Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Romney Vision: Protecting Traditional Marriage
PressMediaWire.com ^ | October 27, 2007

Posted on 10/28/2007 2:29:20 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah

THE ROMNEY VISION: CHAMPIONING A FEDERAL MARRIAGE AMENDMENT

Gov. Mitt Romney Will Continue To Fight For A Federal Marriage Amendment:

(PressMediaWire) - Gov. Mitt Romney Reaffirmed His Commitment To Pass A Federal Marriage Amendment At The Recent Values Voters Summit. "I will work with the people in this room, as I have for the past four years, to champion a federal marriage amendment to protect marriage as the union of a man and a woman. ... Make no mistake: a federal amendment is the only way we can protect marriage from liberal, unelected judges." (Gov. Mitt Romney, Address To The Family Research Council's Values Voter Summit, 10/19/07)

- "As It Happens, Only One Of The Leading Republican Candidates – Mitt Romney – Supports A Federal Marriage Amendment, Which Would Constitutionally Prevent Marriage Redefinition In The States." (Kathryn Jean Lopez, "Marriage And The GOP," Sacramento Bee, 9/14/07)

Gov. Mitt Romney Has Been Leading The Fight To Protect Traditional Marriage:

In 2004, Gov. Romney Called For A Federal Marriage Amendment In Testimony Before The Senate Judiciary Committee. GOV. ROMNEY: "We need an amendment that restores and protects our societal definition of marriage, blocks judges from changing that definition and then, consistent with the principles of federalism, leaves other policy issues regarding marriage to state legislatures." (Gov. Mitt Romney, Testimony, United States Senate Committee On The Judiciary, 6/22/04)

- Institute For Marriage And Public Policy President Maggie Gallagher: " Gov. Romney was in Washington, D.C., making the single most eloquent and articulate defense of our traditional understanding of marriage I have heard from an American politician." (Maggie Gallagher, "In Defense Of The Family," National Review Online, 6/25/04)

--snip--

(Excerpt) Read more at pressmediawire.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: fma; homosexualagenda; romney
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-38 last
To: Gurn

Irrelevant.

Do you have ancestors who owned slaves?

How about American ancestors who fought with the British in the Revolutionary War.

Go back far enough and nobody’s hands are clean.

You can only control your own behavior.


21 posted on 10/28/2007 5:47:55 PM PDT by Canticle_of_Deborah (Romney Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah
Do you have ancestors who owned slaves?

No.

How about American ancestors who fought with the British in the Revolutionary War?

No.

At what point did God decide that "living the principle," i.e., polygamy, was bad? Which "prophet" received this revelation? I mean, God doesn't change, so what gives on the multiple wives thingy?

22 posted on 10/28/2007 6:02:16 PM PDT by Gurn (Remember Mountain Meadows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah

Dare to speak out against Romney's friends, the Gay Mafia?

Don't want your kindergartener indoctrinated?

Go to jail!

23 posted on 10/28/2007 7:09:47 PM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com (I am a proud anti-invasion racist!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gurn
At what point did God decide that "living the principle," i.e., polygamy, was bad? Which "prophet" received this revelation? I mean, God doesn't change, so what gives on the multiple wives thingy?

Polygamy was initiated in Doctrine & Covenants 132, which also states that people who jump through all the hoops will become "gods". Polygamy is ended with "Official Declaration 1" in 1890 by Wilford Woodruff. Strangely, unlike the begining, it was not a revelation from God.

24 posted on 10/28/2007 8:06:07 PM PDT by yuleeyahoo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Gurn
..the way it was to his great-grandfather, ...

Yeah, and some of the Founding Fathers owned slaves.

So what's your point?

Maybe we should dissolve the USA and pay REPARATIONS because you have an obsession about what some ancestor did 150 years ago.

25 posted on 10/28/2007 8:06:57 PM PDT by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com

No, that was Bush’s fault. The person highest up is responsible for every wasted paper-clip in the organization.

I can see how you’d mistake Romney for the culprit, but it’s Bush fault too.


26 posted on 10/28/2007 9:04:57 PM PDT by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: gidget7
It’s incredibly sad for MA citizens, and indeed our nation, that he didn’t have this vision a few years ago.

No kidding. Or even, like, before LAST YEAR.

The Massachusetts Department of Social Services (DSS), run by the Romney administration, honored a homosexual "married" couple (two men) as their adoptive "Parents of the Year" for 2006. The DSS has gained a reputation for being aggressively pro-homosexual over recent years. This incident sparked outrage across the country, but to our knowledge no policies or personnel at DSS were changed as a result. - Waltham Daily News Tribune, 8/4/2006

27 posted on 10/28/2007 9:13:12 PM PDT by EternalVigilance (With "Republicans" like this, who needs Democrats?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: gidget7
It’s incredibly sad for MA citizens, and indeed our nation, that he didn’t have this vision a few years ago.

One of the best laments I've seen...stated well.

28 posted on 10/28/2007 11:30:08 PM PDT by Colofornian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Rock&RollRepublican
Yeah, and some of the Founding Fathers owned slaves.

Slavery was legal at the time. Wife-stealing, as practiced by Romney's ancestors, was not.

So what's your point?

That Republicans shouldn't vote for a whack-job who thinks he'll be a god one day, and that the Garden of Eden was in Missouri. Hope this helps.

29 posted on 10/29/2007 7:05:08 AM PDT by Gurn (Remember Mountain Meadows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Gurn
Slavery was legal at the time. Wife-stealing, as practiced by Romney's ancestors, was not.

THAT'S your rationale for hating Mormons, and for hating Romney??

Glad you weren't on the debate team with me in high school.

30 posted on 10/29/2007 10:18:32 AM PDT by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Rock&RollRepublican
I was responding to the construct you made. I don't hate Romney. I just think he's a member of a cult, and I would never vote for such a man.

Nobody's answered my earlier question, by the way. To wit: (1) Polygamy was once good. (2) Polygamy is now bad. (3) God doesn't change. So, (4) when, and why, did polygamy cease being good and start being bad? (5) As a follow-up, which "prophet" decided this?

One other question: shouldn't Romney run, maybe, for prophet of his cult or something besides president of the United States? Thanks, love ya bunches.

31 posted on 10/29/2007 7:28:37 PM PDT by Gurn (Remember Mountain Meadows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Gurn
Nobody's answered my earlier question, by the way. To wit: (1) Polygamy was once good. (2) Polygamy is now bad. (3) God doesn't change. So, (4) when, and why, did polygamy cease being good and start being bad? (5) As a follow-up, which "prophet" decided this?

Which prophet told the Catholic Pope to JAIL Galileo?

When did God tell humans to pray to St. Mary, or any of the Saints?

Where is the biblical confirmation of Pergatory?

Doesn't the New Testament specifically warn against WOMEN getting involved in church leadership?

When did Jesus instruct his Disciples to hold Rosary Beads?

Doesn't the Bible strickly admonish against idols, repeated prayers?

IN other words, why don't you rail against Catholics or Protestants who don't adhere EXACTLY to YOUR demands of Christian purity?

Because if you did, you'd probably find yourself all alone with nobody to vote for .... EVER.

I'm certainly not an expert in the doctrine of any religion. I LOVE my Catholic friends and consider them brothers in Christ even though I don't under stand their church statutes.

But YOUR attitude against Mormons is not only discriminatory, it is hateful.

Like I said in other posts, why don't you also launch a campaign to rid politics of all Jews? Or athiests? Or Hindu?

I'll tell you why. Because it ain't PC, and you'd take a lot of flack.

Your accusations against Mormons is, in my humble opinion, anti-American.

32 posted on 10/30/2007 1:29:00 AM PDT by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Rock&RollRepublican
Uh, theologically, I have a huge problem with Catholicism.

But Mormonism and Islam have something in common: They're both bogus "religions" made up by one guy.

33 posted on 10/30/2007 2:35:18 PM PDT by Gurn (Remember Mountain Meadows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Gurn; Rock&RollRepublican

“I have a huge problem with Catholicism.”

No. You have a religious tolerance problem, my friend, nothing more.


34 posted on 10/30/2007 3:21:02 PM PDT by WOSG (Pro-life, pro-family, pro-freedom, pro-national sovereignty, pro-strong national defense, PRO-troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: WOSG
Uh, no. Speaking my mind on a message board is not a "religious tolerance problem."

Declaring oneself "the American Mohammed" and threatening to spread your new-found religion a the point of a gun? That's a religious tolerance problem.

That was Joseph Smith. And I think adherents to his whack-job cult should not be considered for President of the United States.

35 posted on 10/30/2007 4:43:32 PM PDT by Gurn (Remember Mountain Meadows.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Gurn
Uh, theologically, I have a huge problem with Catholicism.

But Mormonism and Islam have something in common: They're both bogus "religions" made up by one guy.They're both bogus "religions" made up by one guy.

Your logic is hysterical.

You think Catholicism is "bogus" but you accept it in US politics because it wasn't "made up" by one guy.

In THAT case, never mind your theological dishonesty.

You'd better immerse yourself in prayer in the hopes that God will tell you just who you CAN and who you CAN'T vote for based on their denomination.

36 posted on 10/30/2007 4:49:42 PM PDT by Edit35
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Gurn

You speak your mind. And I speak mine.

“And I think adherents to his whack-job cult should not be considered for President of the United States.”
- That’s why I never vote Democrat for President.


37 posted on 10/30/2007 6:32:04 PM PDT by WOSG (Pro-life, pro-family, pro-freedom, pro-national sovereignty, pro-strong national defense, PRO-troops)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Canticle_of_Deborah

The Romney’s are a BEAUTIFUL family.


38 posted on 10/31/2007 12:03:44 PM PDT by SHEENA26
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-38 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson