1. Campaigning for governor, Mitt Romney (as reported in the NY Times) meets with the homosexual “Log Cabin Republicans” in a gay bar and promises them he will not oppose same-sex “marriage” as governor. (A few years prior when running for Senate, he promised them he would get more accomplished for them than Ted Kennedy would.)
2. The MSJC (who lacked the subject matter jurisdiction to even hear the case in the first place) issues advisory Goodridge opinion declaring that barring same-sex “marriage” is unconstitutional and urges the legislature to amend the current marriage statute (chapter 207 in Massachusetts General Laws) to accommodate same-sex unions.
3. The legislature ignores the court’s opinion and takes no action to amend the current marriage statute which limits marriage to one man and one woman.
4. The court admits in their opinion that they are in no way attempting to change the current marriage statute (chapter 207)
“Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief.”
5. The court admits that the current marriage statute makes homosexual “marriage” illegal.
“We conclude, as did the judge, that M.G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.”
…and that the only way the marriage statute can be amended is by the legislature and the legislature alone.
“The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature, or by authority derived from it, to be exercised in such particular cases only as the legislature shall expressly provide for.” (PART THE FIRST, Article XX.)
“All the laws which have heretofore been adopted, used and approved … shall still remain and be in full force, until altered or repealed by the legislature…” (PART THE SECOND, Article VI.)
6. Romney, in violation of at least 8 articles of the oldest functioning constitution in the world (which is a constitutional felony), the Massachusetts Constitution authored by John Adams, falsely claims the court (who possesses no law making authority) “legalized same-sex marriage” and that he had no choice but to obey the “new marriage laws.”
7. Romney then authorizes alterations to marriage licenses changing them from “husband” and “wife” to “partner A” and “Partner B” without an accompanying, enabling and legally binding statute as required by the Massachusetts Constitution.
8. Romney forces justices of the peace and town clerks to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or be fired again without an accompanying enabling and legally binding statute as required by the Massachusetts Constitution.
9. Romney personally issues 189 special marriage licenses to same sex couples.
10. The marriage licenses that have been issued to same-sex couples in Massachusetts are as legally null and void today as they were in 2004 when Mitt Romney unilaterally began issuing them.
In short:
• In order for same sex “marriage” to become “legal “in Massachusetts, the legislature would have had to change the marriage statute to accommodate same-sex “marriage” since only the legislature can make or amend the laws.
• The legislature never changed the marriage statute.
• Homosexual “marriage” is still illegal as are the hundreds of thousands of illegally altered marriage licenses issued since 2004.
• Mitt Romney was unilaterally responsible for the illegal and unconstitutional implementation of same-sex “marriage” in Massachusetts as Senator Rick Santorum and a whole host of other highly respected legal scholars have said.
The facts are cut and dry and indisputable.
And facts are, indeed, stubborn things.
My question is why so many of Romney’s most high profile supporters (Jay Sekulow, Mark DeMoss, Hugh Hewitt, The Bushes, Carl Rove, John McCain, Ann Coulter, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Savage, etc…) who all claim to be “law and order Constitutional conservatives” continue to ignore one of the greatest acts of legal and Constitutional malfeasance in the history of the Republic?
