Mitt Romney, pro-life?

13 comments

• Romney could put an end to gay marriage today if he chose, simply by following Massachusetts law.  The ramifications of not doing so are far reaching.  See http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp

  Each and every day that Romney fails to do so, he violates the Massachusetts constitution and marriage laws.  He also violates his sworn oath (yes under pains and penalties of perjury) to uphold the Constitution and the laws of Massachusetts.  Romney is truly the father of gay marriage in America.  See http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2006/05/gov-mitt-romney-is-father-of-gay.html

• It smacks of the “Catholics for Kerry” group back during the last Presidential election.

• Dear Domenico,
  I was shocked to read your comments in this thread, for two reasons:

  (1) Somehow you missed the dramatic 2005 announcement of Mitt Romney’s conversion to a pro-life position.

  I urge you to read this July, 2005, statement of his:
  http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2005/07/26/why_i_vetoed_contraception_bill/

  (2) Somehow you missed the dramatic 2005 announcement of Mitt Romney’s opposition to same-sex marriages and civil unions.

  I urge you to read this June, 2005, article about his position:
  http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2005/06/17/romney_backs_new_effort_to_prohibit_gay_marriages/

  Unless Romney has “flipflopped” on either of these (and I somehow missed it), I’d say that you should start a new blog-thread (or modify this one), so that your readers are not misled. 

  Of all the people who are said to be testing the waters, Romney may actually be the best man for the presidency in 2008.  (Now, if he could only realize that a false religion [Mormonism] needs to be abandoned just as much as a pro-sodomite/pro-abortion position needed to be abandoned …).

  God be with you.

• AnUnSi –

  There’s a BIG difference between WORDS and ACTIONS. 

  Even an incredibly naive person could see that Romney’s recent “conversions” (in WORDS only) are politically motivated.  For them to be considered sincere, he needs to step forward and say that his previous positions were wrong and politically motivated to run/win in Massachusetts.  And take the heat for that.  Genuine conversions can happen (good “flip flops”) but why do you think that this is a genuine one?

  Romney’s actions (other than speeches) have NEVER advanced a pro-life or pro-family position.  He’s a business guy who believes people should be judged by their results.  Where are his results? 

  If he’s the best candidate for Catholics of either party in 2008, that will be a sad day for America. 

  Bill

• What makes Romney’s words of “conversion” any different than the rest of the “personally opposed, but…” crowd of pro-abort politicians?

  Because Massachusetts is decidedly prochoice, I have respected the state’s democratically held view. I have not attempted to impose my own views on the prochoice majority.

  And how exactly did he determine that Massachusetts is “decidedly pro-choice”? Have the people voted on it? Is he going based on polls? What were the poll questions then? Were the polls perhaps biased in favor of a result?

  And what of the idea that perhaps more voters would be pro-life if they were, in fact, educated about the issue?

  What of the even more basic idea that if Romney believes that abortion kills an innocent human being, then that murder is a matter of human rights and not something that should be based on a majority opinion.

  After all, we live in a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy, which is supposed to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

• Now the majority needs to be protected from the tyranny of the minority.  Why is that?  Because our constitutional republic is falling apart.

• Dear AnUnSi
  The article you cite from Boston.com has a couple of major flaws.

  The article cited says:
  Governor Mitt Romney yesterday endorsed a grass-roots effort to pass a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage in Massachusetts in 2008

  But Mitt Romney, instead of promoting a constitutiional amendment to stop gay marriage (when the current Massachusetts Constitution already protects traditional marriage), should have been retracting his illegal order to the Town Clerks and Justice’s of the Peace, to certify and solemnize these VOID marriages.  Romney, not the SJC, is the one responsible for gay marriage in America.  See below.

  The article cited states:
  Yesterday’s developments were a dramatic new turn in the state’s political debate around gay marriage, which was legalized by the Supreme Judicial Court in a Nov. 18, 2003 decision.

  Contrary to a popular misconception (that has been perpretrated by the news media, Mitt Romney and his political campaign) but which is very much understood by the lawyers for the Goodridge plaintiffs, and a numbers of others including the SJC judges themselves), gay marriage currently is NOT LEGAL in Massachusetts. 

  The SJC interpreted the marriage statute to NOT PERMIT same sex marriage.  The SJC declared the marriage statute “unconstitutional” BUT they did not strike that law.  It remains a statute on the books as it was originally written and intended.  The Massachusetts Constitution clearly states that a law that remains on the books is the law until it is repealed by the Legislature.  The SJC simply changed the “common law” meaning of the term marriage but because that term already exists in the statute and in the Constitution, the SJC’s “common law” declaration of a new meaning did not and could not change the statute nor the words of the Constitution because common law is subordinate to statutory and constitutional law.  The SJC acknowledged this in the Goodridge case saying that they could not legislate and therefore gave the legislature 180 days to act.  The legislature neither repealed the “unconstitutional” marriage law nor changed the law by way of a change to the statute nor by allowing the Constitutional Amendment to go through in 2005.  Therefore the “law,” the marriage statute, that forbids same-sex marriage, continues to forbid it.  The only reason why same-sex marriage licenses are being handed out is because Mitt Romney ordered them to be but he did that without legal authority under any statute.  This is confirmed by the fact that the Massachusetts Legislature currently has two opposing bills pending before it; one that promotes same-sex “marriage” (H977/S967) and the other that defines marriage as the union of one man to one woman (H654).  If same-sex marriage” was currently legal, there would be no reason to have either of these opposing bills pending before the Massachusetts Legislature.

• The Globe has been made aware of this but does not want to acknowledge it.  This major innacuracy that is being falsely treated as fact has been reported on World Net Daily:

  The sound of silence in Indiana
  Posted: January 12, 2006
  1:00 a.m. Eastern
  By Robert Knight
  http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48313

  “Romney should have said, “I am bound by my oath of office to uphold the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the marriage law has not been changed. Therefore, people who do not qualify will not receive marriage licenses.”

  Romney did more than just blink. He paved the way for the illegal action by warning town clerks weeks ahead of time that they would have to violate their consciences and issue the licenses or lose their jobs. Also, Romney’s bureaucrats changed the marriage form from husband and wife to the apparently more romantic Party A and Party B.

  Far from having his hands tied, the good governor was busy tying the knot for same-sex couples.

  In a well-documented summary sent on Jan. 2, 2006, to the Boston Globe, a Newton, Mass., resident notes, “I would ask the Globe to refrain from using such phrases as ‘Since same-sex marriage became legal in May 2004,’ since there is no statute legally permitting them today; they were ordered by the court and forced on the state by Gov. Romney in the absence of any law.”

  The EMAIL mentioned in World Net Daily article said in part:
  Governor Romney publicly agreed there were no laws in place on April 16, 2004, as did a senior leader of the Massachusetts Senate.
  But Romney said the court’s ruling, and the possibility that voters will overturn it in 2006, raise several legal questions that make the situation extremely confusing. He placed the blame for the confusion on the Legislature, which has yet to follow a directive from the SJC to change the state’s marriage laws to reflect the legalization of same-sex matrimony.

  ‘‘I believe the reason that the court gave 180 days to the Legislature [following its ruling] was to allow the Legislature the chance to look through all of the laws developed over the centuries and see how they should be adjusted or clarified for purposes of same-sex marriage; the Legislature didn’t do that,’’ Romney said.

  Senator Bruce E. Tarr, Republican of Gloucester, said he believes the Legislature will ultimately pass bills that will insert genderneutral language into the state’s marriage laws in time for the May 17 deadline.

  ‘‘No one should interpret inaction thus far with the idea that no action is forthcoming,’’ he said
  http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2004/04/16/romney_seeks_authority_to_delay_same_sex_marriage/

  4)  Nothing happened by May of 2004. No laws were changed.  Except Governor Romney ordered the town clerks to start issuing marriage licenses anyway.
  That there is no new law to enforce is further validated by the training provided to town clerks by Attorney Winslow found at http://www.glad.org/marriage/town_clerk_instructions.pdf (and attached)

  Slide 3 says that the Legislature has not made any changes to statutory laws to facillitate Goodridge
  Slide 4 says that the SJC did not change the marriage statutes in c46 and 207
  Slide 5 says that there’s not been any constitutional amendment.
  Slide 6 says clerks should be ready to implement the “new law” on May 17. 

  What “new law”? There was none.

• I am shocked that anyone (especially Domenico) could read the two articles that I linked and still not admit that DB’s opening message of this thread (which pointed back to 2002 Romneyite positions) is inaccurate and misleading to readers of the blog. 

  One would have to have blinders not to see that Romney has changed in a major way and has been taking big heat for it.  I suspect that the problem is that everyone who rejected what I said is such a distrusting ultra-conservative that he lacks the ability to believe that Romney (or any other pro-abort) could ever have a genuine conversion. Tsk-tsk.

  Bill, you asked: “Genuine conversions can happen (good “flip flops”) but why do you think that this is a genuine one?”

  Because I not only read about it, but I heard him interviewed by a staunch conservative, and I belleved him.  He actually cited the fact that his reading of pro-life materials had convinced him that he had been wrong for decades.  I could tell that he was not just “pretending” to be pro-life in order to win the Republican presidential nomination.

  Now I want all the people who scoffed at what I said (in this or the previous message) to name a NOMINATE-ABLE and ELECT-ABLE man or woman, of either party, who will have better pro-life and anti-sodomy positions than Romney in 2008.  You can go down the list of potential names, and you will not find anyone.  (Please don’t say “Frist,” who sold out on embryonic stem-cell research.)

• You didn’t answer my question:

  What makes Romney’s words of “conversion” any different than the rest of the “personally opposed, but…” crowd of pro-abort politicians?

  Now I want all the people who scoffed at what I said (in this or the previous message) to name a NOMINATE-ABLE and ELECT-ABLE man or woman, of either party, who will have better pro-life and anti-sodomy positions than Romney in 2008.

  This is a pointless exercise since no matter what name is given, you’ll say he is unelectable or un-nominatable.

  Nevertheless, I will give you a name: Brownback.

  Also, since when should I support a candidate just because they have the least objectionable pro-abortion views?

• Brownback is outstanding.

• DB:

  I agree that Sen. Brownback is outstanding on almost every issue, but—as you predicted—I have to say that he is not nominate-able and not elect-able … so why did you even bother to mention him?  Pure stubbornness?

  Your question to me is based on false premises: “since when should I support a candidate just because they have [sic] the least objectionable pro-abortion views?”

  [The “sic” pertains to the fact that you should have used, “he has” (singular), not “they have” (plural), since your subject was “a candidate” (singular).  This is what I was taught by the good sisters in Catholic grade school, and I don’t accept the modern (radical-feminist-inspired) barbarism of mixing singular and plural elements.]

  Regardless of your desire to twist the facts, Gov. Romney is not “pro-abortion.”  I have been a pro-life activist for more than twenty years, so I know a pro-abort when I see one. 

  You said that I didn’t answer your question (“What makes Romney’s words of ‘conversion’ any different than the rest of the ‘personally opposed, but…’ crowd of pro-abort politicians?”))

  It appears as though you didn’t read my last post and the articles I linked carefully enough.  The articles show him saying various pro-life things that pro-abort pols wouldn’t be caught dead saying. I also mentioned that I had HEARD Romney speaking to a pro-life interviewer, saying that he had been convinced by pro-life materials to change his beliefs—again, something that a pro-death pol would never say.  How did you miss these things?  Apparently, you are still fixated on what he said in 2002.  This is not a good show on your part.

  Now, here is the truth: 
  Until the nominating conventions, any of us can support the very best pro-life contender (such as Brownback) for any office. 
  After the conventions, we are prudent to support the only pro-life (or the more pro-life, or the less pro-death), electable candidate in a race.
  However, the Church says that it is sometimes OK, after the conventions, to continue to support a seemingly unelectable, ultra-pro-life, third-party candidate, in order to make a statement.  It would probably be improper for a bloc of voters to take this last option, though, if it were indirectly to cause the election of a pro-abort over a “partially pro-life” candidate.  We need to save as many babies as we can.

  I myself am not enthusiastic about having Romney as president, despite what you may have allowed yourself to be led to believe, via kneejerk reaction.  I would rather have an even more pro-life man or woman, someone with a long, proven “track record.”  But Romney would be better than any Democrat that is on the horizon.

  I didn’t post my first message to campagin for Romeny, but to correct the false impression left by you in the thread’s opening comments.

• AnUnSi:

  [The “sic” pertains to the fact that you should have used, “he has” (singular), not “they have” (plural), since your subject was “a candidate” (singular).  This is what I was taught by the good sisters in Catholic grade school, and I don’t accept the modern (radical-feminist-inspired) barbarism of mixing singular and plural elements.]

  “8 Principles for Logical & Respectful Discussion”

  NUMBER FIVE: Respond to the argument, not to the spelling.
  There is no surer sign of inadequacy on the part of a debater than when they take issue with some small “error” on the part of their opponent, while ignoring the main point/s their adversary is trying to make.

  If you are unable to refute your opponent’s position, don’t insult his or her spelling, grammar, or insignificant deviations from fact. Your opponent is most likely correct, and their small errors have nothing to do with the overall truth or falsity of the proposition they defend. Don’t make a fool of yourself by being a sore loser.

    DO feel free to point out significant errors that impact the validity of a claim.
    DO NOT point out errors solely for the purpose of embarrassing your opponent.