If you are a Republican and wondering who you should vote for, I have collected a group of articles on one candidate; Mitt Romney. He has the most delegate votes so far and his chance of becoming President is very real. But what do you REALLY know about Mitt Romney? If you are a Conservative Republican than I suggest you take a look at some of the articles in this journal called: The Dirty Little File on Mitt Romney


A Stern Warning to the "Conservative Elites" about Mitt Romney

January 2, 2008

An open letter from grassroots consevative leaders

Through their silence, the elites are assisting a political cancer that has profound consequences for our children and grandchildren

We write the following because we must oppose the deception of the American people by powerful and influential conservatives. Many in the conservative grassroots no longer trust the "conservative" media, lawyers and leaders, whom they see as serving the GOP establishment regardless of the will of the conservative base, regardless of the truth.

Most of us are not allied with any presidential candidate. But we are troubled by the unethical and Orwellian cover-up of Mitt Romney's role in catastrophic events in Massachusetts, once the cradle of American liberty. Actions he took as governor were beyond the pale. As Romney twice explained to the homosexual "Log Cabin" Republicans, it would take a Republican to enact their agenda. (See article in homosexual newspaper Bay Windows.)

Attorneys, journalists and pundits must be fearless and selfless watchdogs of politicians and guardians of democracy. This is a sacred trust that is being defiled. Silence about ugly truths, such as the points enumerated below, is a betrayal of the lofty status we claim in a constitutional republic. Pay the price of courage. Tell America the truth.

Phony Pro-Life "Conversion"

Issue # 1. Mitt Romney established abortion as a "healthcare benefit" in his own government-run healthcare plan at $50 per abortion -- after his supposed "pro-life conversion." ( www.mass.gov/Qhic/docs/cc_benefits1220_pt234.pdf ) He created a permanent, official government role for an unelected Planned Parenthood representative on the health care board.

Issue #2. Romney's well-timed "pro-life" conversion for the Republican primary pulled a "states' rights" committment out of nowhere to hedge his political bets. His claim that states' rights trump the unalienable right to life is inconsistent and unprincipled: he simultaneously opposes an amendment to protect human life, but claims to support one to preserve marriage! What happened to Romney's committment to "states' rights?"

Issue #3. Unforced by anyone, Romney overruled his own Commissioner of Public Health and lied about state law in order to compel Catholic hospitals to issue abortifacient pills -- in violation of their freedom of religion enshrined in the United States and Massachusetts Constitutions. Using exactly the crafty political theatre he employed to cover his actions on same-sex "marriage" and homosexual adoption, Romney posed as defender of the very thing he was destroying, gallantly "asking" the legislature to create a special "religious exemption" for Catholic institutions. Even Democrat former governor Mike Dukakis publicly agreed with Romney's commissioner of public health that state law already grants a "religious exemption."

"Gay Marriage," Gay Adoption and Pro-Homosexuality Propaganda In Schools

Issue #1. In another flagrant lie about the law, Romney told Catholic Charities' adoption and foster agency they had to give children to homosexuals even when normal mother-father families were lined up to give them a home. Again, he deployed his standard smokescreen, gallantly proposing a "special exemption," with a wink of his eye to the militantly pro-homosexuality legislature. Again, he got caught. Former governor Dukakis pointed out that the "state law" that Romney was citing as requiring gay adoption was non-existent. It was merely an executive regulation that a governor can rescind with a few strokes of his pen. Romney was apparently fulfilling secret 2002 campaign promises ( http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2007/12/is-romney-working-with-log-cabin.html ) to Republican homosexual power brokers whose endorsement he coveted and received. He had sought no backing from social conservatives.

Issue #2. Romney says the Boy Scouts should accept homosexual scoutmasters and that homosexuals have "a legitimate interest" in adopting or producing and raising children.

Issue #3. Though Romney pretends he opposed homosexual "marriage," he did the opposite. In 2002 he opposed a marriage amendment that would have prevented homosexual "marriage." 120,000 citizens, including his wife, son and daughter-in-law signed the amendment petition. Romney's militant pro-homosexuality Republican predecessor, Governor Jane Swift, and Democrat legislators openly violated the constitution to deny the citizens their right to vote on the amendment. Even the ultra-liberal Massachusetts court ruled that they were violating their oaths and the Constitution. Romney failed to oppose their subversion of the law or to defend the people's right to amend their own Constitution. (www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/may/07051409.html )

Issue #4. Since the notorious Goodridge court opinion discovering a constitutional right to "gay marriage," Romney has methodically lied about the judges' legal authority and his own legal duty to enforce the Constitution. As professor of jurisprudence Hadley Arkes pointed out, under the state Constitution, the court has no jurisdiction over marriage law. An opinion issued without jurisdiction is legally void and cannot be "enforced." Romney also knew that the same judges had recently admitted they have no power over the legislature or governor.

The Legislature never "obeyed" the judges by changing the marriage statute to legalize "gay marriage." Under the state constitution that was the end of the line. The court neither ordered nor even suggested any intervention by the governor. Many lawyers and law professors (including Hugh Hewitt: http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2007/12/hugh-hewitt-told-romney-to-defy-mass.html ) told Romney to ignore the unconstitutional Goodridge opinion and embarrass the judges. Mysteriously, Romney rejected their advice. Why? The New York Times finally revealed four years later that, to win a coveted endorsement, Romney secretly promised the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans in 2002 that he would not defend the constitution against an illegal attempt by the judges to sneak same-sex "marriage" past the voters. (See New York Rimes article here).

When the Legislature did not legalize homosexual "marriage," to fulfill his secret promise, Romney claimed that the judges had. This is a blatant lie plainly refuted by the state constitution Romney swore to uphold! He quickly found willing "conservative" lawyers, pundits and "pro-family leaders" to back him up. Rather than challenge the motives, integrity and "expertise" of their own friends and colleagues, most of the conservative establishment suddenly went silent. Ignoring his oath to faithfully enforce the statutes, Romney ordered officials to violate the marriage statutes and perform homosexual "marriages." His Department of Public Health illegally bypassed the legislature by changing the marriage certificates from "husband" and "wife" to "Party A" and "Party B."

Romney gave orders that illegally usurped the exclusive constitutional authority of the Legislature, as proven in this devastating "Letter to Governor Mitt Romney from Pro-Family Leaders." (www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/dec_letter/letter.pdf). He violated multiple Articles of the Massachusetts Constitution, including one of the most vital principles of American government, which John Adams stated more forcefully than anywhere else in American law:

"In the government of this commonwealth...the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, ...the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, ...to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men. - Article XXX, Part The First

We deplore the glaring refusal of the "conservative" establishment to face the implications of a devastating article by a leading constitutional scholar, illuminating why pro-establishment attorneys have covered up Romney's unconstitutional actions:

"The deeper failure must go to the man who stood as governor, holding the levers of the executive. And if it is countdown for marriage...it is countdown also for Mitt Romney, whose political demise may be measured along the scale of moves he could have taken and the record of his receding, step by step... [I]t became clear that even conservative lawyers had come to incorporate, and accept, the premises that gave to the courts a position of supremacy in our constitutional schemes." -- Hadley Arkes, Professor of Jurisprudence, Amherst College ( The Missing Governor, National Review Online May 17, 2004 )

We equally deplore the refusal to acknowledge the obvious truth in highly respected conservative attorney Phyllis Schlafly's assessment:

"Massachusetts public officials ... are groveling before the four judges... (Romney) said: 'We obviously have to follow the law as provided by the [Court] and … 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." -- Phyllis Schlafly ( It's Time To Rebuke The Judicial Oligarchy (EagleForum.org, Dec. 3, 2003) )

Schlafly was right, as any honest and competent lawyer knows. The Massachusetts Constitution powerfully refutes Romney's entire story that the judges changed marriage law and forced him to give unconstitutional orders:

"[T]he people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent." Article X, Part the First of the Massachusetts Constitution

"The power of suspending the laws, or the execution of the laws, ought never to be exercised but by the legislature..." Article XX, Part the First of the Massachusetts Constitution

Mitt Romney created homosexual "marriage." His "conservative" legal experts are aggressively covering up both his role and the plain language of the Supreme Law of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

Issue #5. Though Romney admitted the Goodridge opinion was not based on the Constitution and that the judges had exceeded their power, he opposed a citizen's drive to remove the four rogue judges who violated their oaths. ( http://massresistance.blogspot.com/2007/09/iowa-patriots-seek-to-remove-gay.html )

Issue #6. Though Romney says same-sex "marriage" will damage religious freedom and harm children, who need both a mother and a father, he personally issued more than 190 special one-day certificates to allow homosexual "marriages" to be performed by legally unqualified persons. He claims he was "just applying the marriage statutes evenly." But As Phyllis Schlafly reminded America, and as even the outlaw Goodridge judges admitted, the statutes do not allow homosexual "marriages," despite Romney's false claim that the court "legalized" homosexual "marriage. Moreover, a governor is not obliged to issue any special marriage certificates to anyone. Since Romney says same-sex "marriage" will harm children and erode religious freedom, why did he violate the marriage statutes and issue hundreds of special permits? ( www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/ )

Issue #7. As governor, to please Massachusetts' militant homosexual groups, Romney aggressively BOOSTED government funding for pro-homosexuality indoctrination, starting in kindergarten. He refused to defend schoolchildren and parents' rights against this indoctrination. He refused to order his education officials to obey the law guaranteeing that parents' can protect their children from sexual brainwashing. ( www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/record/ ) This is a continuation of his views since 1994 when he opposed congressional efforts to protect children by banning federal funding to public schools that encourage "homosexuality as a positive lifestyle alternative." His deference to militant homosexual groups' "right" to indictrinate other people's children was jaw-dropping:

"I think that's a dangerous precedent in general. I would have opposed that. It also grossly misunderstands the gay community by insinuating that there's an attempt to proselytize a gay lifestyle on the part of the gay community. I think it's wrong-headed..." ( See Boston.com article.)

With their silence about the illegal actions and toxic legacy of Mitt Romney, the elites are assisting a political cancer that has profound consequences for our future. If anyone has convinced themselves that so-called "same sex marriage" is a fringe issue and not a grave threat to the rule of law and to children they should read Maggie Gallagher's stunning article "Banned in Boston." They should also investigate the pro-homosexuality indoctrination of Massachusetts children ("It's 1984 in Massachusetts - And Big Brother Is Gay" www.tysknews.com/Depts/society/1984_in_mass.htm ) which had been covert, but in the aftermath of Romney's illegal orders imposing homosexual marriage, is swallowing up parents' most fundamental right to protect their children and control their moral education. To remain silent about the re-engineering of the human family and child psychology, and the active and dishonest role Romney has played, is a dereliction of our highest duties.

We are among those who believe that same-sex "marriage," homosexual adoption and pro-homosexuality indoctrination of schoolchildren hasten the decline of Western Civilization in its most crucial aspects, whether the elites face that and comprehend it or not. Yet many who have the greatest obligation are cowering in the shadows or even aiding the deception. Our silence is a fatal abdication of duty to our children and future generations, a breech of faith. It is a betrayal of the honor of young soldiers dying overseas for principles that we decided in our hearts long ago require no profound sacrifice from the elites.

The truth is this: Mitt Romney's fictional defense of natural marriage, childhood innocence, life in the womb and constitutional governance is sustained only by our silence in the face of overwhelming propaganda. Edmund Burke famously said "All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."

Dante went further: "The hottest places in hell are reserved for those who in times of great moral crises maintain their neutrality."

It is telling of today's "conservatism" -- an endless regression of sophist ironies and nuances, dissolving, in the end, into absolutely nothing at all -- that dire warnings from ancient voices seem like faint, distant echoes bouncing absurdly against rock walls far below our feet, beneath a precipice that we scaled long ago in the conceits of our modern conservative minds.

To continue in silence or in support of the craftiness and ruthless ambition of Willard Mitt Romney betrays generations past, present and future, including our own children and grandchildren.

Pay the price of courage, friends. Tell America the truth.



Judge Ned Kirby (ret.), former Assistant Minority Leader, Massachusetts Senate
Atty. Edgar Kelley, former Assistant United States Attorney, Massachusetts District
Ray Neary, Director, Pro-Life Massachusetts (former President, Massachusetts Citizens for Life)
John O'Gorman, Member of the Board of Directors, Massachusetts Citizens for Life
John Haskins, The Parents' Rights Coalition
Gregg Jackson, Co-host, "Pundit Review," author: "Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies," contributor, TownHall.com,
William Cotter, President, Operation Rescue: Boston*
Brian Camenker, President, MassResistance
Mark Charalambous, Spokesman, CPF-Fatherhood Coalition, Massachusetts
Amy Contrada, MassResistance blog

Across America:

Dr. William Greene, President, RightMarch.com
Dr. Ted Baehr, Chairman, Christian Film and Television Commission
Linda Harvey, President, Mission America
Gary Glenn, President, American Family Association of Michigan*
Janet Folger, President, Faith2Action
Michael Heath, Executive Director, Christian Civic League of Maine *
Peter LaBarbera, President, Americans for Truth*
Dianne Gramley, President, American Family Association of Pennsylvania
Nedd Kareiva, President, Stop the ACLU Coalition
Phillip Magnan, President, Biblical Family Advocates
Rev. Earle Fox, D. Phil, (Oxford), President, Road to Emmaus, School of Judeo-Christian Apologetics
Janet Folger, author, columnist, President, Faith2Action
Michael W. Calsetta, Former President, Conservative Democratic Alliance
Allyson Smith, Director, Americans for Truth - California

Atty. "Robert Paine," author: The Governor's New Clothes; How Mitt Romney Brought Same-Sex Marriage To America

* For identification purposes only. All persons are signing as concerned private citizens. This information is solely for educational purposes and not in support of any candidate.

The irrefutable proof that Romney's "conservative" lawyers are lying to America:
"Letter to Governor Mitt Romney from Pro-Family Leaders."
"Governor's New Clothes; How Mitt Romney Brought Same-Sex Marriage To America," by Robert Paine, Esq. http://robertpaine.blogspot.com/2006/06/governors-new-clothes-how-mitt-romney_17.html
The most thorough documentation of Mitt Romney's record anywhere is at: http://massresistance.org/romney/

Add A Comment


Jan. 23, 2008 at 7:22 PM

A Report on the Pro-life Views of Governor Mitt Romney

Due to an unusual amount of confusion over the pro-life position of Governor Mitt Romney, MassResistance has issued this report. Much of this confusion is caused not only by the Governor's ever changing positions, but also by the endorsement of Romney by a few pro-family leaders who have apparently failed to do their due diligence before endorsing him. Moreover, this confusion is further compounded by some conservative publications that for reasons unbeknownst to us have refused to report the full and complete story on Romney's pro-life views.

Such obfuscation by conservative leaders and publications does a disservice to the conservative movement and to the pro-life movement in particular. We hope that this report will shed some light on where Governor Romney stands on this culture-defining issue.

THE TOP SIX PROBLEMS: Since Romney's famous pro-life "conversion" in November 2004, note the following -

1. Romney said that he does not favor a federal constitutional amendment banning abortion, but instead favors each state deciding for itself whether to allow abortion or not. (Suppose Lincoln had taken that approach on the slavery issue. )

2. Gov. Romney signed into law a universal health insurance plan that (a) includes increased state-funded abortions, and (b) names Planned Parenthood in the law as an overseer. Romney never challenged any of that.

3. Romney said he would disagree with governmental intervention in the Terri Schiavo forced starvation case, adding "I think it's probably best to leave these kinds of matters in the hands of the courts."

4. Gov. Romney forced Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts to dispense the "morning after" pill.

5. Romney said he does not object to stem cell research using left over human embryos.

6. Although Romney vetoed pro-abortion legislation after his "conversion", it always appeared to be for political effect. The Legislature always overrode the vetoes. We never saw Romney exert any substantial effort to get his vetoes sustained.

Romney's Pro-Abortion History

Mitt Romney hails from a liberal Mormon tradition that supports abortion rights. While this is not a large faction within the LDS Church, it does exist and there have been LDS leaders who have supported Roe vs. Wade ever since its inception.

In the 1960's, George Romney, Mitt's father, was considered one of the key leaders of the liberal wing of the GOP, and along with Nelson Rockefeller and others, worked incessantly to move the Republican Party to a more liberal position on both social and fiscal issues.

Romney's mother, Lenore Romney, was one of the early Republican Party proponents of abortion. During her candidacy for the US Senate in Michigan she announced:

I support and recognize the need for more liberal abortion rights while reaffirming the legal and medical measures needed to protect the unborn and pregnant women.

This was in 1970, three years before the Roe vs. Wade decision. At the time, performing an abortion was a felony.

Mitt Romney has a long history of supporting pro-abortion candidates and causes, and aggressively sought the support and endorsement of groups such as NARAL and Planned Parenthood. Indeed, Romney is still listed today as a member of the Republican Main Street Partnership, a group supported by Billionaire leftist George Soros dedicated to shifting the GOP leftward on social issues such as abortion rights and stem cell research.

Romney also has a history of assisting the careers of other prominent pro-abortion politicians. In the 1992 presidential race, Romney endorsed and voted for pro-abortion liberal Democrat Paul Tsongas in the Democrat primary and just three years ago endorsed and made a television ad for Democrat Salt Lake City mayor Rocky Anderson, a former Planned Parenthood attorney.

As Governor, he issued state proclamations honoring "Right to Privacy Day" which until 2005, specifically referenced the Roe vs. Wade case.

Romney repeatedly took extreme stances on abortion throughout his career and consistently made statements such as this one:

I believe that Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years, that we should sustain and support it….

There simply is no doubt that Romney was one of the most pro-abortion Republican office holders in the country.

In his current campaign, Romney has sought to play down his prior support for abortion, giving the impression that he never really strongly supported abortion, but new revelations reported by the Los Angeles Times demonstrate otherwise.

Notes taken by key leaders of the nation's most radical pro-abortion group, the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL), reveal that at a 2002 meeting, Romney assured them he would work to soften the GOP stance on abortion and said that the GOP's pro-life position was "killing them."

He also promised to fight efforts by conservatives to require abstinence-only sex education in the schools.

These are not the comments of someone who took this issue lightly, but rather the words of a person deeply committed to the pro-abortion issue.

Romney's Conversion. Was it Authentic?

Romney says he became "pro-choice" two years before Roe vs. Wade became law as a result of a death of relative due to an illegal abortion. But then, in November of 2004, at age 57 years old, he claimed to have had a second conversion about the issue while meeting with a stem cell researcher from the Harvard Stem Cell Institute. Romney claimed the researcher told him,

Look, you don't have to think about this stem cell research as a moral issue, because we kill the embryos after 14 days.

However, the media located the scientist, Dr. Douglas Melton, and he
stated he never said such a thing:

Governor Romney has mischaracterized my position; we didn't discuss killing or anything related to it….I explained my work to him, told him about my deeply held respect for life, and explained that my work focuses on improving the lives of those suffering from debilitating diseases.

It's a troubling conversion story. If Romney was disturbed by the destruction of a 14 day old embryo created in a test tube, then how did he not realized after all his years in politics that millions of unborn babies - some as old as six months -- were being destroyed? How can he walk away appalled that stem cell research kills life but then turn around and
continue to support the killing of embryos for stem cell research? (see below)

And then there's the question of his wife Ann. A long time member of the moderate Republican Party establishment in Massachusetts, one of her jobs while her husband was governor appears to be to reassure liberal voters that her husband can be trusted to support abortion rights. Indeed, a 2002 video has now surfaced on YouTube with Mrs. Romney doing just that:

I think they [referring to pro-abortion women] may be more nervous about him on social issues. They shouldn't be, because he's gonna be just fine.

Romney himself chimes in, "So when asked, will I preseve and protect a women's right to choose, I make an unequivocal answer: Yes." You can watch this at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GKwVNUz52vo

Incredibly, Ann is now being assigned by the Romney campaign to speak to pro-life groups about her husband's pro-life credentials. Are we being asked to believe that she also had an epiphany on this issue at the same time her husband did?

We do believe that some people sincerely change their views, but we believe Romney's pro-life conversion to be suspect for many reasons. He doesn't appear to have converted on all issues related to life, the conversion story itself is suspect, and he doesn't appear to understand the moral aspects of this issue. Moreover, his conversion occurred around the same time period when he started to consider running for higher office.

Romney's current view on abortion

1. Romney's current view on abortion appears to be based more on a procedural stance than a moral view and is not necessarily a pro-life view.

Instead of focusing on the moral case against abortion, Romney has repeatedly stated he wants the people to vote on this issue, which, in of in itself is not a pro-life position unless you also agree to use your position to pass pro-life legislation. But when pressed on whether he would support a constitutional amendment banning abortion, he refuses to answer this question. The National Journal (February 10, 2007) pressed him on this point:


You would favor a constitutional amendment banning abortion with exceptions for the life of the mother, rape and incest. Is that correct?


What I've indicated is that I am pro-life, and that my hope is that the Supreme Court will give to the states over time or give to the states soon or give to the states their own ability to make their own decision with regard to their abortion law.


If a state wanted unlimited abortion?


The state would fall into restrictions that had been imposed at the federal level, so they couldn't be more expansive in abortion than currently exists under the law, but they could become more restrictive in abortion provisions. So states like Massachusetts could stay like they are if they so desire, and states that have a different view could take that course. And it would be up to the citizens of the individual states. My view is not to impose a single federal rule on the entire nation -- a one-size-fits-all approach -- but instead allow states to make their own decisions in this regard.

On February 28, 2005 - also after his conversion - Romney said:

I am personally pro-life. However, as governor I would not change the laws of the commonwealth relating to abortion.

When the reporter asked if he favors making abortion illegal, Romney stopped the interview by stating:

But that's the furthest I'm going to take you right now.

These statements make it clear he does not favor using his political authority to advance the pro-life position. If he's not willing to do this, then we question his pro-life commitment. His position on abortion appears to be more about democratic voting rights and not about the moral evil of abortion. He never says specifically how he would use his power to protect the sanctity of life nor has been able to clarify the moral reasons why he is opposed to the procedure itself.

2. Romney's 2006 health care plan vastly increases state-funded abortions.

While there are court decisions requiring state health care plans that receive Medicaid funding to fund all "medically necessary" abortions, the Romney plan funds all abortions with no restrictions. Moreover, the creation of a state-wide government entity that widely promotes abortion services will of course increase the number of state-funded abortions.

Furthermore, the Romney administration wrote the health care plan with the requirement that everyone must have health insurance and creates a subsidy for those who cannot afford it. Therefore it subsidizes the insurance of low income women and creates a new category of state-subsidized abortions. Nor, to anyone's knowledge, did Romney make any attempt to exclude or even minimize abortions in the health care plan. Thus, it is a fact that Romney is responsible for the expansion of state funded abortion. With Planned Parenthood serving on the plan's advisory board (as written into the law itself), should we be surprised by any of this?

To understand how a whole new class of people will have abortions paid for by the state, Massachusetts has an uninsured population of 460,000 people which means there are anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000 women not previously eligible who are now eligible for state-funded abortions.

In response to revelations in the media about this, the Romney campaign released a statement claiming that "decisions [about the health care plan] were made separate of the Romney Administration."

But this is deceitful. When Romney gave a speech about his health care plan at the Heritage Foundation, he made clear, as the Heritage Foundation's web site does, that the plan was his idea and his design. He was the main architect of the plan; he lobbied for its passage; he signed it into law, and he boasted about it on the campaign trail for many months. Only after it was revealed that the plan dramatically increases state funded abortions has Romney left it out of his campaign speeches.

3. Romney's current position on the stem cell research issue is NOT the accepted pro-life position

Much has been made of Romney's alleged conversion after meeting with a stem cell researcher, but a total conversion apparently never occurred. The only aspect of this issue he changed his mind on was the creation of human embryos for research purposes (cloning). However, he continues to this day to support research on stem cells:

Stem cell research does not require the cloning of human embryos. Some stem cells today are obtained from surplus embryos from in-vitro fertilization. I support that research, provided that those embryos are obtains after a rigorous parental consent process that includes adoption as an alternative.

In other words, Romney is opposed to cloning but not embryonic stem cell research, but there is no moral distinction between the two.

As Carol Tobias of the National Right to Life Committee recently stated, "He's still in favor of killing the new lives that are in existence right now." Even the pro-Romney National Review magazine states that, "Romney has decided to support experimentation on surplus frozen embryos from in-vitro fertilization procedures."

This position should not surprise anyone since Romney stated in 2006 that his views on stem cell research are NOT grounded in religious or moral beliefs:

I'm not talking about from a religious standpoint. I'm talking about from the medical and scientific standpoint….

4. Romney forced Catholic hospitals in 2005 to dispense the "morning after" pill

When the Massachusetts Legislature passed a law requiring all hospitals to provide women with the morning after abortion pill, Romney's Department of Public Health determined that private religious hospitals were exempt from the statute due to both current law and the religious freedom protections in the Massachusetts Constitution. As Daniel Avila, Associate
Director of Public Policy for the Massachusetts Catholic Conference stated,

The new bill does not expressly nullify the older statute, the conscience protection already on the books still remains in force.

The Boston Globe interviewed State Health Commissioner Paul Cote Jr. and reported that Cote said that "his department felt strongly that the new emergency contraception law did not compel all hospitals to provide the morning-after pill."

However, there was a huge outcry from the pro-abortion lobby and within days, Romney bowed to this pressure and overruled his own Health Department by interpreting the statute to illegally apply to private hospitals.

He then shocked everyone by publicly agreeing with the decision:

I think, in my personal view, it's the right thing for Hospitals [referring to private hospitals] to provide information and access to emergency contraception to anyone who is a victim of rape.

This displays an astounding ignorance of religious freedom. Even if there were some disagreement over whether the new statute applied to private religious hospitals, Romney should have stood firm in favor of religious hospitals. Yes, there may have been litigation, but he had the state constitution, the Bill of Rights, previous statute, and his own Department of Health on his side. Instead, he allowed the liberal attorneys who surround him to advise him to allow an unprecedented attack on religious freedom. This occurred AFTER his conversion.

5. Romney appointed pro-abortion judges

Governor Romney appointed 36 judges but a check of their political affiliation confirms that only 9 of them are Republicans. Two are radical gay activists and 14 are registered Democrats. The remainder are unenrolled. Since Massachusetts Democrats are among the most pro-abortion Democrats in America, we have to assume that the majority of Romney's judicial appointments are NOT pro-life.

Take for example, Steve Abany, a hard left Democrat and a prominent gay activist involved with the effort to legalized homosexual marriage in Massachusetts. Romney appointed him to the bench in May of 2005, which was, again, well after his pro-life "conversion." Any bets that he's pro-life?

Nor can we find any evidence that the Governor tried to recruit judges who respect life. Romney's defenders claim he had no choice because a entity called the Governor's Council controls the process and is composed of Democrats, but we've found that this council serves mostly as a rubber stamp and is set up purely to ensure judicial nominees are qualified, not to oppose them on ideological grounds. Indeed, there is no evidence that the Governor's Council has ever blocked any judicial nominees on ideological grounds.

Many of these judicial appointments were made in the last three years, SINCE Romney's alleged conversion.

The Romney campaign also claims that his judicial selections as governor had nothing to do with abortion and was more about the nominee's stance on local issues such as crime. However, the Los Angeles Times has revealed that notes taken at a 2002 NARAL endorsement meeting attended by Romney, reveal that he assured its leaders his judicial picks would be more likely to protect abortion rights than those of a Democrat governor!

These notes demonstrate that he did indeed use the abortion issue to inform his judicial selections, but not in the way we would have wanted. Once again, the Romney campaign is not being truthful.

With the next president appointing 1-2 justices to the U.S. Supreme Court and a slew of Federal judges, Romney's judicial selections should alarm those who care about family values and the sanctity of life. The fact that only five years ago he assured NARAL's leaders that he would appoint pro-abortion judges should cause every pro-lifer in the country to doubt his sincerity on this issue.

It is also notable that Romney is still listed as a prominent member of the Republican Main Street Partnership which publicly praised Senator John Chafee for his vote against the confirmation of Judge Sam Alito to the Supreme Court. This may be the biggest pro-life achievement of the Bush Administration, but Romney's group was not happy about it. There is no evidence that Romney opposed this action.

It really doesn't matter how often Romney announces he will appoint "strict constructionists" to the bench; if he can't be truthful about the criteria he used to select judges while Governor and didn't even bother to fill all the judicial vacancies in his own state, how can he be trusted to appoint solid judges while president?

6. Romney' opinion on the Terry Schiavo case: Let the courts force euthanasia.

On March 10th, Romney was questioned on television about the Terri Schiavo case in which heroic efforts were made by the State and by Congress to save her life. Without his professional handlers by his side to tell him what to say, here what the press reported him as saying:

He's campaigning hard for support from Republican socialconservatives, but presidential candidate Mitt Romney said Saturday he disagreed with the government's intervention in the Terri Schiavo case. 'I think it's probably best to leave these kinds of matters in the hands of the courts.'

However, this view is consistent with his abortion stance. Forget about the life involved, let the people decide or let the courts decide. Once again, Romney doesn't seem to understand the moral implications involved here.


The Republican Party establishment has a history of promoting candidates to the pro-life movement who often are not pro-life. The pro-life movement needs to be wary of such efforts and needs to remain focused on supporting candidates who share our values and not be misled by candidates whose views are constantly "evolving."

We believe that Romney's recent pro-life statements and public stands are driven by political ambition and the cold calculations about Republican primary voters, not the result of any genuine "conversion."

Governor Romney's failure to fight for the rights of private religious hospitals, his inattention to the types of judges he appointed, his involvement with a health care plan that vastly increases state funded abortions, his inconsistency on the embryonic stem cell issue, his ignorance of the evil of euthanasia and his failure to enunciate the moral objections to abortion have convinced us that he does not fundamentally understand life issues nor is it an important part of his worldview.

In order to justify Romney's extreme flip-flops on the abortion issue, the Romney campaign has issued statements comparing Romney to Ronald Reagan since Reagan signed a pro-abortion bill into law as California governor before becoming pro-life. This is an inaccurate comparison.

When Reagan signed the abortion bill in 1970, very little was known about the procedure as this was before ultra sound and before research showing that a baby's heart and nervous system is developed in utero far earlier than was previously known. Reagan later called that decision the worst one in his career and authored a book, Abortion and the Conscience of the Nation, that went into great detail about the moral consequences of abortion.

In contrast, Romney has had access to the latest research on abortion, has never apologized for his previous stances and cannot seem to carry on a discussion about the moral implications. Moreover, Romney continues to support abortion related issues such as stem cell research and euthanasia and refuses to state if he would use his political position to support actual pro-life legislation. This is a far cry from Ronald Reagan.

Based on our research, we therefore do not believe Governor Mitt Romney will represent the views of the pro-life community if elected President of the United States.

Message Friend Invite (Original Poster)

Jan. 23, 2008 at 7:23 PM

Mitt Romney donated $10,000 to AIDS Action Committee in 2004.

Radical homosexual "health" organization is publisher of "The Little Black Book," and much more.

Caution: some of the descriptions below (from the AIDS Action Committee website) are very disturbing.

Did Mitt Romney, while Governor of Massachusetts, donate $10,000 to an organization without knowing what it does? Hard to imagine, even if you're a multimillionaire. In 2004, he donated to the "AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts", a radical homosexual "health" organization. This was four times the amount he gave to an organization promoting abstinence among teen girls, "Best Friends Foundation," in 2003.

The AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts pushes the myth of "safer sex" for homosexuals (and also for "transgenders" and transsexuals) while not promoting abstinence, nor helping people engaged in those behaviors become free of those addictions.

Their message generally boils down to "try to be careful, but you don't have to let your pleasures be stifled." This philosophy extends to a wide range of destructive sexual practices and promiscuous behavior. It is not the humanitarian outreach that one might imagine -- though some of its resources go to humanitarian aid for HIV/AIDS patients (the eventual victims of that same philosophy). But no informed conservative (or any responsible person) would give to the group if they examined what it does.

The following are just a few of the activities of the AIDS Action Committee.

The "homosexual activist" approach to AIDS

Suffice it to say, what the AIDS Action Committee tells people is at odds with any traditional public health approach to containing the spread of a deadly disease.

The following is an excerpt from the AIDS Action Committee web site. None of the things below reliably stop the spread of AIDS.

Oral Sex

The best way to reduce the risk of HIV transmission while performing oral sex is to maintain good oral hygiene. That, in addition to not flossing or brushing your teeth right before or after will also reduce the risk of transmission.

Performing Oral Sex on a Woman

When performing oral sex on a woman, a dental dam or common kitchen plastic wrap can be used as a barrier to protect from HIV transmission. If you do not have a dental dam, you can also use a new, unused, non-lubricated or flavored condom by stretching it out and cutting it down the side, then stretching it out in the same way you would a dental dam or plastic wrap.

Performing Oral Sex on a Man

In addition to good oral hygiene, proper use of a non-lubricated or flavored condom on a man can significantly decrease risk of HIV transmission. If a condom is not available or an option, not accepting semen into the mouth or spitting rather than swallowing will reduce the risk. You can also use the "harmonica method" by focusing on the shaft of the penis while avoiding the head.

Performing Oral Sex on the Anus (Rimming)

For oral to anal contact, or rimming, a dental dam, plastic wrap, or a condom can be used in the same way described above under the heading “Performing Oral Sex on a Woman.” This can be a great barrier against not only HIV, but possible Hepatitis A exposure.

Supporting "Bondage and Discipline"

AIDS Action was a sponsor of a recent "New England Leather Alliance" event at a Danvers, MA hotel. This was a how-to conference on BDSM practices ("bondage / discipline / sadomasochism", whips, chains, torture, cross-dressing, etc.). AIDS Action advertised in the conference program. Does Romney support BDSM instruction?

Advocating clean needle program - which Romney later vetoed

While Romney vetoed the "Clean Needle Program", including over-the-counter sales of syringes, the AIDS Action Committee was a major advocate for the program in Massachusetts, and it was a lynchpin of their HIV/AIDS "prevention" program which Romney earlier claimed to support.

Fights against abstinence-only education in schools

AIDS Action strongly opposes abstinence-only education in the public schools, which Romney said he supported.

Speakers in public schools with destructive message.

Instead of abstinence education, AIDS Action Committee runs a youth outreach program, run in partnership with Planned Parenthood, in which they send HIV-positive "educators" into public schools, and also summer camps and other places teens gather. They claim to convey an HIV "prevention strategy" to young people. Is this "strategy" to "use condoms"? In the high school assemblies we've personally sat through, the presentations are extremely vulgar and the message is "use condoms" -- which are extremely unreliable against AIDS.

P.U.M.P. and collaboration with gay hookup sex sites.

AIDS Action collaborates with, and apparently contributes to "Cambridge Cares About AIDS", which administers a "clean needle" program; and has a program called "Peers Using More Prevention" or P.U.M.P. As their website describes:

CCA's Peers Using More Prevention (PUMP) is a peer-based outreach program for men who have sex with men throughout Greater Boston. The goal of the program is to offer non-judgmental HIV prevention and education, substance use counseling, and peer support to gay, bisexual, queer, questioning, or gay-for-pay men . . . P.U.M.P. is proud to collaborate with hookonline.org, rentboy.com, and manhunt.net" [anonymous "gay" hookup sex sites].

This basically spreads the message that engaging in the various types of homosexual sex acts is fine, as long as you try to take some precautions. They don't warn the people that these sex acts themselves are very dangerous and self-destructive. Imagine if the same message was given to smokers: "Feel free to smoke, but try to use filtered cigarettes."

The readers of the P.U.M.P. web site note that they can volunteer for an "outreach" at "Youth Pride" - the event sponsored and celebrated by the Governor's Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth. Governor Romney issued proclamations promoting and celebrating "Youth Pride" in 2003 and 2004. Youth Pride events continued during his last two years in office, when the Commission was still under his control.

MALE Center - introducing college boys to the gay subculture

The AIDS Action Committee's "MALE Center" targets Gay and Bi College Men with programs to immerse college boys new to Boston in the active "gay subculture" in the city... and this is what Romney supported with his donation:

The MALE Center Gives Boston Primer For Gay and Bi College Men On Sep. 15 and 17:

BOSTON, Sep. X, 2005 Homework doesn't have to be painful. For example, The MALE Center, a program of AIDS Action Committee, is offering two orientation sessions for gay and bisexual college men who are either new to Boston or unfamiliar with all it offers. Titled "Gay Guy's Guide to Boston: COLLEGE EDITION," the course runs on Thu., Sep. 15 from 2-4 p.m. and on Sat., Sep. 17 from 7-9 p.m. Both sessions will be held at The MALE Center at 571 Columbus Avenue in Boston's South End. "Attending our sessions will be like having your own city tour guide or Julie, the cruise director on The Love Boat," said Benjamin Perkins, Director of The Men's Action Life Empowerment (MALE) Center, the CDC-funded program that provides HIV and health navigation in a community center setting. "We created The Gay Guy's Guide to make it easy for men in the community to navigate the city's diversity and variety with ease, as we would do to welcome family members."

The director of the AIDS Action Committee "MALE Center" has stated that a "get tough approach" on "risky sexual behavior" is not (in his opinion) an effective public health strategy, counter to virtually all traditional public health approaches.

And finally, the hideous Little Black Book

The AIDS Action Committee published the Little Black Book - Queer in the 21st Century, described by the Boston Globe (see box upper right) as one of its "graphic educational pamphlets depicting sadomasochistic acts by gay couples." So-called "safer sex" is supposedly the premise of the booklet, though it states that it's more "fun" to have "unprotected" sex, plus it assumes and essentially encourages multiple partners and anonymous sexual encounters. It concludes with a directory of gay bars in Boston, and thanks the Massachusetts Dept. of Public Health for its help in producing the booklet. (No publication date is given.)

The Mass. Department of Public Health was under Romney's control between 2003-2006, including the time this booklet was distributed to children at a GLSEN conference at Brookline High School in April 2005. Romney rather narrowly criticized the Little Black Book after MassResistance exposed its distribution at the GLSEN conference:

Statement from Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney on Little Black Book (Tues 5/17/05): "This is not a state-funded publication. Graphic pornographic material on the gay lifestyle has no place in any school. While I agree that medically accurate information is essential in AIDS prevention efforts, this particular publication is grossly inappropriate and should never find its way into the hands of school-aged children."

Note that Romney said only that the booklet should not be available in schools. Does that mean it should be available elsewhere? He did not object to its "graphic pornographic material on the gay lifestyle" being otherwise available, nor did he question the medical accuracy of its information. While Romney stated the LBB was not a state-funded publication, at least three of the organizations that contributed to it (including the AIDS Action Committee) get state money, as far as we can tell.

To say the least, Mitt has a lot of explaining to do before he can call himself a conservative.


Romneys listed as big givers to charity

The Boston Globe
Aug. 28, 2005

"…Romney, a multimillionaire who is considering a run for president in 2008, was also quite generous to groups in Massachusetts. He gave … $10,000 last year to the AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts … One of the recipients of the Romneys' charity, the AIDS Action Committee of Massachusetts, has drawn fire for producing graphic educational pamphlets depicting sadomasochistic acts by gay couples. Romney denounced the distribution of one of the group's booklets at Brookline High School earlier this year, saying 'graphic pornographic material on the gay lifestyle' should not be available in public schools. Regarding the donations to the AIDS Action Committee, Fehrnstrom said, ''The AIDS Action Committee is the largest AIDS service organization in Massachusetts, and the governor's donation is meant to support prevention and treatment of this disease.' "

Read entire article here.

Message Friend Invite (Original Poster)

Jan. 23, 2008 at 7:24 PM

This is from the Boston globe.

Romney's economic record

AS MITT ROMNEY pursues his bid for the presidency, his record as Massachusetts governor will come under scrutiny, including how the state's economy performed during his administration. Our analysis reveals a weak comparative economic performance of the state over the Romney years, one of the worst in the country.

On all key labor market measures, the state not only lagged behind the country as a whole, but often ranked at or near the bottom of the state distribution. Formal payroll employment in the state in 2006 was still 16,000 or 0.5 percent below its average level in 2002, the year immediately prior to the start of the Romney administration. Massachusetts ranked third lowest on this key job generation measure and would have ranked second lowest if Hurricane Katrina had not devastated the Louisiana economy. Manufacturing payroll employment throughout the nation declined by nearly 1.1 million or 7 percent between 2002 and 2006, but in Massachusetts it declined by more than 14 percent, the third worst record in the country.

While the number of employed people over age 16 in the United States rose by nearly 8 million, or close to 6 percent, between 2002 and 2006, the number of employed residents in the Commonwealth is estimated to have modestly declined by 8,500. Massachusetts was the only state to have failed to post any gain in its pool of employed residents. The aggregate number of people 16 and older either working or looking for work in Massachusetts fell over the Romney years.

We were one of only two states to have experienced no growth in its resident labor force. Again, without the devastating effects of Hurricane Katrina on the dispersal of the Louisiana population, Massachusetts would have ranked last on this measure. The decline in the state's labor force, which was influenced in large part by high levels of out-migration of working-age adults, helped hold down the official unemployment rate of the state. Between July 2002 and July 2006, the US Census Bureau estimated that 222,000 more residents left Massachusetts for other states than came here to live. This high level of net domestic out-migration was equivalent to 3.5 percent of the state's population, the third highest rate of population loss in the country. Excluding the population displacement effects of Hurricane Katrina on Louisiana, Massachusetts would have ranked second highest on this measure. We were a national leader in exporting our population.

From 2002 to 2006, the level of real output of goods and services did increase each year, rising by 9 percent over this four-year period. This modest rate of growth, however, fell well below the 13 percent rate of real output growth for the nation, and the state ranked 14th lowest on this measure. Labor productivity growth underlies all of the increase in the state's output, but little of this productivity improvement accrued to the typical worker or family in the Commonwealth in the form of higher wages or earnings. Between 2002 and 2006, the median real (inflation adjusted) weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers in Massachusetts is estimated to have fallen by $10 or nearly 2 percent. The real income of the average (median) family in Massachusetts in 2005 was 1 percent below its value at the time of the 2000 Census while median household income was 3 percent below its 2000 value. Median household income fell even more sharply in the nation. Family incomes in both the United States and Massachusetts have become more unevenly distributed since 2000.

There is one additional area in which Massachusetts was a national leader over the past five years, the rise in housing prices. Between 2000 and 2005, the median self-reported home price in Massachusetts increased by nearly 95 percent versus an increase of only 40 percent for the United States. The median home price ranked fourth highest among the 50 states, and the median value of homes relative to household income was the third highest in the country. The high affordability cost ratio encouraged the high levels of outmigration from the state of young families with children.

Real world experience has shown that a governor is limited in his power to influence the course of economic development in a state. A full-time governor who is deeply committed to the economic well-being of a state's workers can, however, make some difference. The state unfortunately did not receive such leadership over most of the past four years. Jokes about Massachusetts may receive some half-hearted laughter on the national campaign trail, but few working men and women in Massachusetts should see anything funny about the state's lackluster economic performance during the Romney years.

Andrew Sum is director and Joseph McLaughlin is research associate at the Center for Market Studies at Northeastern University.  

Message Friend Invite (Original Poster)

Jan. 23, 2008 at 7:25 PM The Mitt Romney Deception Report - Our 28-page comprehensive report, describing how Gov. Romney ran for office and governed as a liberal, despite his claims to the contrary. This covers a wide range or topics and is an essential read.

You can read the report from MassResistance here

Message Friend Invite (Original Poster)

Jan. 23, 2008 at 7:30 PM He's a liar. Thanks for posting this.

Message Friend Invite

Jan. 23, 2008 at 8:35 PM Way to go, Stace.  You ARE on a mission! 

Message Friend Invite

Jan. 23, 2008 at 9:01 PM

The Mitt Romney 20-question flip-flop quiz - How much do YOU know? Test yourself on Gov. Romney's principled stands and positions.

Message Friend Invite (Original Poster)

Jan. 23, 2008 at 9:02 PM

How Gov. Mitt Romney started same-sex “marriage” in Massachusetts - despite what he says now!

Same-sex "marriage" is still NOT legal in Massachusetts, and was NOT created by the Supreme Judicial Court's Goodridge ruling.

Timeline documents Mitt Romney's role in creating same-sex "marriages."

In fact, it was Governor Mitt Romney who was ultimately responsible for same-sex "marriages" taking place. The Supreme Judicial Court only issued an opinion and advised the Legislature to act (which it never did). Even the Court acknowledged that it had no power to change the law.

Governor Romney created these "marriages" through an unconstitutional and illegal directive to his Department of Public Health (to print new "marriage" licenses), and through his legal counsel threatened to fire any Town Clerk or Justice of the Peace who failed to implement the (non-existent) "new law". He was not required by any constitutional mandate to do these things. On the contrary, his actions clearly violated his oath to uphold the laws of Massachusetts.

What did the Goodridge decision actually say?

To start with of all, the 2003 Goodridge SJC decision on same-sex "marriage", which reversed a lower court ruling, said 4 things:

First, it acknowledged that the current law does not permit same-sex marriage.

"The only reasonable explanation is that the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude, as did the judge, that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry."

Second, it said it is NOT striking down the marriage laws (among other things, the Massachusetts Constitution forbids a court to change laws)

"Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief."

Third, it declared that not allowing same-sex marriages is a violation of the Massachusetts Constitution. (And the logic they use for this is truly bizarre; you must read it in full sometime.)

"We declare that barring an individual from the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage solely because that person would marry a person of the same sex violates the Massachusetts Constitution."

And fourth, given that the court is not changing any laws, the SJC gave the Legislature 180 days to "take such action as it may deem appropriate."

"We vacate the summary judgment for the department. We remand this case to the Superior Court for entry of judgment consistent with this opinion. Entry of judgment shall be stayed for 180 days to permit the Legislature to take such action as it may deem appropriate in light of this opinion."

What happened then?

The Legislature did nothing. It took no action. So after the 180 days Gov. Romney took action on his own!

  1. Gov. Romney's Legal Counsel issued a directive to the Justices of the Peace that they must perform same-sex marriages when requested or "face personal liability" or be fired. (At least one Justice of the Peace, Linda Gray Kelley, was forced to resign for religious reasons.)

    See Associated Press article, "Justices of the peace warned not to discriminate against same sex couples" April 25, 2004.
  2. Romney's staff held training sessions for Town Clerks, warning them to "implement" the Court decision and "uphold the law" -- although the training document admits that the marriage statutes have not been changed.
  3. Romney directed his Department of Public Health to change the state marriage license to read "Party A" and Party "B", replacing "Husband" and "Wife". None of this was required by any law passed by the legislature or even ordered by the court.

    See Romney's Massachusetts Marriage license.

Note here that Romney wasn't ordered by the court or anyone else to do anything at all. On the contrary, commentators across the country, from Professor Hadley Arkes to Pat Buchanan to the Family Research Council (and even Ron Crews of Mass. Family Institute) advised Romney to ignore the ruling. And Romney could legally ignore it because the Massachusetts Constitution expressly forbids the Judiciary making laws or ordering another branch to do something.

There is strong precedent for ignoring such a court decision

President Abraham Lincoln refused to enforce the 1857 Dred Scott decision, which had declared that a slave was the property of the master, even if they were both physically in a free state. Lincoln said in his Inaugural Address of 1861 that if he did so, the people would have ceased to be their own rulers:

"[I]f the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made...the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of the eminent tribunal."

Abraham Lincoln refused to enforce the court ruling, and he is universally applauded for his refusal.

(Moreover, the Massachusetts Constitution does not need to be amended. The proposed Constitutional Amendment would make things much worse. It would effectively legitimize the current illegitimate same-sex “marrriages” by assuming that the Goodridge decision had changed the law, and by its wording only bans future same-sex “marriages”.)

Useful documents & background:

What really happened in the Goodridge Court Ruling?
A page of bullet points that summarize the main issues.

Letter to Pro-Family Leaders
This letter was sent around the country to pro-family leaders and others, including Tony Perkins, director of Family Research Council. A great many reacted in shock, though Perkins himself never responded.

Frequently Asked Questions
Questions and answers regarding the legal basis of our arguments.

MassResistance responds to Alliance Defense Lawyer's attacks on findings on Romney and "gay marriage" in Massachusetts
Read it and judge for yourself!



The SJC Goodridge decision on same-sex "marriage"
Here's the entire SJC decision, including concurring and dissenting opinions and footnotes.

The Massachusetts Constitution

Part I, Article X. "…the people of this commonwealth are not controllable by any other laws than those to which their constitutional representative body have given their consent."

Part I, Article XX. "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…."

Part I, Article XXX. "In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men.":

Part II, Ch. III, Article V. "All causes of marriage, divorce, and alimony, and all appeals from the judges of probate shall be heard and determined by the governor and council, until the legislature shall, by law, make other provision."

Massachusetts marriage statutes: M.G.L. Ch. 207

These are the marriage laws in Massachusetts, referenced in the Goodridge ruling,

House bill H977
Senate bill S967
These House and Senate bills were introduced by the gay lobby in 2005 to change the marriage laws (to allow same-sex marriage) but not acted on. This begs the question: If same-sex "marriage" is already legal, why do the laws need to be changed? The answer: it ISN'T legal!


The Robert Paine blog.
Robert Paine is the pen name of a Boston lawyer who (along with a group of others) has put literally hundreds of hours into researching this issue. His series of articles is very interesting and well-footnoted:

Introduction - The Demolition of Democracy
Part I - Legal Authority
Part II - What the SJC Did and What They Did Not Do
Part III - Changing Common Law Did Not Change Chapter 207
Part IV - Changing Common Law Did Not Change the Constitution
Part V - Changing the Common-Law Is Legally Insignificant
Part VI - C.207 Continues to Prohibit Same-Sex "Marriage"
Part VII - Mass. Same-Sex "Marriages" Are Legally Void
Part VIII - We the People . . . Still Have Authority

Some articles:

"The Missing Governor" by Hadley Arkes (May 17, 2004)
In this National Review Online article on Romney, published the day that same-sex "marriages" began taking place, Law Professor Arkes asks: "Have Republican leaders lost their confidence on moral matters?"

"Mitt Romney: Meet Calvin Coolidge" by Pat Buchanan (Feb 9, 2004)
In this article published three months before the same-sex "marriages" began, Buchanan implores Romney to do the right thing and defy the Court opinion.

"'Conservative' Romney buckles and blunders" by John Haskins (Dec. 24, 2005)
Published last December in WorldNetDaily, this is among a series of John Haskins articles on this issue we'll be posting.


Message Friend Invite (Original Poster)

Jan. 24, 2008 at 11:18 AM LOL! GO STACY   Thanks for sharing the truth. Something Romney knows NOTHING about!

Message Friend Invite

Jan. 24, 2008 at 1:14 PM I will NOT vote for Romney, I don't trust him at all. You should post that video that JamieAnn posted. The one where Romney says he's a "Progressive Conservative". HELLO!!! WAKE UP PEOPLE!!!

Message Friend Invite

Want to leave a comment and join the discussion?

Sign up for CafeMom!

Already a member? Click here to log in