Romney Continues Pandering To The Bigots

[ruggerson]

I'm unsure of the specifics of Mass Constitutional Law, but it would seem to me this is a huge stretch, even for Romney.

How does a sitting Governor have standing to petition the Judiciary to place something on the ballot?

On first look, this seems to be an abuse both of the role of the Executive and the Judiciary.

I thought the wingers didn't like "activist" judges. Evidently, it's only when the judges decide against them.

Mass. Governor Wants Gay Wedding Vote

By DAVID WEBER
The Associated Press
Sunday, November 19, 2006; 4:24 PM

BOSTON -- Gov. Mitt Romney said Sunday he would ask the state's highest court to order an anti-gay marriage amendment question onto the ballot if legislators fail to vote on the matter when they reconvene in January.

Romney said he would file a legal action this week asking a justice of the Supreme Judicial Court to direct the secretary of state to place the question on the ballot if lawmakers don't vote directly on the question on Jan. 2, the final day of the session.

Romney, an opponent of gay marriage who decided not to seek re-election as he considers running for president, made his announcement to the cheers of hundreds of gay marriage opponents at a rally on the Statehouse steps.

People in favor of gay marriage staged a protest across the street.

(more)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900540.html

[msongs]

1. he is sniffing for $$$$$ for his presidential run

can't lynch blacks or gas jews anymore, but in his crowd demonizing gays is the last chance to raise money cranking up the fear factor.

plus this helps his church gain power and converts as the last bulwark against those awful glbt's.

Msongs
www.msongs.com/political-shirts.htm

[polmaven]

2. The legislature on November 9 "recessed"

a Constitutional Convention for the second time, without voting on a petition for an amendment banning gay marriage. The petition to place the amendment on the ballot must be approved by 25% of the legislators at consecutive con-cons in 2 consecutive legislative sessions, and would then go on the ballot the following year. The new date is set for the last day of the legislative session, January 3, so this pretty much kills the matter, since it is seen as unlikely it will be voted on then.

Romney is claiming the legislature's actions are unconstitutional, and will ask the court to over ride their failure to act, and order the question be placed on the ballot.

Now, please.....pleeeeeze.....don't ask how there would be a difference, then between the "activist judges" finding that the constitution did not bar homosexual marriage, and a single justice ordering the question on the ballot. :shrug: