Saturday, December 29, 2007

Romney's Deliberate Deception

I don't know about you, but I was fully expecting to open up the
Boston Globe and find Kris Mineau of Mitt's, oops I mean Mass Family
Institute recounting the day he marched through the streets of Detroit
with Martin Luther King, Mitt and George Romney. When you think about
it, it all makes sense. Like Harvey the invisible rabbit, Mitt was
with us on the March to protect life, Mitt was with us on the march to
protect the sanctity of marriage, Mitt was with us on the march to
recuse our children from his sex education policies teaching young
girls to sleep with any irresponsible person that comes along while
throwing them a condom, Mitt marched with Catholics trying to obtain
our constitutional right to refer rape victims to a facility five
minutes away if they have ovulated and wish to take emergency
contraception to end a potential pregnancy. Why wouldn't they have all
marched with Martin in Detroit?

If you haven't seen today's story from CNS regarding Mitt's
circumvention of the legislative process to enact the law necessary to
make homosexual marriages legal - and Kris Mineau's tall tale about
Mitt's march to protect the sanctity of human sexuality during his
tenure as Governor, do indulge:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPolitics.asp?Page=/Politics/archive/200712/POL20071227b.html

>The Romney campaign responded to requests for comment from Cybercast
News Service by sending a statement from Kris Mineau of the
Massachusetts Family Institute,

"Within hours of the November 18, 2003, Supreme Judicial Court decision
legalizing gay marriage, Governor Romney publicly denounced the court's
ruling and affirmed traditional marriage," he said. "And that was just
the beginning of his support for preserving traditional marriage.

"Governor Romney could not have been more public or vocal in his
opposition to same-sex marriage during his entire tenure as governor,"
he added.<<

Is Mineau the only one left at the bunker?

For those of you outside of Massachusetts, Mineau has been the author
of a whisper campaign alleging people who actually read the Goodridge
decision (which stated the current laws prohibiting gay marriage were
unconstitutional and ordered the legislature to change the current law
within a 180 day period to reflect their judgment) are victims of a
grand conspiracy theories.

I couldn't imagine what would motivate Mineau to mislead when the
decision was so clear. The mystery was solved when we found out
Mineau's logic coincided with donation from Romney.

Romney hasn't paid wikipedia yet, if you hurry to the link, you'll find
facts which are not in dispute when you actually read the decision,
know the law and the powers and lack thereof of various branches of
government:

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goodridge_v._Department_of_Public_Health)

>>On the legal aspect, instead of creating a new fundamental right to
marry, or more accurately the right to choose to marry, the Court held
that the State does not have a rational basis to deny same-sex couples
from marriage on the ground of due process and equal protection.

The court gave the State Legislature 180 days to change the law to
rectify the situation.<<


There's a great news story on InsideCatholic that repudiates the logic
of Romney's well-paid gargoyles quite articulately:

http://insidecatholic.com/Joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2024&Itemid=48

>>But there is a lingering problem: Romney is opposed only to creating
clones for stem cell research; he is not opposed to using "discarded"
frozen embryos. These frozen embryos have been the primary source of
embryonic tissue for stem cell research. How can you declare yourself
opposed to this research when you are not opposed to the way it is
actually carried out?

Romney's position became even more confusing during his December 10th
interview on CBS with Katie Couric. She asked Romney whether he agreed
with using discarded frozen embryos for stem cells.

Romney replied:

Yes, those embryos are commonly referred to as surplus embryos from
in-vitro fertilization. Those embryos, I hope, could be available for
adoption for people who would like to adopt embryos. But if a parent
decides they would want to donate one of those embryos for purposes of
research, in my view, that's acceptable. It should not be made against
the law.

My question is this: How can you consider a frozen embryo a moral
entity capable of being adopted, while at the same time support the
scientist who wants to cut the embryonic being into pieces? Even more,
if Romney's conversion was about the "cheapened value of human life,"
how can he abide the thought of a parent donating "one of those
embryos" to be destroyed?<<

Well said by Deal Hudson -but he's too much of a gentleman to draw the
conclusion: the problem here is deliberate deception.

Merry Christmas - Blessed New Year to all,

Carol McKinley
Sunt mala quae libas. Ipse venena bibas.