In Big Defeat, Romney Loses Final Attempt To Kill Gay Marriage
One of the pillars of Governor Mitt Romney's impending campaign for President has been his steady fight against gay marriage in his state. But now it looks like he's officially lost the fight. More after the jump.
The Boston Globe reports that the state Supreme Judicial Court has rejected a suit by Romney that attempted to force the legislature to put a constitutional ban on marriage on the ballot. This effort was key to Romney's efforts to prove to social conservatives across the country that he's the only "real" conservative in the GOP Primary.
It was somewhat ironic, of course, that Romney would embrace this form of judicial activism, given his denunciations of the judiciary ever since the controversy started. Perhaps the judges saw this irony, too; they ruled that they don't have the authority to compel the legislature to make a specific vote.
Despite the defeat, however, aides to Romney are seeking to spin the loss into a victory that social conservatives would approve of, pointing to a few words in the decision that scold the legislators for their inaction. Romney aides somewhat desperately declared that the court "confirmed once and for all that the Legislature has a constitutional duty to vote on the marriage amendment and that any failure to do so would be a violation of their oaths of office."
Despite the tough talk, this defeat is the last thing Romney's camp had hoped for. After all, it isn't long before the social-conservative activists Romney is courting realize that he suffered a total, ignominious defeat on what has become his biggest issue, and doesn't actually have a single conservative accomplishment to show for all his troubles.
There is something very disturbing about this man’s character, and I hope someone takes a look at his easy ability to pivot on major political/moral issues and Mormonism. Is there some undercurrent of malleability in his character that is covered by a veneer of strict doctrine and righteousness?
It is not unusual for politicians to develop nuanced positions and move to the right, left or center based on political considerations. However, Romney seems extraordinary in that he not only alters his position, but easily adopts and becomes the standard barer of opposite view points without any regard for his prior views, prior elections won on those views, and the people he was elected to serve.
In Mass, his election persona was carefully crafted to address explicit questions about how his Mormon religion would impact his policies, particularly around abortion and gay civil rights. He was careful, clear and emphatic: he would be a moderate Republican, focused on fiscal restraint and progressive on social issues.
There has been given some national coverage regarding his extraordinarily dishonest and opportunistic shifts on abortion and gay civil rights. There should also be some focus on the related matter of his breach of duty and loyalty to the citizens that elected him Governor.
He not only went through a convenient political conversion on key social issues, his conversion included throwing the people he was elected to serve under the bus for his national aspirations.
How well is it known outside of Mass that soon after he was elected, he would go on the stump in front of social conservative republicans and mock Mass and its citizens? Perhaps there are other politicians that got away with this behavior, but this seems extraordinary, and a clear commentary about the man’s poor character and lack of the virtues generally associated with public service and leadership.
This man does not pass the smell test regarding character or integrity. He is not someone you would want your daughter or sister to go out on a date with.
December 27, 2006 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
It never ceases to amaze me how completely hypocritical politicians can be - in plain sight - while attempting to feather their own political nests.
It is not only his blatant 'reversal' on the subject of gay civil unions/marriage - and his tailoring of his 'beliefs' to the audience he is speaking to (a shortcoming of most politicians) - but his complete disregard for his FUNDAMENTAL BELIEF that the judiciary CANNOT be activist - and cannot impose its own judgment in the legislative arena.
All the while attempting to use the judiciary for PRECISELY that purpose - as long as the end justify his OWN means - political or social.
Fortunately, his Presidential campaign is receiving almost no support from either the Republican Party leaders OR the public (which has him with single-digit poll numbers across the board.) He has provided any opponents with sufficient ammunition to torpedo any run for national office he may pursue.
Hell - if you cannot even weild influence or power in your own HOME STATE, the GOP will never risk what is left of their national base by running such a divisive and patently two-faced candidate.
December 27, 2006 4:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
The impression I got from listening to the local Boston TV news at 6:00 PM, was that this was a plus for the anti same sex marriage crowd, an impression probably as a result of the Romney and anti same sex marriage spinmeisters. That wasn't the interpretation I got from the statement by the Court.
December 28, 2006 12:15 AM | Reply | Permalink