President Obama, Mitt Romney Agree: Gay Boy Scouts OK

ABCNews.com ^ | Aug 8, 2012 8:39pm | Devin Dwye

[SoConPubbie]

President Obama and Mitt Romney have found some new common ground -surprisingly – on an issue of gay rights.

Obama today joined Romney in publicly disagreeing with a controversial ban on gay members of the Boy Scouts of America, one of the nation’s largest and most well-known youth development groups.

“The president believes the Boy Scouts is a valuable organization that has helped educate and build character in American boys for more than a century. He also opposes discrimination in all forms, and as such opposes this policy that discriminates on basis of sexual orientation,” said White House spokesman Shin Inouye in a statement to the Washington Blade, a LGBT newspaper.

It’s the first time Obama, who was named honorary president of the Boy Scouts of America in 2009, has publicly taken a position on the issue.

Romney first voiced support for gay scouts back in 1994 — a position that his campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said remains his position today.

“I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts, regardless of their sexual orientation,” Romney said in the video from 1994 recently re-surfaced by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. He added at the time that he supports “the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue.”

Get more pure politics at ABC News.com/Politics and a lighter take on the news at OTUSNews.com

Last month, the group affirmed its ban on openly gay scouts and leaders after a two-year review of the policy, prompting the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force to call on Obama to “reconsider” his honorary post.

[so_real]

In summary, your question amounts to "how completely evil does the other team's candidate have to be before you are willing to support our team's completely awful candidate". With all due respect, I think that's a cowardly question. How about we have the courage and conviction to limit our support to only God-fearing, patriotic, pro-life/liberty/pursuit, small government, personal responsibility and freedom candidates? You know --- the planks that are supposed to be part of the Republican platform. That way we don't have to be concerned with how many of our rights and freedoms we are willing to sacrifice just because the other team is completely evil and might win an election. You ask "would you want Romney to lose", I answer that I want both of the liberal heaps of trash running for POTUS to lose. I want an embarrassing defeat for each of them. I want a genuine conservative that would make our Founders proud to mop the floor with them in an utterly humiliating fashion. What's disappointing to me is that so many claim to feel the same way, but don't have the spine to vote with with their conviction. If we all did, a genuine conservative would win. Don't ask me how much I'm willing to give up just because the other team is evil. That kind of question sets the Founders to spinning in their graves.

[Gator113]

Hey Doug, I can’t join in the conversation because my wife has me committed to watching a movie. I just posted to say that in my opinion, you’re doing quite well in the discussion.

Obama has gotta go....

[MEG33]

OBAMA MUST GO!

[doug from upland]

I knew you would not have the courage to give an honest answer to the question.

[doug from upland]

:)

[so_real]

Or, perhaps you don't know what the words "honest" or "courage" mean.

[doug from upland]

re: I answer that I want both of the liberal heaps of trash running for POTUS to lose. I want an embarrassing defeat for each of them.

---

And many years ago in a Real Estate Law class, I remember Dan Redmon (RIP) telling the class that devils in hell want ice water. We are not disagreeing that we want a real conservative in charge of this nation. Apparently, not enough voters feel the same way at this time. So we are now given a choice of a liberal we don’t like and a Marxist who did not grow up in this county, might not have even been born is this country, and is determined to destroy this country. Unfortunately, some are clueless as to what the Marxist is capable of doing. In a second term he consolidates power and God help us. We can fight Romney and hopefully have a chance to influence him. He actually does believe in the Constitution and some in his own party are willing to fight him. I certainly am. Not so with Obama. He urinates on the Constitution. It is a flawed document to him.

[doug from upland]

re: Or, perhaps you don’t know what the words “honest” or “courage” mean.

---

You know nothing of what I have done in my life or how I have lived my life. Your words are beyond insulting and I no longer consider you a worthy adversary who deserves to be treated with respect.

[doug from upland]

Christian Science parents believe in principles. One is not seeking medical care for their children. It is noble to stand by your principles. Unfortunately, several have dead children.

[so_real]

Your words are beyond insulting and I no longer consider you a worthy adversary

Were my words more or less insulting than "I knew you would not have the courage to give an honest answer to the question" ? Physician, heal thyself instead of crying me a river. The ironic part is, I never considered you an adversary. Still don't. Noodle that and see if you can figure out why.

[Colonel_Flagg]

I guess in light of this thread we could consider your screen name “ironic”.

[Colonel_Flagg]

Obama thanks you for your vote.

You really should quit conversing with him, then.

[doug from upland]

Let’s do the math. You quote me in my response 144.
You say heal thyself, apparently hoping that no one will pay attention to your 141.

“With all due respect, I think that’s a cowardly question.”
Hmmmm, a cowardly question.

Think really hard. Does 141 come before or after 144? Maybe you need help with that. Call a lifeline. (I am playing the Jeopardy theme and waiting. But I’ll quote Adlai Stevenson during the Cuban Missile Crisis -— “I am prepared to wait for my answer until Hell freezes over.”)

For those who missed part of the discussion, I am prepared to fight Romney tooth and nail over his very liberal and distasteful social positions. I would rather fight him in office than fight a Marxist who believes that the ends justify the means. We have only seen a teaser of what Obama is capable of doing and willing to do as he carries through DREAMS FROM MY FATHER. If necessary, he will suspend the Constitution and declare martial law. He has no rules of fair play. Jimmy Carter was inept and foolish but I believe he actually did believe in the Constitution and loved his country. Obama has shown us that he loathes this country.

[Catsrus]

Yeah, like he would care to converse me. No, let me put it another way - I wouldn’t care to converse with him. I can’t stand the sound of his lying voice - or arrogant look.

Nope, just vote for someone other than Romney, or don’t vote at all. Either way - its a vote for zero.

[sickoflibs]

I am watching Republicans closely not just repeating their talking points as on FNC and what I see I don’t like. GWB term #3 and many here learned nothing.

Watch them all act ‘surprised’ and say ‘nobody guessed’ and ‘Ryan let us down’ if elected. We have seen it all before.

[Gay State Conservative]

I guess in light of this thread we could consider your screen name “ironic”.

If you had the least bit of curiosity you could learn the meaning of my screen name.

[doug from upland]

NOTE: I will give the caveat again. Romney was at the bottom of my list, just above Ron Paul, whom I did not believe would defend the country. Since I am in California, my vote for president is effectively moot and I am allowed to vote for a real conservative if I so choose. If I were in a swing state that mattered, unfortunately, I would have no choice but to vote against Obama, which is a vote for Romney.

That having been said, I will against ask a question of those who want Romney to lose because he is a RINO. I suspect, as we have seen, no one will want to give a yes or no answer. Here you go: If the Democratic ticket were Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright, would you want Romney to lose?

[Finny]

You deserve an honest answer: I would want any liberal Democrat to defeat liberal Republican Romney on a plurality BECAUSE of the parallel liklihood that that Republicans, particularly conservative Republicans, will gain seats in Congress and would have the POWER and the MORALE to oppose and dominate the Democrat liberal, whereas both power and morale would evaporate if the liberal they were opposing was the leader of their own party.

The only way to accomplish giving that conservative Congress the kind of power and morale they need and would get, is to vote third party in order to force a plurality win for the next president, and at that, it still risks a Romney win as much as it risks an Obama win, but at least it certainly counts against the percentage of mandate of either winner, and I'm willing to take that risk as I think it is the much BETTER risk than surrendering the Republican party to the wholesale liberalism of Romney.

You've posted things suggesting that "resistance is useless" with regard to Congress fighting Obama, that Obama employs ruthless thugs to threaten his opposition personally, that this country has never seen anything like him -- and that THEREFORE the only option is for Republicans to vote IN their own documented, died-in-the-wool lifelong liberal statist who HAS A SOLID RECORD of advancing all the same major liberal agendas as Obama.

In other words, you have given up on solving the REAL problem, which would be insisting that righteous folks in Congress and other areas of government actually ENFORCE the law. It seems to me your approach is on a par with folks who say it's useless to try to enforce immigration laws.

Now, I would really appreciate an honest answer to this question: If the Republican ticket was Ron Paul and John Boehner, would you want them to defeat Obama?

[Finny]

"But ABOers are ignorant of [the extent of Romney's liberal record]." ----------- Condescending and insulting.

Perhaps you interpret and internalize it that way, but that's your responsiblity. I'm not responsible if you choose to be insulted.

Now, I would be condescending and insulting if I described as "childish" the naive fantasty of "voting against Obama," the pathetic rationale of people who despise Romney but who are voting for him anyway, and who deny that they're voting FOR him -- no indeed, they're voting "against" Obama, as if such a unicorn option existed.

Now, THAT would be condescending and insulting if I pointed out that indulging in such a fantasy is child-like.

Meanwhile, Doug, you are urging conservatives to elect a Republican president who was the original author of ObamaCare, who thinks global warming is serious enough to merit international oversight on American industry, who agrees in principle that adoption agencies, the military, and the Boy Scouts should have to accommodate homosexuals, who appointed, in a three-to-four ratio, activist Democrat liberal judges, and who willfully created on-demand tax-funded abortion.

Excuse me if I think anyone who asks me to vote FOR that, for a guy with a solid, documented RECORD of advancing all the things I've been voting Republican all my life to oppose, is just a tad INSULTING himself, not to mention desperately deluded and frightened.

[Finny]

Physician, heal thyself instead of crying me a river. The ironic part is, I never considered you an adversary. Still don't. Noodle that and see if you can figure out why.

So Real ... Doug's "solutions" are those of a resigned roll-over defeatist. To be honest, it's kind of refreshing to see someone use THE word I've been so hesistant myself to use, especially as I've admired Doug often. But you called a spade a spade, and I find it refreshing: yes, Doug exhibits all the characteristics of a COWARD.

Yet I know that Doug has bravely fought, and been a courageous and effective warrior, for the conservative cause in the past. That doesn't change the fact that surrendering the Republican party to a wholesale liberal statist like Romney because Obama is so terrifying, sure looks and walks like cowardice.

I rarely offer appologies, Doug, but I offer one here: I am SORRY to say that I agree with so real.