Posted on 07/12/2012 7:10:54 AM PDT by xzins
It seems every time presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney gets conservatives looking his way, he does something to turn them off and remind them that one of the greatest concerns they had about him during the primary season was his soft record on the conservative social agenda.
...snip
Romney’s speech to the NAACP was an otherwise unremarkable repetition of his standard campaign pitch until he got to this line, ... “…I hope to represent all Americans, of every race, creed and sexual orientation. From the poorest to the richest and everyone in between."
Of course, the President represents “all Americans,” but by including sexual orientation along with race and creed, Governor Romney undid a lot of the goodwill ...
Governor Romney and his inexperienced establishment Republican staff apparently failed to notice that by putting sexual orientation on the same plane as race and religion, Romney just undercut the rational and philosophical basis for opposition to same sex marriage. It also played right into the hands of supporters of the radical homosexual agenda.
Since Governor Romney and his speechwriters apparently haven’t figured this out, we will clarify it for them: social conservatives do not believe sexual orientation creates the same kind of constitutional rights that forbid discrimination based on race or religion.
That’s why we support the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), for example, and why social conservatives lead support for marriage amendments ...
By pandering to those who want to give sexual orientation the same status under the Constitution as race and religion enjoy, Mitt Romney put many social conservatives back on the sidelines of the presidential campaign, wondering whether what he said at Liberty University is what he really believes -- or if he was just pandering to us, too.
(Excerpt) Read more at conservativehq.com ...
I’m not surprised: Just weeks ago, Romney came out in favor of Gay Couples, and believe it or not said that at the state level Gays should be allowed to adopt children.
Just another reason not to vote for Mittens.
I noticed that in his speech also.
Once again, Mitten’s persistent drive to say anything to please everyone overcomes what otherwise was an excellent speech.
Yup, he’s still a vapid dork.
But...a vapid dork is better than the opposition...a sleezy, lying, unachieving, undocumented vapid dork.
Excellent point.
Every sexual orientation covers a lot of territory. Try to be more careful Mitt.
I noticed that too and I don’t like it at all. However, I will still vote for him to get rid of Obama.
The House and Senate (hopefully) can restore and strengthen DOMA.
When Obama came out favoring gay marriage, Romney gut reaction was “I want to say nice things about gays, too...let’s see...I know...let them adopt kids.”
He doesn’t have a clue!
That’s one of the biggest reasons to not allow them to marry. Gee...what do you think’ll happen to these boys adopted by these gay men?
I guess he felt it was important enough to say what he did...besides, if you want Obama out, he’s the only chance.
Neither one of them are worth spit.
Both want to turn our kids over to the gay agenda.
And he wonders why he has troubles with conservatives...
Here’s a clue, Mitt: We think YOU ARE A RADICAL LIBERAL!
Black pastors to protest NAACP support for gay marriage:
It was totally unnecessary.
Won’t gain ANY votes.
WILL lose votes.
It was the only part of the speech that was pandering!
Plus blacks are generally not pro-gay, not the crowd to bring up the issue.
How in the name of all that’s holy could we, in this once great country, come down to a choice between a flaming Marxist and this? Makes me want to puke.
See #10
Oh Good!
Another Obama supporter on FR.
“Fair and Balanced”.....
Sexual perversion is a BEHAVIOR, an unnatural one at that, NOT an ancestry or religious faith.
And a mercenary.
Better a vapid mercenary than a vapid, crazed idealogue.
“Romney just undercut the rational and philosophical basis for opposition to same sex marriage. It also played right into the hands of supporters of the radical homosexual agenda.”
His statements could also have been the cause of the reaction of the crowd(booing). Remember most Blacks are not supportive of homosexual rights, and in no way view the issue as a rights issue.
You have someone else in mind that could beat Obama?
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.