Posted on 03/04/2009 9:17:31 AM PST by meandog
Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness, predicted today that efforts by liberals in Congress to repeal the 1993 law regarding homosexuals in the military would not succeed.
“Members of Congress are starting to take this issue seriously,” she said. “Indications are that repeal of the 1993 law would hurt the ‘Three R’s,’ recruiting, retention, and overall readiness in the volunteer force.”
On Monday Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-CA) announced that she will soon re-introduce legislation to repeal the 1993 law, Section 654, Title 10 click here , which is commonly mislabeled “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”
In response, Donnelly predicted that an “illusion of momentum” would not be enough to overcome opposition among military people and doubts among members of Congress on both sides of the aisle who support the military.
She added, “The issue here should not be civilian polls, anecdotes, misguided priorities, or fixation on numbers of discharges that were very small compared to separations for pregnancy or weight standard violations. Most separation cases start with voluntary admissions of homosexual conduct, not investigations. Clarify the law, and such losses could be zero. Repeal the law, and personnel losses could be huge.”
Donnelly emphasized that the annual Military Times Poll of almost 2,000 active duty subscribers found that 58% of respondents supported current law—for four years in a row. The 2008 survey also found that 10% said they would not re-enlist if Congress repeals the 1993 law, and an additional 14% said they would consider leaving.
“This survey does not claim precision,” she said, “but when major efforts are underway to increase the Army and Marine Corps, we cannot afford to lose almost a quarter of the volunteer force, including skilled careerists who cannot easily be replaced.
“The issue is eligibility to serve, not “sexual orientation”—a vague phrase not in the actual law.
A future-oriented Congress will support the statute, which the courts have declared constitutional several times. I am confident that they will not allow social engineering to make military life more difficult and more dangerous.”
The liberals are too anti-military to know where to start on this. If they want gays in the military, they need to change the UCMJ, and that’s a job for Congress (a job that even the most liberal wouldn’t want to touch even if they knew what to do).
What no pink ribbon or patch have crosco will travel.
Of course, there will be resistance and discomfort (to put it mildly) in the military. So they will have to create special all-homosexual units to "protect" homosexuals from prejudice. These units will thus be POLITICALLY BEHOLDEN to Obama and the Democrats. That, not the nation, is where their loyalties will lie. Do you begin to get the picture?...
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.
Sincerly, Mitt Romney
Freepmail wagglebee or DirtyHarryY2K to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Checkout: http://SilencingChristians.com
Thanks for posting that so the Romneybots can see what a liberal rino he is.
Good news.
Amazing that anyone can claim he is conservative.
I hope Elaine is correct.
Lopez: And what about the 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans where you indicated you would support the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and seemed open to changing the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy in the military? Are those your positions today? Gov. Romney: "No. I don’t see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges."
"As for military policy and the "don’t ask, don’t tell" policy, I trust the counsel of those in uniform who have set these policies over a dozen years ago. I agree with President Bush’s decision to maintain this policy and I would do the same."
(Kathryn Jean Lopez, "A Primary Factor," National Review Online, 12/14/2006)
The only thing worse than a liberal is a closet liberal/two faced politician
He ran for president on a Reagan Pro-life platform, and with all the criticism and disbelief he has received regarding his current stand on abortion, it will make it more likely, not less likely that he will govern conservatively regarding abortion, and other social issues. Were it otherwise, I couldn't support him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homosexual Rights
http://www.freerepublic.com/~unmarkedpackage/#gayrights
Mitt Romney has always opposed same-sex marriage. He diligently lobbied Congress in favor of a Federal Marriage Amendment (FMA) to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage to be between one man and one woman. Romney testified before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee on the Federal Marriage Amendment, and sent a letter to all 100 U.S. Senators on June 2, 2006 asking them to vote for the Amendment. John McCain and Rudy Giuliani oppose the FMA. Institute For Marriage and Public Policy President Maggie Gallagher, writing for National Review Online, wrote that the Governor's testimony on the issue before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee was "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, 6/25/2004)
Governor Romney: "Some argue that our principles of federalism and local control require us to leave the issue of same sex marriage to the states—which means, as a practical matter, to state courts. Such an argument denies the realities of modern life and would create a chaotic patchwork of inconsistent laws throughout the country. Marriage is not just an activity or practice which is confined to the border of any one state. It is a status that is carried from state to state. Because of this, and because Americans conduct their financial and legal lives in a united country bound by interstate institutions, a national definition of marriage is necessary." ("The Importance of Protecting Marriage", Letter from Gov. Romney to U.S. Senators, 6/02/2006)
Governor Romney: "A lot of people get confused that gay marriage is about treating gay people the same as treating heterosexual people, and that's not the issue involved here."
"This is about the development and nurturing of children. Marriage is primarily an institution to help develop children, and children's development, I believe, is greatly enhanced by access to a mom and a dad."
"I think every child deserves a mom and a dad, and that's why I'm so consistent and vehement in my view that we should have a federal amendment which defines marriage in that way." (George Stephanopoulos, "Mitt Romney: The Complete Interview," ABC News This Week, 2/18/2007) • (Mitt TV Clip)
Governor Romney: "I oppose discrimination against gay people. I am not anti-gay. I know there are some Republicans, or some people in the country who are looking for someone who is anti-gay and that's not me." (Brendan Farrington, "Romney: I am not anti-gay," The Associated Press, 5/24/2007)
When the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling in the case of Goodridge v. Department of Public Health legalized same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, Gov. Romney identified and enforced a little-known 1913 state law that forbids nonresidents from marrying in Massachusetts if their marriage would not be recognized in their home state. This prevented gay couples living outside Massachusetts from flocking to MA to be married and then returning to their home states to demand the marriages be recognized, thus opening the door for nationwide same-sex marriage. Implementation of the 1913 law was contested in court by same-sex couples from outside MA, but the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in March, 2006 to uphold the application of the law. (Jay Lindsay, "Mass. high court says nonresident gays cannot marry in state," The Associated Press, 3/30/2006)
Gov. Romney provided active support for a citizen petition drive in 2005 that collected 170,000 signatures for a state constitutional amendment protecting marriage, breaking a 20-year-old record for the most certified signatures ever gathered in support of a proposed ballot question. He rallied citizens to place pressure on the Legislature for failing, through repeated delays, to fulfill their constitutional obligation to vote on placing the marriage amendment on the ballot. Gov. Romney filed suit in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) asking the court to clarify the legislators’ duty to vote on the issue of the amendment, or place the amendment on the ballot if the Legislature failed to act. The SJC declared that legislators had a constitutional duty to vote on the petition in a ruling handed down on Dec. 27, 2006. The suit was successful in pressuring the Legislature to vote on the issue of the amendment. A vote was taken on January 2, 2007 and the measure passed. Through Governor Romney’s considerable efforts and leadership, a state constitutional amendment defining marriage to be between one man and one woman passed a critical hurdle to get it placed on the 2008 ballot where voters in Massachusetts would have the power to restore traditional marriage in their state.
Update: Democrat Governor Deval Patrick, a proponent of gay marriage, lobbied Massachusetts lawmakers to kill the proposed constitutional amendment. In a vote of the MA Legislature on June 14, 2007 the amendment received 45 votes, failing to get the required 50 votes necessary to place the amendment on the 2008 ballot. The measure needed 50 votes in two consecutive legislative sessions to advance to the ballot, and it had passed with 62 votes at the end of the last session in January. Commenting on the latest vote, former Gov. Mitt Romney said, "Today's vote by the State Legislature is a regrettable setback in our efforts to defend traditional marriage. Unfortunately, our elected representatives decided that the voice of the people did not need to be heard in this debate. It is now even more important that we pass a Constitutional amendment protecting traditional marriage. Marriage is an institution that goes to the heart of our society, and our leaders can no longer abdicate their responsibility." (Steve LeBlanc, "No Gay Marriage Vote for Massachusetts," The Associated Press, 6/14/2007)
Governor Mitt Romney issued the following statement on the court decision issued August 30, 2007 striking down Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act:
"The ruling in Iowa today is another example of an activist court and unelected judges trying to redefine marriage and disregard the will of the people as expressed through Iowa's Defense of Marriage Act. This once again highlights the need for a Federal Marriage Amendment to protect the traditional definition of marriage as between one man and one woman." (Romney for President, "Governor Mitt Romney On Iowa's Defense Of Marriage Act," Press Release, 8/30/2007)
Mitt Romney does not favor action at the national level to sanction civil unions and would leave it to the several states to define the permissible contractual relationships between two people. Romney would not seek to impose, at the national level, a prohibition on contractual relationships between two people. (George Stephanopoulos, "Mitt Romney: The Complete Interview," ABC News This Week, 2/18/2007)
Governor Romney strongly defended the right of Catholic Charities in Massachusetts to deny placing adoptive children in the homes of gay couples; saying it was unjust to require a religious agency to violate the tenets of its faith in order to satisfy a special-interest group. Romney filed "An Act Protecting Religious Freedom" in the Legislature, a bill to exempt Catholic Charities of Boston and other religious groups from the state anti-discrimination law. (Brooke Donald, "Romney files 'religious freedom' bill on church and gay adoption," The Associated Press, 3/15/2006)
Mitt Romney served on the Boy Scouts of America’s National Executive Board from 1993 to 2002. Whereas Romney believes sexual orientation should not preclude joining the Boy Scouts, he supports the right of local Councils of the Boy Scouts of America to decide and enforce their policy regarding homosexuals in their organization and leadership.
The quote you posted was from what year?
I would note that Mitthaters like you who show up on every Romney, thread frequently and conveniently forget to document their quotes and information on Romney. Many of you blatantly lie about him, further confusing and dividing conservatives regarding Governor Romney.
My apologies. You didn’t post the quote. Do you have problems with the lack of documentation? Or would that only concern you if it was a candidate you favored?
I didn’t post a quote;^)
But it was accurate, I’d read it before. The RINO party will have to go the way of the whigs or straighten up and fly right. Iv’e voted for my last RINO. If I have no other choice than to choose between a liberal (RINO) and a marxist socialist (Democrat) I’ll just stay home.
============================================================
Hey you wouldn't be a Mitt poster if you didn't include the mandatory personal attack but thank you anyway and I will post the document.P To the Members of the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts:
I am writing to thank the Log Cabin Club of Massachusetts for the advice and support you have given to me during my campaign for the U.S. Senate and to seek the Club’s formal endorsement of my election. The Log Cabin Club has played a vital role in reinvigorating the Republican Party in Massachusetts and your endorsement is important to me because it will provide further confirmation that my campaign and approach to government is consistent with the values and vision of government we share.
I am pleased to have had an opportunity to talk with you and to meet many of you personally during your September meeting. I learned a great deal from those discussions and the many thoughtful questions you posed. As a result of our discussions and other interactions with gay and lesbian voters across the state, I am more convinced than ever before that as we seek to establish full equality for Americas gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.
I am not unaware of my opponent’s considerable record in the area of civil rights, or the commitment of Massachusetts voters to the principle of equality for all Americans. For some voters it might be enough for me to simply match my opponent’s record in this area. But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will.
We have discussed a number of important issues such as the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which I have agreed to co-sponsor, and if possible broaden to include housing and credit, and the bill to create a federal panel to find ways to reduce gay and lesbian youth suicide, which I also support. 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.
As we begin the final phase of this campaign, I need your support more than ever. By working together, we will achieve the goals we share for Massachusetts and our Nation.
Sincerely,
W. Mitt Romney
For a person being affiliated so closely with Scouting, Mittens sure didn't learn much in the process:
"To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake, and morally straight.
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.