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 don't think so.
Are you two intentionally naive or what? Perez Hilton put the story together. He’s the original source for this story. That’s an objective fact and your own link, xzins, proves it.
Stop carrying water for Obama. Perez Hilton isn’t on our side. This is PSYOPS. The goal of which is to suppress support for Romney and insure an Obama victory.
Stop carrying water for Obama. Perez Hilton isn’t on our side. This is PSYOPS. The goal of which is to suppress support for Romney and insure an Obama victory.
I repeated myself to insure clarity. This is PSYOPS and you’re helping the enemy.
>> 100% of male pedophiles who prey on young boys are HOMOSEXUAL.
Definitively!
>> Romney is not the only choice that conservatives have.
Practically speaking, he is.
We all knew after losing 2008 we had to work hard for 2012. We #’d up.
Now THIS is a gaffe, if real.
The 10 grand donation really nails down his sentiments, I believe.
how you doing mate, was asking Vegas Ron if he had heard from you?
1010, Romney’s own words and the response of his spokesman is the original source.
So you’re saying do not vote period?
Let 0bama have it?
“So you’re saying do not vote period? Let 0bama have it?”
No, I am saying you should vote third party. Obviously, Obama should never be voted for. However, Romney should not receive the vote of a conservative....to do so is to continue to empower the GOP establishment (East Coast Country Club Republicans that could care less about conservatism) to continue to foist “Romeny-like” candidates on us. If you support the GOP Establisment, and vote for Romney, then you will continue to get poor candidates like Romney to represent the GOP. You, if you are conservative, lose.
It isn’t about “letting Obama win.” It is about who is going to control the GOP. Will it continue to be a small group of elitists in smoke filled rooms, or will it be the base?
If we work hard to get conservative House and Senate members elected this fall and again in 2014 (ignoring the POTUS race). We will be in great shape for 2016 when we can get a real conservative candidate running for POTUS via the GOP. IF we support Romney now, we set back conservatism maybe forever.
You may get some temporary satisfaction by removing Obama, but the long term damage Romney will do to conservatism will harm the big picture of the country. No, do not vote for Romney...vote third party.
There is not enough people to make a third party vote even close, so why bother. 0bama gets it either way.
Something else we mainly agree on.
My question for you is: If the republican party is successful in getting Romney elected, with the help of ABO voters, what do you really expect to be served by your “betters” as a choice in 2020?
Politicians aren't our "betters"; they are only tools in the system that is supposed to govern our country. Some are clearly more destructive than others.
Only God knows what will be happening in 2020.
Comprimise with immorality gives away that which cannot be replaced. “For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul?” Mark 8:36
People who vote against a dictator wannabe such as Obama (in favor of an opponent who, no matter what his personal beliefs may be, respects the Rule of Law) with the motive of sparing their countrymen a worse fate, are performing an act of charity.
The Romney foundation also gave $10,000 to the New England Shelter for Homeless Veterans.
Both of these donations are a drop in the bucket relative to his total charitable donations.
Hard to imagine how anyone could think that Romney supports a “hedonistic homosexual lifestyle”. His Leave It To Beaver family is a testament to the exact opposite.
When you (xzins)/Peach15 posted this on Zimbio where did you get it?
Did you get it from Perezhilton.com?
If yes, then the original source for this story is Perez Hilton. What’s Perez’s angle in pushing this story? You’re carrying water for the Pink Mafia.
Yes it is Pysops (do you know what that even is?). Think about it.
I may agree with you on many of your litany of past Romney "sins," though I am not sure of his motives. My point goes to the fact that he has good analytic abilities, when he focuses on something. The point of the point is that we need to get him to focus on the actual social implications of some of the issues that are important to us--to appeal to his analytic ability, rather than keep insulting the man.
Look! The ideological landscape in America has been terribly distorted by the antics of a Leftist Academia & Leftist media for the past half century. Unless we persuade a lot of people, not just Romney, to rethink what has been pounded into their psychology by the endless Leftist rant on a wide variety of subjects, we are going to lose everything we value. We have to better hone our ability to persuade. Working on Romney's perspective--what he actually focuses on--politely, persistently, and persuasively, will, if nothing else, better train our techniques of persuasion.
Just what do we have to lose?
Take the Boy Scouts, for an example. Romney does not hate the Scouts for their stand--unlike the Leftists to whom you compare him. He merely reflects the contrived bias in favor of wider acceptance of homosexual behavior, in thinking them suitable as Scout Leaders. Of course, they are not! The reasons include the religious principles that are important to many further right than Romney; but they also include the whole implied purpose of the Boy Scouts--to train boys to be honorable men. How can you do that by giving them role models, who reject the normal honorable male role; both Biblical, but also societal in general, throughout Western History. (Boy Scouts Of America & Leftwing Agenda.)
Can Romney be persuaded? I do not know; but if all the people now damning him were to appeal to him as an honorable husband & father, on this basis, would he simply ignore the call to reconsider the idea that open homosexuals are suitable as Scout Masters--or as adoptive parents. Considering his Conservative approach to some economic issues--and his respect for State Rights, which some of his detractors now ignore; I do not believe that he would. But, again, we do not lose by trying.
As for Obama Care? How many times does he have to say that he will get it repealed!
William Flax
sadly florida will turn on absentee ballot fraud.
you have a significant nursing home population that are zombie votes and do not know it.
You have those adjudicated incomptent who will vote anyways despite having a guardianship.
People need to differentiate between the committed Leftists, and normal, reasonably Conservative or Moderate Americans, who have simply never taken the trouble to really analyze the pseudo-intellectual garbage of ridiculous rationalizations, behind the whole litany of Leftist assaults on traditional American norms. I believe that the evidence is overwhelming that Romney has simply never been induced to analyze the social dynamics involved in much of this.
Let me be blunt. I have been fighting the Left in America for well over half a century. I have never--never--met anyone, who properly challenged, could actually defend the social disintegration that the Left has been accomplishing over the past two generations. Most people have never actually looked critically at any of it. Those who have--who actually feel the emotional identification with the Left--are completely hate driven & hiss insult & hatred when challenged. Romney exhibits no sign of that.
But see #395.
William Flax
Nope. I found it first in the Houston Chronicle in an AP story by an AP guy named Crady. It is an AP story that had been prepared by Aug 3 to run on Aug 5. The Hilton story is dated Aug 5. The first FR post on the subject was at 1 am of Aug 5.
“I may agree with you on many of your litany of past Romney “sins,” though I am not sure of his motives. My point goes to the fact that he has good analytic abilities, when he focuses on something. The point of the point is that we need to get him to focus on the actual social implications of some of the issues that are important to us—to appeal to his analytic ability, rather than keep insulting the man.”
You are rationalizing, not being rational. What good are “analytic abilities” when not married to a solid moral grounding? They are good for nothing. Many an evil man has possessed “analytic abilities” and used them for ill purposes. Romney’s past actions indicates where his mind and heart really is. He will not change into something acceptable. It is irrational (and naive) to think he will.
I WILL continue to insult Romney because he deserves to be insulted and hounded by conservatives.
You have aptly stated the crux of the problem faced by Conservatives at this juncture.
Conservatives are well past the point when we can afford to blithely cede another inch of political ground to the leftist juggernaut in order to make a political statement. Quite simply, we are outnumbered by "committed Leftists, and normal, reasonably Conservative or Moderate Americans, who have simply never taken the trouble to really analyze the pseudo-intellectual garbage of ridiculous rationalizations, behind the whole litany of Leftist assaults on traditional American norms". If we allow the Marxist progression four more years to advance, Conservatism will become essentially irrelevant, and the God-given liberties we are slowly losing our grasp on under leftist rule will be permanently torn from us.
Part of Obama's campaign strategy is to suppress the conservative vote by painting Romney as some sort of anti-Christ, rather than allowing him to be perceived as he actually is; a liberal Republican who is running against a Marxist.
"Those who have--who actually feel the emotional identification with the Left--are completely hate driven & hiss insult & hatred when challenged. Romney exhibits no sign of that".
Excellent point. And Romney's respect for the Rule of Law is an important consideration (and would constitute a marked improvement over the contempt displayed toward the US Constitution and the Rule of Law by the current White House Occupier).
So the choices are to either hand Obama another four years without a fight, or to elect Romney and hold him to his campaign promises.
The Chik-fil-A Revolt is a strong indicator that the political winds are shifting, and will provide a timely conservative tailwind which should help us blow Romney further to the right.
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.