Posted on 08/06/2012 6:04:51 PM PDT by xzins
Well, this doesn’t make much sense, now does it??
Back in June, we showed you a video of Mitt Romney from 1994, proclaiming his support of the Boy Scouts of America and his views on its gay members.
CLICK HERE to see the video if you missed it.
In the video, Romney stated:
“I believe that the Boy Scouts of America does a wonderful service for this country. I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue. I feel that all people should be able to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.”
Now, a spokeswoman for Romney is saying he STILL upholds those beliefs and confirmed:
“This remains Romney’s position today.”
This is where things get confusing, though, seeing as Mitt has opposed gay marriage, but yet, he thinks ALL boys should have the right to participate in the Boy Scouts!
What gives, Mitt???
Equality for all…in every aspect!
I think its kind of odd that the great “culture warriors” don’t have the courage to notice that wedding chapels owned by Sheldon Adelson perform gay “marriages” every day.
America has zero chance of surviving because conservatives only fight the convenient battles.
In an interview with Neil Cavuto of Fox Business Network, Romney was asked whether he believes the gay marriage debate is a new civil rights movement, as some Democrats have framed the issue.
“I don’t see it in that light,” Romney responded. “I believe my record as a person who has supported civil rights is strong and powerful. At the same time, I believe that marriage has been defined the same way for literally thousands of years by virtually every civilization in history and that marriage is by its definition a relationship between a man and woman.”
He added that “if two people of the same gender want to live together, want to have a loving relationship, even want to adopt a child — in my state, individuals of the same sex are able to adopt children. In my view, that’s something which people have the right to do, but to call that marriage is, in my view, a departure from the real meaning of the word.”
Romney has made similar statements in the past. In 2006, as governor of Massachusetts, Romney told the Boston Globe that same-sex couples have “a legitimate interest in being able to receive adoptive services.” In 1994, he told the Boston Herald, “I would leave it [gay adoption] up to the states. I would not oppose it or require it.”
Staff writers Dan Eggen and Philip Rucker and researcher Alice Crites contributed to this report.
Washington Post May 5, 2012
I’d rather have them learning from the boy scouts then hanging out at some gay organization that tells them “Yes, your 13 and queer “, further cementing that kids beliefs and taking advantage of them, perhaps in more ways then one.
______________________________________________
Would you want that same 13 yo “exploring” his sexual orientation at a camp out in the woods with your 7 yo son ???
Mormon has never been my issue, 1010RD. I’m a retired military chaplain. I’ve had mormon commanders, mormon troops, mormon colleagues, and provided religious support for mormons for years as part of my job. I’m simply not afraid of mormons in any way, shape, or form. I even co-authored a “spiritual dimensions of family living” program with my neighbor, a mormon. So, wrong person, wrong issue.
I guarantee you, that if my co-author were the one running, I’d be supporting him.
Because he’s a conservative.
Romney is a radical liberal. You know it, I know it, and the entire literate political world knows it.
That is the basis of my objection to Romney, and any perusal of my posts all the way back to his first presidential run shows it.
But, it’s America, and you’re free to believe what you want to believe.
However, if you don’t believe that the GOP-E wants to lose, can you believe that they want to send subtle messages to the soft-on-gay-issues moderates and liberals that Romney is their secret friend? That way they can get them on board and at the same time not enflame the ABO conservatives who are supporting them.
In that case, this post aligns with Romney’s own strategy. You should like that.
Do you have a link to that article, Nana? It is amazing that he bold-faced acknowledges “gay couples” and tries to pretend that is OK because he doesn’t use the “marry” word to describe it. He proves that by saying this “gay couple” should be allowed to adopt children.
So, you have a “couple” and their children.
That sure is interesting. I didn’t know Mr. Cathy was at the Liberty U graduation. And yet Mitt just can’t bring himself to support CFA NOW......
America has zero chance of surviving because conservatives only fight the convenient battles.
________________________________________
and the popular and flavor of the month battles...
I was an early pro-lifer way before being pro-life was cool...
To be an abortion fighter way back in those days 1970s early 80s we had to go help the Catholics who were fighting the battle alone...
I got lots of grief in those days from “conservatives” who called abortion a “Catholic issue” and refused to get involved...
some so called “conservatives” told me I was an “enemy of God” and was interferring with what God wanted to do...
They claimed that nobody wanted the unborn babies but God wanted them and I was stopping them from going to God...
Only when some religious leaders decided it might be a good and profitable thing to do did the Protestant churches get involved..
but they had their fingers in the air checking the wind for several years before they decided the time was right and was convenient and timidly put their toes in...
The Catholic Church in America has from the start been the pioneers in the pro-life movement...
Thank God for the Catholics...
Romney: Gay couples should have right to adopt
Washington Post May 5, 2012
Someone had posted that info in another thread..
It might have been part of an article about Willard speaking at Liberty..
The way Willard spoke to Mr Cathy was so pandering so kissy..
No that would be an incorrect conclusion.
Now, how bout mine?
“This is not a misrepresentation of Mitt Romney, Jess, this is what he said, and what he then reconfirmed. This is gay activism.”
Yep. Heard it before. Where did I say it wasn’t him?
Are you suggesting we hide it, that we cover for the guy?
“Are you suggesting we hide it, that we cover for the guy?”
Huh? WTF is wrong with you? I said what I said. How simple is that? I’m not suggesting anything. I’m saying what I’m saying.
Picking Mitt is wrong.
go back and read your own posts
“go back and read your own posts”
Yeah...why would I do that. I wrote them. I know what’s in them. Now what’s your problem? You want to fight about something, then say what’s on your alleged mind.
The above means you object to the thread. I suppose that means you want to hide this from ABOs.
Why are you dissembling/obfuscating?
“I AM BARACK OBAMA AND I APPROVE THIS MESSAGE.”
The above, my dear dimwit, is undoubtedly true, wouldn’t you say? How else could it be taken. What isn’t true?
You noble types don’t like seeing the direct results of your high , minded thinking much, do you?
I neither object to the thread, to you, who I don’t know, or to your pedestrian mewlings about how we should comport ourselves. You have a right to your opinions and a right to post them. The Obama camp has a right to use them and rejoice. Everyone is happy.
Why, do you think the Obama camp doesn’t rejoice in this type of post? Do you think he will not approve of it?
I have been too for a long time. I first because aware of conservative politics in the Goldwater days when my father was a volunteer. Currently, I'm involved with the Kansas Senate races where we are trying to pry control away from Mitt-like RINOs and get real Republicans in there. I've been around conservatives long enough to spot a phony conservative and Mitt qualifies. He's Rudy Guiliani without Rudy's honesty to tell you what he really believes.
Voting for Goode is your right
I might vote for FR's own Eternal Vigilance. I haven't made up my mind yet except that it won't be Romney or Obama UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES.
Romney and Obama don't have the same agenda.
By philosophy, both have proven to be big-government advocates. They only differ in the details. Regardless of who wins, this nation will be more socialistic in four years than it is now. If there is such a great difference in their agendas, why don't you Romney apologists make a positive argument for his election rather than framing all the arguments as he's better than Obama?
Romney's to the right of Obama
You mean like 95% of the country? If Mitt Romney were a Democrat, he wouldn't even qualify as a conservative Democrat on a national scale.
If that motivates you all the better. But Romney isn't going to lead the party. Titular head? OK, but if FReepers do their job he'll be accountable to a Congress that is serious about moving America forward.
It is this nation's only hope but I'm not so foolish as to believe that it will really work with Romney. Romney isn't running to be a mere figurehead. If the Tea Partiers prove to be an obstacle to Romney's agenda, he'll just form a more-natural coalition with the RINOs and Democrats to push through his left-of-center agenda. A Tea Party Congress will be far, far more effective on Obama since it is less likely that the RINOs will support the lame-duck of the other party but will either willing or be coerced into falling in line behind the President of their own party.
I understand that to sincere, devoted Christians having a Mormon in the WH is sacriligious.
Mitt's politics make this totally irrelevant to my decision. Even if Mitt were use the acceptance speech to sincerely renounce Mormonism and embrace faith in the real Jesus Christ and not the figment of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young's imagination and Mitt were to move my hometown and become a member of my church's congregation, I still wouldn't vote for him. There have only been two major Republican players whom I wouldn't vote for under any circumstance: Nelson Rockefeller (assuming I could vote at 8) and Mitt Romney.
If you are truly a conservative, think about the best possible outcome for this election (besides punting Mitt at the convention and putting a real conservative at the top of the ticket). The ideal outcome for conservatism would be Tea Party candidates winning in landslides and Mitt squeaking through by the skin of his teeth. That should make it clear to Mitt and his people that he was nothing more than the lesser of two evils and it was the agenda of the Tea Party that America wants. Rather than trying to scare or shame us Romney skeptics into violating our principles to vote for the most liberal candidate the Republican Party has even run, realize that we play right into the best case scenario for conservatism. If Romney doesn't think he'll need the Tea Party, he will ignore it without question and push the progressive agenda further than Obama could with strong Republican opposition.
Sophistry should be outlawed before 5, jess.
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.