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:
I can’t count how many times I’ve seen this repeated... over and over.. again and again.. yet, they only see what they want to see :~p
Nope, Broward will always go Dem. A bunch of transpanted NY’er and NJ’ers. Romney will win FL in a landslide, that.... I am certain of. I voted for Newt and but I told everyone here Romney would win FL handily, and he did and will again. Soetoro is not liked in FL.
Then you should thank me for trying to hold his feet to the fire and keep him to the right.
What are you doing to keep him to the conservative side of issues?
We ALL are voting for conservatives for house, senate, dog catcher, etc.
But, what are you doing to keep ROMNEY on a conservative path?
ven if only 20% of the population are at my side
________________________
20%? Are you basing those numbers on FR sentiment? Because I hope you realize MANY here are Obots and trolls who are given free reign to bash the GOP candidate. I’ve been spending my past few months on other sites, reading twitter, facebook, etc. I can assure you 20% do not share your sentiments(Thank God). Maybe about 2-3%.
So if someone actually thinks homosexual marriage/adoption and abortion is wrong
__________________
I never said that, and you damn well know it. Homos are perverts and I’ve never said anything other than that.
At this point and time, I’m more concerned with the economy that the Marxist Kenyan is trying to destroy so he can offer reparations and redistribute the wealth. Get him out, Romney will be good on the economy and hold his liberal leaning feet to the fire. he screws up, he’s out in 4 years and he knows it.
But, you're voting for it.
We DO need a law.
A repeal by executive order permits a subsequent governor to simply re-institute the original regulation. Seems perfectly logical.
Risk is the price you pay for opportunity. There's zero risk with Romney -- it's 100% certain that he'd make liberalism more powerful. Zero risk, zero opportunity. I'm risking a plurality and leaving whether Obama or Romney wins up to those willing to vote for their particular brand of liberalism. Either way, a liberal statist will have the White House, and the last time a liberal statist was elected president by a plurality, he was pushed right by the Republican Revolution and then impeached. Facts guide my choice here; hysteria and fear guide the choice of ABOers.
That's my plan. To skip the top of the ballot and vote down the the ballot for those candidates that I believe best represent my positions, views and ideas as a social conservative. Moderates and RINO's need not bother asking for my support since they can't be counted on to support conservatism when the chips are down.
I seem to remember when one of the major newspapers came out with a full page ad, calling him General Betray Us.
I hope he picks someone MUCH more conservative than he is! (And, with the ability to say it like it IS. Even tho the VP is supposed to keep his mouth shut, and be supportive of the Pres.) Someone like Christie, perhaps?
Ever since JR requested a truce on the Romney candidacy, you petulant little AB0 snots think you have permission to run roughshod over other FReepers, many who have been here a hell of a lot longer than the likes of you?
You and your fellow sycophants are engaged in the typical Alinskyite tactic of accusing others of the very thing you yourself are doing.
You think your vicious attacks and character assassinations of those who refuse to vote in blind lockstep with the e-GOP for a slimy socialist pos like Romney are a recipe for success that’s needed around here?
If anything, it’s destructive. But I don’t think folks like you are here to debate or discuss in a civil manner. If a FReeper doesn’t agree with you, it’s time to throw out the ad hominems.
Pathetic.
Romney disagreed, and vetoed the legislature's bill. The measure then went back to the legislature, and every single state senator voted against Romney, except one: then-state Sen. Scott Brown, now a Republican U.S. senator running for reelection. The commission, now independent, still exists.
There's zero risk that Obama will cease his Marxist destruction of our country if re-elected. He must be defeated, and if Romney is the only tool we have to get the job done, so be it.
Bravo. The understatement of the year!! I remember back to the mid 90's and on into the early 00's when a Democrat couldn't get elected dog catcher in most any town, USA. They abandoned their sinking ship party in droves but not their true nature and beliefs and became true blue RINO's. They corrupted the Republican party and it is now diseased from the neck up and we are paying the price for that tragic mistake.
I’ll be voting for Romney..I am passionate about evicting Obamanation and his Marxist gang.
Of course I’ll be voting conservative downticket.
My conscience will not allow me to enable Obama to spend 4 more years of destroying our beloved country.
Romney, at least, doesn’t hate America.
The kids AREN’T alright:
http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/06/5640
“...For instance, a recent federal report showed that children in heterosexual families are least likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused in an intact, biological, married family...”
To vote for Romney isn't all that different than voting for Obama IMO since their goals are pretty much the same. The only difference in being which route they take getting America there by as they both get us to the same place in the end. To vote for the lesser of two evils means one is still voting for an evil choice. Not me!
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.