Skip to comments.Romney: I Am Not Anti-Gay
Posted on 05/24/2007 4:59:50 PM PDT by f150sound
click here to read article
Mighty fine phraseology, there!
I like Mitt’s philosophy. He has a very definite opinion about how far the purview of government should reach....thereby giving individuals more freedom and reducing the size and scope of government.
He is very strong on individual rights.
I'm living proof of that!
LOL! Ok, wow I really drove that one over the cliff, didn't I?...sorry!
Plain spoken...Remember, McPainintheass' Straight Talk Express? Whadda joke!!!
How is being black or a woman the same as engaging in aberrant behavior?
Well, well, well, thank you for raising an interesting point! According to the vibe I'm getting in this thread, Dick Cheney would make a horrid president!!! He's obviously not anti-gay unless those photos I saw of him and his wife lovingly holding their new grandchild (who's mother happens to be a LESBIAN) yesterday were a total joke. Maybe people would be much happier if the Cheneys were to cut off all association with their daughter and her demon child! /sarcasm
The logical conclusion anyone can draw is that he would have no problem supporting pro gay policies. The logical next step to coming out and saying you're not anti-gay is capitulating to the gay agenda because if you're not anti-gay, why would you discriminate?
Your comments are so rooted in ignorance of real-life politics I don't know how to begin responding. Suffice to say that your "logical conclusion" is on its face illogical. You can't name a single viable candidate who would say "I'm anti-gay" in this day and age. I defy you to name such a candidate. The closest you could probably get to that is Alan Keyes, and he's neither a viable candidate nor is running this time around.
At least you would have been honest if you had just left your anti-Romney sneer at calling him a "snake oil cultist." But you didn't. Now, you just seem like a doofus.
The individual's right to break convention and march down the street as a gay minor, okay, I can see that, and grudgingly agree. It's society's job to discourage homosexuality, not government. BUT ...
Romney used the government to endorse a Gay Youth Pride event. Any politician who believes that the government has a role in the declared sexual orientation of minors, isn't a Republican.
could he say he’s pro-hetero? :)
Ever since the Pope failed to endorse JFK it seems that morality has become ever more a personal issue and not a social concept or tenet with presidential campaigners.
I’m not anti-antigay but I’m not pro-gay either; actually I think of it more as an issue of what’s in your wardrobe than whether you spend your time in the closet.
But I don’t hate bigots, some of my best friends are prejudiced.
The point is no matter what you think of someone you can’t govern them differently than anyone else. That is what our government has been striving for since its inception.
He attacks the media, and other candidates and people like Al Sharpton all the time, when they are out of line. He does not get his guidance from polls and the media. You must be very unfamiliar with Romney and post this tripe to take a swipe at him.
Why not say it a *little more tactfully* as in “I am against homosexuality (and the enshrining of it as protected behavior/it is dangerous, under law), but I respect them as people”?
Instead Romney chose to be Politically correct, and only become conservative on “homosexual marriage”, but he doesn’t really represent Christian’s views when it comes to the issue of homosexuality, and giving them special rights!@ I presume this will draw away A TON of Christian voters from his camp, if known about as well I don’t trust a man that flip-flopps on so many issues so easily..
Really? Never knew there was such as “war” nor that you gays had won it!? I highly doubt that it will be acceptable (and forced acceptance on us who disagree) becuase a sin is a choice, now temptation is another thing, I will give that it is a temptation, but choosing the act is a sin. I also know that it may not always be “fully chosen to be tempted” but that has its result in 1) the sin of others upon the wounded individual, 2) their own sexual sins and worship of their own desire as an idol over God!
Look the big thing is we as Christians should realize that per the scripture where Paul said “idoloters, effiminate, ect” such WERE some of you! I don’t believe gays are beyond HOPE. I believe that God (not me) can forgive them, and change them.
Gays only problem when it comes to Christians is when talking about public policy; they try to FORCE “acceptance” of their behavior (homosexuality) upon us whom disagree with them (per the 1st Amendment)..which I would say stems from God or the freedom He has given to mankind!
“As for the bible...have at it...just give respect to those who excercise the right guaranteed to them in that thing called the Constitution to believe something else. The war against gay is over. “
Reading your week long posting history reveals a pretty hostile attitude.
This being a social conservative site, you will probably have many opportunities to argue the gay power, anti-god agenda.
I am sure God would recommend you gain some knowledge and reevaluate your position -I myself suggest you go back to DU until that happens...
You are a distorter and religious bigot!
“Just my humble opinion.”
You can tell what is important to the voters by how the candidates run, and most American candidates have always run as a man of faith, that will not let us down spiritually.
The winner of this next election will do the same whether they are Dem. or Rep.
You have a real uphill battle to fight, to turn America to your rare and unusual take on American elections, and what they should become about.
“So if a judge is a constructionalist and happens to be gay, that disqualifies him/her from the bench? Personally I would take a gay constructionalist judge over a straight liberal judge any day of the week.”
Your dancing on the head of a pin aside, the judge Romney appointed was a left-wing homosexual activist from the board of the Gay & Lesbian Bar Association who had been active in promoting homosexual “marriage” in Mass.
COULTER: And of course, if you're working for a Republican candidate, you'll meet some nice heterosexual guys. By the way, before I let that slide, I do want to point out one thing that has been driving me crazy with the media, how they keep describing Mitt Romney's position as being "pro-gays, and that's going to upset right-wingers." Well, you know, screw you, I'm not anti-gay. We're against gay marriage. I don't want gays to be discriminated against. I mean, I think we have, in addition to blacks, I don't know why all gays aren't Republicans. I think we have the pro-gay position, which is anti-crime and for tax cuts. Gays make a lot of money, and they're victims of crime. I mean, the way -- no, they are. They should be with us. But the media portrays us. If they could get away with it, they would start saying, you know, "Mitt Romney, he's pro-civil rights, and that's going to upset conservatives." No. OK. Sorry, go ahead."
Does this mean that Romney is PRO-GAY?
Bottom line: Homosexuality is a sin.
I’m not voting for someone who doesn’t take a stand against evil, and Romney proved that he won’t take a stand against perversion. He’s not getting my vote.
Love the sinner, hate the sin. Love the person enough to speak the Truth.
I am, am I? Let me put things into perspective for you. The judge in question was at the district court level and not the highest state court. Once the nomination was made by Romney, it had to be approved by the Governor's Council, where 8 of the 9 seats were Democrats and were elected, not appointed by Romney--in an overwhelmingly liberal state like MA, that's not hard to figure. Furthermore, a Boston Glove article in 2005 had this to say about the appointment in question:
"Romney won praise in the legal community when he replaced regional judicial nominating committees that were viewed as politically tainted with a centralized Judicial Nominating Commission. The commission considers applicants using a blind first phase of the selection process that removes names from applications in an attempt to ensure the candidates will be judged on their merits. In addition, all of Romneys nominees have been submitted to a Joint Bar Committee on Judicial Nominations, which rates candidates as qualified, well-qualified, or unqualified and each has been found to be either qualified or well-qualified."
So do you disqualify an openly gay judge at the district court level who proves that he is tough on crime and is well-qualified for the job?
Lets look at the gay appointee judge a little more closely, shall we? Stephen S. Abany was appointed as an Associate Justice, the lowest rung at the district court level and guess what? He was not even a registered Democrat (despite the false claim I've seen here at FR saying otherwise). An associate justice at the district court level is going to have little if any influence whatsoever on the gay marriage issue.
So the issue then becomes what Romney would do at the higher court level where issues of activism have a much more significant impact. The same Boston Globe article had a very interesting quote on the matter:
"Peter Vickery, one of the Democrats on the Governors Council, says he believes Romney and Moore would seek far more conservative jurists if a vacancy were to pop up on the Supreme Judicial Court, which delivered the gay marriage decision that Romney has routinely blasted.
Some of Romneys nominees do have stellar Republican or conservative bona fides. For example, Romneys pick for Peabody clerk magistrate, Kevin L. Finnegan, is a former two-term Republican state representative. Another choice was Bruce R. Henry, the son-in-law of former SJC Justice Joseph Nolan whom Romney wanted to represent his administration in seeking a stay of the courts gay marriage ruling."
Hmm, very interesting. It sounds pretty likely that Romney knows where the real battle lies when it comes to protecting traditional marriage (i.e. the higher courts).
I would also suggest that you take a look at the following article:
It seems that Romney has a record of booting out gay activist judges, would it not? After all, that's your main concern, right? Let's take a look at a couple more Romney quotes on the matter:
Romney: Beware of activist judges. The Legislature is our lawmaking body, and it is the Legislatures job to pass laws. . . . While the law protects states from being forced to recognize gay marriage, activist state courts could reach a different conclusion, just as ours did. It would be disruptive and confusing to have a patchwork of inconsistent marriage laws between states. Amending the Constitution may be the best and most reliable way to prevent such confusion and preserve the institution of marriage. (Wall Street Journal op-ed, Feb. 5, 2004)
Romney: The real threat to the states is not the constitutional amendment process, in which the states participate, but activist judges who disregard the law and redefine marriage in order to impose their will on the states, and on the whole nation. At this point, the only way to reestablish the status quo ante is to preserve the definition of marriage in the federal Constitution before courts redefine it out of existence. (Testimony to Senate Judiciary Committee, June 22, 2004)
Romney knows where the real dangers lie in the court system. He has a law degree from Harvard. He gets it.
Im not voting for someone who doesnt take a stand against evil, and Romney proved that he wont take a stand against perversion. Hes not getting my vote.
It's also a sin to have other Gods before you but I doubt Romney is going to condemn all the non-Christian Americans as evil or seek to give them second-class citizenship.
Is homosexuality the only sin that counts anymore?
I also would add this to the fray...I find it extremely interesting that Romney’s been pretty open and straightforward, both in words and actions, that he is against discrimination—even against gays—is staunchly against judicial activism, and is against gay marriage, yet the Mass Resistance people and certain posters here on FR are more than willing to continue providing the reader with falacies and half-truths (such as the ones I pointed out to you) about Romney’s judicial appointments in order to portray him as part of some vast gay advocacy agenda.
To that, I would simply ask who the real deceivers are here.
And it is evaporating daily.
It's currently the loudest, and by spreading aids, the most expensive. Once the gays are fully established, they will turn and begin a fierce persecution of Christians.
Ronald Reagan and Newt Gingrich?
Seems most conservatives can tell the difference between the sin and the sinner.
Seems most conservatives can oppose gay marriage and special rights for gays, but still oppose hatred and discrimination against gays.
For instance, Reagan, Newt and Romney have all have shown that they are not anti-gay.
Best-selling conservative author Dinesh D'Souza writes in his biography of Reagan, Ronald Reagan: How an Ordinary Man Became an Extraordinary Leader, a biography highly praised by Rush Limbaugh, Wall Street Journal editor Robert Bartley and P.J. O'Roarke. D'Souza writes, "Reagan's views on homosexuality were not entirely compatible with those of his evangelical Christian supporters or with those of the gay rights community. Before he became President, he once confessed his belief that homosexuality is a 'tragic illness'...Yet, as we might expect, Reagan knew lots of gays in Hollywood, and he and his wife socialized with people who were avowedly homosexual. Reagan did not support state-sponsored discrimination against homosexuals as a group." Reagan Not Anti-gay.
Reagan, Newt and Romney all oppose gay marriage, but they find it counter-productive to discriminate or act hateful towards gays.
Here's an old interview with Newt where he expresses approval for the same tolerance that Mitt and Reagan endorsed.
Newt Gingrich (G):
L: Do you believe that homosexuality is a sin?
G: I think you have to. But, I also believe that all of us are sinners.
L: Well, but some folks do work a little harder at their sin than others, dont they?
G: Yeah, but Im just saying that I dont want to be judgmental about others. I think that the -
L: But we are talking about homosexuality. Scripture is very clear - its an abomination to God.
G: Thats right. And thats why I just agreed with you. I think that if you believe in the Bible, then its fairly clear. But, Im not prepared to render judgment to individuals.
~Snip~ L: Well, my thinking was something like that if people are homosexuals, that tells us something about their character and we care about the character -
G: I dont agree with that.
L: Oh, I see. Why do you think God calls it an abomination if it says nothing about their character?
G: I think there are many good and kind and decent people who may also be homosexuals.
L. My goodness.
G: And you live in a very narrow world if youve never met one.
Just because you oppose discrimination does not mean you are for special rights for the gays or support a pro-homosexual agenda. Ask Ann Coulter.
” “Reagan’s views on homosexuality were not entirely compatible with those of his evangelical Christian supporters or with those of the gay rights community. Before he became President, he once confessed his belief that homosexuality is a ‘tragic illness’...Yet, as we might expect, Reagan knew lots of gays in Hollywood, and he and his wife socialized with people who were avowedly homosexual. “
That describes me and most conservatives and Christians.
I have, and have had since my teen years, many homosexual and lesbian friends. I have been the experiment guy for lesbians and been best friends with homosexual men, and among the closet friends of more than one lesbian, but these are the types of people that are simply homosexual, they are not members of the “Gay Power” movement.
Like Reagan and his friends, these people know my politics and views, but there are parts of our personal lives that we don’t confront each other with in the normal course of our friendship.
Masculine gays respect the straight space of their straight friends, just as lesbians often respect certain men.
Effeminate gays, well just about everyone enjoys them, my experience is that most people are fine with “Gays”, it is the “Gay Power” movement that brings out the necessary resistance to the “tragic illness”, and it’s self destructive drive that can bring down the greater culture.
If Reagan came out against that bill to ban homosexual teachers in California, well, I would like to see the details (of the bill), but the main point is that it does not put Reagan in the column of supporting the Gay Power agenda.
HE’S part of the cultural decay as far as I am concerned.
I have it on good authority that you have some information that states gays don’t exactly allow AGE to be a barrier to molestation. Could you e-mail me some links on that or post it here for the terminally confused by choice.
Some people just don’t want to see the “gay agenda”.
I AM ANTI-GAY!
I don’t like perversion.
Perversion is WRONG.
To not have the courage to state this is sickening and cowardly.
The Lord loves all of his children even if he is not pleased with their actions!
It is people like you who don’t allow for healing to take place you always want to keep things in a turmoil.
Thank the Lord that SSA was not one of your trials here on earth!
you know nothing!
I AM ANTI-GAY!
I dont like perversion.
Perversion is WRONG.
To not have the courage to state this is sickening and cowardly.
YOU don’t speak for me and show YOU know NOTHING!
I also don’t sympathize with perversion.
Yes there are those with agenda like in California.
All through the 80's we had NEA agenda in the schools who was seducing for the last 20 years many of young boys & girls today many are bi sexual or confused.
Remember what Clinton did for oral sex and our young people also the condoning of masturbation etc.
We have inherited this break down and indifference!
Many parents failed to guard their children so many today are crippled spiritually.
Which should not be lump in with the hard core abomination?
Many commit suicide because they feel there is no hope!
To condemn a people in one swoop as a public official is irresponsible.
We should all be thankful that this is not our refiners fire in life, and have mercy on those who have the trial and trying to over come it!
Those freaks that dress up in gay pride parades are just the most extreme members of the gay community. They probably dont even represent 1% of it. Howeverwhenever there is a thread about homos you get pictures of them posted as if they are representative of gays in general. Most gays do not fit stereotypes, are masculine, dress normally and generally conform to gender norms apart from their sexual behavior. Most pretty much keep to themselves are modest people and dont push their sexuality on others. I dont think its right that a whole group of people should be judged by how the most extreme members in the group act. Homosexual activists make up only a tiny percentage of all gays, a lot dont even agree with the agenda or want gay marriage. I dont think just being a homosexual makes someone immoral either because we are all sinners and homosexuality is no worse of a sin than any other and yes it is a sin. It is the behavior though that is the sin and not the mere attraction and it is the mere attraction which makes someone a homosexual. They can be a homosexual and have never of commited a homosexual act in their life.