Boston Globe's Deception: Romney HAS NOT FLIPPED-FLOPPED on gay-rights issues.

Jeff writes: "Sad if some think gays SHOULD be discriminated against in the areas Romney emphasized."

Jeff, you and I have gone a few rounds on other blogs, but after all this time, I simply refuse to believe you are are ignorant as you appear. (In this sentence, I do not mean the word "ignorant" to mean anything other than...clueless.)

Romney endorses forcing taxpayers to subsidize same-sex benefits for the homosexual partners of government employees. (Apparently, good ole conservative Jeff believes that failing to force taxpayers to do so constitutes "discrimination.")

Romney endorsed Ted Kennedy's federal "gay rights" legislation, the identical state level version of which violated Catholics' religious freedoms by compelling Catholic Charities of Boston to place children up for adoption into households headed by homosexual couples, in direct contradiction to Vatican instruction that doing so would do moral "violence" to such children. But remember, conservative Jeff apparently thinks it's wrong to "discriminate" against homosexuals in adoption.

Under the exact same type of non-"discrimination" legislation Romney (and apparently Jeff) endorse, the Boy Scouts are being evicted from their city offices in Philly, the Sea Scouts are denied free access to docks in Berkeley, city employees in Ann Arbor were prohibited from donating to the United Way through their city payroll deduction plan (because UW financially supported Scouting), an Ann Arbor police detective was fired for daring ask at a candidate forum if one candidate supported "gay rights," the Salvation Army is prohibited from bidding on county contracts to service the poor in Chicago, etc., etc., etc.

But in the name of banning "discrimination" against individuals who engage in sexually deviant behavior, Jeff apparently thinks this is all O.K.

And apparently he believes a Christian bookstore (or any other employer) should be compelled to hire individuals who engage in homosexual behavior...all for the noble cause of prohibiting "discrimination."

But I'm curious, Jeff.

Now that the Log Cabin Republican letter reveals that Romney endorses allowing open homosexual behavior in the U.S. military -- a view "aides to Romney" said "have not changed," according to the New York Times article -- there's only one element of homosexual activists' political agenda Romney is not on record endorsing.

(Given the rest of his record, my guess is that Romney has endorsed it...we just haven't uncovered it yet.)

Tell us, Jeff. In the interests of non-"discrimination," does Gov. Romney support adding homosexual behavior (i.e., so-called "sexual orientation") to federal hate crime laws?

I mean, you surely already realize it's time to abandon that win-the-nomination-by-trying-to-fool-social conservatives strategy, so why not go for broke and fess up?

Jeff's getting pretty pathetic when he writes: "I just think it's SCARY when MassResistance (ultra right wingers) and the Boston Globe (out in left field) are QUOTING EACH OTHER as authoritative sources."

Jeff, try that Jedi mind trick somewhere else.

MassResistance and the Globe don't quote each other. They both quote...Mitt Romney. Admittedly, they may then cite each other's quoting of...Mitt Romney. The original source for both MR and the Globe is...Mitt Romney (in writing, no less).

In the end, there would be no story except for the left-wing, pro-abortion on demand, pro-homosexual agenda words of...Mitt Romney.

Where's that egg-timer?

.......Meanwhile, Romney came in for some fire of his own, not from the Kennedy camp but from an organization on whose executive board he sits -- the Boy Scouts of America....

Thank you for the information. I will save it... Because to me, this is curtains for Romney. Just an aside... Can you imagine how RIDICULOUS we values voters would look, if we took him at his word? - ROLF - That would makes us certifiably stupid and naive :)

Dont take me wrong, he IS a nice guy... He just chose the wrong group to represent, imo.

You're darn right that Romney never was supportive of Gay scoutmasters--and I'll defend that point. You're reading what you want to read Gary.

"all people [meaning homosexuals] should be able to participate in the Boy Scouts . . ."

Now, if he would have said "all people should be able to participate in all positions of the Boy Scouts . . ." then I would concede you the point.

His implication is that it's dangerous for a huge national organization to outright forbid ALL homosexuals from ANY participation at ANY level of the BSA . . . or is that what you'd like to see. If so, you're confirming your membership in the exclusive "Hater-Con" club.

See Post 19 above:

"Now sit back and enjoy Jeff and other Romney rationalizers chase their tails explaining how the word 'all' in Romney's sentence does not include Scoutmasters, and how protecting 13 year old boys from exposure to adult males who engage in homosexual behavior doesn't matter to social conservatives anyway."

You need to get your rhetorical tutoring on how to appeal to social conservatives from somebody other than homosexual activists, Jeff. Labeling anyone who disagrees with you as a "hater" is a pretty big tip-off that your're a stranger in a foreign land, and it's not the key to success in Romney's "win the nomination by making social conservatives think I'm one of them" strategy.

It's all a matter of degree though, isn't it, given that homosexual activists would now accuse Romney of flip-flopping to the "hater" side. If you are in fact a conservative, you oughtta be ashamed of similarly deploying the last resort of those who can't argue their case and hope to silence any opposition with some perjorative labels.

But I tangle with the pros who tutored you, Jeff, on a daily basis, so your amateurish attempts will of course not silence me.

Romney: "I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."

O.K., Jeff, now you prove -- given his use of the word "all" -- that Romney DIDN'T mean to include Scoutmasters in this statement.

Your ridiculous flailings on this subject require us to reject the literal meaning of the words he used. "All" includes 40-year old men who engage in homosexual behavior, veterans of the French Foreign Legion, people who drive red cars, and Jewish grandmothers.

I'll concede that his use of the word "all" probably didn't mean to include Jewish grandmothers, but your insistence that he wasn't talking about the one category of individuals that was actually the subject of political debate is as believable as ole "sustain and support Roe" Mitt's claim -- up until last week -- that he'd never been anything but pro-life.

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.