Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney has been going on and on about seeking a legislative exemption for Catholic Charities from a law requiring gay adoptions. After initially opposing it, he suddenly had a change of heart.
Don’t be fooled. This is all politics. Romney’s term as governor ends after this November’s election. None of his potential successors are in favor of an exemption and neither are the leaders of the Legislature. Any bill filed for an exemption will die a quick death. And Romney knows it.
This is all about Romney’s run for the White House and his exemption bill is playing to the national audience. He needs to puff up his Red State bona fides and distance himself from the liberalism of his state. That’s why he’s suddenly claiming to be a pro-lifer when all this time in Massachusetts he’s been a “pro-choicer.” (Nobody’s buying that either.) And it’s why he’s suddenly pandering to the Catholic vote.
Don’t forget how important the Catholic vote is to the presidential election now. Romney evidently hasn’t.
Technorati Tags: adoption, Boston, Catholic, Catholic-Charities, homosexuality, Massachusetts, politics, presidential-election
More double-talk. He’s supposedly against gay marriage. And isn’t he supposedly against gay adoptions?
At the same time, he’s promising a “narrowly written” bill for CC, since same-sex couples have a “legitimate interest” in adopting.
Let’s note for the record that Lieutenant Governor Kerry Healey, an ex-Catholic, is against the religious exemption proposal.
I would really like to vote in November, but I’m at a lost on what to do.
No, he is CLEARLY against gay marriage. He worked hard on that one. Give him credit where credit is due. (You can also see that both he and his wife signed the petition drive.)
He did NOT work hard on gay marriage. The SJC had no right to define marriage. That responsibilty rests with the Legislative and Executive branches. What law is on the books that allow it? Hint—there is none.
He should have used an executive order banning them.
I’m wondering too, Renee, what to do in November…none of the governor candidates are pro-life…
1. Unlike Canada, the Massachusetts Constitution contains the word marriage in it. The word actually has a specific meaning in the Constitution (the union of one man and one woman) which CANNOT BE CHANGED WITHOUT YOUR CHANGING IT (the people through their reprsentatives in the legislature or on their own petition may change the words of the constitution only. NOT THE SJC. The SJC declared the statute (with that exaact meaning) “unconstitutional,” but a word contained in the Constitution by obvious logic cannot be “unconctitutional.” It is a fraud to imply otherwise.
2. The statute c. 207 prohibits same-sex marriage. See Goodridge. That statute was never stricken by the SJC. See Goodridge. That statute has never been repealed or changed by the legislature (even though they were encouraged by the SJC to do so). Therefore that statute, still on the books, continues to prohibit same-sex marriage.
3. The SJC redefined the “common law” meaning of marriage. BUT 1. (unlike Canada) there is no common law marriage in Massachusetts and 2. common law is subordinate to statutory law which is subordinate to Constitutional law (the words of the Constitution).
4. Romney is sworn to uphold the law. He failed to. Now he’s running around acting as if he could have done nothinng. How are same-sex marriage license being handed out right now? Under what authority? There is no authority. It is a con, begun by the SJC and acquiesced to by Romney. He is weak.
When all candidates are equally anti-life, I vote against the Republican, in order to oppose pro-abort efforts in the party I usually support.
This time around, the independent candidate Mr. Mihos offers an option for a protest/spoiler vote.
I believe my practice conforms with the “principle of double effect”, but of course CS Bolay’s well within his rights to deny his votes to all pro-aborts.
Write in Ray Flynn.
Can you tell me where the MA Const. defines marriage that way?
Article V. All causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony, and all appeals from the judges of probate shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision.
That doesn’t say that marriage is defined in it as one man and one women.
WIN was in error to say that the Mass. Constitution defines marriage as the union of one man and one woman. That’s why we need to pass a constitutional amendment to define it.
But the constitution does give normative authority over marriage to the governor and his council.