Romney's Christmas Present to the 'Gay' Lobby Should End Pro-Family Support for his Candidacy

Christian Newswire ^ | 12/26/2007

[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.

[Sun]

Social conservatives need to take a look at Duncan Hunter who voted for traditional marriage between a man and a woman through HJ Res 88.

And there is no stronger social conservative than Duncan Hunter on each and every social conservative issue, PLUS Hunter is strong on all of the conservative issues (as well as the social conservative ones).

Duncan Huner ratings:

A+ rating from the National Rifle Association;

100% rating from the Eagle Forum;

92% rating from the American Conservative Union;

100% from the Concerned Women for America;

100% from the Christian Coalition;

100% from the Campaign for Working Families.

And this is a good time to call a talk show about Duncan Hunter, because it’s probably easier to get through to the shows, especially if you call early.

Here’s what I did:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1938073/posts

[Calpernia]

bttt

Did you hear Duncan D2 on the radio last night? It is in the archives if you missed it.

http://www.monksmedia.com

[Sun]

Thanks. I’ll check it out.

[John Haskins]

Charles, everything you are arguing is provably false. The MA court can’t make laws, can’t order the governor or legislature, and they have repeatedly admitted that. There was no new law in Goodridge, no order to anyone. Please, get the basics right. Romney alone imposed homosexual “marriage.” The court never even asked him to. They urged to legislature to legalize it.

Read this, then you’ll see why you need to go back to square one:
“44 conservative leaders across America challenge Romney’s claim he ‘defended’ marriage and the constitution.”
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/dec_letter/letter.pdf

[CharlesWayneCT]

MassResistance doesn’t have credibility on this matter, compared to the actual ruling of the court.

The court didn’t make law, they simply explained what the existing law meant. Courts do that all the time, it’s exactly what they have the power to do.

You go to court because you have a dispute regarding the law. The court decides whether the law applies in your case or not, by interpreting the law as related to your situation.

In this case, they simply (and wrongly) interpreted ‘man’ to be “person”, and thus said the existing Marriage law required marriage for same-sex couples.

I will note that if you were correct, and of these people who say Romney was violating the law could simply go to court. The court would rule that Romney was in violation of the law, and the marriages would be null and void.

Since that has not happened, your assertion regarding this matter has no weight whatsoever.