally bound man and woman over other relationships. This recognizes that the ideal setting for nurturing and developing children is a home where there is a mother and a father.

In order to protect the institution of marriage, we must prevent it from being redefined by judges like those here in Massachusetts who think that marriage is an “evolving paradigm,” and that the traditional definition is “rooted in persistent prejudices” and amounts to “invidious discrimination.”

Although the full impact of same-sex marriage may not be measured for decades or generations, we are beginning to see the effects of the new legal logic in Massachusetts just two years into our state’s social experiment. For instance, our birth certificate is being challenged: same-sex couples want the terms “Mother” and “Father” replaced with “Parent A” and “Parent B.”

In our schools, children are being instructed that there is no difference between same-sex marriage and traditional marriage. Recently, parents of a second grader in one public school complained when they were not notified that their son’s teacher would read a fairy tale about same-sex marriage to the class. In the story, a prince chooses to marry another prince, instead of a princess. The parents asked for the opportunity to opt their child out of hearing such stories. In response, the school superintendent insisted on “teaching children about the world they live in, and in Massachusetts same sex marriage is legal.” Once a society establishes that it is legally indifferent between traditional marriage and same-sex marriage, how can one preserve any practice which favors the union of a man and a woman?

Some argue that our principles of federalism and local control require us to leave the issue of same sex marriage to the states—which means, as a practical matter, to state courts. Such an argument denies the realities of modern life and would create a chaotic patchwork of inconsistent laws throughout the country. Marriage is not just an activity or practice which is confined to the border of any one state. It is a status that is carried from state to state. Because of this, and because Americans conduct their financial and legal lives in a united country bound by interstate institutions, a national definition of marriage is necessary.

Your vote on this amendment should not be guided by a concern for adult rights. This matter goes to the development and well-being of children. I hope that you will make your vote heard on their behalf.

Best regards,

Mitt Romney

Copied from National Review Online.

“Remarks by Governor Mitt Romney
Liberty Sunday: Defending Our First Freedom
October 15, 2006

Welcome to this historic city. The authors of liberty recognized a Divine Creator who bequeathed to us certain inalienable rights. They affirmed freedom of religion and proscribed the establishment of any one religion. Today, there are some people would like to establish a single religion for America . . . the religion of secularism. They not only reject traditional religious values, but also the values of the founders. And they set aside the wisdom of the ages. Their allies are activist judges. Here in Massachusetts, activist judges struck a blow to the foundation of civilization, the family. They ruled that our constitution requires same sex marriage. I believe their error occurred because they focused on adult rights. If adult heterosexual couples can marry, they reasoned, then to have equal rights, adult homosexual couples must also be able to marry.

But marriage is not primarily about adults. Marriage is primarily about the nurturing and development of children. A child’s development is enhanced by the nurturing of both genders. Every child deserves a mother and a father. Of course, the principal burden of the Court’s ruling doesn’t fall on adults. It falls on children. We are asked to change the state birth certificate. To prevent “heterocentricity,” mother and father would become parent A and parent B. An elementary school teacher reads to her 2nd graders from a book titled “The King and King” about a prince who marries a prince. And a 2nd grader’s father is denied the right to have his child removed from class while that book is being read. Our state’s most difficult-to-place adoptive children may no longer be placed by Catholic charities because they favor homes where there’s a mother and a father.

The price of same sex marriage is paid by children. Our fight for marriage, then, should focus on the needs of children, not the rights of adults. In fact, as Americans, I believe that we should show an outpouring of respect and tolerance for all people, regardless of their differences or their different choices. We must vigorously reject discrimination and bigotry. We are all God’s children. He abhors none of us.

Massachusetts is the front line on marriage, but unless we adopt a federal amendment to protect marriage, what is happening here will unquestionably enter every other state. The spreading religion of secularism and its substitute values cannot be allowed to weaken the foundation of family or the faith of our fathers who more than life their freedom loved.”

Copied from Elect Mitt Romney in 2008!

Romney also said he doesn’t support same-sex marriages or civil unions and would only extend rights or benefits pertaining to hospital visitations.

Copied from The Business Journal.

Kevin Davis Jr.

Technorati Tags: Mitt Romney, 2008, Presidential Election, Gay Marriage.

[Read more →]

Fledgling Romney Blogs continue to pop up! There’s now North Carolinians for Mitt (run by Peter Wiscombe) , Nuttmeggers for Mitt (A nickname for people from Connecticut; this quippy entry from today is worth a read), President Mitt Romney (looks to be a good source of thoughtful analysis and commentary), and Mothers for Mitt.

Nathan Burd from Americans for Mitt has informed us that there are now people signed on to the Americans for Mitt from all 50 states! Great work Nathan!

Texans for Mitt Romney keeps going strong with NINE different bloggers and some great entries like “Evangelicals Need Not Fear Romney” Parts One and Two, and “Romney is Articulate”

Washingtonians for Mitt also continues to keep going strong as well.

Nancy French is taking Evangelicals for Mitt in a whole different direction the last couple of days.

Sarcastic commentary is running strong at the Run Mitt Run Blog

Andru at South Carolinians for Romney had a great blog entry about the dangers of mixing religion and politics . . . it puts a new perspective about why Romney may not activly seek to discuss the details of his personal faith in a public setting. Also, there’s a link to a piece claiming that Newt Gingrich is not going to be running for President, but is positioning himself to take over as the RNC chairman in 2008–could be (probably is) just speculation.

Jason at Illinoisians for Mitt has a couple of interesting blog entries recently. These two (here and here) are about him meeting Romney at the Chicago event (Cool shirt Jason . . . where have I heard of that before?). Also, he reports that Laura Ingraham was giving Mitt “some love” again (don’t take that the wrong way) on her radio show and even seemed to bring Pat Buchanan along a bit. Jason also runs My Man Mitt.

Romney was on CNN’s “The Situation Room” hosted by Wolf Blitzer last week and you can read the transcript here (scroll down about halfway). My favorit quote after Blitzer tried to grill Romney on the Gay marriage issue:

BLITZER: You know, Mary Cheney, when she was here — and she is a lesbian…

ROMNEY: Yes.

BLITZER: … she said that you — she didn’t know what your position was, but those who support what you — you want a constitutional amendment that would ban same-sex marriage — are on the wrong side of history, sort of like the old laws that would prevent African-Americans from marrying white people.

ROMNEY: I’m afraid that’s not quite a good comparison.

It’s not the wrong side of history, because, actually, in the whole history of the world, from the very beginning of recorded history, marriage has always meant a relationship between a man and a woman.

Look, if two people of the same gender want to live together and enter into a contract with each other, so be it. But don’t pretend that it’s marriage. And society, as a whole, will benefit by having its children, on the average, raised by moms and dads.

Blitzer, defeated, then changed the subject. Great stuff from Romney!

Jeff

[Read more →]

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2006/09/exclusive_romne.html She it here.

Despite her divorce from Mitt’s brother, she seems to have stayed tight with the Romney clan, being willing to come to his defense on abortion.

Jeff

[Read more →]

http://theredhouse.townhall.com/Default.aspx?mode=3&ContentGuid=1e8b819c-b399-4ef9-a448-9109ed1811eb So is the GOP “The Anti-Family Party?”

One blogger, James Phillips, thinks the GOP might be at risk of being so, depending on who wins the GOP nomination in 2008. He suggests that electing Romney offers the GOPs best bet of continuing to be the “Pro-Family Party!”

Jeff

[Read more →]

http://illinisans-4-mitt-romney.blogspot.com/2006/08/governor-mitt-romney-and-family.html Mitt Romney’s Family

Governor Mitt Romney has been married for 36 years with five sons and nine grandchildren. Ann was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis in 1998.

Mitt Romney is a strong supporter of the family.
Reasons to agree:

Quotes from Mitt Romney about Family

1. “We can praise the virtues of parental involvement all day, but until we actually get parents to follow through we are simply singing to an empty music hall,” said Romney. “Voluntary programs will not get the job done. It is essential that mandatory training be put in place.” - Source: 01-21-2004 Press Release
2. Today, you are witnessing democracy in action. On issues of fundamental importance affecting all of the people, it is ultimately up to the people to decide. That is what this Constitutional Convention is all about. It serves as an important reminder that no one person and no branch of government is above the voice of the people. This is as it should be. Amending the constitution is a serious matter and any changes to the document itself should be finely and narrowly drawn. I recognize that the Senate President and the Senate Minority Leader are trying to find a compromise that will satisfy people on both sides of this issue, but their proposed amendment goes too far. The Constitution should not be used to legislate new social policy. A constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman is not a new proposal but rather a codification of longstanding policy and tradition. Civil union language is best left to the legislative process. My hope is the Constitutional Convention will approve an amendment defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. If we do that, we will have taken an important step toward restoring the people’s voice in their own government. - Source: 02-11-2004 Press Release
3. I agree with the President on the need for a federal marriage amendment that defines marriage as the union of a man and a woman. As I’ve said before, amending the U.S. Constitution may be the best and most reliable way to prevent a patchwork of inconsistent marriage laws between states and to guard against overreaching by the judicial branch. Acts of lawlessness in San Francisco bring into even sharper focus the need to proceed with the process of amending the Constitution. I don’t think anyone ever imagined that we would have courts and local officials defining marriage in a way that has no historical precedent whatsoever, and claiming it’s been in the Constitution all along. Of course, we must conduct this debate with decency, tolerance and respect for those with different opinions. The definition of marriage is so fundamental to society that it should not be decided by one court in Massachusetts or by one mayor in San Francisco. In America, the people should decide. In America, the people are fair and tolerant. Let the people decide. - Taken from a 02-24-2004 Press Release
4. Good afternoon. Our elected representatives met yesterday and took the first steps toward passing an amendment to the state Constitution that defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman. I applaud Senate President Travaglini, Speaker Finneran and all the members of the Legislature for conducting a respectful and thoughtful debate. As we saw, some people feel that the amendment changes the Constitution; I, and many others, feel that it preserves the Constitution. This amendment process began after the state Supreme Judicial Court redefined marriage, setting aside thousands of years of recorded history and legal precedent. The Court directed the Legislature to take action as it deemed appropriate. That’s just what the Legislature did yesterday. The Legislature is now on a track to put this issue before the voters. Ultimately, this is as it should be: the people of our state will decide. I know there are deeply held personal convictions around this issue. There are real people and real lives that are affected. On a matter of such significance and with such tender sentiment involved, I would ask that we continue to show respect and consideration for those of differing views. For all of us, the rule of law is bedrock. We’ve seen the lawlessness that has erupted in other states and how it undermines the higher purposes we all seek to preserve. I know there’s been a lot of speculation about what action I will take as Governor of the Commonwealth. Until the Legislature completes its work at the end of this month, I will have no comment on the options before me. But let me state clearly that whatever I do will be within the bounds of the law. Just as the Legislature is working within the constitutional and legal structure of our state, I will do the same. The Legislature has taken the first step. As the process continues, let us hope the final step will be taken by the people. Thank you. - Source: 03-12-2004 Press Release
5. Mr. Chairman, Senator Leahy, Senator Kennedy, distinguished members of the Committee, thank you for asking me to join you today. First, I ask that my written remarks be inserted into the record of this hearing. You have asked for my perspectives on the recent inauguration of same sex marriagein my state. This is a subject about which people have tender emotions in part because it touches individual lives. It also has been misused by some as a means to promote intolerance and prejudice. This is a time when we must fight hate and bigotry, when we must root out prejudice, when we must learn to accept people who are different from one another. Like me, the great majority of Americans wish both to preserve the traditional definition of marriage and to oppose bias and intolerance directed towards gays and lesbians. Given the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Congress and America now face important questions regarding the institution of marriage. Should we abandon marriage as we know it and as it was known by the framers of our constitution? Has America been wrong about marriage for 200 plus years? Were generations that spanned thousands of years from all the civilizations of the world wrong about marriage? Are the philosophies and teachings of all the world’s major religions simply wrong? Or is it more likely that four people among the seven that sat in a court in Massachusetts have erred? I believe that is the case. And I believe their error was the product of seeing only a part, and not the entirety. They viewed marriage as an institution principally designed for adults. Adults are who they saw. Adults stood before them in the courtroom. And so they thought of adult rights, equal rights for adults. If heterosexual adults can marry, then homosexual adults must also marry to have equal rights. But marriage is not solely for adults. Marriage is also for children. In fact, marriage is principally for the nurturing and development of children. The children of America have the right to have a father and a mother. Of course, even today, circumstances can take a parent from the home, but the child still has a mother and a father. If the parents are divorced, the child can visit each of them. If a mother or father is deceased, the child can learn about the qualities of the departed. His or her psychological development can still be influenced by the contrasting features of both genders. Are we ready to usher in a society indifferent about having fathers and mothers? Will our children be indifferent about having a mother and a father? My Department of Public Health has asked whether we must re-write our state birth certificates to conform to our Court’s same-sex marriage ruling. Must we remove “father” and “mother” and replace them with “parent A” and “parent B?” What should be the ideal for raising a child: not a village, not “parent A” and “parent B,” but a mother and a father. Marriage is about even more than children and adults. The family unit is the structural underpinning of all successful societies. And, it is the single-most powerful force that preserves society across generations, through centuries. Scientific studies of children raised by same sex couples are almost non-existent. And the societal implications and effects on these children are not likely to be observed for at least a generation, probably several generations. Same sex marriage doesn’t hurt my marriage, or yours. But it may affect the development of children and thereby future society as a whole. Until we understand the implications for human development of a different definition of marriage, I believe we should preserve that which has endured over thousands of years. Preserving the definition of marriage should not infringe on the right of individuals to live in the manner of their choosing. One person may choose to live as a single, even to have and raise her own child. Others may choose to live in same sex partnerships or civil arrangements. There is an unshakeable majority of opinion in this country that we should cherish and protect individual rights with tolerance and understanding. But there is a difference between individual rights and marriage. An individual has rights, but a man and a woman together have a marriage. We should not deconstruct marriage simply to make a statement about the rights of individual adults. Forcing marriage to mean all things, will ultimately define marriage to mean nothing at all. Some have asked why so much importance is attached to the word “marriage.” It is because changing the definition of marriage to include same sex unions will lead to further far-reaching changes that also would influence the development of our children. For example, school textbooks and classroom instruction may be required to assert absolute societal indifference between traditional marriage and same sex practice. It is inconceivable that promoting absolute indifference between heterosexual and homosexual unions would not significantly effect child development, family dynamics, and societal structures. Among the structures that would be affected would be religious and certain charitable institutions. Those with scriptural or other immutable founding principles will be castigated. Ultimately, some may founder. We need more from these institutions, not less, and particularly so to support and strengthen those in greatest need. Society can ill afford further erosion of charitable and virtuous institutions. For these reasons, I join with those who support a federal constitutional amendment. Some retreat from the concept of amendment, per se. While they say they agree with the traditional definition of marriage, they hesitate to amend. But amendment is a vital and necessary aspect of our constitutional democracy, not an aberration. The constitution’s framers recognized that any one of the three branches of government might overstep its separated powers. If Congress oversteps, the Court can intervene. If the Executive overreaches, Congress may impeach. And if the Court launches beyond the constitution, the legislative branch may amend. The four Massachusetts justices launched beyond our constitution. That is why the Massachusetts legislature has begun the lengthy amendment process. There is further cause for amendment. Our framers debated nothing more fully than they debated the reach and boundaries of what we call federalism. States retained certain powers upon which the federal government could not infringe. By the decision of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, our state has begun to assert power over all the other states. It is a state infringing on the powers of other states. In Massachusetts, we have a law that attempts to restrain this infringement on other states by restricting marriages of out-of-state couples to those where no impediment to marry exists in their home state. Even with this law, valid same sex marriages will migrate to other states. For each state to preserve its own power in relation to marriage, within the principle of Federalism, a federal amendment to define marriage is necessary. This is not a mere political issue. It is more than a matter of adult rights. It is a societal issue. It encompasses the preservation of a structure that has formed the basis of all known successful civilizations. With a matter as vital to society as marriage, I am troubled when I see an intolerant few wrap the marriage debate with their bias and prejudice. I am also troubled by those on the other side of the issue who equate respect for traditional marriage with intolerance. The majority of Americans believe marriage is between a man and a woman, but they are also firmly committed to respect, and even fight for civil rights, individual freedoms and tolerance. Saying otherwise is wrong, demeaning and offensive. As a society, we must be able to recognize the salutary effect, for children, of having a mother and a father while at the same time respecting the civil rights and equality of all citizens. Thank you. - Taken from a 06-22-2004 Press Release
6. “In my service as Governor, I’ve never had anyone complain to me that their kids are not learning enough about sex in school. However, a number of people have asked me why it is that we do not speak more about abstinence as a safe and preventive health practice,” said Romney. ” Abstinence education gives young people the support they need in making the decision to postpone sexual activity until they are mature enough to handle the emotional, moral and financial responsibilities of parenthood,” he said. “This is more than teaching kids to say no – it will help them preserve self-esteem and build character.” From a 05-31-2006 Press Release

2004

01-21-2004, ROMNEY DETAILS MANDATORY PARENTAL PREP PLAN
02-11-2004, ROMNEY STATEMENT REGARDING CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
02-24-2004, STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR ROMNEY ON THE FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT
03-12-2004, STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY ON CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION
06-22-2004, “Preserving Traditional Marriage: A View from the States”

2006
04-20-2006, ROMNEY ANNOUNCES AWARD OF ABSTINENCE EDUCATION CONTRACT
05-31-2006, ROMNEY FILES BILL TO PROMOTE PARENTAL RESPONSIBILITY

Links:
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2005-11-13-1.html
http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Family

[Read more →]