Blaine the Mono

Saturday, November 25, 2006

Mitt's Monkey Business in Massachusetts

In a few short weeks, Mitt Romney will no longer be the Governor of Massachusetts. This socially conservative Republican will step down in January and then focus on his run for the Republican nomination for US President. But it seems that even before he leaves office, he is trying to get a jump start on courting the religious conservatives he needs to win the nomination.

The New York Times reports that Gov. Romney is suing the Massachusetts Legislature (both houses are controlled by the Democrats) in order to force them to take an up or down vote on an amendment to the State Constitution to prohibit gay marriage. The Legislature decided to end their constitutional convention without taking up the issue.

Let me repeat that last sentence. The Legislature DECIDED to end their constitutional convention without taking up the issue. Gov. Romney, you may not like the decision the Legislature reached, but it is a decision nonetheless.

This is a great illustration of the hypocrisy and dishonesty of many of the opponents of gay marriage in Massachusetts who said that the Court decision that created gay marriage was wrong because the Legislature is the proper body to decide on gay marriage.

Well now the Legislature has decided. They have decided that they don't want this amendment to go any further. They have acted and their actions will kill the amendment for this year.

And if the people of Massachusetts don't like the decision of the Legislature, they can vote them out of office in the next election. That's the way the system works, Gov. Romney. If you don't like politicians being accountable to the voters, maybe you should get out of politics and find another line of work.

1 Comments:

Blogger The sane one said...

Well put, oh most esteemed colleague.

I would add that "activist judges" have often lead the way by taking unpopular positions that are ultimately proven correct. (Brown v. Board of Education being the best example) There is an ultimate check on judicial power, as you point out.

It is a shame that the judiciary has become a football and a boogieman in the political discourse.

To bring this back to the superficial issue that started this post, I have yet to hear a single rational argument against gay marriage that does not rely on a specific religious tradition. The fact that there is no secular reason to oppose this speaks volumes to me.

There are religious traditions out there that do not approve of inter-racial marriage. (It was less than 10 years ago that Bob Jones U. changed its inter-racial dating.) Catholics still have major issues with inter-faith marriage. Yet the government is not in the business of making laws based on either of these traditions.

I just wish there was more honesty in the gay-marriage debate, and especially in the activist judiciary discussion.

November 25, 2006 at 12:52 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home