Rules For Patriots: How Conservatives Can Win Again, by Steve Deace with Forward by David Limbaugh. Purchase Your Copy.

Radio shows

Santorum is Right, Romney is Still Wrong

By Steve Deace

At Thursday night’s Republican presidential debate, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum challenged Mitt Romney on the role he played in the destruction of marriage in Massachusetts while he was governor. Here was that exchange:

After the debate, Romney issued a challenge that Santorum wouldn’t be able to find any respected legal authorities that would agree with his characterization of Romney’s culpability.

Romney, as he has been on so many other things over the years, is wrong.

When I contacted Mat Staver, Founder and Chairman of Liberty Counsel, for his response to the exchange, he sent me the following statement:

Rick Santorum’s statement during the debate about Mitt Romney’s actions regarding same-sex marriage are correct. I litigated in Massachusetts by filing a suit in federal court to prevent the implementation of same-sex marriage. Due to federalism issues with the federal courts being asked to block a state court action, the federal courts were constrained not to get involved.

Having spent considerable time reviewing the Massachusetts Constitution, drafted by John Adams, I can say that the Massachusetts Constitution is unique with respect to marriage and domestic relations by vesting the authority over marriage to the Legislature. The provision is explicitly set forth in the Massachusetts Constitution. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Legislature should act within a certain time to implement same-sex marriage, but the Legislature refused to act. Yet, Gov. Romney on his own went ahead of the Legislature and forced the implementation of same-sex marriage. Not only was he not required to implement same-sex marriage, the Massachusetts Constitution gave him no authority to do so. Gov. Romney should not have acted until the Legislature acted as that is the body vested by the Massachusetts Constitution with authority over marriage.

Sen. Rick Santorum was right and Gov. Mitt Romney was wrong.”

Staver is also the dean of Liberty University Law School. His work on behalf of constitutional law has been endorsed by three of the most pivotal figures in Christian political activism, who have since passed away — D. James Kennedy, Jerry Falwell, and Bill Bright. Staver is a trustee of the Supreme Court Historical Society. He’s written 11 books. He may or may not meet Gov. Romney’s definition of a respected legal mind, but his bio begs to differ.

Likewise, Dr. Herb Titus was the founding dean of the School of Public Policy at Regent University, and later served as the founding dean of Regent Law School. Before that he studied under Dr. Francis Schaeffer, and graduated from Harvard Law School. Titus has worked with the U.S. Justice Department, and is admitted to practice before the U.S. Supreme Court. His book God, Man, and Law is a must-read for anyone interested in preserving the rule of law for the next generation.

I contacted Dr. Titus on Friday morning for his response to the Santorum-Romney exchange. He replied back with the following:

“Rick Santorum challenged Mitt Romney to justify the former Massachusetts Governor’s decision to implement the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruling that declared that the exclusion of otherwise qualified same-sex couples from civil marriage violated the state constitution.  

After the debate, Mr. Romney stated to Mr. Santorum that he did all that he legally could to stop the implementation of the court’s decision before he exercised his duty as Governor to enforce the court’s decision requiring local officials to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. He issued a challenge to Mr. Santorum to find any qualified legal authority that would not agree with him. I have been asked to meet that challenge.

I am a graduate of the Harvard Law School. I am an active member of the Virginia bar and the bar of a number of federal courts, including the United States Supreme Court. As a professor of constitutional law for nearly 30 years in four different ABA-approved law schools, and as a practicing lawyer, I have written a number of scholarly articles and legal briefs on a variety of constitutional subjects; including the nature of legislative, executive and judicial powers and the constitutional separation of those powers. 

I am generally familiar with the Massachusetts Constitution, and especially familiar with that constitution’s provision dictating that no department shall exercise the powers that belong to either of the other two departments “to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.”

As Governor, Mr. Romney has claimed that he had no choice but to obey the Supreme Judicial Court’s opinion.  This claim is false for several reasons.

First, Mr. Romney was not a party to the case. Only parties to a case are bound to obey a court order. As President Abraham Lincoln said in support of his refusal to enforce the United States Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott case – the nation’s policy regarding slavery was not determined by a court opinion, even by the highest court of the land.  Likewise, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ policy regarding marriage may not be determined by the Supreme Judicial Court, the State’s highest court.

Second, the Supreme Judicial Court did not order any party to do anything.  Rather, it issued only a declaration that, in its opinion, excluding otherwise qualified same-sex couples access to civil marriage was unconstitutional. Thus, even the Massachusetts Department of Health, which was a party to the case, was not ordered to do anything.

Third, the Massachusetts Board of Health was not authorized by statute to issue marriage licenses. That was a job for Justices of the Peace and town clerks. The only task assigned by the Legislature to the Board of Health was to record the marriage license; it had no power to issue them even to heterosexual couples. So the Department of Health, the only defendant in the case, could not legally have complied with an order to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.

Fourth, if the court were to order the Department of Health to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, then Mr. Romney’s duty as governor would have been to instruct the Department that it had no authority to do what the court ordered. Nor could the court confer such authority, such an authorization being in nature a legislative, not a judicial, act.

Fifth, the decision whether to implement the Supreme Judicial Court’s opinion was, as the court itself acknowledged, for “the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of [the court’s] opinion.” By the very terms of the order, the Massachusetts legislature had discretion to do nothing.

Sixth, because the legislature did nothing, Mr. Romney had no power to act to implement the court decision. By ordering justices of the peace, town clerks, and other officials authorized to issue marriage licenses to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, Mr. Romney unconstitutionally usurped legislative power, a power denied him by the Massachusetts constitution that separated the three kinds of powers into three different departments.

A 2007 article from World Net Daily quotes a slew of respected legal minds in criticizing Romney for his role in destroying marriage in Massachusetts, including Phyllis Schlafly.

“Romney said we had to follow the law but what law,” Schlafly is quoted as asking in the article. “There is no law that requires or even allows same-sex marriages (in Massachusetts).”

Finally, there is this 2006 letter sent to Romney as he was departing as governor by a long list of conservative activists from around the country. It includes signers like Paul Weyrich, one of the Founding Fathers of the conservative movement, and Robert Knight, one of the original drafters of the Defense of Marriage Act signed into law by then-President Clinton. The letter also reinforces the claims made by Santorum about what Romney did to marriage in Massachusetts.

Just days after giving a speech touting his conservative credentials at the 2011 Values Voters Summit, Romney told a New Hampshire audience in October that he is a supporter of civil unions, which is really just so-called homosexual marriage by another name.

Yet again Romney is found to be playing fast and loose with the truth. Voters should be thanking Santorum for calling him on it.

Discussion

85 Responses to Santorum is Right, Romney is Still Wrong

  1. Julie caldwell says:

    i like rick santorum and did not think he got enough air time last night

  2. Gregg Jackson says:

    And even if the People’s Republic of Massachusetts’ legislature had changed the marriage law in Massachusetts (chapter 207 in the Mass General Laws) to accomodate “same-sex marriages,” it still would have been illegal since any law contrary to God’s Divinely Revealed Law (“the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God”) is no law at all.” (at least according to the Bible, Lex Rex, Aquinas, Blackstone, MLK, etc…).

    So any way you slice it, Romney’s authorization of the alerations to and issuance of marriage licneses in Massachsetts was illegal and unconstitutional.

    Guy belons behind bars…not flying around the country in his private jet overseeing his 5 mansions and running for leader of the free world!

  3. Pingback: Anonymous

  4. MassManny says:

    Other prominent legal scholars, attorneys, or pundits who spoke out against Romney’s course of action as unconstitutional:

    Professor Hadley Arkes published a fabulous article in National Review on the day Romney’s illegal “gay marriages” started in Mass. (5-17-2004): “The Missing Governor”
    http://old.nationalreview.com/arkes/arkes200405170901.asp

    Also Hugh Hewitt, Esq. (Nov. 19, 2003 – the day after the ruling.
    Just Say “No”
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/keyword/Hugh-Hewitt?page=1
    Calling Governor Romney and the elected representatives of Massachusetts. 
    “JOHN MARSHALL has made his decision,” Andrew Jackson is said to have remarked in the aftermath of a Supreme Court decision he disliked, “now let him enforce it.” …

    The Phyllis Schlafly, Esq, (Dec. 3, 2003) article is here:
    “It’s Time To Rebuke The Judicial Oligarchy” http://www.eagleforum.org/column/2003/dec03/03-12-03.shtml
    Governor Mitt Romney is trying to walk a tight rope of compromise. While supporting a constitutional amendment to protect traditional marriage, he said: “We obviously have to follow the law as provided by the Supreme Judicial Court, even if we don’t agree with it,” and we need to decide “what kind of statute we can fashion which is consistent with the law.”
    But what “law”? There is no law that requires or even allows same-sex marriages. The judges enunciated only special-interest advocacy masquerading as legal reasoning. …Also Jan LaRue, Esq. (Concerned Women for America) spoke out against the ruling early on.

    Pat Buchanan had a good column in Feb 2004:
    Mitt Romney: Meet Calvin Coolidge
    http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-mitt-romney-meet-calvin-coolidge-575
    What’s a governor to do? [in response to the Mass Court ruling]
    As with Poe’s “Purloined Letter,” the answer is lying right on the mantle piece in front of Mitt Romney. Defy the court.
    Romney should step out in front of the state press corps and read a statement that would stun America, rally social and judicial conservatives of both parties, and bring every network camera in the nation to Boston:
    “I have read the court’s decision, and while I respect the court, I cannot respect its decision. There is no basis for it in law. There is no basis for it in precedent. There is no basis for it in the letter or spirit of the constitution of our Commonwealth nor in the intent of the men who wrote that constitution. Whence, then, comes this opinion?
    “It emanates entirely from the ideology of the majority. The court has distorted our constitution by attempting to write into state law the social views of four justices that are not shared by the people of the Bay State. They have no right to do this. And as I took an oath to defend the Constitution of the Commonwealth, I intend to disregard the court order of last November.
    “I will neither propose nor will I sign any bill from the legislature that places homosexual unions on a moral and legal plane with traditional matrimony. To do so would violate my oath, conflict with my beliefs and trample upon the convictions of the people of this state.”
    After issuing his statement, the governor should take up leadership of the fight to put on the state ballot a constitutional amendment restricting marriage in Massachusetts to men and women.
    What would the Massachusetts high court do?
    Declare Romney in contempt? Order Romney’s arrest? Tell state employees to start accepting requests from homosexuals for marriage licenses? Romney could tell the employees to politely reject such requests.
    How, then, would the court enforce its decision?
    Answer: It would have to tell the legislature to impeach Romney. But by then, Romney would be a hero to traditionalists of all parties, and impeachment would only make him a martyr.
    Should Romney take such a stand, it would be a blow for freedom in America. For we Americans today live under a judicial dictatorship that our Founding Fathers never intended and would never have tolerated. Yet, we need not resort to muskets to be rid of it. We only have to consult our Constitution. …

    See also MITT ROMNEY’S DECEPTION by Amy Contrada at Amazon. Lots of documentation.
     

  5. Alamo5000 says:

    I read the first part of that moronic idiot’s article and he is wrong. Really wrong.  
    “The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that the Legislature should act within a certain time to implement same-sex marriage, but the Legislature refused to act. Yet, Gov. Romney on his own went ahead of the Legislature and forced the implementation of same-sex marriage.’ This is a downright utter lie. I would whip his ass in a courtroom and I have never been to law school.  The supreme court of massachusetts decision stated basically that ‘in 180 days it will now be interpreted as law that gay couples must be issued marriage certificates UNLESS the LEGISLATURE acts to change the wording of the laws in question.’ With their decision as it was written if no one did anything it became a defacto law that gay couples must be issued marriage licenses. Hence the whole gay community was all over the legislature NOT to act. They were screaming bloody murder for them to NOT DO ANYTHING.  This guy is a shill idiot. His writing is worthless and anyone who believes him needs their head examined.

  6. Alamo5000 says:

    The nutshell version of this is that the Supreme Court took EXISTING LAWS and interpreted them in their own way. They did a Bill Clinton. “It depends on what the word IS is”…

    They stated in their legally binding view that the laws from henceforth would be interpreted as such UNLESS the legislature acts to change said laws.

    The Supreme Court put 180 day window on it, as a period of implementation… but the legislature still held all the trump cards.

    I don’t care what pundit you point out. If they don’t see it that way, they are worthless. Its black and white.

  7. Pingback: Pro-Santorum Super PAC Ad – True Conservative | My Blog

  8. Jared Mills says:

    So the Supreme Court made law? Oh I’m sorry for my ignorance, I forgot that the Courts can make laws (even defacto laws at that). Oh wait …. they can’t ….

  9. Pingback: BizzyBlog

  10. Scott M says:

    Contrast the strong stand Santorum took with Michele Bachman being questioned on gay marriage on the Jay Leno show a few weeks back when she failed to say much at all to defend traditional marriage and agreed with all of liberal crap Leno was spewing.  http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rep-michele-bachmanns-anti-gay-marriage-stance-baffles-jay-leno/

    Pretty easy to see who will be a passionate advocate for marriage and who becomes a shrinking violet when challenged on this issue.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Gov. Huckabee told CNSNews.com on Aug. 25, 2008: “Romney should not have complied with Court on same-sex marriage,” http://cnsnews.com/node/34561.
    “You know, it’s interesting, the California decision as well as the Massachusetts decision, I don’t think should ever have been implemented by the governors, Schwarzenegger and Romney,” said Huckabee.  “They were both decisions that the governors simply could have said the court has said that we have to do it, but let them enforce it.  Because those were administrative decisions that had to put that in place and there was no mandate.” “I would not have done that,” said Huckabee …When asked whether Romney’s decision to comply with his state supreme court’s order to allow same-sex marriages should disqualify him as a Republican vice-presidential nominee, Huckabee said:  “Well, you know, I’ve not probably been an advocate for him in that position. And, you know, I am going to let him defend himself. And I don’t want to relive the primary. But I think that that was a very unfortunate position that he took in saying that, ‘Well, I can’t do anything about it.’  Oh, yes you can.” Huckabee said he did not hold Romney “singularly” responsible for same-sex marriages in Massachusetts, but that he did hold him “responsible for implementing” them. “He could have stopped it, and should have stopped it,” Huckabee said. Asked if he would have had clerks and justices of the peace certify same-sex marriages had he been in Romney’s position, Huckabee said: “Absolutely not.” ”In my state, we passed an amendment to our constitution that declared marriage to be one man, one woman, by a 70-percent margin,” Huckabee said in explaining his position. ”I would have said that the people have a stronger right, if you will, than does one of three branches of government. And when you have a legislature, an executive branch, and the people, all lined up agreeing that marriage means man and woman, you can’t have a court overturn the collective will of all those other bodies. That, again, it goes back to ninth grade civics.  The courts aren’t that powerful, never were intended to be.”

  12. Dave says:

    I live in Mass. 
    Romney is nothing but a deceiver and, yes, liar.
    He once promised to be more pro-gay than Ted Kennedy!
    It’s true.
    Read Amy Contrada’s book “Mitt Romney’s Deception”.
    She DESTROY Romney.
    I have never read a book this good.
    By the way, Gingrich, Bachman and the rest do not have the guts or views to challenge Romney. I am convinced that most conservative candidates are nothing but phonies and liars.

  13. Gregg Jackson says:

    Very sophisticated legal reasoning “Alamo500.”

    I know you are a passionate Romneybot but you may actually want to read the actual Goodridge opinion prior to commenting on it.

  14. Pingback: Finance Talking » Blog Archive » Rick Santorum Finally Exposes Mitt Romney’s Same-Sex Marriage Betrayal (Part 1)

  15. Gregg Jackson says:

    Boy do you have a creative imagination “Alamo5000.”

    Again, you may actually want to read the Goodridge opinion prior to commenting on it.

    The court admitted that The Goodridge court itself acknowledged that they were not suspending the marriage statute:
     
    “Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief.” http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/dec_letter/letter.pdf
     
    In fact, if you read the actual Goodridge opinion, you would find that the court itself admitted that under the current marriage statute (chapter 207 of the Mass General Laws) homosexual “marriage” is illegal”
     
    “We conclude as did the judge that M.G.L 207 may not be construed to permit same sex couples to marry.”
     
    Moreover, the court never asked the governor to violate the statute in the event that the legislature refused to amend it since according the Massachusetts Constitution a statute can only be repealed by an affirmative vote of both branches of the Legislature and approval by the governor.
     
    The record is clear that Romney flagrantly violated the Massachusetts constitution by authorizing alterations to and issuance of marriage licenses to same sex couples without a legally binding accompanying statute. Santorum, Titus, Arkes, Schlaffley, Hewitt, Weyrich, Knight, are all correct!
     
    So you are 100% factually incorrect when you assert that the Goodridge court didn’t concede or imply that legislation (a change in the language of statutory law) was necessary to redefine marriage.
     
    The court themselves said in their own opinion the exact opposite, Romneybot.

  16. Pingback: BusinessReporter.net » Blog Archive » Rick Santorum Finally Exposes Mitt Romney’s Same-Sex Marriage Betrayal (Part 1)

  17. Anonymous says:

    You lie. The court decision said basically that the present MA law allows gay marriages, and gave the state 180 days to prepare for gay marriage or to modify the MA constitution, so that it wouldn’t allow gay marriages. Good luck getting gay marriage ban out of 85% Democrat legislature…

  18. Kathy says:

    Steave Deace is a religious bigot who knows this is a load of crap. Mitt Romney did everything he could to overturn this ruling. It was up to the legislature to change it and they did not act.  Surprise, Surprise it was 85% democrats.  Who believes they ever intended to?  Santorum knows he is lying also, he just had to get in one last zing and hopefully he will go away after this primary and we won’t have to hear his grating voice again in this lifetime on a debate stage.

  19. Pingback: Rick Santorum Finally Exposes Mitt Romney’s Same-Sex Marriage Betrayal (Part 1) | FavStocks

  20. CCG says:

    To be fair,   consider the differencee in venues,  in the audiences,  in he purpose of a debate vs. a late night talk show.    Kinda apples to oranges.  

  21. Pingback: BizzyBlog

  22. Cyclone82 says:

    Romney is wacko Santorum is really getting it !

  23. Alamo5000 says:

    To Jared and Gregg. Despite your belief that I am a ‘Romneybot’ this is not the case. I just simply don’t like lies to be spread regardless of whomever they are told about. That applies equally well to Newt and Cain or anyone else.

    I would be defending Newt or any of the above or just about anyone if they were being slandered by lies.

  24. Alamo5000 says:

    Here is another thing… the power to make and enforce the laws on this subject lie in the hands of the LEGISLATURE.

    The legistlature applauded the Supreme Court ruling and had about a 70% margin in both chambers fighting to uphold the court ruling.

    Read your history. It wasn’t just the supreme court making defacto laws. It was the supreme court interpreting already existing laws in a brand new way so as to fit their needs—and 70% of the entire legislature supporting that move.

    It was the Supremes and 70% of the legislature vs Romney.

  25. Jared Mills says:

    Did I say you are a Romneybot? No. I was thinking you were a Romneybot, but I didn’t say it.

    And what we are saying aren’t lies, it’s the facts.

  26. Jared Mills says:

    The Supreme court can’t say “If the legislator doesn’t act on this in _ days, then the law says this instead”. Only the legislator can change the law. Romney was in no way at all compelled to do the judges bidding.

  27. Mark J. says:

    Your comments do not change the fact that Romney is not telling the truth.
    Even if your correct…Romney did NOT do all he could to stop Gay marriage (sodomy) permission slips) from happening in Mass.   Bamm!!!

  28. Markwonderlake says:

    Bigot??? Load of crap…nice!  Got any other good ones..let me write these words of wisdom down so I can use them myself someday…naaaa.  John 16:33

  29. Kathy says:

    If you listen to bigots like Deace you need some words of wisdom because you haven’t heard any from him. 

  30. Alamo5000 says:

    But it is and was in this case up to the courts to determine what the meaning of the word “is” means.

    If that wasn’t the intention of the legislature then there was sufficient time to correct the record so as that the court (in their opinion) wasn’t dictating law but merely interpreting existing words.

  31. Alamo5000 says:

    “Dad, can I go to the movies?”
    “No”
    “Please?”
    “Only if you clean your room”.
    “ok”

    3 hours later the kid comes home from the movies and his room is a mess.

    His dad says “I said you can go only if you clean your room….whats the problem?”…

    Kid says “I know what you said. I am fully aware of that. But you made no stipulation of when said cleaning was supposed to take place.You just said that I must clean my room.”

    Dad’s intention in above example was ‘clean your room before you go’, but the kid however is destined to become a lawyer or a Supreme Court Justice in Massachusetts.

  32. Alamo5000 says:

    The supreme court cannot dictate to the legislature—and in fact in their views they didn’t. They said—they existing laws. The words as they are written mean ‘this’….BUT if the legislature disagrees with our interpretation there is a 180 day period before the courts move on said interpretations.

    Why even put the 180 days in? Because its clearly delegated to the legislature to define the status if marriage in the state of mass’ constitution. The 180 days was so that it did not ”appear” that the court was trying to usurp the legislature’s clearly delegated powers.

    So they said ‘ball is now in your court to correct us as you so deem…but after 180 days this is how we will interpret the law going forward’

    And did they say this to a hostile legislature? Nope. The Supreme Court had 75% backing of all state legislators in their decision.

    The REAL question here is how the legislature ‘watches’ or ‘watch dog’s’ or has oversight over what county officials do in the state of massachusetts.

    That is the discussion to be had.

  33. Alamo5000 says:

    Considering the fact that it was #1 not Romney’s role, position, or responsibility, what SHOULD he (Romney) have done in your opinion?

    Any solution to this had to come from one place: the legislature.

    I want to hear you (or anyone) tell me what Romney could have done or should have done to stop this supreme court action that had over 75% support of the state legislature.

    The legislature says we are doing this (in a veto proof majority) and the supreme court says ‘in 180 days this is how this is to be treated going forth’ and both of those two were in agreement with each other.

    Now lets hear anyone’s answer to that question.  

  34. Pingback: Mitt Romney’s Same-Sex Marriage Betrayal, Part 1: Rick Santorum Exposes the Truth | FavStocks

  35. Pingback: Mitt Romney’s Same-Sex Marriage Betrayal, Part 2: What Romney Really Did | FavStocks

  36. Pingback: Finance Talking » Blog Archive » Mitt Romney’s Same-Sex Marriage Betrayal, Part 1: Rick Santorum Exposes the Truth

  37. Pingback: Finance Talking » Blog Archive » Mitt Romney’s Same-Sex Marriage Betrayal, Part 2: What Romney Really Did

  38. Pingback: BusinessReporter.net » Blog Archive » Mitt Romney’s Same-Sex Marriage Betrayal, Part 1: Rick Santorum Exposes the Truth

  39. Pingback: BusinessReporter.net » Blog Archive » Mitt Romney’s Same-Sex Marriage Betrayal, Part 2: What Romney Really Did

  40. Paul Roy says:

    Another reason why this Massachusetts voter won’t vote for Romney. By his actions, Romney also subverted the wishes of the voters who petitioned to have a non-binding  ballot question put on the ballot in order to let the voters decide the issue. 

  41. Pingback: BizzyBlog

  42. Pingback: Mitt Romney’s Same-Sex Marriage Betrayal, Part 3: Romney Did It Because He Promised He Would | FavStocks

  43. Pingback: Mitt Romney’s Same-Sex Marriage Betrayal, Part 3: Romney Did It Because He Promised He Would | FavStocks

  44. Both the article and the fine comments make the case for Rick Santorum’s statements. Rick Santorum knows the facts, double-checks the facts, Rick Santorum is the one we can rely on to tell us the truth.

  45. Rick told it like it is….Romney once again spoke for ‘political gain,’ not for the truth.

  46. Pingback: Rick Santorum exposes Mitt Romney’s record on gay rights in Iowa GOP primary debate « Wintery Knight

  47. Pingback: Finance Talking » Blog Archive » Mitt Romney’s Same-Sex Marriage Betrayal, Part 3: Romney Did It Because He Promised He Would

  48. Mit Romney’s as phony as his religion.  Moronism is a proven debauched religion of demons and anyone who follows it is their fool.  See http://www.utlm.org, founded by a descendent of Brigham Young, exposing this cults evils, not least of which are the gross perversions of vile womanizer and child molester polygamist Joseph Smith.  No matter Moronism’s vain attempt to distance itself from this monster, he remains their founder and Romney should be made accountable for officially following such a monster like Obama with wrong Wright.

  49. Pingback: BusinessReporter.net » Blog Archive » Mitt Romney’s Same-Sex Marriage Betrayal, Part 3: Romney Did It Because He Promised He Would

  50. Anonymous says:

    I just can’t understand the level of hatred the Christian Taliban has for the Mormons.  It is on the same level as the regular Taliban who hates Israel without ration or reason.  The video specifically calls out what Romney did to stop it, and yet posts below still scream “liar”.  The vile comments made towards a candidate on the same side is just amazing.  I have never seen it at this level before.  The Evangelicals will not get away with this in this country.  Don’t vote for Romney because you have some personal religious litmus test, but keep in mind your very own behavior is what convicts you.  You are bigots and fear mongers at the very least. You bring disgrace to our country’s voting procedures.  When did you get so off track?

  51. Greg B. says:

    “destruction of marriage in Massachusetts”

    You lost all credibility in your first sentence by using such an absurdly and baseless phrase. But you didn’t stop there. It’s simply not true that the MA legislature had the option to “do nothing”. They had 180 days to bring the laws into compliance with the state’s constitution. The SJC simply gave them the leeway to accomplish that as they saw appropriate. The fact is that if they’d done nothing and the 180 days expired, the court most certainly would have ordered them to comply with the ruling. I’m not fan of Romney but Santorum is homo-obsessed and a complete moron.

  52. Greg B. says:

    Come join us back in the real world, pal. The United States of America is not a theocracy.

  53. Junk says:

    First off, if you can google any candidates name and have gay sex results show up, you’re not going to become president. Drop out of the race so that we can all rally against Obama sooner.

  54. Pingback: Molotov Mitchell is right – NO, NO, NO, To Scum of the earth Romney! « partneringwitheagles

  55. Pingback: Campaigning in Iowa, Mitt Romney publicly re-states his pro-homosexual positions on military, judges, and more. « Clinton Ma Tea Party

  56. Anonymous says:

    IT CAN’T BE MITT IN 2012!  Mitt Romney has his own agenda for running for our President and it is all about that agenda.  When he says he “loves” our country”, it’s just another PR LINE to take the American People in to his web of lies and deceit.
    If you want to defeat Romney, this book is a MUST READ.  “CAN MITT ROMNEY SERVE TWO MASTERS?”  Mitt’s true record and agenda is revealed in this book and ALL YOU NEED TO DEFEAT ROMNEY IS DOCUMENTED IN IT.

  57. Anonymous says:

    Sadly, we the American voters are being shortchanged by the Liberal Media (choosing our candidates) who are not giving a fair share of air time to each of the candidates.  So much for unbiased reporting! Boycott the liberal owned stations!  Get your news on the Internet..”unfiltered news” Edward Griffin.  We want a candidate who is not on the payroll!

  58. Pingback: Mitt Romney: The Anti-Mormon Family Values Mormon GOP Presidential Candidate Trojan Horse For The Radical Homosexual Agenda – WARNING: ANOTHER LIAR Wants To Be President Of The U.S.A. « Gospel of Yahusha Ha'Mashiach, The Gift of Eternal L

  59. Gaucho says:

    Rick Santorum has 100% integrity, he has the knowledge, and he has the energy to “lead” this country for 8 years.  Why don’t we give someone of his capacity the opportunity to lead America back to greatness.  Mind you, I don’t believe that the President or Congress or the Supreme Court should be designing the path for America…..that was done 235 years ago….it is up to we the people to do that.  But we need a President to lead the way to individual freedom with responsibility, and to guide Washington DC back to their proper role….”Minimal”.

  60. Sarm says:

    Actually, Santorum is not “getting it.” Regardless of whether he was right or wrong in calling Romney out, it doesn’t make his beliefs of hypocrisy and judgement any more right.

  61. ARE YOU ONE OF THE UNDECIDED? Which candidate is BEST ON NUMBERS OF NEW JOBS PLAN? BEST AT TARGETING JOBS FOR THOSE WITH WITH HIGHEST UNEMPLOYMENT? Which has the BEST DEBT REDUCTION PLAN, BEST TAX BREAKS FOR FAMILIES? ….The one with the record that shows he’s the rugged, won’t quit til it’s done guy…SENATOR RICK SANTORUM!! Surprised? SANTORUM IS THE QUIET, IMMENSELY POWERFUL LEADER WITH THE ‘GET IT DONE’ RECORD, NO BAGGAGE, AND STEADY, CONSISTENT FAMILY VALUES THAT WE SERIOUSLY NEED TO BE OUR CANDIDATE IN 2012!

  62. Pingback: WTH is wrong with people in Iowa voting for Ron Paul? - Page 2 - City-Data Forum

  63. Pingback: Mitt and Gay Marriage | Race 4 2012

  64. Anonymous says:

    The Mitt Romney Deception http://bit.ly/dkXndL

    RINO Romney: “There’s something to be said for having a Republican who supports civil
    rights in this broader context, including sexual orientation. When Ted Kennedy
    speaks on gay rights, he’s seen as an extremist. When Mitt Romney speaks on gay
    rights he’s seen as a centrist and a moderate. It’s a little like if Eugene
    McCarthy was arguing in favor of recognizing China, people would have called him
    a nut. But when Richard Nixon does it, it becomes reasonable. When Ted says it,
    it’s extreme; when I say it, it’s mainstream.”

  65. Anonymous says:

    With Amnesty and big government spending for all – No thanks!

  66. Pingback: Mitt and Gay Marriage | Race 4 2012

  67. Pingback: Mitt and Gay Marriage | My Blog

  68. Pingback: fakenamegener351r

  69. Pingback: greggjackson.com » Blog Archive » Romney’s illegal implementation of same-sex “marriage” in 10 easy steps…

  70. Pingback: BizzyBlog

  71. Pingback: Finance Talking » Blog Archive » Mitt Romney and the Same-Sex Marriage Betrayal: The Short E-Book, the Shorter 10-Steps, and the Succinct Four-Bullet Point Summary

  72. Pingback: BusinessReporter.net » Blog Archive » Mitt Romney and the Same-Sex Marriage Betrayal: The Short E-Book, the Shorter 10-Steps, and the Succinct Four-Bullet Point Summary

  73. Pingback: Mitt Romney and the Same-Sex Marriage Betrayal: The Short E-Book, the Shorter 10-Steps, and the Succinct Four-Bullet Point Summary | FavStocks

  74. Pingback: Former Vatican Ambassadors, pro-family advocates misrepresent Romney record on defense of marriage « Boston Catholic Insider

  75. Pingback: URL

  76. Pingback: BizzyBlog

  77. Pingback: Mitt Romney would govern as a conservative

  78. Pingback: BizzyBlog

  79. Vunderkint says:

    Try arguing with Rombies (Romney zombies) that Romney violated his oath of office to the Constitution of Massachusetts and even legally implemented on his own authority the issuance of same-sex marriage licenses usurping the authority of the legislature, knowing all this why and the world would you vote for him in a primary to go against Obama? I guess too many people were brainwashed by the media early on to believe that he was the electable guy and if you bring up his record they inevitably say if you don’t vote for Romney you’re actually voting for Obama which is ludicrous logic.

    So now we are stuck with the worst one of the bunch because too many Americans weren’t smart enough to figure out the man is a two-faced political chameleon that cannot be trusted why in the world would you vote for him in a primary? My God tell me Americans have learned something from the Obama feel good we are making history 2008 election. Now it looks like we’re doubling down on another stupid choice!

    Democrats: The Evil Party.

    Republicans: The Stupid Party.

  80. Vunderkint says:

    Sorry, but you’re wrong. The court had no jurisdiction in the matter of marriage is right there in their Constitution. The court rendered it an opinion that the legislature needed to change the law within so many days in the legislature basically said “thank you for sharing novel play on the highway,” to the court and did nothing and Romney could and should have done the same thing, did you read the 2006 letter link to Romney?

    Romney violated his oath of office and usurped the authority of the legislature and the argument that he had no choice doesn’t hold a drop of water! The man is a two-faced political chameleon that can’t be trusted.

  81. Vunderkint says:

    Sorry, but you’re wrong. The court had no jurisdiction in the matter of marriage is right there in their Constitution. The court rendered it an opinion that the legislature needed to change the law within so many days in the legislature basically said “thank you for sharing novel play on the highway,” to the court and did nothing and Romney could and should have done the same thing, did you read the 2006 letter link to Romney?

    Romney violated his oath of office and usurped the authority of the legislature, the argument that he had no choice doesn’t hold a drop of water! The man is a two-faced political chameleon that can’t be trusted.

  82. Andy Prior says:

    Romney didn’t wait for the legislature to act. He pre-empted them, usurped the authority that you say they have and forced gay marriage on the state! You can equivocate all you want, but them’s the facts!

  83. Pingback: My Sisyphean Task « VOTING FOR NEITHER