December 5, 2007

The Romney Same-Sex Marriage Deception Boiled Down

Filed under: Taxes & Government — Tom @ 5:08 pm

On November 7, Sandy Rios of WYLL-AM1160 in Chicago interviewed John Haskins, a former journalist and editor who is now a political analyst with the Parents’ Rights Coalition. in Massachusetts.

The page with the audio link to the full interview is here; the link is at the third paragraph. The last quarter of the audio is on another topic.

In advance of Mitt Romney’s “I am (insert name of his religion here), hear me roar” speech on Thursday, I am providing selected audio excerpts from the Rios-Haskins interview, along with full transcripts of those excerpts after the jump (if you’re on the home page).

There really is no substitute for reading the whole transcript or listening to all audio segments. But, as with the “Romney, the Courts, and the Constitutions” series, as a service to those in a time crunch, I am boiling it down, this time providing key quotes for each segment

A HT and intense thanks to Matt at Weapons of Mass Discussion for creating the separate segments. If this is to make a difference, it could not have been made without you.

Part 1 (audio link)

Key Quotes:

John Haskins — “…it was something strategically very significant when he promised the Log Cabin homosexual Republican group, when he was running against Ted Kennedy bank in 1994, running for the US Senate, that he could be more effective than Ted Kennedy in advancing the gay agenda. …. that is a profoundly significant statement and an insight that Romney had — that as a Mormon, as a Republican, he had far more leverage to implement a radical gay agenda than a Democrat could have had.”

Part 2 (audio link)

Key Quote:

Haskins — “….. while campaigning for governor in 2002, Romney secretly promised to the Log Cabin homosexual Republicans that when the anticipated ruling came forth from the court, that he would abdicate his constitutional duty to defend the Constitution.”

Part 3 (audio link)

Key Quote:

Haskins — “It was almost as though the Massachusetts Constitution was written by the Founding Fathers for this moment in history that we are living through. And yet the entire conservative movement is ignoring this Constitution, because it embarrasses them.”

Part 4 (audio link)

Key Quote:

Sandy Rios — “And so in Massachusetts, to follow that pattern, the judicial branch said that gay marriage needed to be provided for. The legislative branch, which is the one that makes the laws, didn’t do it. They gave them a deadline, they didn’t do it.

So Mitt Romney, totally different branch, steps in, suddenly orders, and threatens his Justices of the Peace with firing if they do not start marrying same-sex couples. He orders marriage certificates to be changed from “Husband” and “Wife” to “Partner A/Partner B.”

That’s what he did.”

Part 5 (audio link)

Key Quote:

Haskins — “(Paul Weyrich) doesn’t understand that Romney wasn’t simply weak in what he did in Massachusetts in sort of caving in to the Court. That was the criticism that we all, including myself, thought was the problem with Romney in the gay-marriage thing, that he caved in, he was weak.

We now know since the New York Times revelation that Romney was carrying out, he was delivering a promise he made to earn the endorsement of a homosexual Republican group.”

Part 6 (audio link)

Key Quote:

Rios (after replay of October 21 debate statement on gay marriage by Romney) — “Sure sounds good. That’s Mitt Romney. Problem is, it doesn’t, that’s not what he did as governor!”

Part 7 (audio link)

Key Quote:

Rios — “And I just asked him very, very respectfully, ‘Mr. Romney, you just expressed your concern about gay marriage.’ (I had forgot what he had said.) ‘Then why is it that this is what you did?’

….. And I’m telling you, John, he lost his temper.

He got so mad at me, he said, ‘Are you an attorney?’

And I said, ‘No I’m not.’

He said, “Well, I have a degree from Harvard Law School!’”

Part 8 (audio link)

Key Quote:

Haskins — “I have access to first-hand evidence that people inside the Romney camp, and people close to Romney, have said that what he did was without legal authority, in ordering public officials to give out gay-marriage licenses.”

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

The full transcript of each segment is after the jump.

All I can think to say is this: If, after reading the excerpts and hearing Romney’s debate statement about same-sex marriage, you don’t catch scary echoes of a certain person who was president for eight years beginning in the early 1990s, you’re just not paying close enough attention.

Part 1 (audio link)

Sandy Rios: Your time in Massachusetts, how has it been concurrent with Governor Romney’s, former Governor Romney’s stay there? Were you there the whole time he was serving, and ….

John Haskins: Yes, I actually voted for Mitt Romney. I’m appalled to look back on that. I made the assessment that so many people have made in the past in Massachusetts and are now making around the country, that because he is a Mormon, you can sort of trust him on certain value-based positions.

That was very naive of me. I regret it, and I’ve come to understand that it was something strategically very significant when he promised the Log Cabin homosexual Republican group, when he was running against Ted Kennedy bank in 1994, running for the US Senate, that he could be more effective than Ted Kennedy in advancing the gay agenda.

That has really sort of not sunk in to a lot a people.

SR: And he did get their endorsement.

JH: He did get their endorsement, and he got it again in 2002 when he was running for governor.

But the point I wanted to make about that it that that is a profoundly significant statement and an insight that Romney had — that as a Mormon, as a Republican, he had far more leverage to implement a radical gay agenda than a Democrat could have had. There’s no way that a Democrat could have done what Romney has done in Massachusetts with gay marriage, because nobody would have believed that they were forced by the judges. The state constitution says they can’t be forced by the judges. The judges have no jurisdiction at all in matters of marriage. It’s very explicit. The state constitution flatly refutes everything that Mitt Romney says about what happened with gay marriage.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Part 2 (audio link)

SR: So give it your best shot to explain to my audience in Chicago, just on the issue of homosexual marriage, which is now legal, or no, it’s not legal, it’s happening, taking place in Massachusetts, what Mitt Romney’s role in that really was. What is the truth about this?

JH: Well, it’s important to start with a revelation that just came out of the New York Times about, almost exactly a month ago, in an article called “Romney’s Tone on Gay Marriage Seen as Shift (see first three paragraphs for the core of the revelation. — Ed.)

And buried in that article and very much understated (because, the New York Times actually should not be thought of as a general interest newspaper. They’re essentially the world’s biggest gay newspaper. They’re run very predominantly by homosexual activists or people who are very sympathetic to that cause). And they buried in this article, I think it was September 8, so that would be two months I think, anyway, the revelation that should have stopped America in its tracks, and particularly the social conservative movement.

They reported that while campaigning for governor in 2002, Romney secretly promised to the Log Cabin homosexual Republicans that when the anticipated ruling came forth from the court, that he would abdicate his constitutional duty to defend the Constitution.

And that’s exactly what he did when the Goodridge decision came forth and supposedly legalized gay marriage. The Goodridge decision didn’t even claim to legalize it. It simply declared that it was unconstitutional not to let homosexuals marry.

Now there are so many problems in treating this as law. The Massachusetts says the people are not controllable by any laws not ratified by their elected representatives in the Legislature. So bang, that means right there that the Goodridge decision is not law and nobody can treat it as law.

It says also (that) the power of suspending the laws shall be exercised only by the Legislature. Well the statutes, the marriage statutes, even Goodridge, the court opinion that everyone says “legalized gay marriage,” even that opinion says that the statute doesn’t allow gay marriage. And the attorney for the homosexual plaintiffs came out of the courtroom after that ruling and said, “The only thing that remains now for gay marriage to happen is for the Legislature to change the law.”

Well that never happened. The law in Massachusetts, the statutes, ratified by the people’s elected representatives in the Legislature, still did not allow gay marriage.

Well, what happened was Romney hired constitutional law professors and lawyers, Jay Sekulow and Mary Ann Glendon at Harvard (and some of this has never been reported, what’s happened), and they lined up and said he had no choice.

Now I happen to know some of these people like Mary Ann Glendon, a retired Massachusetts Supreme Court Justice, told him privately, told Romney privately, (that) he should ignore Goodridge, said it was not binding, it had no impact unless the Legislature changed the law.

But Romney had made promises to the Log Cabin Republicans.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Part 3 (audio link)

JH: The New York Times is delighted that homosexuals are being given marriage licenses, and so they obviously wouldn’t word it in such a way that would alarm the American public to the fact that what Romney agreed to was overtly a violation of his oath of office.

SR: But it is explicit in that article, at least implicit, that that’s exactly what he promised them he would do. He would help them bring this about.

JH: That’s right. He said he would not lead a campaign against gay marriage if the Court ruled as people knew in advance they were going to. He promised he would not fight it.

SR: Okay, that’s very significant, John.

JH: Oh, it’s huge. It should have been an earthquake, and it should have been, that article alone should have stopped Tony Perkins at the Family Research Council, Paul Weyrich, James Dobson, any of these people, who have been flirting with the idea that Romney might be the lesser of several evils, right in their tracks.

It’s just unbelievable. This man promised to violate his own oath. Because, you see, people don’t understand that judges can’t make laws. The Massachusetts Constitution is probably the strongest statement in all of American law limiting the power of judges. You really can’t find anything stronger. It’s written by John Adams, who became President as most people know, and it was designed to keep things like this from happening.

It was almost as though the Massachusetts Constitution was written by the Founding Fathers for this moment in history that we are living through. And yet the entire conservative movement is ignoring this Constitution, because it embarrasses them. It reveals what actually happened.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Part 4 (audio link)

SR: I can understand, I think, if they took civics, and I pray they did, that they know their Constitution, that we have three, at least on the federal level we can understand that there are three separate branches of government. The legislative makes the laws, the representatives of the people. The judges interpret the laws, and decide whether they’re constitutional or not, and the executive is a totally different animal. And they’re each separate, and equal, separate and equal branches.

And so in Massachusetts, to follow that pattern, the judicial branch said that gay marriage needed to be provided for. The legislative branch, which is the one that makes the laws, didn’t do it. They gave them a deadline, they didn’t do it.

So Mitt Romney, totally different branch, steps in, suddenly orders, and threatens his Justices of the Peace with firing if they do not start marrying same-sex couples. He orders marriage certificates to be changed from “Husband” and “Wife” to “Partner A/Partner B.”

That’s what he did. And I want people to understand that’s why you’re accusing him of breaking his oath and of doing something that he did not have to do. John Haskins is my guest. He’s the Executive Director of Parents’ Rights Coalition in Massachusetts.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Part 5 (audio link)

SR: John, I guess that brings us around to Paul Weyrich, which we haven’t talked about.

Now Paul, to say it again endorsed Mitt Romney yesterday. Paul was one of the founders of the Moral Majority. He is one of the founders of the Heritage Institute. Paul is not a name that I think is known nationally very well, but those of us that have worked in Washington and are part of the innards of the movement certainly love and respect Paul. He really is a great statesman.

I was very surprised by this endorsement, especially because he signed on to the letter that we sent to Romney asking him to reverse his decision.

(Note: original PDF converted to HTML; will open in a new window; formatting modified but content is essentially intact; note that Weyrich’s name as a signer is the very first one.)

JH: Right.

SR: That’s incongruous, and I don’t that anybody is saying that Paul Weyrich is profiteering on this. This seems to be, I don’t know. I don’t know if you have any insight into this. I’m all ears.

JH: I don’t. I have never heard anyone say anything negative about Paul Weyrich. I have only heard respectful and admiring comments about him. I take it for granted that those things are completely deserved. He seems to be a man of integrity, I mean of exceptional integrity in the world of politics.

SR: Well I know that he is. I can tell you that personally. I know that he is, so I’m giving you my stamp of approval on his character.

JH: I accept that at face value. And I share your response, your reaction to the news that he has endorsed Romney. I find it very, very sad. I think it’s clear that he’s not been made fully aware of Romney’s record.

He doesn’t understand that Romney wasn’t simply weak in what he did in Massachusetts in sort of caving in to the Court. That was the criticism that we all, including myself, thought was the problem with Romney in the gay-marriage thing, that he caved in, he was weak.

We now know since the New York Times revelation that Romney was carrying out, he was delivering a promise he made to earn the endorsement of a homosexual Republican group.

And it is part and parcel of his entire pattern of governing in Massachusetts. He boosted funding for the gay agenda in public schools. I mean, brainwashing all the way down to kindergarten on homosexuality.

He did outrageous things. He lied about the law in order to force Catholic Charities to do gay adoptions. He lied to the point where even Michael Dukakis, who is a liberal Democrat, contradicted him and said, “There’s no law that forces Catholic Charities to give children to homosexuals.”

But in terms of Weyrich’s decision, I think it’s very unlikely, but I hope that he will be open to reconsidering, and it’s really, really unfortunate.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Part 6 (audio link)

(Replay of unidentified questioner/reporter from October 21 Republican debate; full debate transcript is here)

Reporter/questioner (transcript says it’s Brit Hume, but it sounds like Carl Cameron): Governor Romney, among the so-called top-tier candidates, you support the ban on gay marriage. What does it say that Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Ron Paul all don’t?

Mitt Romney: Well, they have a different point of view. But I’ve been in a state that has gay marriage, and I recognize that the consequences of gay marriage fall far beyond just the relationship between a man and a woman.

They also relate to our kids and the right of religion to be practiced freely in a society.

So, for instance, I want to make sure that our kids have a mom and a dad. I want to make sure that the Catholic Church in our state, that’s been banned from doing adoptions because they want the kids to go into home where there’s a mom and a dad, that they can do adoptions again.

The status of marriage, if it’s allowed among the same sex individuals in one state is going to spread to the entire nation. And that’s why it’s important to have a national standard for marriage.

And I’m committed to making sure that we reinforce the institution of marriage in this country by insisting that all states have a right to have marriage as defined as between a man and a woman; and we don’t have unelected judges, liberals, standing up and saying we’re going to impose same-sex marriage where it was clearly not in their state constitution.

My state’s constitution was written by John Adams. It isn’t there. I’ve looked. And in Iowa as well you’ve got a court saying they have to have same-sex marriage.

The people need to speak on this issue and make sure that marriage is preserved as between a man and a woman.

(APPLAUSE)

(end of replay)

SR: Sure sounds good. That’s Mitt Romney. Problem is, it doesn’t, that’s not what he did as governor!

That’s the problem. This man sounds so convincing. His record does not live up to that.

John Haskins, Executive Director of Parents’ Rights Coalition in Massachusetts, your thoughts about that statement.

JH: Well, you know, this is a master politician. It’s unbelievable. He has throughout each of these outrageous things he’s done — pushing gay adoption, making Catholic hospitals issue abortificant pills, pushing funding of gay propaganda in schools, and gay marriage — he always comes back with some head fake to convince conservatives that he’s on their side.

This is like the guy who saw the hole in the bottom of a boat, and then stands up and makes a speech about how there shouldn’t be holes in the bottom of boats. I mean, he is just so dishonest. And in watching this man you have to wonder, “Does he believe his own lies?”

++++++++++++++++++++++

Part 7 (audio link)

SR: There’s a situation and I just want people to hear this. I (haven’t) told it before.

But we were in a private meeting with him. He gave a very eloquent, polished speech, as he always does in these debates, you know, dressed beautifully, at the head of the table.

And he’s talking, there’s about 10 of us in the room. And I just asked him very, very respectfully, “Mr. Romney, you just expressed your concern about gay marriage.” (I had forgot what he had said.) “Then why is it that this is what you did?”

And I just mapped it out. I said, “You were the one who made the Justices of the Peace start to marry same-sex couples. Nobody had passed a law to that effect. You were the one who made them change the marriage certificates from “Husband/Wife” to “Partner A/Partner B. Why, sir, did you do that?”

And I’m telling you, John, he lost his temper.

He got so mad at me, he said, “Are you an attorney?”

And I said, “No I’m not.”

He said, “Well, I have a degree from Harvard Law School!”

And then he said, “And she’s not telling the truth! That’s not true. I didn’t do that.”

Which was stunning. And the bad part for him was that I was sitting at a table with people who know I’m not a liar. And so that was not a good thing for Mitt Romney to accuse me of that in that atmosphere.

But I saw first-hand that this man really, really is duplicitous.

And that’s why I’m on such a campaign to make sure that he doesn’t become our president.

++++++++++++++++++++++

Part 8 (audio link)

JH: It’s really not about Mormonism. And I can tell you, I have e-mails in my computer, and I have access to first-hand evidence that people inside the Romney camp, and people close to Romney, have said that what he did was without legal authority, in ordering public officials to give out gay-marriage licenses.

I mean people like Peter Flaherty, who is his so-called liaison to conservatives (Peter Flaherty’s a lawyer), Mary Ann Glendon, Harvard law professor. I have an e-mail from her not directly to me, and other people, who are being used now, some of them quite willingly, to legitimize what Romney did.

And privately, they’ve said completely the opposite.

Share

5 Comments

  1. What you have brought forth about Romney is very good and intense. Problem is, it seems the 527 Media is ignoring all of this. It’s as if they are holding it back in case the guy actually wins the nomination and then all heck will break loose.

    Comment by Gary — December 5, 2007 @ 7:01 pm

  2. #1, EXACTLY. The flocks of the co-opted evangelicals will just stay home.

    Comment by TBlumer — December 5, 2007 @ 9:33 pm

  3. While I am a Fredhead, not a Mittwit; I just can not buy these Mass Resistance guys over Weyrich, Glendon, & Bopp.

    Comment by Mark_McNally — December 5, 2007 @ 10:55 pm

  4. #3, Read Part 8. Glendon said one thing in private to Romney and got turned “somehow.”

    This is not the first blown endorsement by Weyrich. You probably don’t know that he endorsed Bob McEwen for Congress in the June 2005 OH-02 special primary 10-person free-for-all to replace Rob Portman that Jean Schmidt ultimately won.

    Comment by TBlumer — December 6, 2007 @ 12:12 am

  5. Well, according to some talk radio pundits, you’re all just a bunch of bigots…

    If you don’t like Romney’s [subsidized abortion] healthcare in MA, you’re a bigot.
    If you didn’t like Romney’s implementation of Goodrich in MA, you’re a bigot.
    If you didn’t like Romney’s speech, you’re a bigot.
    If you don’t like all the “hoo-rah” around religion, you’re a bigot.

    Oh and just for the record, you’re a bigot.

    Jeeze…Can we debate the issues now?

    Comment by Rose — December 6, 2007 @ 2:08 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.