Skip to comments.For GOP, baby pictures good, gay wedding pictures not
Posted on 08/30/2012 5:24:09 AM PDT by scottjewell
So quaint, the notion of "party platform," planks hammered together to support a speaker and his or her vantage point, the way "stump speech" is said to come from the days when candidates stood on tree stumps to address the voters.
The 2012 GOP platform is no-way, no-how when it comes to abortion and same-sex marriage, but theres a chink in that social-warrior armor: There's nothing in it banning adoption by same sex couples.
Although party platforms can be at variance with the candidates own views, in this case it seems to be consonant with Mitt Romneys stance on adoptions by same-sex couples, which amounts to, "fine."
Even though he, like his party platform, is against same-sex marriage, he told Foxs Neil Cavuto, I know many gay couples that are able to adopt children. Thats fine. But my preference is that we ... continue to define marriage as the relationship between a man and a woman.
Which means, under the Republican platform, its all right for a gay couple to be parents, but not spouses?
Thats right: heres the former Massachusetts governor in the same interview:
"And if 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 [Massachusetts] individuals of the same sex were able to adopt children. In my view, thats something that people have a right to do. But to call that marriage is something that in my view is a departure from the real meaning of that word.
As the GOP is standing firm on its platform, in Romneys semi-home state of Utah, which is one of five states to ban same-sex adoptions, theres a little dust-up about a TV lineup and gay parents.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
For GOP, baby pictures good, gay wedding pictures not
News flash for the LA Slimes... This is true for the overwhelming majority of U.S. households... nitwits.
Oh Romney....Come on now you want to be elected don’t you?
Apparently he wants to get elected without the votes of social conservatives. Every times he opens his mouth, he says something else to push me away.
True for me as well.
LA times , another left wing clueless rag.
Hrre’s a message for the LA Times.
Most people on this country do not want to see hmosexuals, do not want to see photo’s of homosexuals pretending to play families.
“pretending to play families” - you said it.
Apparently he wants to get elected without the votes of social conservatives.
I know. What the heck saying that it is ok for gays to adopt. I mean I wonder if he thinks before he speaks. Let me tell you this. In my opinion, Ryan won us the election last night. However, it would not suprise me a bit if Romney loses us the election tonight. UGH!!!
And that's exactly what they're doing - playing family. It's disgusting and Romney has no problem with it.
And note the inconsistency of his stated position. Why should they be prohibited from marrying if they're already simulating real family life by adopting children? The guy makes absolutely no sense. He has no core principles or values.
they do though, they play family as if this is a game, .
They go shopping for a child, pretend ot be a normal famly and then raise that child who I might add never asked for two guys touching and kissing each other in front of the poor kid.
They then walk around boasting to their other homos how they got a child and how they play family.
It really is sick
You may be right about that, though I haven't watched a single minute of convention coverage. I can tell you, Romney lost my vote a really long time ago.
But there have been signs of compromise even with Ryan. One of Romney's campaign officials stated that the Romney/Ryan administration wouldn't oppose abortions in cases of rape (or was it one of the other typically stated objections, life and health of the mother... I can't recall exactly). Before he joined the ticket, he was a no-exceptions social conservative, and already we're starting to see cracks in his armor. Not a good sign.
it’s like most of the GOP today, work with the left, say you are moderate which stand for nothing really and then say anything to get elected whilst not pssing off their new found elitist cocktail party friends.
Well said and so true - the kids are used as show-pieces for political purposes and to play at winning a cultural game. It really is the height of selfishness and narcissism. Also the arrogance of 2 lesbians or gay men who hate sex with their natural complements but insist they deserve children anyway.
In other words, they don’t mind screwing over their core constituency, because they know the majority of folks with similar views will continue to vote Republican because the alternative is so much worse. Eventually, this attitude has to catch up with them.
You’re right on the money regarding their selfishness. There’s absolutely nothing natural (that is, according to the purposes for which they were designed) about what they’re doing.
Why would anyone want to post pictures of something you DON’T WANT TO PROMOTE!!!
yep nail on the head
There’s nothing in the platform about same-sex adoption, so Republicans must be cool with it. That’s the premise? So, I read the platform (yes, read it Boehner), and I didn’t see anything in there about being against performing pagan fertility rituals in the White House, so I guess that’s going to be Romney’s first party theme, right?
I guess they are going by Romney’s statements as quoted in the piece. But I can’t imagine if gay marriage is not ok, that adoption would be ok.
The “Right to Adopt”? Taking possession of other people’s children is a right?
The la times.....they always support the conservatives.
For Democrats.....homosexual pictures good, baby pictures bad.
Maybe I'm confused, but this kind of "impassioned outrage" is the very thing that the Left is so good at drumming up, so they can drown out all critical thinking and, yes, logic.
So PLEASE, take a long and LOGICAL look at this cold, hard truth:
Romney is the BEST--not the PERFECT--candidate running for President. A vote for Romney may be cancelled out by a vote for Obama; but enough votes for Obama, left uncancelled-- for what ever emotionally compelling reasons--COULD put him back in the White House.
And that--both my mind AND my gut tell me--is UNCONSCIONABLE!
Which in the end just winds up pissing everybody off on both side.
I hope older kids - the kids who are hard to place. (Wife and I are looking to adopt a sibling group - the oldest is 14 then the other are 9 (twins). The 14 y/o was born without a left hand, the twins were born with FAS).
I have already taken a logical look at the truth, and Romney is a pro-gay, pro-abortion social liberal. Further, like Obama, he presents himself as a Christian when he isn’t (Mormonism denies many of the central tenets of Christianity). I will not be browbeaten into voting for a slightly-less-liberal candidate to replace a very liberal candidate.
Romneycare, gay marriage, no problem with gays adopting children or becoming leaders in Boy Scouts, forcing Catholic hospitals to provide the morning-after pill? Sorry, no thanks. Can’t support a guy like that.
I’m Christian, and called upon to witness to the truth. Romney is a transparent fraud, as well as a social liberal. Sorry, he lost my vote a long time ago.
Do whatever you’d like. I’m not trying to tell anyone else what they should do. But if Romney loses, he and the GOP have nobody to blame but themselves.
Yes, the older children are the ones in real need. Good for you and your wife. I hope it all works out; those kids sound like they need such loving care as you and your wife have to offer.
May God bless you and this effort, sir! There are so few opportunities for kids like this to be placed in loving homes.
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.