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:
Clayton Williams said pretty much something like that in 1990, and uninformed Republican voters, mostly women that time, turned to Ann W. Richards in the general election. Then she made possible GWB!!!
He is either trying to:
1. Lose the election
OR
2. Create an openly liberal republican party that casts off conservatives. They want to be seen as the "moderate liberals" AND they want the democrats to be seen as the "RADICAL LEFTISTS".
His loyalty to the homo crowd is unflagging——it mystifies me.
Perhaps he or someone close to him is AC/DC. That’s what did in Dick Cheney on this issue.
WRONG!!!!!!! Boy Scouts has always billed itself as a Christian organization. Admonishing the Boy Scouts to accept open homosexuals is the same thing as attacking Christianity, which is one of the main objectives of the gay rights movement. Such a position is opposes the free exercise of religion. Mitt is dead wrong on this one.
Mittens “Homo Boy Scout leaders” you disgust me. You have not even won the nominee yet, already you run to left. I expect the next thing we will hear is your also pro abortion. Dont expect my vote in the General Election cause it ain’t happening.
Oh and Newt and Santorum thanks for selling out.
I don’t think that a GOP that casts off conservatives has a chance to ever win any election ever, including dog catcher.
Let’s see the Mittbots spin this.
And it’s an almost daily “shove”. Quite frustrating.
No exceptions.
And they will be held accountable as it is continually thrown in their face there after.
Also no exceptions, and justifiably so. Things like Sandusky don't just happen. A whole lot of people help them along.
Are good men who do nothing...really good?
No. They are not.
The GOP-E thinks republicans can take over democrat moderate-liberal voters to make up for their loss of conservatives.
That leaves conservatives in the cold, but they don’t care. They simply don’t believe the same as conservatives.
Why am I suppose to vote for this guy again?
There are conservative choices.
Because he's not Obama; just a carbon copy.
Nor a baby that shouldn’t have been aborted, nor a doctor who shouldn’t work only on patients authorized by government bureaucrats.
That is how I read it to. He is just a used car salesman
Good post, Ed. Thanks.
This is a test for conservatives, and the most important tests are hard. We either refuse to bow down to compromise on conservatism in the face of having the current fascist-in-chief "win" another 4 years, or we stop calling ourselves "conservatives."
And, unfortunately, the only chance any of them has of winning is for Romney to drop out.
It’s not his honesty. It’s the fact that he’s a liberal. We got McCain again.
His Stake President isn’t going to be pleased, I would think, but I’ll bet Harry Reid’s is even more pissed.
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.