Kathryne Jean Lopez has a great article about the marriage issue, and gives a short version of Gov. Romney’s history on the subject:
As Republican governor of that liberal northeastern state, he’s tried pushing back against gay marriage, in the one state where it has — thanks to the courts — become legal.
As his term was winding down post-Election Day, the state legislature there recessed a long-promised constitutional convention until Jan. 2, the last day of the legislative session.
At a subsequent marriage-protection rally on the Massachusetts statehouse steps, Romney voiced his outrage at legislative complicity in judicial tyranny. He said, “Last week, 109 legislators decided to reject the law, abandon the Constitution and violate their oath of office. For the Constitution plainly states that when a qualified petition is placed before them, the legislature ‘shall’ vote. It does not say may vote, or vote if its procedures permit a vote, or vote if there are enough of the members in attendance. It says ‘shall’ vote.”
He continued, “A decision not to vote is a decision to usurp the Constitution, to abandon democracy and substitute a form of what this nation’s founders called tyranny, that is, the imposition of the will of those in power, on the people.”
She goes on to quote Maggie Gallagher from her marriagedebate.com blog: “They want their rights; do they care about yours?”
Gov. Romney has an insightful and compelling way to deal with the issue:
“Americans are tolerant, generous and kind people. We all oppose bigotry and disparagement, and we all wish to avoid hurtful disregard of the feelings of others. But the debate over same-sex marriage is not a debate over tolerance. It is a debate about the purpose of the institution of marriage.”
K-Lo says that if conservatives can articulate the argument in such a way, we might just get somewhere.
“It’s a pretty decent proposal,” she writes.