re: "The undoing of a Manchurian Mormon"

Gerald Owen, National Post (The Manchurian Canadian, Gowen@nationalpost.com),

I am responding to your "The undoing of a Manchurian Mormon" article published in the National Post on Friday, January 19, 2007.

I have questions as to what exactly you mean by "Manchurian Mormon". You must be confused. Mitt Romney was born in Michigan. Manchuria is region of northeast China comprising the modern-day provinces of Heilongjiang, Jilin, and Liaoning. Are you trying to say that Mitt Romney is Chinese?

The Manchurian Candidate is a 1959 thriller novel written by Richard Condon, later adapted into films in 1962 and 2004. The central concept of the book and the subsequent 1962 film is that the son of a prominent political family has been convinced into becoming an unwilling assassin for the Communist Party; in the 2004 version, the villain was instead a giant corporation called "Manchurian Global". Are you trying to say that Mitt Romney works for the Communist or "Manchurian Global"?

No you are trying to do something more sinister. You call him the "Manchurian Mormon." Much like Joseph McCarthy, you accuse Mitt Romney of something sinister, without participating in a forum where you present any evidence, or even invite people to respond with reasons to agree or disagree with your conclusion.

You never define what exactly a "Manchurian Mormon" is, because doing so would expose your bigotry. With a wink-wink you label him the "Manchurian Mormon" and let the reader's imagination run wild hysteria of all the possibilities.

Should any Mormon be allowed to participate in the work force? I work for an architecture and engineering firm as an electrical engineer. Should you inform you write my boss about the "Manchurian Mormon" electrical engineers union (MMEE)? We are a secrete organization trying to take over the field of electrical engineers. As Mormons only make up 3% of the US population, we have not done a very good job of taking over the field of electrical engineering. Those darn "Manchurian Jews" and "Manchurian African Americans" are keeping us "Manchurin Mormons" out of power (do you see how bigoted that sounds when you replace Mormons with other groups?)

re: "The Mormonism of Mitt Romney, one of the most plausible candidates for the Republican presidential nomination, has become an issue on church-and-state grounds."

How has this become an issue and with whom?

re: "This issue was raised notably in a New Republic article by Damon Linker, excerpted on these pages a week ago. A back-and-forth debate in that magazine followed."

Mr. Linker did not bring up any separation of "church-and-state issues". He forwarded the belief that Mitt Romney proves his incompetence because he is a Mormon. Mr. Linker did not assert that Mitt Romney would affect any "church-and-state" issues.

re: "The religious views of political candidates should be open to question; they are not merely private, inner matters."

You are very good at stating the conclusions that you have adopted as truth, but you are not very good at stating any REASONS to agree with your conclusion. So where do I began, when you don't even make a case for your beliefs?

Again, you state: "The religious views of political candidates should be open to question; they are not merely private, inner matters."

Mitt Romney has indicated that his beliefs cause him to love his country, love his family, and try to do right by his neighbor. Mitt Romney does not believe in lying, stealing, or killing. Mitt Romney thinks that when he dies he will be judged according to his actions and the intent of his heart with regard to the way that he treated his wife, kids, and those that he came in contact with. What does any of this have to do with politics?

Perhaps there is an overlap of religious and political issues with regard to questions of ethics in government, but you don't want to be bothered by the details and go into these, you would rather engage in insinuation name calling (the Manchurian Mormon).

The only obvious question of where politics and religion overlap would be abortion and gay rights. Mitt Romney, like many others, believes that Abortion should be decided on a state-by-state basis. Atheist and those from every religion agree and disagree with Romney. Romney's religion does not say when life begins, and so his religious views are not an issue when it comes to abortion.

Here is the LDS church's position on same sex marriage.

http://lds.org/newsroom/issues/answer/0,19491,6056-1-202-4-202,00.html

To summarize, the LDS church does not say weather same-gender attraction is Nature, Nurture, a choice, or something someone is born with. The church teaches love, acceptance and tolerance of those with same-gender attraction.

Some high-lights: "The Church does not have a position on the causes of any of these susceptibilities or inclinations, including those related to same-gender attraction. Those are scientific questions — whether nature or nurture — those are things the Church doesn't have a position on."

But the church's teaches don't really matter. The official religion of the largest country on the planet is atheism (China). And in People's Republic of China, same-sex marriage is not allowed. Many ethical atheist believe children deserve both a mother and a father. So religion, really, is not the problem. The advocates of same sex marriage shouldn't change the subject to a person's religion, or practice politics of personal destruction by saying that someone from a particular religion should not be elected president. What they should do is stay on the subject and hand, and try to advance the argument that children advance just as well when they have two mothers or two fathers.

But people don't want to have a logical debate on the issues. Gerald Owen doesn't want to deal with the specific tenants of Romney's faith that he finds objectionable. He would rather operate on the level of name calling. Well two people can play that game. Gerald Owens, is a Bigot. Anyone who brings up Romney's religion as a disqualification for office, without specifically saying which beliefs are objectionable is a bigot. Romney's religion may be so stupid that it should disqualify him for president, but you are a bigot if all you do is say that he is a Mormon, mention some thing or other about "the Manchurian Mormon", and play on people's illogical fears.

Once again, I'm not saying EVERYONE who says Romney's religion disqualifies him from being president is a bigot. Only those who leave the world of logic, and go to the world of name calling and insinuation.

Regards,

Mike

Mitt Romney Interview With Mike Gallagher

Mitt Romney Interview With Mike Gallagher

Mike talks the former Massachusetts governor.

   Length: 00:06:29

Re: Romney retreats on gun control; Ex-governor woos Republican votes, By Scott Helman, Globe Staff, January 14, 2007

Re: "Former governor Mitt Romney, who once described himself as a supporter of strong gun laws, is distancing himself from that rhetoric now as he attempts to court the gun owners who make up a significant force in Republican primary politics."

 

Is this accurate? You be the judge. Lets lay out the time line of Romney's position on Gun Control, and see if Romney has changed or if the Boston Globe is guilty of working for the Democratic party when they assert the above statement

 

Governor Mitt Romney and Firearms Policy

According to his 2002 gubernatorial campaign, Romney "is a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban. Mitt also believes in the rights of those who hunt to responsibly own and use firearms." July 1st, 2002 Mitt Romney signed a permanent ban on Assault Weapons. "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts," Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony with legislators, sportsmen's groups and gun safety advocates. "These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people."

Governor Mitt Romney and Firearms Policy

2007

• "Americans should have the right to own and possess firearms as guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution. I'm proud to be among the many decent, law-abiding men and women who safely use firearms." - Governor Mitt Romney, 01-12-2007, Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney Visits Firearms Industry's Trade Show

2005

Also, in 2005, Romney designated May 7 as "The Right to Bear Arms Day" in Massachusetts to honor "the right of decent, law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms in defense of their families, persons, and property and for all lawful purposes, including the common defense."

2004

• "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people." Romney said, at a bill signing ceremony with legislators, sportsmen's groups and gun safety advocates. 07-01-2004 Press Release

• "By making this common-sense change to the law we will enable target pistol manufacturers to do business in our state and allow enthusiasts to practice the sport they love." - Governor Mitt Romney, 07-01-2004 Press Release
• "Mitt Romney supports the strict enforcement of gun laws. He is a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban. Mitt also believes in the rights of those who hunt to responsibly own and use firearms." - www.romneyhealey.com/issues/, no longer active, see Web Archive
• "Stun guns have proven time and time again when used by law enforcement officers in other states that they are an effective tool in stopping suspects. It is high time for our men and women in blue to utilize this modern crime fighting technology." Governor Mitt Romney 07-15-2004 Press Release

2002

In 2002, even as he was pledging to uphold the state's strong gun laws, Romney still garnered a "B" grade from the NRA.

Governor Mitt Romney and Firearms Policy Press Releases

2004

07-01-2004, Romney signs off on permenent assault weapons ban

• The bill enjoyed the support of Massachusetts gun owners because it also encompassed several measures they favored -- including a lengthening of the terms of firearm identification cards and licenses to carry. (Asked about the bill Friday, Romney described it as a "consensus measure" and a "positive step.")

2006

07-26- 2006, Governor Romney Approves Exemption for Target Pistols

2006

01-12-2007, Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney Visits Firearms Industry's Trade Show

 

 

David Brody of The Christian Broadcasting Network has the following report:

Let's talk about the war. Not the Iraq war. This war is between Mitt Romney and the anti-Romney grassroots groups in Massachusetts. I've never seen anything like this. My email inbox is scorching hot from the rhetoric flying from both sides.

But here's where it gets real interesting. Normally, groups like Mass Resistance, led by the leader Brian Camenker get minimal attention. But they have been pretty diligent in consistently pounding home this "Romney's a hypocrite" theme. They haven't received too much attention from the mainstream media but the Boston Globe has run with some of their research and the blogosphere is talking about it.

Let's do a reset here. Mitt Romney wants to be President. A Group called Mass Resistance thinks he's a phony. Romney calls himself a true conservative. This group thinks he's anything but citing what they say are his flip flops on gay rights, abortion and a host of other issues. They detail all of their claims in a 28 page report called "The Mitt Romney deception".

So what does the Romney's campaign do? Do they ignore the group? To the contrary. They have come out with an aggressive campaign to discredit Camenker and Mass Resistance. They are fighting fire with fire. Romney's press shop knows that they must stop this group now or risk having their charges gain steam. They are trying to cut this thing off right now.  They actually put out a press release attacking this group and Camenker personally.

It seems to me Romney must be reading the book by Mark Halperin and John Harris called "The Way to Win. Because in that book, it talks about how it's vital for a Presidential candidate to keep control of his image. Don't let others define you. It seems his team is determined to define Romney on their terms, not others.

Mitt Romney won't let democrats get away with playing games

This is an actual Press Release that Mitt Romney released. We are letting the democrats get away, and no one confronts them. Romney would change this.

~ Myclob

July 23, 2004

ROMNEY, DECRYING POLITICS, VETOES SENATE VACANCY BILL

Says Democrats are putting interests of party ahead of the people

Governor Mitt Romney today vetoed a bill that would leave empty the office of U.S. Senator for as much as five months while a special election is carried out in the event of a vacancy.

Romney's veto comes after the Legislature rejected a proposed amendment by the Governor that would have allowed the Senate President and House Speaker a consultative role in an interim appointment.

"The bill deprives the people of Massachusetts from continuous representation in Congress," said Romney. "This would put Massachusetts at a disadvantage relative to every other state and would deny our citizens an equal voice on important issues that affect the Commonwealth and the nation."

Currently, if a vacancy occurs due to a senator's death, resignation or expulsion, state law empowers the Governor to appoint a replacement to hold office until a special election can take place. This is the prevailing practice across the United States.

If the veto is overridden and a vacancy occurs, Massachusetts would be under-represented in the highest lawmaking body in the land for almost half the year, with no ability to participate in votes to declare war, appoint federal judges or decide tax policy.

Romney, a Republican, blamed politics, saying the overwhelmingly Democratic Legislature has put the interests of their party ahead of the people.

"This is partisanship pure and simple," Romney said. "The Democrats would rather not have someone fighting for transportation money, for pollution regulations, to prevent base closures in our state if it means a Republican governor is going to make an appointment."

Since the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913, which provided for the direct election of senators, 174 people have been temporarily appointed by Governors to unexpired Senate terms. Of those, 55 went on to win election; 55 tried but failed to win nomination or election; and 64 people chose not to seek election at all.

Mitt Romney and the Surge

Boston, MA – Governor Mitt Romney, in direct consideration of the proposed increase in troop deployments in Iraq, issued the following statement today putting an emphasis on the need for clear and measurable strategic objectives.

"I agree with the President: Our strategy in Iraq must change. Our military mission, for the first time, must include securing the civilian population from violence and terror. It is impossible to defeat the insurgency without first providing security for the Iraqi people. Civilian security is the precondition for any political and economic reconstruction.

"In consultation with Generals, military experts and troops who have served on the ground in Iraq, I believe securing Iraqi civilians requires additional troops. I support adding five brigades in Baghdad and two regiments in Al-Anbar province. Success will require rapid deployment.

"This effort should be combined with clear objectives and milestones for U.S. and Iraqi leaders.

"The road ahead will be difficult but success is still possible in Iraq. I believe it is in America's national security interest to achieve it."

~ by Myclob

What a great cartoon hu?

You think you're tough, but even my democratic opponents stand behind me to help defeat you!!

Romney, unlike I heart Huckibee, supports Bush. Its not only the democrats pooring A-1.

Governor Mitt Romney and Islamist

• "The key issues we face, of course, are first, the conflict with the jihadists. This is a conflict which is going on within the world of Islam, and the jihadists are attempting to overcome the moderate, modern factions of Islam and replace them with a caliphate. It's going to require the involvement of the U.S. as a leader of the world to help move Islam away from that kind of extremism and violence."
• Governor Mitt Romney, Q&A: Mitt Romney Discusses Iraq War, Reagan's Influence and Gay Marriage

• "The defeat of this radical and violent faction of Islam must be achieved through a combination of American resolve, international effort, and the rejection of violence by moderate, modern, mainstream Muslims. An effective strategy will involve both military and diplomatic actions to support modern Muslim nations. America must help lead a broad-based international coalition that promotes secular education, modern financial and economic policies, international trade, and human rights."
• Governor Mitt Romney's, PAC

• "Romney wants the public to know that Jihadists are not an 'armed group of crazed maniacs in the hills of Afghanistan.' Rather, Romney says the United States is facing a 'far more sinister and broad-based extremist faction' with a 'very 8th century view of the world.'"
• Governor Mitt Romney, ABC News, April 30, 2006

• "The jihadists are waging a global war against the United States and Western governments generally with the ambition of replacing legitimate governments with a caliphate, with a theocracy."
• Governor Mitt Romney, Omaha World Herald, January 23, 2006

• "The president is right to point to an international jihadist movement aimed at the collapse of the United States. He has gone after that threat in the right way and with great energy and vigor, and I applaud the fact that he has taken it on very seriously and has not considered it just a criminal action but instead a war action, which requires a military…response."
• Governor Mitt Romney, A Mitt Romney candidacy would test the religious right, BY JAMES TARANTO, Saturday, December 31, 2005

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Islamist

Cartoon and quote of the day.

• "The easy way to fix any problem is to go to the people and say you have to pay more money, but that's not what the job of management is. The job of management is to find ways to permanently and structurally change the costs of our structure such that we can have a balanced budget without always raising taxes every time people think there's a need."
• Governor Mitt Romney, Boston Herald, March 22, 2002

Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade Show

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, right, talks with former President George H.W. Bush while his wife, Ann, listens during a tour of the Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade Show in Orlando, Fla., Friday, Jan. 12, 2007. Gov. Romney has formed a presidential exploratory committee for the 2008 election. (AP Photo/Phelan M. Ebenhack)

 

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, center, talks with Mike Ballew, left, of Raton, N.M., while his wife, Ann, listens during a tour of the Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade Show in Orlando, Fla., Friday, Jan. 12, 2007. Gov. Romney has formed a presidential exploratory committee for the 2008 election. (AP Photo/Phelan M. Ebenhack)

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, right, and National Rifle Association CEO Wayne LaPierre talk with attendees while touring the Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trade Show in Orlando, Fla., Friday, Jan. 12, 2007. Romney has formed a presidential exploratory committee for the 2008 election. (AP Photo/Phelan M. Ebenhack)

Romney is a conservative on marriage.

Reasons to agree

1. Romney is the only viable presidential candidate to not have "upgraded" once he made it to the big time.
2. 01-21-2004, Romney details mandatory parental prep plan
3. 02-11-2004, Romney statements regarding constitutional convention
4. 02-24-2004, Statements of Governor Romney on the Federal Marriage Amendment
5. 03-12-2004, Statements of Governor Mitt Romney on Constitutional Convention
6. 06-22-2004, "Preserving Traditional Marriage: A View from the States"
7. 04-20-2006, Romney announces award of abstinence education contract
8. 05-31-2006, Romney files bill to promote parental responsibility

Romney is a conservative

These are beliefs that I have worked a little bit on (during my lunch break).

1. Romney is conservative on abortion.
2. Romney is a conservative on abstinence education .
3. Romney is a conservative on English immersion .
4. Romney is a conservative on schools.
5. Romney is a conservative on school choice .

6. Romney is a conservative on the family .

7. Romney is a conservative on abstinence education .

These are some beliefs that I am going to work on tonight after my kid goes to sleep.

1. Romney is a conservative on ESL.
2. Romney is a conservative on taxes.
3. Romney is a conservative on debt.
4. Romney is a conservative on the war on Terror .
5. Romney is a conservative on the media .
6. Romney is a conservative on marriage .

Please help me find other issues that determine if someone is a "conservative" or not.

Mitt Romney: A Massachusetts Liberal for President?

Selwyn Duke (SD@SelwynDuke.com),

 

re: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/01/mitt_romney_a_massachusetts_li.html

Can you define someone is a "Liberal" with two issues issues? Is that how "American Thinkers" debate? Do you think you were accurate in your description of Romney? What did you add to the conversation that could not be found,

 

more accurately here:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#Abortion

 

and here

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney#Same-sex_marriage

 

?

 

I have never seen a less accurate quote of someone in my life. You say, "Thus, it's no wonder that while campaigning against Ted Kennedy in 1994, Romney said that anti-marriage "is not appropriate at this time."  My guess is that the time will be right when the electorate is left." What is anti-marriage? You represent the "American Thinker"? That is a sad comment on the state of thought in America.

 

Are you a liar or are you just stupid?

 

During his 1994 campaign against Senator Edward Kennedy, Romney said that same-sex marriage "is not appropriate at this time" and pointed out that marriage was regulated under the jurisdiction of state laws. He also said his voice, as a Republican, would carry more weight on lesbian and gay issues than Kennedy's, even if they took the same position on issues like allowing gays and lesbians in the military. When seeking the campaign support of the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts, he said, "We must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern". ^{[47] [48][49] [50]}

 

I think you are a liar. Why don't you allow track backs, and responses on your site? Is that how American thinkers carry on conversations, with their ears closed?

 

You accuse Mitt Romney of flip-flops. Please check out these site, and tell me what you think:

 

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/flip-flop

 

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Romney%20changed%20his%20position%20on%20abortion

 

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Romney%20changed%20his%20position%20on%20gay%20marriage

 

Regards,

 

Mike

Live from My Man Mitt

Click Here for More

Romney's new Sr. Advisor making some news...

You can see hear:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Governor Mitt Romney Announces Two New Senior Advisers

01/05/2007

Governor Mitt Romney today announced that Colorado Governor Bill Owens (R-CO) and U.S. Representative Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) will serve as senior advisers to the Romney for President Exploratory Committee, Inc.

View Article »

That Mitt Romney's new senior advisor is making some news...

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Why Is Colorado's Governor Calling PETA "A Bunch Of Losers"?
And Why Don't Snowbound Cattle Deserve "Animal Rights"?

Last Wednesday, on Denver radio station KRFX, Colorado Governor Bill Owens leveled words like "losers" and "frauds" at People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) , an organization that's no stranger to controversy. Owens told listeners: "What a bunch of losers. Don't give your money to PETA."

Why did the elected leader of the 8th-largest U.S. state unleash his feelings about the animal rights group? As many as 340,000 cows and steers were stranded by southeastern Colorado's latest snowstorm. National Guard units have been mounting a frantic bid to save the freezing animals. Faced with 15-foot snowdrifts, rescuers airlifted bales of hay and hoped for the best.

And when local media asked PETA for help … well … let's just say the wealthy activist group wasn't enthusiastic about "saving" future T-bones and rib roasts. On the air, a PETA spokeswoman sniffed: "I don't know that it's really the most noble cause."

PETA, famous for lobbing rhetorical grenades at hunters, had no sympathy for Colorado's wildlife either. Asked if her group would intervene to save deer, elk, and other wild animals, the PETA spokeswoman snapped that "there's really nothing to be done."

Does PETA care more about hurting ranchers and crippling the beef industry than about "saving" flesh and blood animals? Did Governor Owens finally say out loud what most Coloradans are thinking?

The Center for Consumer Freedom (CCF) keeps tabs on the lunacy of today's animal rights movement. On the CCF website, you can listen to interviews with PETA's spokeswoman, and hear Governor Owens in his own words.

And at PetaKillsAnimals.com, you can also learn about two PETA employees who will face felony Animal Cruelty charges later this month (yes—you read that right) in North Carolina . They allegedly killed dozens of healthy, adoptable animals in the back of a PETA-owned van, and tossed the bodies into a rural trash dumpster. According to government records, PETA killed more than 14,000 dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens between 1998 and 2005.

The Center for Consumer Freedom covers the animal rights movement, nutrition enforcers, meddlesome food regulators, and environmental do-gooders who want control over what you eat and feed your family. Subscribe today to CCF's Daily Headline service (it's free!), and consider making a New Year's resolution to support their important work.

Governor Mitt Romney and the Family

Quotes from Governor Mitt Romney on the Family

Welcome to the site! Please help me maintain a comprehensive list of quotes and actions from Governor Mitt Romney regarding the family. Just ask me for the password, and I'll give it to you.

• "America cannot continue to lead the family of nations around the world if we suffer the collapse of the family here at home."
• Governor Mitt Romney

• ""Experience shows that kids have a far better chance of succeeding if they have a mother and a father at home. Of course, divorce or death means that there will always be many, many single parents; these single parents often make huge sacrifices and their kids can indeed succeed. But let's do everything we can to encourage our kids to have their kids after they've married, not while they're single and in school. We have sex education in our schools. Let's also have abstinence education in our schools. Marriage and two parent families are fundamental to the development of children and to our success as a culture. We cannot afford to shrink from the timeless, priceless principles of human experience."
• Governor Mitt Romney

• "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. Voluntary programs will not get the job done. It is essential that mandatory training be put in place."
• Governor Mitt Romney 01-21-2004 Press Release (click on the link to read the whole press release)

• 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.
• Governor Mitt Romney 02-11-2004 Press Release

• 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."
• Governor Mitt Romney, 02-24-2004 Press Release

March 12, 2004

STATEMENT OF GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY ON CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION

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.

• Governor Mitt Romney, 03-12-2004 Press Release

June 22, 2004

"Preserving Traditional Marriage: A View from the States"

Testimony of Governor Mitt Romney Before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee

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 marriage in 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 Americanow 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.

• "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."
• Governor Mitt Romney, 05-31-2006 Press Release

Governor 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 and Family Debate

Mitt Romney is a strong supporter of the family.

Mitt Romney has a great Family.

Reasons to agree:

1. His wife, Ann Romney, is great.
2. His dad, George Romney, was great.

Others on Governor Mitt Romney and the Family

• "I don't see such moral clarity anywhere else in the political spectrum, even on the conservative side among some very good people. Mitt sees into the core of things and confronts moral obfuscation by redirecting the focus back to fundamental truths. No punditry, no ambition for power, no licking of the finger to feel which way the wind is blowing".
• George Schultz, 2006

Press Releases from Governor Mitt Romney on the Family.

2003

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

• The Children of Divorce 11-13-05

Links

• http://myclob-family.blogspot.com/

http://myclob.pbwiki.com/Family

Also see:

1. Children
2. Fathers
3. Gender
4. Mothers

For More Click Here:

Family on Elect Romney in 2008

Videos

From Mitt's Site

Key Appearances:

• Now Playing: What Republicans are About
• Now Playing: The Most Critical Period in American History

In the News:

• Now Playing: 03 Jan 07 \"Situation Room\"; Schechner
• Now Playing: 02 Jan 07 MSNBC \"Hardball\": Gergen, Mitchell
• Now Playing: 02 Jan 07 Fox News \"The Big Story\": Vandehei
• Now Playing: 31 Dec 06 NBC \"Meet The Press\": Kate O'Beirne
• Now Playing: 14 Nov 06 Fox News \"The Big Story\": Nina Easton
• Now Playing: 14 Nov 06 Fox News \"Special Report\": Panel

Fun

• Now Playing: Imus takes on Mitt...or vice versa!
• Now Playing: The Wisdom of Aunt Connie and Aunt Ruth
• Now Playing: Good humor...or good sport?

Google Video

• Charlie Rose - Gov. Mitt Romney

John R. Bohrer of the Huffington Post

For those who are just starting your observation of Mitt Romney, I would like to introduce you to one of the stupid accusations that you will hear (until 2008, when eventually you will want to bash your brains out).

John R. Bohrer of the Huffington Post is the latest zombie who repeats the following: "Romney is more readily identified with the Salt Lake City Olympics and making the state that elected him the butt of his jokes."

But no one ever gives you an example of the Jokes that Romney tells about Massachusetts, because there are none. Romney says that there are a lot of liberals there, but that is not a joke. It is an observation. And unlike observations from liberals, it is the truth. There are a lot of liberals in Massachusetts. Why does pointing this out hurt the poor feelings of the poor liberals of poor Massachusetts? Were they trying to keep their presence there a secret? Are they behind in child support payments, and think this information will help former wives or girls friends track them down? "Tanner was a liberal, maybe I should look for him in Massachusetts!"

Are we supposed to feel sorry for them? Is Romney a bully, and he would beat up Massachusetts students for their lunch money, and laugh at them, saying that they were liberals, who will probably live in Massachusetts the rest of their lives, because they are stupid Massachusetts liberals? Did he make people cry, when he points out that there are a lot of liberals in Massachusetts? Did he hurt their feelings?

What joy can John R. Bohrer have of repeating this stupid observation. Why do people have the desire to repeat over and over what the main stream media tells them? Is this all they got on Mitt Romney? Romney pointed out that a lot of liberals live in Massachusetts?

Then John R. Bohrer makes the fatal mistake of many liberal blogers when they try to debate. They don't. He asserted that Mitt Romney was a flip flopper with out giving any examples of times that he has flipped or flopped.

John R. Bohrer said; "And that's because Mitt Romney views his identity just like every policy position he's ever taken: temporary."

Here is some background. Romney advocated states rights when it comes to abortion, and he declared a truce on the issue in Massachusetts. He said he would not change the laws. Now that he is running for president of the United States, he is asserting the same thing: each state should have the right to choose their abortion laws. So he has kind of changed his position from advocating that Massachusetts be able to remain pro-choice, to Massachusetts should remain pro-choice and other states should also get to choose their abortion policy, as he seeks to represent those from more states than Massachusetts. If you want to call that a flip, sure, go ahead. But I get to call you an idiot, if you try and call Mitt Romney a flip flopper, because a "flip flop" implies that he changed his position, and then changed it back again. And Abortion is the only issue that you could try and say his vies have changed. But even this is stupid. Is John R. Bohrer saying that we should never vote for someone whose views have changed? Did he really write a senior paper on JFK, Martin Luther King, and Cesar Chavez? Does he want to see examples were they advocated different things in DIFFERENT situations?

And, John R. Bohrer, I also get to also call you an idiot if you say that all of Romney's positions have been "temporary" because of this one change.

I also get to call you a jerk for contributing to the stupidity of public discourse. You make an assertion (every position Romney has ever held has been temporary) without giving one example of times Romney has changed his position. No reasons to agree with you, just your attitude of self rightous disdain.

David asserts that he is able to read Mitt Romney's mind twice. This is something else that will become infuriating over the next couple of years.

David says:

"Mitt Romney must be feeling pretty good right about now" and "Mitt Romney views his identity just like every policy position he's ever taken: temporary".

David wrote his senior thesis on "Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Cesar Chavez in 1968". Was Robert also able to channel the personal feelings of these Cesar Chavez? People wonder what Cesar Chavez would have thought of the protest by illegal immigrants over the 2006 United States Congress immigration bill. Perhaps David can tell us what Chavez thinks, sense he is able to tell us with such clarity what Mitt Romney is thinking.

Mitt Romney said, "Being a conservative Republican in Massachusetts is a bit like being a cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention."

Does this the truth hurt the feelings of liberals? Romney is saying the truth. Massachusetts is the most liberal state in the union. Is this fact off limits for Romney to point out? Should Romney not be allowed to have a sense of humor? How dare he laugh at the fact that he is a Republican Governor of the most liberal state, or must he assume a somber attitude, and never dare make fun of the fact that Republicans are a minority is Massachusetts? That Romney is able to laugh is admirable. If I had to live with these self righteous little pukes, I would be crying all the time.

Romney is not making fun of every citizen in Massachusetts. He is pointing out the fact that there happen to be a lot of liberals in that state. Is this wrong? Did he say everyone is Massachusetts is dumb? Did he say they are ugly? Did he make fun of them? No. He did not criticize them, he just said there are a lot of liberals. Is he wrong?

Mitt Romney makes fun of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Michael S. Kukakis, and the main stream media tell the citizens of Massachusetts that Romney is making fun of them.

Lyndon Johnson separated himself from racist elements in Texas, and Ronald Reagan did the same with the hippie fringe in California. Grover Cleveland, who in 1884 used the slogan "Grover the Good" to separate himself from the political corruption in his home state of New York". Every president has had to separate themselves for the benefit of stupid people who think that every single person of a state, religion, or race is exactly the same.

Romney has said:

"There's no question I do love jokes. Indicating that there are very few conservative Republicans in Massachusetts, I do not think is a surprise to anyone inside or outside of Massachusetts and is in no way an indictment of the state. If anything, it's a recognition that I have to do a better job of recruiting Republicans." Governor Mitt Romney, Mighty Mitt Romney, By Shawn Macomber, The American Spectator, 04-21-2006

So, to be clear, did Romney -- who came here in 1975 to seek degrees from both Harvard Business and Law schools -- pursue the governorship out of some Machiavellian plan to attain higher office, or does he love the state he leads?

"We've lived here now 34 years, raised all five of our sons here, and paid a mountain of taxes here. You don't do that unless you enjoy the state and the economic, social, and cultural opportunities which it provides." Governor Mitt Romney, Mighty Mitt Romney, By Shawn Macomber, The American Spectator, 04-21-2006

~ Mike

John R. Bohrer of the Huffington Post

For those who are just starting your observation of Mitt Romney, I would like to introduce you to one of the stupid accusations that you will hear (until 2008, when eventually you will want to bash your brains out).

John R. Bohrer of the Huffington Post is the latest zombie who repeats the following: "Romney is more readily identified with the Salt Lake City Olympics and making the state that elected him the butt of his jokes."

But no one ever gives you an example of the Jokes that Romney tells about Massachusetts, because there are none. Romney says that there are a lot of liberals there, but that is not a joke. It is an observation. And unlike observations from liberals, it is the truth. There are a lot of liberals in Massachusetts. Why does pointing this out hurt the poor feelings of the poor liberals of poor Massachusetts? Were they trying to keep their presence there a secret? Are they behind in child support payments, and think this information will help former wives or girls friends track them down? "Tanner was a liberal, maybe I should look for him in Massachusetts!"

Are we supposed to feel sorry for them? Is Romney a bully, and he would beat up Massachusetts students for their lunch money, and laugh at them, saying that they were liberals, who will probably live in Massachusetts the rest of their lives, because they are stupid Massachusetts liberals? Did he make people cry, when he points out that there are a lot of liberals in Massachusetts? Did he hurt their feelings?

What joy can John R. Bohrer have of repeating this stupid observation. Why do people have the desire to repeat over and over what the main stream media tells them? Is this all they got on Mitt Romney? Romney pointed out that a lot of liberals live in Massachusetts?

Then John R. Bohrer makes the fatal mistake of many liberal blogers when they try to debate. They don't. He asserted that Mitt Romney was a flip flopper with out giving any examples of times that he has flipped or flopped.

John R. Bohrer said; "And that's because Mitt Romney views his identity just like every policy position he's ever taken: temporary."

Here is some background. Romney advocated states rights when it comes to abortion, and he declared a truce on the issue in Massachusetts. He said he would not change the laws. Now that he is running for president of the United States, he is asserting the same thing: each state should have the right to choose their abortion laws. So he has kind of changed his position from advocating that Massachusetts be able to remain pro-choice, to Massachusetts should remain pro-choice and other states should also get to choose their abortion policy, as he seeks to represent those from more states than Massachusetts. If you want to call that a flip, sure, go ahead. But I get to call you an idiot, if you try and call Mitt Romney a flip flopper, because a "flip flop" implies that he changed his position, and then changed it back again. And Abortion is the only issue that you could try and say his vies have changed. But even this is stupid. Is John R. Bohrer saying that we should never vote for someone whose views have changed? Did he really write a senior paper on JFK, Martin Luther King, and Cesar Chavez? Does he want to see examples were they advocated different things in DIFFERENT situations?

And, John R. Bohrer, I also get to also call you an idiot if you say that all of Romney's positions have been "temporary" because of this one change.

I also get to call you a jerk for contributing to the stupidity of public discourse. You make an assertion (every position Romney has ever held has been temporary) without giving one example of times Romney has changed his position. No reasons to agree with you, just your attitude of self rightous disdain.

David asserts that he is able to read Mitt Romney's mind twice. This is something else that will become infuriating over the next couple of years.

David says:

"Mitt Romney must be feeling pretty good right about now" and "Mitt Romney views his identity just like every policy position he's ever taken: temporary".

David wrote his senior thesis on "Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Cesar Chavez in 1968". Was Robert also able to channel the personal feelings of these Cesar Chavez? People wonder what Cesar Chavez would have thought of the protest by illegal immigrants over the 2006 United States Congress immigration bill. Perhaps David can tell us what Chavez thinks, sense he is able to tell us with such clarity what Mitt Romney is thinking.

Mitt Romney said, "Being a conservative Republican in Massachusetts is a bit like being a cattle rancher at a vegetarian convention."

Does this the truth hurt the feelings of liberals? Romney is saying the truth. Massachusetts is the most liberal state in the union. Is this fact off limits for Romney to point out? Should Romney not be allowed to have a sense of humor? How dare he laugh at the fact that he is a Republican Governor of the most liberal state, or must he assume a somber attitude, and never dare make fun of the fact that Republicans are a minority is Massachusetts? That Romney is able to laugh is admirable. If I had to live with these self righteous little pukes, I would be crying all the time.

Romney is not making fun of every citizen in Massachusetts. He is pointing out the fact that there happen to be a lot of liberals in that state. Is this wrong? Did he say everyone is Massachusetts is dumb? Did he say they are ugly? Did he make fun of them? No. He did not criticize them, he just said there are a lot of liberals. Is he wrong?

Mitt Romney makes fun of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, and Michael S. Kukakis, and the main stream media tell the citizens of Massachusetts that Romney is making fun of them.

Lyndon Johnson separated himself from racist elements in Texas, and Ronald Reagan did the same with the hippie fringe in California. Grover Cleveland, who in 1884 used the slogan "Grover the Good" to separate himself from the political corruption in his home state of New York". Every president has had to separate themselves for the benefit of stupid people who think that every single person of a state, religion, or race is exactly the same.

Romney has said:

"There's no question I do love jokes. Indicating that there are very few conservative Republicans in Massachusetts, I do not think is a surprise to anyone inside or outside of Massachusetts and is in no way an indictment of the state. If anything, it's a recognition that I have to do a better job of recruiting Republicans." Governor Mitt Romney, Mighty Mitt Romney, By Shawn Macomber, The American Spectator, 04-21-2006

So, to be clear, did Romney -- who came here in 1975 to seek degrees from both Harvard Business and Law schools -- pursue the governorship out of some Machiavellian plan to attain higher office, or does he love the state he leads?

"We've lived here now 34 years, raised all five of our sons here, and paid a mountain of taxes here. You don't do that unless you enjoy the state and the economic, social, and cultural opportunities which it provides." Governor Mitt Romney, Mighty Mitt Romney, By Shawn Macomber, The American Spectator, 04-21-2006

~ Mike

 

WoldNetDaily . . . get the word out that they're hypocritical and anti-Romney

Maybe I went a little far in my responses to the journalist below.  However, it looks like WorldNetDaily is goint to be pretty blatantly anti-Romney.

Look at the links to the two stories they ran on Jan 2nd.  What a juxtaposition and it solidifies their anti-Romney bias.


http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53598
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53615


Some other stuff they've had up:
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53373
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53239

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52244
"Sexual fascism is alive and well in the People's Republic of Massachusetts, thanks to liberal Republicans. And don't look to Gov. Mitt Romney for help on this. He has yet to take a strong position that affirms traditional marriage or protects our kids against homosexuality." (dated Oct 2006) . . . she must have been living in a hole!!!!

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jeff Fuller <jfuller@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 3, 2007 12:34 AM
Subject: Re: Mitt ROmney Gay Marriage piece.
To: runruh@wnd.com

In addition . . .

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53615

That there is no reference to Romney (the lead plantiff in the law suit) and his leadership in this effort to get the issue on the ballot just reaks of an anti-Romney agenda.  I'll make sure to bookmark these two stroies on the same day as a clear sign of dishonest "reporting" of the news.  I'll make sure to alert my blogger friends to help spread the word that your site is not to be a trusted source of honest news . . . unless I'm missing something (I'll wait to hear your response).

Jeff

http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53598

On 1/3/07, Jeff Fuller <jfuller@gmail.com> wrote:

Mr. Unruh,

I'm saddened and sickened that you ran that "hate piece" against Romney, the politician who has fought the best fight possible against gay Marriage in Massachusetts.  Haskins arguements are hollow and illogical.  To blame gay marriage in MA on Romney is absurd and you're jeapordizing your credibility by running stuff like this. 

Romney has always been against gay marriage (in '94 & '02 campaigns, and throughout his tenure as Gov).  He is a Harvard trained JD and has great legal counsel.  He got the 1913 law to stand to prevent other state couples from coming to MA.  He looked for any remedy and/or loophole possible and has led the fight to get the issue on the ballot.  To attack the man who has been "fighting the good fight" on the most inhospitable territory cries of "I've got something against Romney" and many of us know what the "hidden agenda" is.

Jeff Fuller

Re: Governor Mitt Romney is a flip-floper?

Mitt Romney never changed his position on gay marriage.  He has always been against it (in 1994 statements, in 2002, and now).  If his own supporters keep repeating this MSM mantra (lie) then maybe we should just give up hope of combating it?

 

See below:    http://iowansforromney.blogspot.com/2006_12_01_archive.html

 

GAY MARRIAGE ISSUE CLARIFICATION:

A follow-up piece from today's Globe continued the deception:

The Times story follows a Globe story published yesterday that reported that Romney told a Boston-area gay newspaper in 1994 that legalizing gay marriage should be left up to individual states, contrasting with his more recent position that marriage should only occur between men and women and his support of a federal constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages.

What Romney actually said:

On whether he supported the civil marriage rights of same-sex couples:

"I line up with Gov. Weld on that, and it's a state issue as you know — the authorization of marriage on a same-sex basis falls under state jurisdiction. My understanding is that he has looked at the issue and concluded that certain benefits and privileges should be offered to gay couples. But he does not feel at this time that he wishes to extend legalized marriage on a same-sex basis, and I support his position."

On whether he'd want more studies done on the marriage issue:

"That will occur at the state level. I'll let the governor in Massachusetts, and the governors of others states, as well, study it, evaluate it, discuss the alternatives with psychologists and social workers and health care specialist and so forth to gather information and consider it in a very reasoned way. I have confidence the governor will take the right action."

So, Romney made a statement of fact, that states DID AND DO decide marriage laws (the laws being proposed/ratified by the executive and/or legislative branches). Nowhere did he state his opinion on whether or not it SHOULD be a state's right's issue (as the Globe falsely stated). I believe that, down deep, Romney wishes this issue could have remained just a states issue . . . however, when activist judges started deciding to make up laws (instead of interpreting them) a new course of action was needed to protect the institution of marriage and the children it produces . . . Romney has picked up the gauntlet in this cause and been a stalwart in defending marriage and fighting against activist judges.
 

 

On 1/5/07, myclob <mike.laub@gmail.com> wrote:

Governor Mitt Romney is a flip-floper?

Reasons to agree

1. Romney changed his position on abortion .
2. Romney changed his position on gay marriage .

Reasons to disagree

1. It is not bad to change your position , or change it back. Being called a flip-floper emplies that a politician is lying. There is no evidence that Mitt Romney lies. In fact there is a lot of evidence that he tells the truth, and keeps his commitments.
2. You have to say what positions he has changed, in order to make that assertion. So see my responses (above) to the only two examples I have ever seen, as examples of his flip-floppery.
3. Governor Mitt Romney does not like flip-flopperyness, and has spoken against it.
4. A flip is changing your position. A flip-flop is changing your position, and changing it back. The only example I have ever heard of a Romney's flip-floping was his so-called change on Abortion. So changing your position once, would make Romney a fliper, not a flip-flopper.

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "2008 Presidential Debate!" group.
To post to this group, send email to 2008_presidential_debate@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 2008_presidential_debate-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/2008_presidential_debate?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Governor Mitt Romney is a flip-floper?

Governor Mitt Romney is a flip-floper?

Reasons to agree

1. Romney changed his position on abortion .
2. Romney changed his position on gay marriage .

Reasons to disagree

1. It is not bad to change your position , or change it back. Being called a flip-floper emplies that a politician is lying. There is no evidence that Mitt Romney lies. In fact there is a lot of evidence that he tells the truth, and keeps his commitments.
2. You have to say what positions he has changed, in order to make that assertion. So see my responses (above) to the only two examples I have ever seen, as examples of his flip-floppery.
3. Governor Mitt Romney does not like flip-flopperyness, and has spoken against it.
4. A flip is changing your position. A flip-flop is changing your position, and changing it back. The only example I have ever heard of a Romney's flip-floping was his so-called change on Abortion. So changing your position once, would make Romney a fliper, not a flip-flopper.

We have a problem in America...

We have a problem in America...

Republicans only talk to republicans and Democrats only talk to Democrats. We don't want Romney Supporters to only talk to Romney supporters.

Go to this site:

http://blogsearch.google.com/

Type "Mitt Romney" and correct one lie about Romney a day. Tell me what you find. You will find some good stuff, and some stupid stuff. I want to hear about it all.

~ Mike