Mitt Romney is on the Wrong Side of Every Issue

The Ninth Circuit Appeals Court struck down Proposition 9 in California today by declaring that it is unconstitutional and, right on queue, Mitt Romney immediately criticized the decision and blamed activist judges for denying the will of the people.

Mitt Romney ripped the Ninth Circuit Appeals Court on Tuesday for striking down a California initiative that banned gay marriage in the state after a brief period in which it was legal.

“Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage," Romney said. "This decision does not end this fight, and I expect it to go to the Supreme Court. That prospect underscores the vital importance of this election and the movement to preserve our values. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman and, as president, I will protect traditional marriage and appoint judges who interpret the Constitution as it is written and not according to their own politics and prejudices.”

Ironically, "interpret[ing] the Constitution as it is written" is exactly what the judges have done in this case and in other cases. Politics and prejudice is what leads men like Mitt Romney to conclude that not all Americans are equal and that not all Americans deserve the same rights granted to them by the Constitution.

Romney's advocacy of voting on civil rights in a public referendum mirrors New Jersey Governor Chris Christie's recent dodging of the same-sex marriage issue. Both men are hiding behind the "will of the people" as a justification for denying universal rights to all Americans, and they do so out of political self-interest.

And this is one case in which I will bring up Mitt Romney's Mormon faith, because it was the Mormon church who bankrolled the Proposition 8 campaign in the first place.

At least some of that money came from Mitt Romney. Romney can be quoted for promoting his donations to charity, and he recently tried to downplay his low tax rate by citing these donations. A large portion of those donations went to the Mormon church.

I don't care what space-god Romney worships, but pledging to overturn same-sex marriage as president while also donating millions of dollars to the religious groups bankrolling anti-gay campaigns crosses a line that should not be crossed.

  • mrbrink

    Yeah, it’s not at all possible Republicans just don’t understand the constitution. It’s a dead document until they’re using it as a burning torch for the economic overthrow and religious subjugation of third world America. But how dare a judge anywhere disagree with people who are clearly right wing sociopaths?!

    And Chris Christie advocating for direct democracy is the fucking creep of creeps because it’s like he’s trying to confuse and appeal to people who might think this is the same thing as Al Gore winning by virtue of a popular vote. Like, yeah, “let’s totally abdicate our responsibility as so-called leaders of America to stand up for your civil rights!” It’s cowardly and it’s the same sort of democracy that elects strong arm religious military dictators for life with 90% of the vote.

    Future-motherfucker Paul Ryan(not a current-motherfucker! he promises!) wants future presidents to have line-item veto power over the budget to cross out an de-fund whole institutions and use their executive correction pens like a bloody human femur to pound the nails into the steerage class doors. These people are fucking dangerous a lot like pedophiles who buy a brand new windowless van every week.

    I heard a GOP rep say we should be voting via text messaging, like American Idol. Text 666 for “Yes, Those Gays Can Have Their Rights…”

    Civil Rights aren’t subject to prejudices from right wing zealots or anyone else. That is the opposite of the U.S. Constitution which is to recognize and protect the rights of the people, especially from right wing zealots. The 9th Amendment alone should have seen these assnazis run out on a rail permanently many moons ago.

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    The constitution lives on with empathy, and when Chris Christie or Mitt Romney try to put our civil rights up for a popular vote, they are directly denying and disparaging our constitutional rights– in dispute with the very basic fundamentals of the U.S. constitution they claim to understand better than everyone else.

    You can’t be this wrong about simple constitutional concepts, nor can you be so simple about others and still be regarded as a “leader” or “prepared to lead,” or “time to lead, follow, or get out of the way!” especially to some undetermined destination like, “Exceptionalism!”

    This is U.S. Constitution for Dummies and when Republicans fail the fundamentals so miserably, people should stop taking the goddamn candy from strangers to the constitution. Wake up, America.

    • IrishGrrrl

      mrbrink, you can’t see me but I am holding up a lighter ;)

      • mrbrink

        Yeah, I found out Bob has a U.S. Senator following him on twitter, so I went back and edited out an F-word at the end to class it up. Classy! Ha ha.

        Thanks, Irish.

  • hidflect

    If anyone publicly touts their donations to charity then they are not donations anymore. They are paid publicity. It’s the “widow’s pennies” phenomenon. In Bishop Romney’s case, since the tithes to his Bat-Sh1t-Crazy-Loon religion are mandatory he’s getting a double comeback; fulfilling an obligation and making it seem like altruism.

  • Plugger

    Re “Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage,”…

    Protect traditional marriage from what?

  • imavettoo

    9th Court struck down PROP 8?

  • D_C_Wilson

    Wingnutese to English translation:

    “interpret[ing] the Constitution as it is written” = Making only rulings that I like.

    • GrafZeppelin127

      You beat me to it, basically. “Interpreting the Constitution as it is written” = making only rulings consistent with the GOP policy platform.

      There are few things more frustrating than trying to explain Constitutional Law to people who insist that it shouldn’t exist at all; that statutes and case law are all unnecessary.

      • IrishGrrrl

        Amen! I always follow up that kind of stance with “So you want to get rid of 200+ years of judicial precedence?” And I usually get a blank look.