November 20, 2006


Romney seeks to force gay marriage vote: Rips lawmakers, eyes bid in SJC (Scott Allen, November 20, 2006, Boston Globe)

Governor Mitt Romney said yesterday that he would ask the Supreme Judicial Court to override the Legislature and let voters decide whether to ban same-sex marriage, telling a boisterous crowd of several thousand at a State House rally that lawmakers are violating the state constitution by refusing to act on the proposal.

Conservative and religious groups gathered a record 170,000 signatures on a petition to put the proposed ban on same-sex marriages on the 2008 ballot, but the measure also requires the support of at least 50 legislators in two consecutive sessions to qualify for a statewide referendum. On Nov. 9, legislators voted 109 to 87 to go into recess rather than vote on the gay marriage ban, all but dooming its chances of appearing on the 2008 ballot.

"The issue before us is not whether same-sex couples should marry. The issue before us today is whether 109 legislators will follow the constitution," declared Romney, promising to send the 109 lawmakers a copy of the constitution and their oath of office to underscore his frustration. "Let us not see the state, which first established constitutional democracy, become the first to abandon it."

Mr. Romney would appear to have already hired some good advisers for his '08 bid, though the base ought to hold his loss of MA against him. You owe certain things to a party you wish to lead.

Posted by Orrin Judd at November 20, 2006 8:10 AM

He is the only choice for '08; it's either Mitt or one of the South Parkers: McCain or Giuliani.

Posted by: Palmcroft at November 20, 2006 8:33 AM

He can do well in NH, as all MA pols do, but how does he compete in the South where Mormons aren't even considered to be Christians?

Posted by: oj at November 20, 2006 8:41 AM

The south doesn't consider Catholics Christians either.

Posted by: erp at November 20, 2006 8:44 AM

I seriously doubt many people are going to care about his LDS membership one way or the other.

Posted by: Mike Morley at November 20, 2006 8:57 AM

They cared about McCain's black baby.

Posted by: oj at November 20, 2006 9:40 AM


And how many Southern states did Kerry win?

Posted by: oj at November 20, 2006 9:43 AM

He's much more attractive than Evita.

Posted by: Sandy P at November 20, 2006 10:00 AM

He looks presidential, cleaned up the SLC Olympics, Rudy acted presidential after 9/11.

McCain's taken our rights away, has delusions of grandeur.

Posted by: Sandy P at November 20, 2006 10:02 AM

Giuliani opposes the Right to Life, the only GOP candidate to actually oppose the Declaration. We blew up the Olympics when they were held in the South.

Posted by: oj at November 20, 2006 10:18 AM

Lopez and others at NRO support Mitt which should give everyone pause based on their track record.

McCain sponsored a bill which passed both houses (one GOP) of Congress easily, was signed by a conservative GOP President and upheld by a conservative Supreme Court. Makes sense to have a jihad against him.

I personally like Rudy more but McCain is more conservative than either Rudy or Mitt. Yet, some conservatives hate McCain for the non-rational reason above. Strange.

Posted by: Bob at November 20, 2006 10:29 AM


When McCain starts finishing second and third in primaries, will you blame it on the Gang of 14 or on the black baby? Remember, Bush won the 2000 primary 53-42, and McCain barely even won the vote among veterans (49-47).

And how will Senator Volcano handle another defeat? My guess is he will endorse Hillary or Edwards. And campaign for them. It's a guaranteed appearance on CNN every night.

If McCain doesn't win early, look for Guiliani or Mitt to kneecap him - whoever is winning will almost have to. Too bad.

Posted by: ratbert at November 20, 2006 10:36 AM


McCain is probably less intellectual than Romney or Guiliani, which from a conservative standpoint is probably a plus; and his gut instincts seem generally reasonable.

McCain-Feingold, however, is the sort of pernacious nonsense only a Jacobin could propose, an attempt to perfect human politics rather than ameleriate its flaws. It suggests his conservativism is a mere matter of long habit, rather than having the backbone of any kind of philosophy behind it.

Posted by: Mike Earl at November 20, 2006 10:40 AM