Posted on 08/07/2012 6:36:10 AM PDT by xzins
A spokesperson for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has advised that the former Massachusetts governor disagrees with the Boy Scout’s current policy prohibiting open homosexuals from serving as members and leaders.
According to The Associated Press, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul told the news outlet in an email that Romney still stands by his beliefs that homosexual men should be able to serve in the organization. She specifically noted that Romney had outlined his views in 1994 during a political debate, and that his stance has not changed.
“I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue,” Romney stated during the debate. “I feel that all people should be able to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.”
As previously reported, last month, the Boy Scouts of America issued a statement reaffirming its policy prohibiting open homosexuals from joining the organization.
“The committee’s work and conclusion is that this policy reflects the beliefs and perspectives of the BSA’s members, thereby allowing Scouting to remain focused on its mission and the work it is doing to serve more youth,” the statement said. “The review included forthright and candid conversation and extensive research and evaluations — both from within Scouting and from outside of the organization.”
The decision to reiterate and reaffirm the Scout’s current policy followed two years of deliberations from an eleven-member committee comprised of Boy Scout executives and other volunteers who represented “a diversity of perspectives and opinions.”
When all was said and done, the committee concluded that the restriction served as “the best policy” for the Boy Scouts.
The current policy reads, “While the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.”
Mitt Romney also recently reiterated his support for homosexual adoption. This past May, in an interview with Neil Cavuto of Fox News, he explained that while he is against the concept of homosexual “marriage,” he does believe that homosexual couples should be able to adopt children.
“[I]f two people of the same gender want to live together, want to have a loving relationship, or even to adopt a child, in my state, individuals of the same sex were able to adopt children. In my view, that’s something that people have a right to do,” Romney outlined. “But, to call that ‘marriage’ is something that in my view is a departure from the real meaning of that word.”
He had first outlined his position on the matter in 1996 while talking to CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.
“Well, they are able to adopt children,” he said. “I’m not going to change that.”
Prior to Saul serving as Romney’s press secretary, Richard Grenell, an open homosexual, filled the position.
Related Stories:
Goode doesn’t have a chance. He may act as a spoiler in his home state.
I want Obama’s entire administration out.
CMac, there is no reason to vote for Obama and no reason to vote for Romney.
In Maryland, a vote for Virgil Goode is a vote for change.
A vote for Romney isn’t going to win anyway.
Let’s get pink boy scout knives and whittle some rainbow flags.
Sure, I answered your question but you were quite inarticulate. Maybe you’d like to try again in English.
Of course. I'm not paranoid.
Are we cutting too close to the bone or what?
Bingo! About time this subject was broached. I've long believed that Mittens was a big mucky muck of some kind within their church and if so then does the Mormon church condone what Mittens purports to represent? If so then that lends more credence to my long held belief that the Mormon church is little more than a cult.
If they don't adhere to the sinful lifestyles and choices that Mitty condones and supports then the church should by all means come out very publicly and forcefully and say as much. Silence in these type of cases can be easily construed as a form of tolerance and acceptance.
Would Texas have gone for Mitt if there were still others in the race at the time of your primary?
Ripped right from the old Democrat political playbook. If you don't support my guy then that means you support the devil. That has never worked for me, it's so childish and immature and reflects poorly of the one espousing such petty rhetoric.
I make my choices based on what I think is best and not what some political whore-monger is screaming at me. The more and louder they scream the entrenched I become. I will not vote for Romney nor Obama but I will vote. Both candidates are corrupt and vile.
I know Romney is not a conservative..I know Obama is a Marxist..
I did not support Romney in the primary..He wasn’t a consideration..but I know what Obama is doing to our nation and I want a chance for our country to survive..
I do not condemn others for their votes and opinions..but I passionately believe Obama is an enemy to America.
That’s not what that means at all. Anyone who can get beyond a simplistic reading can realize Mitt said:
1) I won’t intervene to make the Boy Scouts change their policy (like an Obama-style leader), but since you’re asking
2) I don’t agree with their policy.
There are enough reasons not to agree with Mitt but let’s quit making them up.
Will they give pink badges?
Which, in context here is meaningless.
In context of the desires of the adult involved, it is not enough to remove only males exclusively attracted to males.
In the vocabulary of attractions, there is are options including: bisexuality. Those people need to be kept away as well.
Which was my point.
The asexual adults who just don't get sexuality at all are safe, but they often have an inability to perceive a great many social interactions that makes them poor chaperons. They likely won't be found in venues with kids unless some one drags them.
So, what is your goal here? I am assuming it isn’t to make sure Romney is short enough votes that Obama is re-elected.
Why is a so-called "christian news" operation publishing this ?
So he's against the BSA excluding 11 and 12yo boys who are homosexuals or just homos who are scout leaders?
ignore this lunatic
why wasn’t this thread pulled?
all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.”
His meaning is clear. He disagrees with the Boy Scout's policy that prevents gays.
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.