I was privileged to be on an email thread this week about Rick Santorum’s excellent remarks regarding Williard Mitt Romney’s actions as Massachusetts governor that rightful earned him the nickname “the father of homosexual marriage.”
Here are just a few of the comments made – I’ve left out the names of the authors.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
For the first time, a GOP candidate (Rick Santorum) finally stated the truth that Romney unilaterally, illegally and unconstitutionally implemented same sex “marriage” (i.e. Romney is literally the Founding Father of sodomy-based “marriage” in America).
Perhaps now, Romney will be held accountable as the law breaking, pro-homosexual, pro-abortion, big government liberal that he truly is.
Here is the 100% fully documented proof signed by the Founding Father of the Reagan Revolution and the modern day conservative movement, the late Paul Weyrich, that Willard “Mitt” Romney illegally and unconstitutionally implemented same sex “marriage”:
“Letter to Romney from Pro-Family Leaders“
The truth on Romney’s role in ushering in sodomy based “marriage” to America must be revealed.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The court did not defer to the Legislature, but the Legislature DID NOT act and did not amend the statute. Thus, Romney had no right to act. He should not have acted until the Legislature placed legislation in front of him. Instead, he took the lead to implement the ruling. In doing so he created an odd situation where same-sex marriage was proceeding but the statue did not authorize it and had not been changed. Romney should have stayed out of it unless and until the Legislature acted.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Might I humbly add that after the legislature did act, and assuming it passed a SSM bill and sent it for his signature, as chief executive Romney then had the constitutional authority to veto that legislation. That’s the beauty of our system of checks and balances and separation of powers.
What would the court have done then? We don’t know. Romney chose to act unconstitutionally, preempt the legislature and unilaterally declare that SSM was the law of the land.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The larger question is: are we going to sit back and allow the GOP establishment to set a new, compromised standard on what it means to be “pro-family”? All you have to do now is take actions (however weak) against ‘gay marriage’ — while accepting pretty much the rest of the homosexual agenda — and that passes muster? We wouldn’t tolerate that on abortion, and we shouldn’t tolerate it on homosexuality. Note that even the seemingly hard-core, principled Iowa marriage vow for the candidates did NOT ask them to reinstate the ban on homosexuals in the military. Bad sign.
Up next — Amy Contrada weighs in.
