It is the “pro-family” side that insists on denying the extremely plain words of the state constitution that Romney violated. But they are slowly realizing very belatedly that Mitt Romney’s executive order imposed homosexual “marriage” in violation of the law.

The only thing that anyone could argue in Mitt Romney’s defense is that he did so unaware that he was violating the state constitution. Unfortunately, I have very good reason to believe that Governor Romney was advised by a former SJC Justice that he was breaking the law.

Whether Romney knew in advance that he was breaking the law I cannot be absolutley positive. Howeverm he surely knows it now. If he regrets his executive order imposing homosexual marriage, he is too proud to revoke it and suffer the national embarassment that would result. This is unacceptable for anyone, much more for a governor who has sworn a solemn oath before God to defend the law and the state constitution.

But no one who is familiar with the relevant parts of the Massachusetts Constitution would honestly disagree that Mitt Romney is the Founding Father of homosexual marriage — illegal though they remain. It is even clear from the Goodridge court decision that Romney wildly overstepped his constitutional authority in order to give the four justices what they were seeking. The justices themselves, in the decision, noting that the current law precludes homosexual “marriage,” asked the Legislature to create homosexual marriage.

It is indisputable from the state constitution that they had no authority to compel anything of the legislature.

Well, the legislature has never changed the marriage law. The meaning of that fact is that Mitt Romney’s homosexual marriage “licenses” are illegal. Having met with one of the governor’s legal advisor personally, I am quite sure that Mr. Romney knows this.

In fact, I lean on the basis of his reccord, to the view that Romney knew exactly what he was doing when he issued his illegal executive order. His record is strikingly at odds with both Mormon and Biblical views of abortion, homosexual adoption, civli unions and such matters.

Romney, an attorney, knew that if he blamed the court decision for his unconstitutional executive order, he could impose homosexual marriage illegally and most people would asume that he had no choice.

At this point, all he has to do is rescind his own order and homosexual marriage will go away. It should be clear to anyone with any legal sense that neither Governor Romney nor any court has a legal right to change the Massachusetts law — on marriage or any other matter. The state cosntitution says that explicitly in multiple ways.

Mitt Romney would have been impeached by a more legally informed citizenry, and his impeachment would have been demanded by conservatives who still read state constitutions and defend them from demagogues. By ordering state officials to violate a law that even the court admitted remained in force, he fundamentally violated the state constitution that he had sworn to uphold.

This did not greatly surprise those who already knew that he believes homosexuals have a right to be scoutmasters and he tried to banish the Boy Scouts from the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics.

Had Mitt Romney merely made a public statement upholding the state constitution and explaining why the Goodrige ruling was illegal and void he could have walked into the White House in a rout, merely for doing his sworn duty.

Did the SJC reformulate not just the definition of marriage but also the definition of separation of powers? Is Mitt Romney, not one of the three “co-EQUAL” branches of Government? Does he not have the legal duty to uphold current Massachusetts law? What then is the current state of Massachusetts law?

Either the SJC rewrote the marriage statute, which is clearly unconstitutional, or they did not. If they did not, Romney had no legal duty to order the issuance of marriage licenses. If they did, Romney had a legal obligation to ignore their unconstitutional legislative act (because the Massachusetts Constitution states that only the legislature may create laws). That limitation against legislating (by the way) applies to Mitt Romney as well. He as the chief executive (the executive branch) has no legal authority to enforce laws that DO NOT EXIST. If there is a law in Massachusetts that permits same-sex marriage, please I would like Mr. Romney to point it out.

Contrary to a popular misconception (except for certain lawyers and judges who are very much aware of this), gay marriage currently is not legal in Massachusetts. The SJC interpreted the marriage statute to NOT PERMIT same sex marriage. The SJC declared the marriage statute “unconstitutional” BUT they did not strike that law (read the Goodridge case). It remains a statute on the books as it was originally written and intended. The Massachusetts Constitution clearly states that a law that remains on the books is the law until it is repealed by the Legislature. The SJC simply changed the “common law” meaning of the term marriage but because that term already exists in the statute and in the Constitution, the SJC’s “common law” declaration of a new meaning did not and could not change the statute nor the words of the Constitution because common law is subordinate to statutory and constitutional law. The SJC acknowledged this in the Goodridge case saying that they could not legislate and therefore gave the legislature 180 days to act. The legislature neither repealed the “unconstitutional” marriage law nor changed the law by way of a change to the statute nor by allowing the Constitutional Amendment to go through in 2005. Therefore the “law,” the marriage statute, that forbids same-sex marriage, continues to forbid it.

The only reason why same-sex marriage licenses are being handed out in Massachusetts (and as a result are coming to the rest of America) is because Mitt Romney ORDERED them to into existence . . . but he did that without legal authority under any statute. This is confirmed by the fact that the Massachusetts Legislature currently has two opposing bills pending before it; one that promotes same-sex “marriage” (H977/S967) and the other that defines marriage as the union of one man to one woman (H654). If same-sex marriage” was currently legal, there would be no reason to have either of these opposing bills pending before the Massachusetts Legislature.

Mitt Romney could END GAY MARRIAGE simply by revoking his illegal order (ordering town clerks and justices of the peace to violate Massachusetts law by handing out marriage certificates to same-sex couples when Massachusetts law does not permit them from being issued — and against the moral conscience of decent public servants [TC's and JP's]). He should be ashamed at claiming to “stand up” against judicial tyranny as a political “position.” If he were an honest man, he would end gay marriage today and actually stand up against judicial tyranny, even though it might cost him a little politically. I believe, however, if he would have the moral character and courage to do what is right, he would easily sail into the White House. Indeed, he is looking a gift horse in the mouth by not taking full advantage of his opportunity that would distinguish him from all of his other opponents. But every day that passes is a day he has failed to uphold his constitutional and sworn duty to uphold the laws of Massachusetts. It is a shame.

The Massachusetts health care law he recently signed seems promising, but the bad part is he made health insurance mandatory. That imposes yet another unfunded mandate on the people.

Beautiful.