Posted on 08/18/2012 10:33:30 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
W didn't kill conservatism...nor did McCain (see the 2010 nationwide election results). Romney will never be able to kill off conservatism. It's just not that damn fragile.
Sorry...there is no scenario wherein 4 more years of Obama somehow magically advances the cause of conservatism...unless you include the word abracadabra. Reality...it's not just for TeeVee.
“I can’t believe the GOP nominated this faggot”
and your proof for this charge is what? how many sons have you fathered ? name calling over the internet shows real manly courage, right? stop projecting your own fears on others. you and SoConPubbie are all members of the i’d rather have 4 more years of BO club.
God Save America from 4 more years of BO.
I'm voting FOR weakening the mandate of whichever liberal wins -- every third party vote reduces the popular mandate percentage of the winner. You're voting FOR making liberalism more powerful in both parties, whether you mean to or not.
This is Realville, where you only get to vote "for" and where voting for a liberal guarantees a bad outcome. I'm voting to WEAKEN liberalism. You're voting to make it stronger.
thanks finny, ive been searching my ballot to find that 'against' option for my entire voting life...
now comes the terrified screams of how it will only 'help' bambam...
Or choose to weaken whichever poison wins. You can do that, too, though in doing, you forfeit any say in whether Obama or Romney gets the White House. For me, it's like forfeting any say in whether I get Coke or Pepsi in a restaurant.
The one thing you cannot do is vote "against" either one of them -- voting "against" is imaginary, a sophistry. You can only vote FOR in elections. I'll be voting FOR giving the next liberal president a plurality. Those who vote for Romney will, like those who vote for Obama, be voting FOR making liberalism stronger. On the other hand, my third-party vote will be FOR denying a mandate to whichever liberal wins. My vote will be FOR making liberalism weaker.
Knocked it out of the park sir.
I hope for an UTTER REVOLT at the convention."Hey, it could happen!" --Angels in the Outfield, 1994
Homosexuals are not incapable of fathering children. Men who have an unhealthy admiration for people who practice sodomy tend to be proned to engage in said behavior on occasion.
“The one thing you cannot do is vote “against” either one of them — voting “against” is imaginary, a sophistry. You can only vote FOR in elections. I’ll be voting FOR giving the next liberal president a plurality. Those who vote for Romney will, like those who vote for Obama, be voting FOR making liberalism stronger. On the other hand, my third-party vote will be FOR denying a mandate to whichever liberal wins. My vote will be FOR making liberalism weaker.”
A-men. I’ll be voting for Goode as well. He’s the only one on the ballot opposed to gay marriage.
Fear is a master tool of manipulation. The hysteria whipped up in "We cannot survive another four years of Obama!" is an attempt to manipulate Americans into surrendering to liberalism.
STOP with the sophistries, pal. They reveal you to be deceptive and manipulative via deceit -- no one here, not ONE SINGLE FREEPER, is demanding a "perfect candidate," and YOU KNOW IT.
Since your foundation is built on complete crap, the rest of your post is probably just as empty, so I'll save myself the aggravation of reading it. Try posting HONESTLY if you want to engage in debate.
... which of course, is as much a figment of the imagination as voting "against" Obama. A third party vote favors NEITHER major party candidate. It is entirely neutral -- except in that it weakens both major party candidates when it comes down to computing the percentage of their total popular vote.
Obama is in big trouble in the polls; millions who voted for him last time will reject him this time. There is virtually zero risk that he could get a majority of the vote, so declining to vote for Romney and instead voting FOR a plurality via third party, is a darned good gamble for protecting America from a Romney "mandate" at the risk of re-electing a weak, embattled, despised, majority-opposed Obama.
Entitlement thinking -- that the Republican party is entitled to any conservative's vote and always has been -- is the ONLY rationale for thinking "a vote for anyone other than Romney is a vote for Obama." And it is a false rationale engaged in by people who need to demonize those of us who refuse to vote the way they want us to.
When you are 11 years old (the age to enter Boy Scouts) does everyone know what sexual orientation they are? I’m not gay but at 11 I didn’t even think about it. Of course growing up in the 50’s may have led me not to think about it.
Thank you!
The government has absolutely NO RIGHT to dictate to a private association who they can and who they can not allow into their organization.
Good grief! After 4 years of Obama's race baiting, Holder's "Justice" Dept. nationalizing voter fraud franchises, Napalitano's HHS's open hostility to religious freedom, the EPA's open war on business, the Middle East handed over to the Muslim Brotherhood...offering Israel as a sacrificial lamb, on and on and on...if you don't have some healthy hysterical fear of what this administration will do when it doesn't have to run for reelection...you're insane.
Your third party vote will be purely symbolic. All third party votes in 2000, 2004, or 2008 in the end meant nothing.
The clueless environmentalists, voting Green Party candidate Ralph Nader on "principle", sucked enough votes away from the "not pure enough" environmentalist Al Gore to elect W. Irony is funny when it's the other guy.
From the article:
Romney first voiced support for gay scouts back in 1994 — a position that his campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said remains his position today.
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.
