Romney Slams Liberal Massachusetts Legislature

Gov Mitt Romney slammed the Mass. state legislature for neglecting their constitutional duty to vote on pro-traditional marriage amendment. The initiative, which defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, has the backing of 170,000 Massachusetts residents. The liberal state legislature DECLINED TO EVEN VOTE to allow the proposed amendment to be placed on the 2008 election ballot. The Massachusetts legislature continues to thwart democracy and refuses to give its constituents the opportunity to vote on the definition of marriage in their state.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• Mitt
• Romney
• Gay
• Marriage
• Massachusetts
• Legislature
• Ballot
• Amendment
• Constitutional
• Cowards

[Skintrinsic]

@jinheneamerican So you (like me) would be in favor of civil unions that extend the benefits that a marriage would? Nuclear family weakening has been going on for as long as frivolous divorce has been around. Most families these days aren't even typical nuclear families, and there doesn't seem to be much that anyone can do about that.

[jinheneamerican]

Go to weekly standard. com search Stanley Kurtz "Beyond Gay Marriage"-- fantastic treatise on the risks.

[jinheneamerican]

@Skintrinsic --Negatives at first glance: The de facto weakening of nuclear family units and a sense of normalcy will come-- it just takes time. By then, all the precedents will have been set, as will the course. All that for "instant gratification" over something that a majority of the gay community does not even care about- it's not about marriage, it's about money.

[Skintrinsic]

@jinheneamerican Yeah, but you can still get on someone else's insurance, and that's often a much better option in terms of cost. Oh, and then there are government jobs that will just cover your family's healthcare. You've said there are some effects beyond what I see, which certainly could be, given that I'm not omniscient. However, if you're going to imply naivete and ignorance, don't expect anyone to take you at your word when you don't even offer a single example of a negative effect.

[jinheneamerican]

@Skintrinsic Let's not be naive about the effects of changing one of the basic social institutions that have been a part of all stable societies for thousands of years. How about we change the laws about hospital visitation rights, (also, you can't just "gain each others' insurance- you have to pay per person like everyone else)? There are effects beyond what you see-- just like the effects of the 70's are being felt just now in society at their greatest. Take some time to study it.

[Skintrinsic]

@jinheneamerican Negative effect of allowing gay marriage: None (or at least none that can be confirmed as anything more than the negative effects of allowing interracial marriage). Positive effect: gays can visit their hospitalized partners when only family members would normally be admitted, and they can gain each other's insurance coverage.

[jinheneamerican]

Also, democracy is barely alive- we live in a Republic. We don't elect our highest court, we have no say on actual issues but what our representatives say. A US Constitutional amendment is all but impossible to pass. There's a reason the public doesn't get a say, thank goodness: the aggregate is ignorant. Hamilton had it right when he felt that people can't make their own decisions. No Whining about what you think America stands for. Your youtube comments don't matter for much either.

[jinheneamerican]

which has no grounds for any claim to be for the public good. That is what is meant by "promote the general welfare."

Eventually, the Supreme Court will decide this issue. Federalism will crack when laws outlawing recognition of gay marriage contracts will clash with other states' licenses. When the federal gov't passes a law, it'll go to the SC. I hope you like the 9 people who will decide every social ill- you should hope Chief Justice Roberts dies- because he's not leaving the bench soon

[jinheneamerican]

The reason there is question about gay marriage is because there is NO evidence to suggest that the union of homosexuals as recognized by the government would be good for families or society. They can live with, work with, or be in places just like everyone else. Their access to education or a job isn't hindered. You can be with your partner all you want- promise them you'll be there or whatever you want- even have a ceremony- but DO NOT ask the government to support something

[jinheneamerican]

Just because a court took a stand on an issue does not make it the new constitution of the United States. Just because some court somewhere said marriage is a right does not make it so. It's a privilege. Marriage was created by homosexuals for homosexuals. The reason the government is involved in the first place is because they SUPPORT an institution that works to establish and maintain strong FAMILIES, which is proven to produce more educated and balanced children.