Romney's Christmas Present to the 'Gay' Lobby Should End Pro-Family Support for his Candidacy

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.

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.

You don’t have to worry about that under a Romney presidency. He has said that he will listen to the military commanders on this issue, and they are unlikely to suggest a change in policy over the next four years.

But all republican candidates have said that they would go along with the military command on this, so if the military command DID ask for open gay service, all our candidates seem to say they would go along with it.

Of course, Gays are already serving honorably in the military. The policy allows them to do so, and the guy showering with you could well be gay — you just don’t know. I guess that makes some people more comfortable than knowing.

I’ve lived in a dorm with a gay person, and never worried about whether he was in the shower or not. However, I realise that there are questions regarding how to handle open gay service, which is why at this time the military doesn’t want it, and our candidates support their desire to keep the existing policy.

Here is the 1994 Romney letter that Anderson Cooper was addressing and below it is the debate transcript, everyone can study the two and decide if Romney answered the actual question or avoided it and only gave reponses on don't ask/ don't tell (which were never asked). (You may have to unravel a messy post to do it.) =====================================================================

--------------------------------------------------------------------- The entire related exchange between Anderson and Cooper from the CNN debate 2007: 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? Romney: This isn't that time. This is not that time. We're in the middle of a war. The people who have... Cooper: Do you look forward to that time, though, one day? Romney: I'm going to listen to the people who run the military to see what the circumstances are like. And my view is that, at this stage, this is not the time for us to make that kind of... Cooper: Is that a change in your position... Romney: Yes, I didn't think it would work. I didn't think "don't ask/don't tell" would work. That was my -- I didn't think that would work. I thought that was a policy, when I heard about it, I laughed. I said that doesn't make any sense to me. And you know what? It's been there now for, what, 15 years? It seems to have worked. Cooper: So, just so I'm clear, at this point, do you still look forward to a day when gays can serve openly in the military or no longer? Romney: I look forward to hearing from the military exactly what they believe is the right way to have the right kind of cohesion and support in our troops and I listen to what they have to say. (Audience booing) End of related part of transcript.

I think my transcript was a little better formatted then yours. :-)

I would note that while it is clear in the 1994 letter than he was supportive of gays serving openly in the military, he did not say he "looked forward" to it. He said he was convinced it would happen once DADT was implemented.

The questioned unanswered by the letter is, WHY was Romney "convinced" that DADT was just the first step? He doesn't say in the letter.

His explanation that he didn't think DADT would work is a rational basis for being convinced more steps would be taken.

As to the debate, Cooper asked if he "stood by" his 1994 statement (which as I note Cooper mischaracterized but not in a false way). I would have asked if Romney's position was the same, because if you asked me if I "stood by" something I said in the past, I would almost always say "yes", even if I was wrong. I would then say I was wrong about it. Because I stand by everything I say, and if it's wrong I apologize and acknowledge it.

Anyway, if the question Cooper wanted answered was if Romney still thought there would be a day when gays would openly serve, Romney didn't answer that. If Cooper's question was whether Romney would implement open gay service, Romney answered that, he said no. He was asked if his position had changed, and he said YES.

Romney's explanation for WHY he changed his position is that he now thinks DADT is working. If he thought it wouldn't work in 1994, that would be a reason to look forward to more open service -- and since DADT is actually working, it would make sense to keep it and not push for any new action.

So not only did he answer the question, he explained why his position was that we shouldn't change the policy, and did so in a way that makes sense and makes me confident that he will not "change his position" again.

It in fact is common for someone to support a position because they think some other solution won't work, and later to have to admit that the other solution DID work so there was no need for further action.

Thank you for your response focused on the facts and opinions of the issue. I appreciate your strong opinion on the subject.

Since the quote was from me, I’ll answer your post.

I don’t believe there is any significant discrimination against gays — I was simply expressing what I think is the conservative position about the matter, not trying to speak to a problem that needs to be addressed.

However, the rest of your post does indicate that there could be discrimination against openly gay people in employment, and that you would support it.

And you know what, I agree with you, at least in part. But I’m not entirely comfortable with the end result of such a individual-freedom policy.

What would I do if it became the norm for companies to refuse to hire Christians, for whatever reason? My belief in private individual freedom of association would suggest that I should support such a policy, even though it seems it would be “wrong”.

The answer I come up with is that it just would never happen. Sure, some companies might decide not to hire christians, but others would jump at the chance to hire them, so in the end we’d all work for companies that appreciated our religious background one way or another.

But that gets us back then to the question — do we really believe a person should NOT be denied employment because of their private sex life, or do we apply our 1st amendment rights to who we employ, and therefore believe is it perfectly OK for people to be denied employment for WHATEVER REASON we choose — whether it be their sex, their sexual preference, their religion, or their skin color?

It becomes a theoretical discussion, because you already can’t discriminate even privately based on race, or really sex, and probably not based on religion.

If those three categories are protected from the application of the 1st amendment’s association right, how would we argue against including private sexual preferences in that “exception” to our right of free association?

“Romney represents the mainstream of conservative thought on gays and lesbians.”

Two Sundays ago on Meet the Press, Romney endorsed state laws granting special “protected class” status based on homosexual behavior and thus equating such behavior legally with race, color, sex, and religion.

That certainly doesn’t represent the “mainstream of conservative thought” or even the mainstream of the general public, seeing as how only 17 states have enacted such laws, and President Bush threatened to veto Kennedy’s federal version (which Romney first endorsed, then flipped on to oppose).

As a candidate for governor in 2002, Romney opposed a Marriage Protection Amendment to his state constitution. In the 26 states that have voted on state marriage amendments, the average vote in favor was 68%.

Once again, Romney did not represent the mainstream of American thought, much less “conservative thought.”

Forgive me if I’m not impressed that in order to posture himself to run for prez, he flipped 180 degrees on that one. As he’s done on a host of issues.

Charles: “If those three categories (race, sex, religion) are protected from the application of the 1st amendment’s association right, how would we argue against including private sexual preferences in that ‘exception’ to our right of free association?”

To be consistent, Charles, would you want to include the “sexual orientation” of being attracted to minor children as a qualifier for special protected class status? (Its practitioners call it “intergenerational intimacy,” say they were born that way, and claim it’s a violation of their “civil rights” not to be allowed to fully express themselves with a consenting 12 year old.

Absurd? Of course, but if you grant one group “protected class” status based on its private sexual behavior, on what basis do you deny such status to others?

As to your broader question, I’m not a Catholic, but the Vatican committed an entire letter to bishops to that very subject, authored by the current pope and signed by the previous Pope John Paul II. Makes sense even to me, a Baptist:

http://www.ewtn.com:80/library/CURIA/CDFHOMOL.HTM

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.

First, Romney clearly throughout his career was an advocate of homosexual activists’ current (at the time) political agenda. Even boasted in 1994 that he’d be more effective than Kennedy at implementing it. Same year, he endorsed federal “sexual orientation” law and gays in the military.

In 2002, he opposed a state Marriage Protection Amendment, then flipped on the issue. The charge, Charles, has been obvious: he’s flip-flopped on a plethora of issues that for people on both sides involve core inner values. Indicating that he has none.

So he endorses the feds forcing every employer in America to hire individuals openly involved in homosexual behavior.

He supports the state law doing the same in Massachusetts.

Then he flips on the federal, but clearly says last week that he thinks “it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this”...

And you claim he only meant they should have the right to do so.

Show me in plain English where he said that, Charles.

He expressed his personal view that “it makes sense” for states to make homosexual behavior the moral, social, and legal equivalent of immutable characteristics such as race, color, and sex.

Snap out of it, man. This guy’s got you in some sort of trance.

Your example of pedophilia is still widely recognized as harmful to one of the parties, and therefore I could justify prohibiting it even under the a libertarian view of our freedom to live our lives anyway we want.

If it’s prohibited, it would hardly be covered under any claim of rights.

The broader issue is a hard question. It’s easy if you draw some absolutes like that everybody has the right to hire based on their own preferences, without regard to anything the government would dictate.

But that is not practically where we are now — we are in a world where your right to hire the person you want is restricted by government (in ways that don’t seem constitutional to me, but which learned judicial members have claimed are covered under the interstate commerce clause or other nebulous constitutional protections).

If we decide to accept that current state of affairs, it’s hard to say that other legal, consensual activity people engage in in private (or worse, simply their personal DESIRE for certain types of consensual activity regardless of whether they actually practice that desire) shouldn’t also be “protected”.

Under what clear constitutional principle can we argue that a company has no right to fire someone for refusing to work on Sunday because it’s the sabboth, but they have a right to fire a guy who is attracted to other men?

I could argue that a company has a right to not hire EITHER of them, or has an obligation not to discriminate against EITHER of them (I guess), but I don’t see a rational argument to support one and oppose the other (from a constitutional position).

“In 2002, he was opposed to gay marriage AND to civil unions.”

And he OPPOSED a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited both, which lots of other folks — including his own wife and son, who signed the petition — knew full well in advance was needed.

Later, he supported an amendment that banned homosexual marriage but constitutionally ESTABLISHED homosexual civil unions.

Then as he moved one year closer to announcing for prez, he abandoned that one and endorsed another amendment that banned both. Helping ensure in the process that no amendment was passed by the Leg twice as required to make it to the ballot.

Then, in the absence of constitutional protection, it was Romney — without a court order or legislative authority — who ordered that marriage licenses be changed from designating “husband” and “wife” to “Party A” and “Party B” or some such, and that local justices of the peace perform homosexual “marriages” or resign.

Romney, via unsupported use of his executive authority, is the father of so-called homosexual “marriage” in Massachusetts.

On what basis should we believe it, Sheena?

By ignoring his past?

His past behavior is a far more reliable indicator of future performance than anything he says. Or anything you say.

Passionate defender of abortion on demand and donor to Planned Parenthood, endorsed in return by the Majority for Choice PAC.

Passionate advocate of the homosexual agenda, endorsed twice in return by the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans.

Member of the board of Marriott, where for ten years he personally profited in part from the corp’s sale of an estimated quarter-billion dollars’ worth of X-rated films during that time.

Still to this day opposes the Boy Scouts policy protecting 12 year olds from exposure to teens or adults openly involved in homosexual behavior.

Just last week endorsed state-level “gay rights” laws.

Still supports various gun control laws such as the Assault Weapons Ban and the Brady Bill.

Voted for liberal Democrat Paul Tsongas in the 1992 presidential primary, then dissed Ronald Reagan and Jesse Helms, insisting he wasn’t even a Republican during the Reagan administration.

But we’re supposed to flip off our capacity for rational analysis, swallow whole cloth his fantastic claim that at age 58 he finally discovered his core values, and just “believe” that despite that liberal history, he’ll be all that conservatives long and hope for?

You may be that gullible. I certainly am not.

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.