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:
Of course, Romney has strengths. How do you think he has succeeded in business, in politics, with the Olympics. In the areas that have drawn his attention, he has focused on the controlling facts. His statement about the Boy Scouts suggests that it is very possible that he has not considered the actual underlying factors involved; factors discussed in Boy Scouts.
But, if our only approach is to insult all those who are not completely with us, we are not going to get their attention in the right way.
Every time that Romney succeeded in any venture, he did so by being subject to some form of persuasion. He didn't just flip a coin; he analyzed something. We need to politely get him to analyze the issues on which he is not with us. That may be difficult; but the idea of giving the Left another 4 years to undermine the possibility of ever restoring traditional values can not be acceptable.
William Flax
We have no choice--if we would restore the America of the Founding Fathers--but to persuade everyone that we can; not by shouting insults, but by doing our best to focus attention on the underlying factors. Our position is indeed the right one--the one based upon all human experience. We will win anyone whom we can get to focus on what is valid in the human experience.
See Romney for why I believe that Romney can be reached.
William Flax
Excellent!
“Not my understanding and they are most often housed with a Christian Church.”
It’s a fact. The BSA and/or the World Scouting Movement do not have as a requirement that you must be Christian.
In fact, Baden Powell specifically mentioned that AS LONG AS people believed in some sort of supreme being - something greater than themselves - then there was a chance that people from different cultures could come together under the precepts of the Scout Law and Oath.
Atheists are a different matter. Anyone who believes they themselves are the supreme being, well . . .
Churches here in the US do make good Charter Partners, however, there is no requirement that the members of the Troop or Pack belong to that Church, or even that religion.
Anyone voting for Mittens is voting for a liberal.
Worse - anyone voting for Mittens is voting for a liberal calling himself a Conservative (a severe one).
The big topic over there seems to be this idea that Romney is some sort of Conservative ~ what kind they can't imagine, but they're sure he must be only because he's opposing Obama.
It's all very IGNANT of them, but you seem to think there are only two sides here ~ (1) The antichrist the Dems are backing, and (2) The businessman you are backing.
Actually, they're both acolytes of the exact same antichrist ~ so that's only one side.
The OTHER SIDE are the folks in the Republican party or other Conservative or Traditionalist movements who are telling you Republicans are making a fatal mistake if they run Romney.
This must stop now or we are doomed.
Meg, Why would God guide our nation if we won't obey Him. He did not say it's ok to replace one wicked person for another.
Ahab was an evil king. He allowed babies to be sacrificed (abortion today) to idols. When his son became king, Hezekiah, he listened to the prophet Isaiah & decided to obey God, even though it looked like his country was going to be destroyed if he did not compromise. He stood firm and choose to fear God rather than man, and because he did, God saved the whole nation and blessed it. How can we expect God to bless us or heal our nation if we accept sin in our own ranks?
I understand people's fears, but I fear God more and know that nothing good can come from accepting ANY evil. The gop has made it clear that romney was their choice and set this whole thing up so we would feel we have no opinions. We are doing exactly what they want, even when we know Romney is evil. We are suppose to use wisdom and discernment when making important decisions. If he was a democrat, would our side condemn him for being pro-abortion, pro-homosexual marriage/adoption? If I vote for Romney, I would be a hypocrite if I ever spoke badly about a pro-abortion or pro-homosexual marriage/adoption politician running against our guy. The media knows this and will point out our hypocrisy.
They have brought some of their more unsettling anti-democratic ideas with them.
What they don't understand is we ordinarily don't just crown some guy king, or prince of thieves, and run with him. You have to show us something first ~ and so far Romney has nothing whatsoever to show.
We have a better chance of changing things with Romney and Conservatives in Congress to keep him in check. With Obama, ALL BETS ARE OFF he wins again. He will try executive orders for everything and continue crapping on the Constitution.
Drawing on literature for a model, Romney is pretty obviously a Faust.
Dream on.
Clinton is nothing like 0bama. No one comes near what 0bama is.
Hysteria my azz. I’m looking at reality.
If you can’t see it now, dream on—just like 0bama wants you to do.
The RINOs will not cooperate so readily with a President Obama.
Obviously it's time for Romney to gracefully step off the political stage, go away, and allow honest people to move on with taking our country back from the evil people presently running the Democrat party.
There's simply no alternative to that.
Thanks XZINS! Appreciate the feedback.
I’m voting for Romney because we cannot afford 4 more years of the socialist dictator. I’m not gambling with our country’s future by staying home
You speak the truth. What the ABOs can’t figure out is that if the GOPe can manipulate them into supporting this”lesser evil”, then at the end of this run there’s another comprimise they won’t have the moral courage to refuse. If they won’t stand now, they never will.
You can keep posting all the Romney apologist crap about how, gosh, he really tried to stop all this gay agenda stuff, but he just kept being overridden!!! ... but the reality is that he has advanced and supported the gay agenda at every turn. It's in the legislation he was responsible for, in his words, his speeches, and on his stationery, with his signature, and in press releases sent out by his people.
LOOK AT THE MAN'S RECORD. Actions speak louder than words. His actions from the start have been those of a liberal Democrat statist. Wishing this wasn't so doesn't change a thing. ABOers claim to live in "Realville," the truth is they live in "Wishville." Folks in Realville have faced the fact that Romney is a liberal Democrat registered as a Republican, and that voting for liberals, including Romney, guarantees a bad outcome. Therefore the smartest thing to do is to vote such as to weaken whichever liberal wins.
In Wishville, though, you can just wish it away -- today. If the bastard gets elected on a landlide, you in Wishville will be wishing you never heard of Romney, let alone voted for him, because HE WOULD BETRAY YOU.
Obama was "Hope and Change." Romney is "Hope he'll Change." We know how the first one worked out.
So do I.
I think we need a different candidate. End of story. The GOP-e delivers or we'll have to move on to Phase II.
They're not in it.
Romney is not a narcissist like Obama. I cannot risk having him win another term and have him suspend the Constitution and install a police state. If you don’t think that’s possible, I think you’re mistaken.
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.