Posted on 08/07/2012 6:36:10 AM PDT by xzins
A spokesperson for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has advised that the former Massachusetts governor disagrees with the Boy Scout’s current policy prohibiting open homosexuals from serving as members and leaders.
According to The Associated Press, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul told the news outlet in an email that Romney still stands by his beliefs that homosexual men should be able to serve in the organization. She specifically noted that Romney had outlined his views in 1994 during a political debate, and that his stance has not changed.
“I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue,” Romney stated during the debate. “I feel that all people should be able to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.”
As previously reported, last month, the Boy Scouts of America issued a statement reaffirming its policy prohibiting open homosexuals from joining the organization.
“The committee’s work and conclusion is that this policy reflects the beliefs and perspectives of the BSA’s members, thereby allowing Scouting to remain focused on its mission and the work it is doing to serve more youth,” the statement said. “The review included forthright and candid conversation and extensive research and evaluations — both from within Scouting and from outside of the organization.”
The decision to reiterate and reaffirm the Scout’s current policy followed two years of deliberations from an eleven-member committee comprised of Boy Scout executives and other volunteers who represented “a diversity of perspectives and opinions.”
When all was said and done, the committee concluded that the restriction served as “the best policy” for the Boy Scouts.
The current policy reads, “While the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.”
Mitt Romney also recently reiterated his support for homosexual adoption. This past May, in an interview with Neil Cavuto of Fox News, he explained that while he is against the concept of homosexual “marriage,” he does believe that homosexual couples should be able to adopt children.
“[I]f two people of the same gender want to live together, want to have a loving relationship, or even to adopt a child, in my state, individuals of the same sex were able to adopt children. In my view, that’s something that people have a right to do,” Romney outlined. “But, to call that ‘marriage’ is something that in my view is a departure from the real meaning of that word.”
He had first outlined his position on the matter in 1996 while talking to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.
“Well, they are able to adopt children,” he said. “I’m not going to change that.”
Prior to Saul serving as Romney’s press secretary, Richard Grenell, an open homosexual, filled the position.
Related Stories:
Is that why he has never been willing to renounce RomneyCare?
Do you know a thing about Romney? He sought, as CEO of the 2002 Winter Olympics, to exclude the Boy Scouts from the games because of their opposition to homosexuals within in their ranks.
No doubt, you're express shock and outrage if Romney is elected and sells conservatives out on issue after issue.
One name, Larry Brinkin noted SF area Democratic activist.
MEG, I didn’t do a Jedi Knight thing, channel his brain, and force him to say these things.
He and his campaign came up with them all on their own.
All we’re doing is reporting it. Now you know more about what you’re voting for.
Why is that mystifying to you? Romney has aggressively promoted the homosexual agenda for more than a decade, even before being elected governor of Massachusetts.
It’s probably a hopeless undertaking to point this out, but, you didn’t answer my question.
When I saw this article I started to ping and figured I’d better see if you did first.
I think I’ll start some pinging again.
They better have a revolt at the convention.
No, many of us will do so to save the Republican party and conservative movement from Romney.
And, you're absolutely clueless if you can't comprehend how much damage will be done. The Republican party will be moved significantly to the left if Romney becomes President. It'll be 2008 all over by the time he is done.
Which is a very good reason for social conservatives to flex their muscles and not vote for Romney. The Republican party can lose the Presidency until hell freezes over unless they put up a genuine pro-life candidate and one opposed to homofascism.
Larry Brinkin...a supposedly main-stream, “safe”, gay leader.
You put two gays together, junta, and how many kids get born?
None.
So, how does the gay community grow?
The try to recruit the sons and daughters of every Freeper on Free Republic and every child of every American.
They are coming after your kids.
You are absolutely correct. The unmentioned truth about boys being sexually abused by men is that it is always a homosexual doing it. ALL men who have sex with other males, regardless of the age of the one he is having sex with, are homosexuals.
The MSM never says so, but we need to yell it at the top of the rooftops and make it loud and clear that heterosexual men are never guilty of pedophilia against little boys.
Heterosexual men do commit pedophilia against little girls, just as heterosexual women only commit pedophilia against little boys.
Just all acts of pedophilia committed against little girls by women, is an act committed only by lesbians.
And yes, men married to women, and women married to men, who have sex with children of the same sex are all homosexuals and lesbians. I do not excuse them by accepting the fact that they are married to someone of the opposite gender.
Their own actions speak louder, than do the voices of those who are the apologists of Sodomites.
Scott Walker with the greatest conservative majority in decades in Congress in 2017.
If he came out for raising taxes on the rich and opposed Obamacare, would you be saying that?
Screw that. I don't respect and refuse to vote for any candidate that promotes homosexuality.
How dare you tell principled people they have to sellout their principles just so a liberal Republican can be elected.
FUMR
So, you think we’ll actually get another chance after this one?
Hey, he's a lifelong professional politician so what can one expect.
Goode doesn’t have a chance. He may act as a spoiler in his home state.
I want Obama’s entire administration out.
CMac, there is no reason to vote for Obama and no reason to vote for Romney.
In Maryland, a vote for Virgil Goode is a vote for change.
A vote for Romney isn’t going to win anyway.
Let’s get pink boy scout knives and whittle some rainbow flags.
Sure, I answered your question but you were quite inarticulate. Maybe you’d like to try again in English.
Of course. I'm not paranoid.
Are we cutting too close to the bone or what?
Bingo! About time this subject was broached. I've long believed that Mittens was a big mucky muck of some kind within their church and if so then does the Mormon church condone what Mittens purports to represent? If so then that lends more credence to my long held belief that the Mormon church is little more than a cult.
If they don't adhere to the sinful lifestyles and choices that Mitty condones and supports then the church should by all means come out very publicly and forcefully and say as much. Silence in these type of cases can be easily construed as a form of tolerance and acceptance.
Would Texas have gone for Mitt if there were still others in the race at the time of your primary?
Ripped right from the old Democrat political playbook. If you don't support my guy then that means you support the devil. That has never worked for me, it's so childish and immature and reflects poorly of the one espousing such petty rhetoric.
I make my choices based on what I think is best and not what some political whore-monger is screaming at me. The more and louder they scream the entrenched I become. I will not vote for Romney nor Obama but I will vote. Both candidates are corrupt and vile.
I know Romney is not a conservative..I know Obama is a Marxist..
I did not support Romney in the primary..He wasn’t a consideration..but I know what Obama is doing to our nation and I want a chance for our country to survive..
I do not condemn others for their votes and opinions..but I passionately believe Obama is an enemy to America.
That’s not what that means at all. Anyone who can get beyond a simplistic reading can realize Mitt said:
1) I won’t intervene to make the Boy Scouts change their policy (like an Obama-style leader), but since you’re asking
2) I don’t agree with their policy.
There are enough reasons not to agree with Mitt but let’s quit making them up.
Will they give pink badges?
Which, in context here is meaningless.
In context of the desires of the adult involved, it is not enough to remove only males exclusively attracted to males.
In the vocabulary of attractions, there is are options including: bisexuality. Those people need to be kept away as well.
Which was my point.
The asexual adults who just don't get sexuality at all are safe, but they often have an inability to perceive a great many social interactions that makes them poor chaperons. They likely won't be found in venues with kids unless some one drags them.
So, what is your goal here? I am assuming it isn’t to make sure Romney is short enough votes that Obama is re-elected.
Why is a so-called "christian news" operation publishing this ?
So he's against the BSA excluding 11 and 12yo boys who are homosexuals or just homos who are scout leaders?
ignore this lunatic
why wasn’t this thread pulled?
all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.”
His meaning is clear. He disagrees with the Boy Scout's policy that prevents gays.
I don’t think so..I voted for Newt on May 29th in protest.
I believe Santorum got about 10 per cent.All but Perry were still on the ballot. Of course the Texas vote put Romney with enough delegates for the nomination.
I do believe if conservatives show up in November we have a chance to put some good conservatives in Congress.
I have great hope in Cruz.(Republican Senate nominee)
I agree with you 100%, Meg! Romney's values scare me - but not as much as Obama's hatred of our country!
It is a start though.
...there is are options including: bisexuality. Those people need to be kept away as well.
Agreed, but as we used to say among my politically incorrect Air Force buddies, once a guy _______(fill in the disgusting act here) - he is gay. It doesn't matter if a woman is in the room.
Mitt Romney has always supported homo activists in their war against the Boy Scouts.
Starting during the Clinton Administration (does the name Roberta Achtenberg ring a bell?) the Boy Scouts came under relentless fire by the Democrats and their newsrooms for rejecting the idea that they, the Boy Scouts of America, should welcome homosexual scout leaders into the organization and let them take little boys off into the woods. Boy Scouts leaders didn’t think this was such a good idea. Naturally, Massachusetts Mittens sided with the homo activists.
Below are a couple of columns from 10 and 12 years ago about the Boy Scouts being turned away by Mitt Romney and the Olympics Committee for volunteer work on the Salt Lake Olympics. The Boy Scouts had been very active and high profile at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics and were looking forward to participating once again. But the Boy Scouts had just won an important Supreme Court case (in June 2000 the Supreme Court ruled that the BSA was a private organization that could choose whoever they wanted as scout leaders and could therefore reject sodomites) and the Democrats/homos were still mighty ticked off about it. Massachusetts Mittens could always be counted on to pander to homo activists, of course, so he gladly came up with a lame lie of an excuse for turning the Boy Scouts away from the Salt Lake Olympics. The Boy Scouts’ disappointment was palpable, and Mitt Romney never returned their calls.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2000/12/15/214301.shtml
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/2/7/135258.shtml
I think you may know the sad answer to that question.
“Romney’s values scare me - but not as much as Obama’s hatred of our country!”
Indeed..My adult children and their spouses and their adult children agree!
(My children led me to Free Republic long before I signed up. I had to relearn how to type. LOL)
My apologies to anyone that finds this offensive, but I, and many other conservative voters cannot in good conscience, vote ABO. We feel that we are
answerable to a higher power; a God who will live up to His promises, and punish those who support and encourage genocide against the unborn, abominable
sexual deviance, and the desecration of His young people.
For those FReepers who keep shouting that our country is doomed if conservatives do not fall in line behind the GOPe nominee, I’d like to quote Henry david
Thoreau: “The fate of the country... does not depend on what kind of paper you drop into the ballot-box once a year, but on what kind of man you drop from your
chamber into the street every morning.” This is my sentiment as well. I have traveled all over this great nation, and I can tell you from experience that those
of us “out in flyover country”, from southern Alabama and Texasto the open spaces of western Wyoming and the cold winters of the American midwest will, in
the face of the right provocation, defend our liberty even to the death.
We sat on the sidelines during World War II until we were attacked directly, and as history shows, our resolve was set. It may actually take a second Obama
term, and all of the disaster that implies, to re-energise the God-fearing conservatives of this country. Not to support the TEA party, or the “libertarians” or
any other faction of so-called conservative thought that attempts to divorce itself from “social conservatism” and natural morality.
I, and perhaps millions of others, simply won’t accept that death by slow poisoning is *in any way* superior to death by cannon-shot. If we all (Yes, you)
would follow Thoreau’s advice and put that truly American man on the street, each and every day; If we will brook no discussion of comprimise on basic
principles; If we will petition our government for redress of our grievances RELENTLESSLY, while settling for nothing less than redress; If we will live / walk /
vote with a solid moral foundation, secure in the knowledge that WE are not the final arbiters of what is right and that the principles of this nation’s founding
are as valid today as they were when they were first written down, then the republic will not fall. Even without Mitt Romney to guide us.
In the event that the sodomite, communist, thieving class does bring this nation to ruin, I (and perhaps millions of others) may be forced to resort to 170
grain votes in defense of our, and our children’s lives and liberty, and if this comes to pass, I will be humbly honored to die if necessary, to insure that the
light of individual liberty guided by God’s will, is not extinguished from this earth.
Please give this some consideration before you state how utterly hopeless it is to stand on principle, or how anyone who does not support Obama-lite in the
upcoming election is a traitor to *your* values.
HTS
So why didn’t he say that. Having never been governor (or held any other political office) I was able to understand the convoluted manner of communication. Thanks for translating...sorry I seemed simple to you!
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.