Skip to comments.An Eagle Scouts Returns Medals (Romney reaffirms opposition to Boy Scout Ban on Homosexuals)
Posted on 08/04/2012 10:00:57 PM PDT by Kazan
NEW YORK (AP) -- For the physician in Illinois, the attorney in Kentucky, the arts editor in Oregon, their Eagle Scout medals were treasured reminders of youthful achievement. Yet each is parting with his medal out of dismay over the Boy Scouts' recently reaffirmed policy of excluding gays.
In contrast to Obama, Republican candidate Mitt Romney does have a public position on the Scouts' policy -- he politely disagrees with it.
Back in 1994, during a political debate in Massachusetts, Romney said this: "I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue. I feel that all people should be able to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation."
A Romney spokeswoman, Andrea Saul, said in an e-mail that this remains Romney's position today.
(Excerpt) Read more at the-daily-record.com ...
All Democrats are for Mr. RomneyCARE-author of DEATH PANELS.
Democrats LOVE Mr. RomneyCARE. He bows to them.
"It's a feel-good story, this Romney thing.
Romney is an ascendant guy."
Sen. John Kerry (D) to Don Imus on RomneyCARE:
"I like this health care bill".
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D) on RomneyCARE:
"To come up with a bipartisan plan in this polarized environment is commendable."
It IS the Romney agenda.
Romney is a closet Homo.
We all know that Romney was forced on us by the puppetmasters who gave us McCain and zero.
Romney will force the New World Order— the Kissinger-type Bohemian Grove homosexual Satanic worldview-—unless he gets forced to abandoned this Godless agenda by We the People and Congressmen and Senators and return to the Constitutional principles of Rights from God-—not Barney Frank and perverts.
And you can be sure that it isn't painless. Those awards are often held close to the heart. Let them give them back, and possibly take another look at just what they do give up, when they side with evil.
You might want to tell the millions of people who voted for Romney in the primaries that they are mere "puppets. Yea, that's the ticket, my guy was outvoted so everyone else must be a "puppet".
No wonder those with such parochial views have been marginalized to the point of insignificance.
In the whole of recorded history the majority has NEVER ever been on the side of 'right', and there is nothing new under the sun!!!! Wonder, were those millions of people who voted 'for' Romney those coveted middle of the road moderates both parties lust after... After all seducing the high-minded social liberal moderates is what wins elections.... go rag on them.
“As a social conservative I feel your pain. If he were pro choice I cold not back him but he IS PRO LIFE. I need the economy to get better and Romney can get the job done. If it was just about economics he would be my first choice. He has the best shot a saving the economy.”
~ ~ ~
Where has Romney been for life? All talk. His history shows he is a pro-abort. You’re going to trust Romney on his word? No way can Mitt save the economy without God’s help. Pray for Romney to find God, the true God.
Judge, I wish I could believe that you feel our pain. Regardless, you are making Romney’s mistake of trying to limit the election to a contest about the economy. The problem’s with this are manifold. First, the situation with the economy is and will be ambiguous (it’s not all bad); and many will be at least partially swayed by the argument that not O but Bush and or structural factors are to blame for the economy. Second, many will not see Mitt as the clear cut panacea for the economy. But most importantly, by limiting the scope of the election to the economy, you put Obama on a playing field which discounts O’s radical leftism. In a wider sense, this election is about the out of control govt (not the less profound short-term economy), and wider still it is about whether as a nation we return to some semblance of conservative principles, or disappear into a leftist abyss.
But specific issues also are going to trump the economy with many voters. Romney needs to emphasize multiple issues to appeal to different voters. And in fact the gay militancy issue provides the greatest opportunity to make inroads with left of center independents, and even blacks and Dems. Also, a poll showed only 26% of Repubs support gay marriage, and a huge fraction are -intensely- opposed. It is not good enough for Romney to give whispered lip service to the notion that he supports traditional marriage; that was O’s position until just a few months ago, and Romney’s position then could just as easily “evolve.” Romney is making a huge mistake by seeming to get on the wrong side of this issue with conservatives and independents.
Judge, I would not try to downplay the gay issue as a way to convince conservatives to support Romney. Instead, you could say “we’re stuck with what we have,” and O is O, and from the start of 2013 we could plan to primary Romney in ‘16. I like Rand Paul, but whoever. I think with the Tea Party we may unexpectedly be able to mount an effective primary challenge.
If Romney wins, don’t expect 2016 to be a cakewalk for re-nomination. This is the more effective argument you can make now to try to get conservatives on board in supporting Romney.
In a related story, Jerry Sandusky also returned his Eagle Scout award.
I have serious doubts as to whether this quote is accurate. First off, it does not make sense. The statement seems to directly contradict itself. The sentences don't even go together so I suspect some biased parsing going on here. If the quote is accurate it may be a case where the statements HAVE actually been taken out of context.
Bottom line: I need to hear a definite position from Romney on this before making any judgement. Just the fact that this statement was supposedly made almost a decade ago makes me think that the source for it's reemergence is biased or possibly worse.
Can it really be a surprise that Mittens thinks it would be a good idea for the Boy Scouts to hire homosexuals to take little boys off into the woods? Mitt Romney has always supported the homo activists in their war against the Boy Scouts.
Starting during the Clinton Administration (does the name Roberta Achtenberg ring a bell?) the Boy Scouts came under relentless fire by the Democrats and their newsrooms for rejecting the idea that they, the Boy Scouts of America, should welcome homosexual scout leaders into the organization and let them take little boys off into the woods. Boy Scouts leaders didn’t think this was such a good idea. Naturally, Massachusetts Mittens sided with the homo activists.
Below are a couple of columns from 10 and 12 years ago about the Boy Scouts being turned away by Mitt Romney and the Olympics Committee for volunteer work on the Salt Lake Olympics. The Boy Scouts had been very active and high profile at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics and were looking forward to participating once again. But the Boy Scouts had just won an important Supreme Court case (in June 2000 the Supreme Court ruled that the BSA was a private organization that could choose whoever they wanted as scout leaders and could therefore reject sodomites) and the Democrats/homos were still mighty ticked off about it. Massachusetts Mittens could always be counted on to pander to homo activists, of course, so he gladly came up with a lame lie of an excuse for turning the Boy Scouts away from the Salt Lake Olympics. The Boy Scouts’ disappointment was palpable, and Mitt Romney never returned their calls.
Good data, LH. Romney has proven himself an insufferable jackwagon.
I’d like a freaking “severely conservative” republican for once to stand by an actual CONSERVATIVE beloef no matter what.
Just keep making it harder, Mitt. Seriously. He is lucky he’s up against the Antichrist. No sarc.
Belief, not beloef. It’s late and I’m on a tablet.
If they let gays in openly they either agree homos are morally straight, or will have to change their oath after gays protest the wording.
“I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue. I feel that all people should be able to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.”
He makes talking out of both sides of his mouth seem effortless.
So you think Obama has a better shot at improving the economy than does Romney?
What is it again that Romney's going to do to revive the economy???
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.