Posted on 08/08/2012 5:27:53 AM PDT by IbJensen
WASHINGTON, D.C., August 7, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Mitt Romney stands by a 1994 statement that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) should admit homosexuals to the organization, as members or adult supervisors, according to a campaign spokesperson.
During a 1994 debate with Ted Kennedy, Romney said, “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.”
Campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul confirmed that Mitt Romney continues to hold that belief today.
However, she said Romney, who served as a member of its executive board, has not pressured the organization to change its stance and does not wish to see the Scouts forced to accept homosexuals. LifeSiteNews.com revealed that some chapters of the Boy Scouts do not consider the national organization’s prohibition of homosexuals serving as scouts or adult leaders binding policy.
The statement came just days after Romney refused to lend verbal support to Chick-fil-A in the face of a boycott.
“It is almost as if the governor is going out of his way to de-motivate the conservative base,” said Bryan Fischer, who hosts “Focal Point” on the American Family Radio Talk network. “In fact, if he deliberately set out to dispirit evangelicals and members of the pro-family network, he could hardly do any worse.”
Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.
Homosexual organizations seized upon the campaign statement. Zach Wahls, co-founder of Scouts for Equality, an organization dedicated to admitting homosexuals into the Scouts, said in a press release he is “proud to have Governor Romney’s support on this issue amid such a polarized political climate.”
The liberal website ThinkProgress claims the ban is “out-of-step” with “mainstream American values.”
Fischer said Romney’s position had more serious defects. “Social research has revealed that homosexuals sexually offend against minors at exaggerated rates.”
“In fact, according to research published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, they are ten times more likely to molest children than heterosexual men,” he said. “Gov. Romney’s position, if adopted by the BSA, would put the sexual innocence of untold numbers of young boys at risk.”
The move carries political implications for a candidate struggling to attract his party’s base.
“If the Democratic Party is going to take a stand for homosexual marriage and the Republican Party wont stand up for traditional marriage, then they’re abdicating their role in the culture war,” said former Reagan adviser Pat Buchanan. He added in time, if left unchecked, “people are going to walk away from the party.”
Does it matter that Obama believes in socialism? After all, it is just an opinion.
I disagree. It is not an opinion. It is an ideology. There is a big difference. Mitt, even in the quote we are dissecting, knew the difference between having and opinion and forcing it on others. Obamas belief in Socialism dictates everything in his life. He has no problem forcing his beliefs on an unwilling public. Therein lies the difference.
So, you think Romneycare, $50 abortions, gay adoption, and gay marriage in Massachusetts — all during the reign of Romney — are coincidental?
He acts on his beliefs, too, Mars. Don’t be sucked in. I understand ABOs wanting to prevent another Obama term. I really do.
But, did you see the thread on FR yesterday about “Housebreaking Romney”? Some on the conservative, ABO side are starting to realize they need to smack Mitt upside the head when he strays off the reservation.
Sum, there are conservatives whose religion or beliefs simply won’t permit them to vote for a pro-gun control, pro-big government, pro-choice, pro-homosexual agenda Rino. I think you understnad that. It would violate my relationship with my God to support that.
Our options are to either not vote at all at the top of the ticket, or to sent a message by a meaningless write-in name, or to vote for a 3rd party that we think actually has a chance of developing into something significant some day.
I like the 3rd option, and Virgil Goode is far, far more conservative than Mitt ever lied about being.
Believe me...I will fight for the right of anyone to vote as he/she chooses. However, it makes me wonder what religion or belief would not permit taking the best route to rid this nation of the worst inhabitant of the White House in its history!!?!
As for a 3rd party....that must be constructed from the ground up and MUST have tremendous voter support BEFORE it can succeed. We have no such thing ...yet.
life, homosexuality, the responsibility to protect oneself and one’s family....those all render Romney unsupportable for me. It would cause me to choose between God and mitt, and that’s a no-brainer.
Every new endeavor starts with a first step, and it has to start at some point in time. Why not when already confronted with someone it’s impossible to support due to a huge ideological chasm?
It looks like we could go back and forth on this all day but in the end the question is “who will you be voting for?”
Sure, I am disappointed that Santorum (he was my choice) isn’t our candidate, but you will NEVER EVER catch me voting for Obama. If you choose to stay home you will be helping Obama get elected. If you vote for a 3rd party candidate you will be helping Obama. So what is your plan?
Who, exactly are you asking me to put my support behind?
It looks like we could go back and forth on this all day but in the end the question is “who will you be voting for?”
Sure, I am disappointed that Santorum (he was my choice) isn’t our candidate, but you will NEVER EVER catch me voting for Obama. If you choose to stay home you will be helping Obama get elected. If you vote for a 3rd party candidate you will be helping Obama. So what is your plan?
Who, exactly are you asking me to put my support behind?
I went from Perry, to Gingrich, to Santorum. (Those 2 disappointed me when it became obvious that one needed to throw his weight behind the other.)
So, since I cannot support Mitt, I’ll be supporting the Constitution Party, which is already on our ballot here in Ohio. It has been showing well the last few elections, and there’s a real possibility of having it build into a local force here in southern Ohio.
The advent of the Republican Party proved in the 1850’s that building a new party, given the electoral college restrictions in our constitution, must start at the level of congressional districts. The basic reason for running a presidential candidate while a party is building from the ground up is visibility, name brand stuff. The real work is at county, state legislature, and ultimately congressional district level.
Big deal. Barney Frank would even take that position.
Romney should be allowd to feel however he wants as long as he does not impose his beliefs on others. It’s called freedom.
And, I and thousands of others that are repulsed by the homosexual agenda simply will refuse to vote for him. Republicans can lose the White House until hell freezes over if it puts up a pro-homosexual candidate.
We do but I'd settle for a run-of-the-mill conservative. Liberals in line with homofascism like Romney are unacceptable.
Many will stay home or vote third party. The Republican party needs to get the message that it will give us a conservative nominee or its candidate will lose. That is ONLY way the country will ever move to the right.
How in the world did he stand up for the Boy Scouts?
He has been attacking the BSA for at least 10 years, going back to the 2002 Winter Olympics, where as CEO of the games he had them excluded from participation.
Screw the homosexual-promoting bastard.
That is no different than Barney Frank's position.
But, this comment represents the idiocy of the lesser-than-two-evil strategies. Now, we're supposed to be happy the Republican nominee only promotes homosexuality but doesn't force it on citizens. People like you, incredibly, consider that a good thing.
Screw that. FUMR.
Oh, he supports the Constitution and freedom of association and we're supposed to be grateful? Even most Democrats would claim they support that.
More evidence of how absurd the lesser-of-two-evils crowd is. We're supposed to be happy now Republicans are only using their power to promote the homosexual agenda rather than force it on citizens. Unbelievable.
How in the world did he stand up for the Boy Scouts?
He supports their right to choose their members. What else do you want him to say?
I would like to point out that the last time there was a perfect candidate who everyone seemed to agree with we ended up with Obama. Thanks, but no thanks.
Incidentally...
FuBO just came out of the closet in favor of letting the deviants have access to kids too.
http://weaselzippers.us/2012/08/08/obama-comes-out-against-boy-scouts-ban-on-gays/
More evidence of how absurd the lesser-of-two-evils crowd is. We’re supposed to be happy now Republicans are only using their power to promote the homosexual agenda rather than force it on citizens. Unbelievable.
O.K., so what is your plan? What is your end game. So we listen to you and do not vote for Romney. What happens then? Four more years of Obama? I think THAT is “unbelievable”. That your Opinion of a Romney opinion justifies your not voting at all or voting for third party candidate which in turn hands the election to Obama is...UNBELIEVABLE.
Next election cycle lets have at least one candidate who is against that.
“...ext election cycle lets have at least one candidate who is against that....”
Yeah, like we actually had a say in it....
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.