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:
There are conservative choices for president, just not Democrat or Republican.
But, but, but... we HAVE to vote for Romney. At least, so say the faux conservative sell-outs on FR who are willing to jettison their lifelong, core beliefs for fear of the big, bad Oboogieman.
The entire statement is a bit more revealing and not quite so damning:
“I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue. I feel that all people should be able to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.”
In other words, Romney rightly affirms it is the right of an organization to set its own rules. If he were making the rules, he’d let homosexuals participate.
Now, while I think he is a bit off base with his second observation, I more fully appreciate his first observation...one of non-interference into the affairs of a private organization.
No one, and I mean NO ONE, has the RIGHT to adopt a child. The ONLY one in an adoption with rights is the CHILD. It is the duty of the government to protect those rights. Please explain how this is done by purposefully denying a child either a mother or a father.
But once he's president HE WILL have the right to make decisions based on his beliefs. He will get to approve or veto legislation; he will get to issue executive orders; he will get to nominate like-minded people to positions of influence.
The OPINIONS of a president MATTER!
“(Mitt and Obama: They’re the same poison, just a different potency.)” if this is the case I guess we’d better just relax and accept the inevitable screwing we’re going to get.
See #37
wow! so the dem homo’s are for Romney now? thats great!
“The horse is white. However, it is black.”
Romney is not the only choice that conservatives have.
Amazingly enough, some Christians have deluded themselves into believing it’s their duty to support this man. Some like David Barton even go so far as to say that failing to vote for Myth is sin.
I said I would never vote for him in 2008 and I’m even more certain today I can’t vote for him in good conscience. I don’t think David Barton and so many others have searched the Scriptures to see what God would have His people do.
see #34
Keep it up boys Obama is ribbing his hands thanks to people like you. I guess you really support “O”
What’s wrong with this world today,!?! Is that people do not fear God...they take everything and God ..for granted,acting no matter what they do everything will be alright.May God have mercy on their souls...
From the perspective of the damage they cause to our society and their absolute disregard for morality, I fail to see the distinction.
(1)“I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue,”
BSA had decided to EXCLUDE homosexuals as scout leaders
(2) “I feel that all people should be able to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.”
As scouts? As leaders? He doesn't say, nor does he say he thinks they should reconsider a decision he "supports".
This article is VERY misleading, as it says Romney "comes out in support" of homos in the Scouts, and that he now "disagrees" with BSA's policy. THIS IS NOT TRUE. She merely said "his stance has not changed". Well, in the statement above, Romney in 1994 said he supported exclusion of homos. So why is the article's author lying?
If he really believes this, this will hurt him more than anything else.
As someone who has had to run security at cub scout events and call the cops on pedophiles who were attempting to lure boys at them, this sort of crap is idiotic.
Freedom of Association is a fundamental tenant of our nation.
No, grey, it is the GOP-E that wants to run a candidate who will divide their base?
What does that mean, that they WANT to run someone who divides their base?
1. It means they want to lose.
or
2. It means they want to move their party to the left to pick up liberals and moderates who support the gay agenda, but who are disillusioned with Obama. They are willing, therefore, to sacrifice principled members of their base. In fact, they disdain them, thinking these conservative voters have no place else to go.
The only question that remains is will conservatives buy that or will they rally behind a conservative candidate.
I want to see Romney’s lips move saying that he supports gay men and woemen serving as leaders in the Boy Scouts.
Quoting the AP is about as bad as quoting Pravda. Actually, worse now.
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.