The Case Against Mitt Romney: What He Did to the Nation

This is the second of four posts covering:

• What Mitt Romney did to Massachusetts while he was Bay State governor.
• (THIS POST) What he did to the nation while he was governor.
• His risky associations and entanglements. This one has a “surprise.”
• What he did to the nation, the Republican Party, and John McCain during his GOP primary run.

_______________________________________________

UPDATE, July 24: A lot of people have had to accept or condone the unacceptable for Mitt Romney to get as far as he has. John Haskins and Gregg Jackson name names.
_______________________________________________

HOW MITT ROMNEY DAMAGED AMERICA WHILE HE WAS GOVERNOR

To understand how much damage Mitt Romney’s handling of the Goodridge same-sex marriage situation has done to the country, let’s get back to basics.

Speeding

Let’s say a person is driving down the road at a very high speed, and a police officer pulls him over (I’ll stick with masculine gender throughout for simplicity’s sake).

The officer typically won’t tell the driver, “I think you’re going too fast, so I’m going to give you a ticket.” But if the officer did, the driver’s reasonable reaction would be “So what?”

The officer might point to a nearby sign and say, “well, I clocked you going 53 mph, and the sign there says that the speed limit is 35. So because of that, I’m going to give you a ticket.”

The driver might tempt the fates and ask, “Well, just because the sign is there, why do I have to obey it?”

The officer would then say, “Because there’s a law that says you have to obey speed limit signs. Specific speed limits were set by (let’s assume in this instance) city council, and as an employee of this city headed up by our mayor, it is my job to enforce that law.”

Any time you’re given a speeding ticket, you are charged with violating a specific law. If there were no law on the books saying that you have to obey speed-limit signs, you could ignore them. The police officer, as much as he might think it important that people drive at safe speeds, could not pull you over and charge you unless that law exists. As an Executive Branch employee, he needs the Legislative Branch of Government, in this case City Council, to have first passed a law that he can charge you as having violated.

A driver who wishes to contest his ticket will end up going before a municipal judge, who is of course a member of the Judicial Branch. The judge ordinarily exercises very little discretion. If the officer can demonstrate that the driver was indeed going 53, if the speed limit sign says 35, and if the law says that drivers must obey such a posted sign, the judge will ordinarily find the driver guilty.

But, if the judge feels that the speed limit on the road involved should really be 55, he could, at least in theory, decide that the driver isn’t guilty of anything, and let him or her get away without punishment. He could further declare from the bench that all drivers ought to be able to tool along at up to 55 mph on that stretch of road.

Here are the key clarifying questions about this budding separation of powers controversy:

• Because he ruled as he did in this one instance, has the judge changed the law? No.
• Can police officers continue to pull drivers over on that stretch of road if their speed exceeds 35? Yes.
• SHOULD police officers continue to pull drivers over on that stretch of road if their speed exceeds 35, even if they know that the judge will probably let drivers going under 55 go? Yes, because that’s what the law says they MUST do.
• How would such a dispute get resolved? Either the judge has to be removed by Council through some kind of impeachment process, or City Council has to pass a law changing that speed limit.
• Can the judge force Council to pass such a law? Absolutely NOT.
• Finally, if Council has previously passed a law saying that the speed limit on that stretch of road will be 35, can the Mayor just tell his municipal work crews to go take out that “Speed Limit 35″ sign and replace it with one that says “Speed Limit 55″? NO, he should not and legally cannot do that unless and until Council passes a law changing that speed limit.

This seems pretty easy so far, doesn’t it?

Same-sex Marriage

Now, let’s apply what has just been illustrated to the Goodridge same-sex marriage case. Note that to get through this, no supposedly “oppressive” Biblical, religious, or natural-law arguments need be employed.

Let’s start with the fact that the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) had no right to even take the case under Massachusetts’s Constitution, which specifically says at Chapter III, Article V that “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.” The Court bizarrely and fraudulently “got around” this clear constitutional mandate by deciding to change the centuries-old common law definition of “marriage” to include two members of the same sex.

But let’s give the SJC the (undeserved) benefit of the doubt on this, and forge ahead.

The SJC recognized a big “problem,” namely that in the law involved, it was clear that “the Legislature did not intend that same-sex couples be licensed to marry. We conclude ….. that G.L. c. 207 may not be construed to permit same-sex couples to marry.” Thus, it could not, and did not, strike down that law.

Instead, the SJC said that its newly-discovered common-law definition of marriage meant 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.”

Well, that’s nice, but the SJC recognized its limitations, namely its inability under the Massachusetts Constitution to change the “offending” law involved. The SJC actually found itself in a worse position than the judge in the speed-law example above. At least that judge could in theory let the speeder off the hook. But because of that pesky “207″ law, the SJC had NO power to mandate that Julie and Hillary Goodridge be granted a marriage license. All they could say is that they had rendered a judgment, i.e., expressed their opinion, that the law should be changed. The SJC specifically said that:

“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.”

Don’t be fooled by the word “judgment.” The key word is the last one: “opinion.”

Now let’s answer the same questions as were covered earlier in the speeding example, reformulated for Goodridge:

• Did the SJC change the law? No.
• Can those responsible for issuing marriage licenses in Massachusetts continue to refuse to issue them to same-sex couples who apply for them? Yes.
• SHOULD those responsible for issuing marriage licenses in Massachusetts continue to refuse to issue them to same-sex couples who apply for them? Yes. In fact, until the Legislature changes the “207″ law, that’s what they MUST do.
• How would such a dispute get resolved? If the judges are seen to have exceeded their authority either by taking the case or in their arbitrary redefinition of common-law marriage, they could be removed by the Legislature through some kind of impeachment process, or ….. the Legislature, as the SJC could only suggest, could pass a law revising the definition of marriage in the “207″ law.
• Can the SJC force the Legislature to pass such a law? Absolutely NOT, and to this day the Legislature has not passed such a law. The 180-day “stay” was in essence a polite suggestion, and nothing more. Note that no legislators have been prosecuted for allowing the “stay” to “expire,” as they were, and still are, under no compulsion to do anything.
• Finally, could Governor Mitt Romney just tell those responsible for issuing marriage licenses in Massachusetts to start issuing them to same-sex couples? NO, he could not legally do that unless and until the Legislature changed the “207″ law.

But that’s exactly what Mitt Romney did.

Mitt Romney unilaterally, and utterly without authority, ordered that the state’s marriage certificates be changed from “Husband-and-Wife” to a gender neutral “Person A-Person B” format.

Mitt Romney unilaterally, and utterly without authority, ordered those responsible for issuing marriage licenses in Massachusetts to issue them to same-sex couples. Hillary and Julie Goodridge were issued “marriage” licenses in May 2004, along with many other couples.

But you must understand this: Mitt Romney’s actions did NOT make same-sex marriage legal in Massachusetts. It is still illegal, and will remain illegal until the Legislature changes the “207″ law, regardless of how many times misguided reporters, lawmakers, talk-radio hosts, talking heads, pundits, and so-called social conservatives (who not only should know better, but in many cases do know better, because I know for a fact that they have been duly informed) say otherwise.

Mitt Romney’s unilateral actions were totally unnecessary. Not only was he under no compulsion to do anything in response to Goodridge, he was duty-bound under his oath of office (“I, [Mitt Romney], do solemnly swear, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and will support the constitution thereof. So help me God”) to do nothing. The early suggestion that Romney “defy” the Goodridge ruling by the likes of Hugh Hewitt and others, though perhaps well-intentioned, was fundamentally misguided. As governor, Romney was under no “order” to do anything (Hewitt’s simultaneous suggestion that legislators ignore it was spot-on).

But instead, Mr. Harvard Law 1975 said he was forced by the Court to do what he did. He was, and remains, objectively wrong.

Motivation and Fallout

Why did Romney do this? The evidence is powerful that he did it to keep a campaign promise. Specifically, in order to increase his electoral prospects, Mitt Romney promised the Log Cabin Republicans that he would violate his oath of office.

Incredibly, Romney salvaged his credibility with mainstream social conservatives by citing a 1913 Massachusetts law prohibiting out-of-staters, including same-sex couples, from coming to Massachusetts to marry. Romney thus convinced the gullible that he had “heroically” limited the damage of the Goodridge ruling to the Bay State.

As anyone should have expected in a Democrat-controlled state, that fig leaf is about to disappear. Last week, the Massachusetts Senate approved a law that would repeal 1913 statute. This week, barring a major surprise, the Massachusetts House will do the same. Romney’s Democratic gubernatorial successor, Deval Patrick, has said he will sign the repeal.

Brilliant, Mitt.

The damage Mitt Romney has done to the rule of law is incalculable. Hundreds, if not thousands of same-sex couples think they’re legally married; they aren’t. Employers, tax authorities, divorce courts, and others are erroneously “recognizing” the marriage licenses that have been issued; this doesn’t change the fact that they aren’t valid.

Worst of all, the American people believe that same-sex marriage is “legal” in Massachusetts; it objectively isn’t.

This same sad scenario has just been played out, and extended, in California. That state’s Supreme Court “ruled” (i.e., opined) that the one-man, one-woman definition of marriage passed by voters in 2000 is unconstitutional. But, as in Massachusetts, the judicial majority could only express its opinion that the related laws should be changed to accommodate same-sex couples who wish to obtain marriage licenses.

As in Massachusetts, the law hasn’t been changed. But weeks ago, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger did a reprise of what Mitt Romney did (it’s always easier the second time around), and ordered that same-sex marriage licenses be issued, saying he had to do what the Court ordered, even despite what the voters said in 2000. He did not have to do anything. He was under a Constitutional obligation to do nothing.

As in Massachusetts, same-sex marriage is still illegal in California, and will remain illegal unless and until the legislature passes required legislation. There is a traditional marriage constitutional amendment on the November ballot in California that would in theory override the court ruling and any legislation that might pass in the interim. But the California courts have been notorious for overriding the voters’ will. If the courts were to do that, based on his track record, the smart money would be on Schwarzenegger rolling over yet again.

Same-sex marriage is, in fact, illegal in all 50 states, but it is becoming the perceived “law of the land” because two governors (so far) have unilaterally and illegally imposed it.

By unilaterally exercising executive powers they didn’t have, and violating their oaths of office, Mitt Romney, and now Arnold Schwarzenegger, have demonstrated that they are objectively unfit to hold public office.

Mitt Romney and Arnold Schwarzenegger have brought us closer to total acquiescence, in Paul Weyrich’s words, to “the devastating myth that judges have the power to make and redefine our laws,” and that there’s nothing, short of replacing the judges, that we can do about it. That notion totally subverts what our Founding Fathers intended.

Yet presumptive GOP presidential nominee John McCain is seriously considering Mitt Romney, a man who demonstrated in his four years as governor that he either doesn’t understand the Constitution and separation of powers, or doesn’t care, as his running mate.

This is sheer madness, and a recipe for electoral slaughter.