Posted on 12/26/2007 10:12:23 AM PST by Ol' Sparky
CHICAGO, December 26, /Christian Newswire/ -- Peter LaBarbera, longtime pro-family advocate and founder of the Republicans For Family Values website, is calling on pro-family leaders who have endorsed Mitt Romney to withdraw their support for his candidacy in light of his recent comments on NBC's "Meet the Press" supporting pro-homosexual "sexual orientation" state laws.
"Mitt Romney's Christmas present to the homosexual lobby disqualifies him as a pro-family leader," LaBarbera said. "Laws that treat homosexuality as a civil right are being used to promote homosexual 'marriage,' same-sex adoption and pro-homosexuality indoctrination of schoolchildren. These same laws pose a direct threat to the freedom of faith-minded citizens and organizations to act on their religious belief that homosexual behavior is wrong.
"Romney may have had a late conversion on abortion, but it appears his ninth-inning flip-flop on homosexuality is falling short due to his strong commitment to 'gay rights,'" LaBarbera said. (See the 'Mitt Romney Deception' report) "Now some pro-family leaders –– who have raised millions of dollars over the years opposing 'gay' activism –– will need to explain how they can go on supporting an openly pro-homosexual-agenda candidate."
LaBarbera said it is "inconceivable after Massachusetts' twin disasters involving homosexual 'marriage' and homosexual adoption that Romney now is recommending pro-homosexual 'orientation' laws –– long derided as "special rights" among social conservatives — to the rest of the nation.
"In Romney's own state of Massachusetts, the state 'sexual orientation' nondiscrimination law laid the groundwork for homosexual activists' campaign to legalize 'same-sex marriage' –– which then-Gov. Romney brought to fruition with his unnecessary and illegal directive granting marriage licenses to homosexual partners," LaBarbera said. "The same pro-gay state law also forced Boston's Catholic Charities to shut down its century-old adoption agency because it would not pledge to place children in homosexual-led households against Catholic teaching.
"Given Romney's extensive pro-homosexual record and willingness now to depart from principle on this crucial issue, should we trust a 'President Romney' not to reverse course again on federal pro-homosexual laws such as 'Hate Crimes' and ENDA (Employment Nondiscrimination Act)?" LaBarbera said.
The following is excerpted from Romney's "Meet the Press" interview December 16 with Tim Russert:
MR. RUSSERT: You said [in 1994] that you would sponsor [Sen. Ted Kennedy's federal] Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Do you still support it?
GOV. ROMNEY: At the state level. I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this.
MR. RUSSERT: Now, you said you would sponsor it at the federal level.
GOV. ROMNEY: I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level.
Where the federal judges with overturn it or the federal government will withhold funds to the states.
This is why presidents can’t just say it’s a state matter.
Romney still clings to his goal to fully open up the military to homosexuals and lesbians as well, he has a deep commitment to the homosexual movement that nothing seems to shake.
They used to compartmentalize on issues like abortion by separating personal belief from their public performance; now it seems like politicians are doing a lot of weaseling with this federalist refuge. Hard to keep track of what they believe anymore, since it has so little to do with anything outside their skulls. And we've only their word for what's in there.
"Mitt Romney's Christmas Present to the 'Gay' Lobby Should End Pro-Family Leaders' Support for his Candidacy"
Agreed with donna. I noticed this too, and it’s one more Romney flip flop. Actually he’s doing a twister flop by this time in the campaign, neatly turning opinions on their head, then back again, then upright ta-daaaaaa. I know the established party likes Romney, but I really wish they’d pick a different horse.
Then again, if he wins the nomination, Romney in ‘08. yea. . .
Seriously, the possible winning combination, not one to be happy about but it may give the GOP a win, would be McCain/Lieberman. And yes, my nose is being held at the moment.
Romney is obviously no social conservative.
Huckabee has surged because he won a couple of debates and he’s got evangelical support. If a quick rise can happen to the liberal pro-life evangelical Huckster, it can happen to the conservative pro-life evangelical Hunter.
.
.
.
.
According to Intrade, the winner of the December 12th GOP debate was... Duncan Hunter.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1938773/posts
Why the smart money is on Duncan Hunter
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1926032/posts
In this poll Hunter is up 3% and even with Paul and Thompson.
http://www.wxyz.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=3481ef60-8195-46a9-af04-b87b907bcfdd
There’s flip Romney for you
It just amazes me how we ASSUME that homosexuality is an inherent trait and thus justifies civil rights status. All of the data says it is a learned/chosen behavior, not inherent. Despite years of attempting to prove genetic predisposition, it has not been done.
We cannot/should not assign civil rights to behaviors.
Has anybody seen the editorial in the Conservative Manchester Union Leader raking Romney over the coals today?
Thanks for pointing that out. This is essentially Fred Thompson’s position on the issue, but at least Romney is in support of a National Pro-marriage Amendment, while Thompson wants an amendement that will, allow states to choose homosexual marriage.
The gun-toters around here say that Fred is the conservative, but I have been restricted in getting this message out by an anti-free speech law Thompson enacted.
Unlike the rest, Thompson’s federalism is integral to his conservative philosophy, which is not something he came by recently or adopted for the sake of convenience.
I think so, too.
I plan on voting for Hunter, here in Michigan.
Frederalism, looks like to me to be a strategy to dodge social issues while pushing the same old Rockefeller Republican agenda.
“One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share.”
“but I have been restricted in getting this message out by an anti-free speech law Thompson enacted.”
So you’ve been stopped from saying, what you just said?
Funny,but, I can still see it...
In 1994, he was pro-homosexuality in regard to this...then Myth "the Switch" Romney was agin' it:
Mitt-fan from National Review: Lopez: And what about the 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans where you indicated you would support the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and seemed open to changing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military? Are those your positions today?
Gov. Romney: No. I don’t see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges. Source: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmY1MTQyMTk0Yjk2ZDNmZmVmNmNkNjY4ODExMGM5NWE=
(I wonder if Romney gave out "Gumby"s as Christmas presents to his grandkids?)
Too bad Fred is not held to the same standard as other candidates. What would be the response if Mitt Romney announced that a major announcement was in the making, and the major announcement turned out to be a fund-raising call featuring a red pick-up truck?
The guy wants to be leader of the Free World, and Republican voters are supposed to be impressed that he wants to see his red pick up on TV. Give me a break.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.