In 2006, in the wake of the decision by Catholic Charities in Massachusetts to leave the adoption business because its religious principles would not allow it to place children with same-sex couples, National Organization for Marriage Co-founder Maggie Gallagher wondered aloud in the Weekly Standard about what impact “legalized” (the word is in quotes for a reason, fully explained in Part 2) same-sex marriage will have on the the First Amendment rights of individuals and religious groups, i.e., what will protect them “from persecution for their views about marriage.” Gallagher was pessimistic about what the answer will be after the dueling litigators get done working their cases through the courts.
Five years later, in July 2011, Gallagher told us that we’re learning the answer, and it appears to be “nothing”:
I just returned from interviewing a Toronto sportscaster who was fired for tweeting that he believed “in the true and authentic meaning of marriage.” Next week, I will go to North Carolina to interview another man whose contract was terminated when the HR head of his company found out he had written against gay marriage.
The death threats and hateful mail New York state senator Rev. Ruben Diaz says he has received are not unusual. Whole professions are in the process of being closed to anyone who espouses — and acts — on the view that marriage is the union of husband and wife.
Fox News is not covering this. Conservative media outlets, except for a few beacons such as NR, are virtually silent.
The underlying truth that “pro-equality” Republicans need to understand is this: They are aiding and abetting a political movement that, at this point in history, seeks to make traditional Christian views on sex and marriage unacceptable in the public square — just as racist views on interracial marriage are unacceptable — by heaping scorn and hatred on any American who does something to support marriage as one man and one woman.
The marriage debate is about redefining not only marriage, but the relationship between Judeo-Christian values and the American tradition.
I just wonder what these “pro-equality” conservatives think will be left to conserve after that.
Well, ya gotta admit, those are eloquent and passionate words — and yes, we are heading towards a time in the not-too-distant future where any expression of support for the idea that marriage should be reserved for one man and one woman will likely end your professional and personal life as you know it. From there, the journey to active persecution and prosecution of churches which teach what they have believed for millennia is the proper Bible-based view of marriage and who refuse to perform same-sex marriages is not very far.
Gallagher’s passion is nice, except for one “little” thing — She has also stridently defended the one person who, more than anyone else in the USA, is responsible for emboldening the persecutors — Willard Mitt Romney.
In Part 1, I showed and transcribed Rick Santorum’s mostly correct critique of Romney’s handling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court’s November 2003 Goodridge same-sex marriage “ruling” at Thursday’s GOP primary debate in Iowa. I then noted Mitt Romney’s public challenge to Santorum that he (in talk show host Steve Deace’s words) “wouldn’t be able to find any respected legal authorities that would agree with his characterization of Romney’s (same-sex marriage) culpability.”
In Part 2, with heavy help from Deace on Friday and WorldNetDaily in 2007, I showed that there are at least three (and surely many, many more) “(highly) respected legal authorities” who not only fundamentally agree with Santorum, but who believe that Romney’s same-sex marriage culpability extends further than Santorum described it. Those three gentlemen are Mat Staver, Herb Titus, and Hadley Arkes.
I also showed in Part 2 that at the time Mitt Romney made his fateful decision to unilaterally impose same-sex marriage on the Bay State, he was well aware, contrary to his Thursday debate claim that “everybody in Massachusetts, and the legal profession in Massachusetts, and my legal counsel” believes that “I fought it (the decision) every way I possibly could,” that dissenting (and correct) “respected legal authorities” were suggesting multiple avenues of resistance, none of which Romney employed. In sum, ignorance was no excuse.
Which leaves one critical question: Why did Romney do what he did?
The answer is: He promised that he would do what he did.
Reporter Matt Luo at New York Times inadvertently and unwittingly let the cat out of the bag in September 2007 in the first three paragraphs of a report which was supposed to demonstrate how Romney had, as a result of campaigning for president, “shifted his tone” on gay rights from support to opposition:
Mitt Romney seemed comfortable as a group of gay Republicans quizzed him over breakfast one morning in 2002. Running for governor of Massachusetts, he was at a gay bar in Boston to court members of Log Cabin Republicans.
Mr. Romney explained to the group that his perspective on gay rights had been largely shaped by his experience in the private sector, where, he said, discrimination was frowned upon. When the discussion turned to a court case on same-sex marriage that was then wending its way through the state’s judicial system, he said he believed that marriage should be limited to the union of a man and a woman. But, according to several people present, he promised to obey the courts’ ultimate ruling and not champion a fight on either side of the issue.
“I’ll keep my head low,” he said, making a bobbing motion with his head like a boxer, one participant recalled.
The caption under the picture at the Times story reads:
Mitt Romney, who campaigned on Friday in Littleton, N.H., once promised he would not lead a fight against same-sex marriage.
Again, note that the intent of Luo’s story was to show that Romney had, as he has done in so many other areas, flip-flopped on gay marriage by breaking a campaign promise that he would “not champion a fight on either side of the issue.”
Until Luo’s Times report appeared, Bay State social conservatives, who arguably gave Romney his seven-point, come-from-behind victory margin in the 2002 gubernatorial election, thought that Romney had “merely” changed his mind while in office, perhaps with the help of incompetent or deliberately misleading legal advice.
Nope. As I wrote in December 2007 once I fully understood the scope of Romney’s betrayal, in words which are as true today as they were four years ago:
What we now know is that Mitt Romney promised that he would violate his gubernatorial oath of office even before he took it, and that he carried out that promise.
… Even though there was no “ruling” to obey (as explained in Part 2 — Ed.), only a court opinion that the legislature had not enabled into law, Mitt Romney extra-constitutionally, and in direct violation of his oath of office, imposed same-sex marriage in the Bay State.
Please grasp the significance of this: It isn’t that Mitt Romney was weak and simply caved in to pressure, or was misled by “bad advice.” Instead, Romney consciously kept a 2002 campaign promise to the Log Cabin Republicans to (in typical Times mischaracterization) “obey the courts’ ultimate ruling,” and considered that promise more important than the oath he swore when inaugurated as governor to uphold and follow the Massachusetts Constitution.
This is not arguable.
… someone should ask Mitt Romney what presidential oath-breaking promises he has made to groups whose last interest is the rule of law.
Yet this is a man who has now been endorsed for president by some of the alleged leading lights of conservatism, even of social conservatism.
This is madness. It must be stopped.
… What he has consciously, proactively, and cynically done to break the oath he swore to the people of Massachusetts, and before God, while pretending now to be a warrior against the very thing he put into place, makes him objectively unfit to serve as president.
Our country’s Founders would agree.
And that, folks, is also not arguable.
Shame on you, Maggie Gallagher, especially in your position as National Organization for Marriage co-founder, for defending the indefensible: “I cannot stand the injustice with which the idea that Romney is somehow responsible for gay marriage in Massachussetts has taken hold.”
Sorry Maggie, you’re wrong (and sadly, I believe you know it):
- Mitt Romney is definitely responsible for gay marriage in Massachusetts.
- He is also responsible for giving other governors (e.g., Arnold Schwarzenegger in California at crunch time there) an example of timidity to disgracefully emulate.
- He is responsible for creating a legal illusion which has placed additional and in some cases irresistible pressure on other states, culminating with New York earlier this year, to take actions legalizing same-sex marriage which they likely would not have otherwise taken.
- Crucially, Mitt Romney is, more than any other single man in America, responsible for strengthening the culture of what you described mere months ago as “scorn and hatred on any American who does something to support marriage as one man and one woman.”
Shame on you, Ann Coulter, who, when she’s not hanging up on people who present Mitt Romney’s record in an unfavorable light (i.e., when they tell the truth), has equated the facts as recounted in this three-part write-up as “the equivalent … of the 9/11 truthers” (go to the 5:44 mark in the video at the link where the related discussion begins; her “truther” rant begins at 7:20). Rick Santorum (is he the equivalent of a truther too, Ann?) and many others know the truth, Ann, and it’s on our side.
Finally, shame on anyone who claims to believe in the sanctity and/or the civilizational and cultural importance of maintaining marriage as a one-man, one-woman proposition — or in the fundamental freedom to express one’s religious views in public without fear of persecution — if they continue to support Objectively Unfit Mitt Romney for president after reading through this three-part presentation.