Blog shows the irony of Romney forcing the gay marriage vote

Was surfing the net when I found this article on mitt Romney.  Excerpted is my favorite part:

Now, I want everybody to take a moment to stop, take a breath, and just think about how classy that move is. That's a heckuva classy move. Not only do you make a laughingstock of Romney, who, as one site (http://www.queerty.com/queer/news/mass-c ourt-wont-force-antigay-vote-20061227.ph p) put it, gave "new meaning to classy by suing his own state," but here's an issue, gay marriage, where there's one thing above all else that the right wing Republicans, the Christian Coalition, and all that lot LOVE to scream about more than all else. What is it? You know what it is, everybody, sing along!

ACTIVIST JUDGES!

And what did the Massachusetts Supreme Court, by refusing Mitt Romney, refuse to become? Everybody!

ACTIVIST JUDGES!

It's so brilliant, so classy, so wonderful.  I don't drink, but I can still raise a glass of sparkling something-or-other to the Massachusetts Supreme Court.

Found It Here: http://politics4dummys.livejournal.com/9 207.html
More below

Just the main Romney section--very funny stuff:

I mentioned a little while ago that Mitt Romney was trying to force the Massachusetts Legislature to make a decision on gay marriage in the state he will shortly no longer be mayor of. As I saw it, the Massachusetts Supreme Court could have done two things: It could have forced the vote through and limited the Legislature's perceived political power, or it could have told Romney that his Governor's seat was not enough. But instead they trimmed back their own power, giving Romney the finger as they did so, by ruling that it did not have the authority to force the Legislature to take action.

Now, I want everybody to take a moment to stop, take a breath, and just think about how classy that move is. That's a heckuva classy move. Not only do you make a laughingstock of Romney, who, as one site (http://www.queerty.com/queer/news/mass-c ourt-wont-force-antigay-vote-20061227.ph p) put it, gave "new meaning to classy by suing his own state," but here's an issue, gay marriage, where there's one thing above all else that the right wing Republicans, the Christian Coalition, and all that lot LOVE to scream about more than all else. What is it? You know what it is, everybody, sing along!

ACTIVIST JUDGES!

And what did the Massachusetts Supreme Court, by refusing Mitt Romney, refuse to become? Everybody!

ACTIVIST JUDGES!

It's so brilliant, so classy, so wonderful.  I don't drink, but I can still raise a glass of sparkling something-or-other to the Massachusetts Supreme Court.  Oh? What's that? They picked on Romney more? I almost don't want to risk ruining the moment, but let's see what they said:
"Beyond resorting to aspirational language that relies on the presumptive good faith of elected representatives, there is no presently articulated judicial remedy for the Legislature's indifference to, or defiance of, its constitutional duties."
Or, as the site I referenced above phrases it, Romney tried to scare the Legislature via the courts with "a finger-wagging and the threat of having people vote against them." OK, a dig at Romney being an immature jackass helps.  But this is just a single instance of Romney being immature.  What we need is one more good example of Romney sticking his head in the Virgil Goode position.  (I'm sorry, folks, I'm enjoying myself WAY too much to be impartial here.)

Oh, what's that?
http://www.queerty.com/queer/news/romney s-last-gasp-20061229.php
Extra! Extra! Romney is threatening to WITHHOLD THE MA CONGRESS' PAY RAISES unless they vote on gay marriage!  Romney will be gone by the end of the week, and no doubt incoming Democratic Governor Deval Patrick will happily hand over that money.  Not only that!  Romney and his goons are  threatening to seek bar sanctions against all of the attorneys in the legislature if the vote doesn't happen.  Everybody hold on for a moment while I ask my dad the lawyer what a "bar sanction" is.

OK, in the wise words of my father, a bar sanction can be almost anything in terms of severity, from a reprimand, to a suspension of one's right to practice law, to being disbarred--yes, disbarred--Romney (assuming he's trying to be as harsh as he could, which I do), may be pushing for lawyers who disagree with him to be disbarred--not something that is done lightly.  If this was successful, it would mean that those legislators lose their backup job if they ever stop being a legislator.  That ain't right.  But judging from what my dad could tell me,  this threat is as likely to be carried out by any bar association as my following threat is likely to be carried out by me:
Mitt Romney: If you do not stop all this silliness I will squish you to death with seven tons of pineapples using only the power of my mind.

And it's not just Romney himself who is frothing at the mouth over this issue.  Apparently one of the VoteOnMarriage (Romney's allies) leaders, Larry Cirignano, who was to give a speech against gay marriage, took matters, and the head of gay rights activist Sarah Loy, into his own hands: http://www.gayrightswatch.com/2006/12/ca thlolics-turning-to-violence-to-stop.htm l
"The Worcester Telegram & Gazette reports that Cirignano rushed from behind the lectern and tackled Loy to the ground. 'You need to get out. You need to get out of here right now,' he allegedly told her as her head was pushed into the concrete sidewalk.  As Loy lay bruised and bloodied on the sidewalk Cirignano reportedly returned to lectern, joining other leaders of the protest in condemning same-sex marriage and demanding the proposed amendment be put on the ballot."
More info and photos of this sickening incident here: http://worcester.indymedia.org/news/2006 /12/6689.php
Letter written calling for Cirignano's resignation: http://livelovelearn247.blogspot.com/200 6/12/don-gorton-calls-for-cirignanos.htm l

Now, I'm betting all of you would interpret everything I've mentioned as a tremendous defeat for Romney and his goons.  Right? Right?  Well, VoteOnMarriage has apparently informed me I'm wrong.  Their own website, specifically here: (http://www.voteonmarriage.org/news.shtml #sjc122706) declares an emphatic victory.  Apparently: "The SJC has made it crystal clear: the constitution requires a vote on the marriage amendment. As such, we expect a fair up or down vote on January 2, there are no more excuses for legislators to hide behind. " Yup.  Because the Supreme Court thumbing their nose at Romney et al was obviously done so on Opposite Day.  And, if that wasn't enough, VoteOnMarriage would like you to know that they're rubber and you're glue, and what you say about them bounces off them and sticks to you.

Tags: Activist Judges, Mitt Romney, political blogs (all tags)

Diaries

Advertise Blogads