Go to: => TOP Page;   What's New? Page;   ROAD MAP;   Shopping Mall;   Emmaus Ministries Page;   Search Page


Huckabee Agrees:
Romney was Wrong & Responsible
about Homosexual Marriage

[COMMENT:   Huckabee almost gets it right, but gets mushy when challenged directly about his opinion.  How can Huck support Romney, knowing that he personally, NOT the court, brought homosexual marriage to Massachusetts???     E. Fox]
 

Romney Should Not Have Complied with Court on Same-Sex Marriage, Says Huckabee
 
Monday, August 25, 2008
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief
 
I sure wish the Governor (and Hunter, Tancredo, Ron Paul) -- had told the voters this relentlessly during the primary.
 
From the transcript of this interview, it looks like Huckabee did a brilliant job and was very gutsy!  But I'm wondering if one of the third-rate "conservative legal experts" may have helped Gov. Huckabee with his talking points on this make-or-break issue (hopefully not Mat Staver or anyone else with a long record of treating judges as law-makers!).
 
Unfortunately, it may have been someone like Staver because the Governor's message in talking with Terrence Jeffry made two fundamental errors -- both being aggressively spread by Sekulow, Limbaugh, National Review, Focus On the Family, Tony Perkins, ADF, Bopp and perhaps inadvertently even the poor incompetent Mat Staver: Huckabee said:
"They were both decisions that the governors (Romney and Schwarzenegger) simply could have said the court has said that we have to do it, but let them enforce it. 
In fact, neither the MA nor CA courts actually told anyone they had to do anything. They opined that the law should be changed to reflect new rights that they claimed ought to be given to homosexuals. In both cases there were no orders given to the executive branch -- which is under the Chief Executive. In bother cases there are constitutional barriers that the Religious Right "legal experts" have incompetently missed while they were racing to raise money on this terrific opportunity to boost their revenue stream: Both the Massachusetts and California Constitutions either implicitly or explicitly define marriage heterosexually. Moreover, in California the state Constitution does not empower any one but the people to tamper with the definition of marriage that the people directly put into law.
 
Both the MA can CA courts have admitted that they cannot issue any order to the legislature or the governor:  

"The courts [instructing] when and how to perform...constitutional duties" (mandamus) "is not available against the Legislature [or] against the Governor)." "The...principles expressed in...the Massachusetts Constitution...call for the judiciary to refrain from intruding into the power and function of another branch of government." (LIMITS v. President of the Senate, 414 Mass. 31, 31 n.3, 35 (1992) 

And also in MA:

"an unconstitutional overreaching by the judiciary is an act that is “not only not warranted but, indeed, [is] precluded.” (Commonwealth v. Leis

Huckabee added: 
"He (Romney) could have stopped it, and should have stopped it.
There was not even anything in Goodridge to stop. Nor was there anything to "enforce" or not enforce. It contained no orders to anyone. 
This is all propaganda created by Romney using Sekulow, ADF, Bopp, Perkins etc. -- and the liberal media ran with it in delight. Goodridge was not an action. It was merely an opinion. There was nothing to stop.  You can't stop an opinion. You don't even have to. It is abstract. As Alexander Hamilton wrote, the courts have "neither force nor will." Romney didn't need to stop anything. All he had to do was... nothing.
 
From reading the transcript of arguments in Goodridge it is clear that even the attorney for the homosexual plaintiffs in Goodridge and the judges themselves were expecting no change to occur unless the Legislature agreed with their opinion and decided to change the laws. But the Legislature did not change the laws. 
 
Until the governor stepped in there was nothing to stop. The only branch of government that has any power to do anything that would have to be stopped is the Executive Branch. But they are under the Chief Executive! Romney's entire game was to pretend that the court did something that he was powerless to stop.  He is the one who took the action. He ORDERED public officials to violate their oaths and violate the marriage statutes. Romney went much further than the judges had. He himself took the power of the Legislature and effectively struck aside the marriage laws and substituted his own personal orders in the place of the law.
 
The same Massachusetts high court itself said in 1986:
[The Executive branch] must "be faithful to the words of the statute ... as written, and an event or contingency for which no provision has been made does not justify judicial [or Executive Branch] legislation." (Amherst v. Attorney General, 398 Mass. 793) 
It was not the judges or anyone else but Romney who needed to be stopped.
 
Overwhelming proof in terms that any literate person can understand is at: http://www.undergroundjournal.net/igroops/theunderground/adminpages/Letter-To-Romney-JAN-07
 
John Haskins
www.UndergroundJournal.net
 
Huckabee: "Romney is responsible for implementing same-sex marriages in Mass."
Go here for video:  http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=34561
 
Romney Should Not Have Complied with Court on Same-Sex Marriage, Says Huckabee
Monday, August 25, 2008
By Terence P. Jeffrey, Editor-in-Chief

Gov. Mike Huckabee, Sen. John McCain, and Gov. Mitt Romney joke around before primary debate on Oct. 9, 2007. (AP)
Former Gov. Mike Huckabee (R-Ark.) says that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R-Calif.) and former Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) should not have complied with decisions by their state supreme courts that ordered legal recognition of same-sex marriages.

 

In an exclusive video interview with CNSNews.com, Huckabee said that, had he been in Romney's shoes, he would not have used his executive power as governor to carry out the court's unilateral declaration that the other branches of state government must certify same-sex marriages.

"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, who taped an appearance on CNSNews.com's "Online with Terry Jeffrey" on August 15.
In a 4-3 decision issued on Nov. 18, 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry in Massachusetts.  The court gave the state legislature until May 17, 2004 to enact legislation to allow such marriages to take place.

 

In the intervening time, the Massachusetts legislature did not enact a law codifying same-sex marriages. Before the May 17, 2004 deadline, however, then-Gov. Romney directed that the words "bride" and "groom" on Massachusetts marriage applications be changed to "Party A" and "Party B."

 

Romney's chief legal counsel, Daniel Winslow, told justices of the peace in Massachusetts that they should carry out the decision of the court and perform same-sex marriages or resign.

 

"My message was: 'You took an oath, and you don't have to agree or disagree with the law, you took an oath to uphold the law. Your only job is to follow the law,'" Winslow told Pete Winn of CNSNews.com in January. "We'll leave it to the courts to litigate what the law is, but once the courts have ruled, if you've taken an oath under the constitution, you have to follow your oath."


 

Some justices of the peace did resign rather than use the "Party A" and "Party B" marriage applications to conclude same-sex marriages.  One of these was Kathleen Harvey of Bellingham, Mass.
"I chose to resign," Harvey told Pete Winn of CNSNews.com in January. "I personally didn't feel that same-sex marriages were marriages. If they were civil unions, I don't think that would have bothered me, but I personally didn't feel they were marriages. I just didn't want to be officiating at one of those ceremonies."

 

In fact, after the court-ordered May 17, 2004 deadline, then-Gov. Romney himself—who opposes same-sex marriage--did not allow all same-sex marriages to go forward in Massachusetts.  Citing a 1913 Massachusetts law that said the state should not carry out marriages of individuals from other states if those marriages would not be recognized in the individuals' home states, Romney told clerks in Massachusetts not to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples from out of state.

 

''Massachusetts should not become the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage,'' Romney told the New York Times in April 2004. ''We do not intend to export our marriage confusion to the entire nation.''

 

In January, when Pete Winn of CNSNews.com made inquiries to Romney's presidential campaign about his handling of the state supreme court decision on marriage,  the campaign responded with a statement from Kris Mineau of the Massachusetts Family Institute, who the campaign indicated "had worked with the governor" on the same-sex marriage issue.
"Within hours of the November 18, 2003, Supreme Judicial Court decision legalizing gay marriage, Governor Romney publicly denounced the court's ruling and affirmed traditional marriage," Mineau said. "And that was just the beginning of his support for preserving traditional marriage."
"Governor Romney could not have been more public or vocal in his opposition to same-sex marriage during his entire tenure as governor," he said.
"He did not create same-sex marriage; that responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, for which Chief Justice Margaret Marshall has been pleased to accept full credit and responsibility," Mineau said.
"The court's landmark ruling established same-sex marriage by judicially redefining the meaning of the word marriage," he said. "This final judicial order in the form of a declaratory judgment on May 17, 2004, was what created same-sex marriage in Massachusetts.
"Any administrative policies and procedures relative to solemnizing same-sex marriages were carried out only as a direct result of the judiciary's final action in Goodridge on May 17, 2004," he said. "Governor Romney is pro-individual and pro-traditional marriage . . . period."

 

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."

 

On May 15 of this year, the California Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples also have a constitutional right to marry in that state.  The ruling overturned a ballot initiative that had been approved by 61 percent of California voters in 2000 that said the state would only recognize as a marriage the union of one man and one woman.

 

Gov. Schwarzenegger twice vetoed bills passed by the state legislature that would have legalized same-sex marriage.  When the state Supreme Court issued its ruling in May, however, he said he not only would uphold the court's ruling, he also would oppose any effort to amend the state constitution to reverse it.

 

"I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," Schwarzenegger was quoted as saying by the Los Angeles Times. "Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the Constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

 

On June 17, California began legally recognizing same-sex marriages.

 

Proposition 8, an initiative on the November ballot in California, would amend the state constitution to say that only the union of one man and one woman will be recognized as a marriage in the state.

 

Huckabee on Romney, Schwarzenegger and Marriage
This is a partial transcript of former Gov. Mike Huckabee's appearance on "Online with Terry Jeffrey."

 

Huckabee: … 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.  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.

 

Jeffrey: Right, but Governor Romney actually went ahead and certified same-sex marriages without an act of his state legislature.

 

Huckabee: It should never have happened. It should never have happened.  And while we want to blame the courts—

 

Jeffrey: Does that disqualify him as a vice presidential nominee for the Republican Party?

 

Huckabee: 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.

 

Jeffrey: You hold him responsible for the same-sex marriages in Massachusetts?

 

Huckabee: Not singularly. I hold him responsible for implementing—

 

Jeffrey: He could have stopped it?

 

Huckabee: He could have stopped it, and should have stopped it.

 

Jeffrey:  And if you were governor of Massachusetts you would not have gone ahead and—

 

Huckabee: I would not have done that.

 

Jeffrey: You would not have had the clerks and justices of the peace—

 

Huckabee:  Absolutely not.

 

Jeffrey: Certify those marriages?

 

Huckabee: In my state, we passed an amendment to our constitution that declared marriage to be one man, one woman, by a 70-percent margin.  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.

 

Jeffrey: Governor Romney should have stood up to the Court and said, "No"?

 

Huckabee: He should've.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Go to: => TOP Page;   Conservative Collapse;   ROAD MAP

Date Posted -  08/26/2008   -   Date Last Edited - 09/15/2012