Rollover Romney

Joseph Farah's column at WorldNetDaily advises voters not to be fooled by Mitt Romney.

Farah points to inconsistencies from Romney on abortion (Romney says he's changed his mind and turned pro-life). Frankly, I'm not sure what to believe about Romney on this issue: I know people can change their minds (I was once pro-abortion), but I have read things indicating Romney may still have pro-abortion leanings after his alleged conversion.

But then there's this other matter:

When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ordered the state Legislature to write a new law permitting same-sex marriages, Romney, the governor, the chief executive of the state's government, fell all over himself to do something that was not required of him – issuing homosexual marriage licenses.

Not only did this action reveal his gutlessness and lack of knowledge of the separation of powers in our system of government, it also suggests he is merely masquerading as someone committed to defending marriage as an institution between one man and one woman.

I have to say that I couldn't agree more with Farah's criticism here. I recall when the Massachusetts Supreme Court came out with this arrogant edict, that I couldn't believe the executive and legislative branches were acting like compliant subjects in carrying out their black-robed will.

If I'd been governor or a leader in the legislature, I'd have told the state Supreme Court in not-too-polite language that they could go pound sand. The judiciary doesn't make laws under our system of government, and they don't get to dictate what laws get implemented (that's the job of legislators, under the advice of the people, and signed into law by the executive branch).

If Romney is so willing to roll over for a bunch of oligarchs in black robes, would he make a strong leader in the face of foreign enemies?