Posted on 12/26/2007 10:12:23 AM PST by Ol' Sparky
CHICAGO, December 26, /Christian Newswire/ -- Peter LaBarbera, longtime pro-family advocate and founder of the Republicans For Family Values website, is calling on pro-family leaders who have endorsed Mitt Romney to withdraw their support for his candidacy in light of his recent comments on NBC's "Meet the Press" supporting pro-homosexual "sexual orientation" state laws.
"Mitt Romney's Christmas present to the homosexual lobby disqualifies him as a pro-family leader," LaBarbera said. "Laws that treat homosexuality as a civil right are being used to promote homosexual 'marriage,' same-sex adoption and pro-homosexuality indoctrination of schoolchildren. These same laws pose a direct threat to the freedom of faith-minded citizens and organizations to act on their religious belief that homosexual behavior is wrong.
"Romney may have had a late conversion on abortion, but it appears his ninth-inning flip-flop on homosexuality is falling short due to his strong commitment to 'gay rights,'" LaBarbera said. (See the 'Mitt Romney Deception' report) "Now some pro-family leaders –– who have raised millions of dollars over the years opposing 'gay' activism –– will need to explain how they can go on supporting an openly pro-homosexual-agenda candidate."
LaBarbera said it is "inconceivable after Massachusetts' twin disasters involving homosexual 'marriage' and homosexual adoption that Romney now is recommending pro-homosexual 'orientation' laws –– long derided as "special rights" among social conservatives — to the rest of the nation.
"In Romney's own state of Massachusetts, the state 'sexual orientation' nondiscrimination law laid the groundwork for homosexual activists' campaign to legalize 'same-sex marriage' –– which then-Gov. Romney brought to fruition with his unnecessary and illegal directive granting marriage licenses to homosexual partners," LaBarbera said. "The same pro-gay state law also forced Boston's Catholic Charities to shut down its century-old adoption agency because it would not pledge to place children in homosexual-led households against Catholic teaching.
"Given Romney's extensive pro-homosexual record and willingness now to depart from principle on this crucial issue, should we trust a 'President Romney' not to reverse course again on federal pro-homosexual laws such as 'Hate Crimes' and ENDA (Employment Nondiscrimination Act)?" LaBarbera said.
The following is excerpted from Romney's "Meet the Press" interview December 16 with Tim Russert:
MR. RUSSERT: You said [in 1994] that you would sponsor [Sen. Ted Kennedy's federal] Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Do you still support it?
GOV. ROMNEY: At the state level. I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this.
MR. RUSSERT: Now, you said you would sponsor it at the federal level.
GOV. ROMNEY: I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level.
Religion is learned/chosen, not innate, but we provide civil rights protection against religious discrimination.
Freepmail wagglebee or little jeremiah to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping lists.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
Sounds exactly like a good federalist to me, and something Fred Thompson says all the time. Let each state decide what to do, but don’t pass a federal law. Since we are electing a President, that’s a good position to be in.
But I’m guessing that this article is written by a Huckabee supporter, an evangelical who would like Huckabee’s tendency to use the government to take care of us for our own good.
Meanwhile, Romney supports DOMA and a constitutional marriage amendment, both of which attempt to protect a state from the actions of another state regarding gay marriage.
Of course, nobody thinks that a person should be denied employment because of their private sex life.
Homosexuality as a civil right? O.M.G.
Well, the military is opened to that already, they just have to keep quiet about it.
And Romney is NOT clinging to his 1994 position that the policy wouldn't work. When asked about it in a debate, he said he had changed his position, thought that the policy was working fine, and would not change it.
But you did spell his name right, so I give you some credit.
Bzzzt. Wrong.
And yet no less a staunch conservative on fiscal, social, and security issues as Tom Tancredo not only will vote for him, but endorses him and asks others to vote the same way.
Please don’t treat me too harshly for agreeing with him on this one.
Tom’s allowed to make mistakes; but that doesn’t mean we have to follow him.
“Frederalism, looks like to me to be a strategy to dodge social issues while pushing the same old Rockefeller Republican agenda.”
EXACTLY. How many times will people swallow the same old warmed over hash?
Duncan Hunter should have been getting the support that’s been diverted by all the pseudo-conservatives who keep collapsing like dominoes.
His record matches his current positions and policies.
www.gohunter08.com
So if the candidate isn’t a pure federalist, we want them to reject federalism completely?
It seems strange to attack a candidate for adopting the correct conservative position just because he’s not consistant enough about it.
Of course, it seems strange to attack a guy for his positions when those positions are about as conservative as any candidate running, just because he used to be more liberal on a few issues.
I understand pushing other candidates because you feel more comfortable with them, but we should agree on the issues regardless of which candidate pushes them.
I’d hate to see people say we should surrender in Iraq just because Romney thinks we should win the war there.
“Of course, nobody thinks that a person should be denied employment because of their private sex life.”
What does the Law in 94’ have to do with laws that always have been on the book?
Anyone explain this one to me...I thought it was illegal before to fire someone based on sexual orientation (along with a laundry list of other things)? What was this new law (in 94’) about and why does it alter the situation?
This quote is from 1994, in case someone didn’t know. WHen asked about this quote in by Anderson Cooper in a recent nationally televised debate, Romney said he no longer held this view, that he now believes the policy is working and would not be looking to change it, nor did he think anybody should try to change it now while we are at war.
The general opinion on this is that if the military leadership recommends a change in the policy, we should then consider changing the policy. Romney agreed with this position, and said he would support the military leadership on this issue.
The Log Cabin Republicans have rejected Romney because of his strong stance against issues they hold dear, and have even run ads against him for being against them.
Thanks for more proof that this article has it wrong, and that Romney has changed his position from his 1994 stance.
I think that what people do in the privacy of their own home is pretty much their business.
I don’t want the government (my tax dollars) used to SUPPORT what they do in their homes. I oppose gay marriage and gay civil unions because they put the power of government behind the gay lifestyle.
“And Romney is NOT clinging to his 1994 position that the policy wouldn’t work. When asked about it in a debate, he said he had changed his position, thought that the policy was working fine, and would not change it.”
Always with the insults, but I think that you are talking about don’t ask don’t tell, and I am not, but you even got his DADT positions wrong because he lied in the debate and ignored the original question which was not about don’t ask don’t tell.
THERE IS NO WAY IN THE WORLD THAT A GUY CAN BE ELECTED GOVERNOR OF MASSACHUSSETS (the same state that elects John Kerry and Ted Kennedy to the senate) AND BE CONSERVATIVE.
NO WAY!
Yet another change for Romney. The bottom line is that there is no reason for most conservatives to trust him on all his position changes. There are too many of these and most are too recent for him to have a record of action which proves their validity. You can offer nothing more than to ask us to trust him. My candidate does not require such a huge leap of faith. He’s been consistently conservative and I can have reasonable confidence that he will still be the same man after the election.
Why can’t a Republican say -
“I’m against gay-marriage. I’m against gay-adoption. I’m against gays-in-the-military.
It is not the state’s business to ask you what you do behind your bedroom doors. But we will make NO special laws and give NO special protections to those who want to make their choice in private sexual activities into their public identities.”
WHen asked about this quote in by Anderson Cooper in a recent nationally televised debate, Romney said he no longer held this view, that he now believes the policy is working and would not be looking to change it, nor did he think anybody should try to change it now while we are at war.
Anderson Cooper never asked Romney about the don’t ask don’t tell policy which you claim he disagreed with even though his statemnt agreeing with is in my post 14.
Here is the question Romney was asked in the debate:
Cooper: Governor Romney, you said in 1994 that you looked forward to the day when gays and lesbians could serve, and I quote, “openly and honestly in our nation’s military.” Do you stand by that?
“One issue I want to clarify concerns President Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” military policy. I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military. That goal will only be reached when preventing discrimination against gays and lesbians is a mainstream concern, which is a goal we share.”
“The bottom line is that there is no reason for most conservatives to trust him on all his position changes.”
Romney has never changed his goal of “”I believe that the Clinton compromise was a step in the right direction. I am also convinced that it is the first of a number of steps that will ultimately lead to gays and lesbians being able to serve openly and honestly in our nation’s military.””
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.