Posted on 08/08/2012 5:27:53 AM PDT by IbJensen
WASHINGTON, D.C., August 7, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – Mitt Romney stands by a 1994 statement that the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) should admit homosexuals to the organization, as members or adult supervisors, according to a campaign spokesperson.
During a 1994 debate with Ted Kennedy, Romney said, “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.”
Campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul confirmed that Mitt Romney continues to hold that belief today.
However, she said Romney, who served as a member of its executive board, has not pressured the organization to change its stance and does not wish to see the Scouts forced to accept homosexuals. LifeSiteNews.com revealed that some chapters of the Boy Scouts do not consider the national organization’s prohibition of homosexuals serving as scouts or adult leaders binding policy.
The statement came just days after Romney refused to lend verbal support to Chick-fil-A in the face of a boycott.
“It is almost as if the governor is going out of his way to de-motivate the conservative base,” said Bryan Fischer, who hosts “Focal Point” on the American Family Radio Talk network. “In fact, if he deliberately set out to dispirit evangelicals and members of the pro-family network, he could hardly do any worse.”
Click “like” if you want to defend true marriage.
Homosexual organizations seized upon the campaign statement. Zach Wahls, co-founder of Scouts for Equality, an organization dedicated to admitting homosexuals into the Scouts, said in a press release he is “proud to have Governor Romney’s support on this issue amid such a polarized political climate.”
The liberal website ThinkProgress claims the ban is “out-of-step” with “mainstream American values.”
Fischer said Romney’s position had more serious defects. “Social research has revealed that homosexuals sexually offend against minors at exaggerated rates.”
“In fact, according to research published in the Archives of Sexual Behavior, they are ten times more likely to molest children than heterosexual men,” he said. “Gov. Romney’s position, if adopted by the BSA, would put the sexual innocence of untold numbers of young boys at risk.”
The move carries political implications for a candidate struggling to attract his party’s base.
“If the Democratic Party is going to take a stand for homosexual marriage and the Republican Party wont stand up for traditional marriage, then they’re abdicating their role in the culture war,” said former Reagan adviser Pat Buchanan. He added in time, if left unchecked, “people are going to walk away from the party.”
The problem is, Romney is running as a Republican, not a Democrat.The idea behind having distinct parties is having distinct platforms whereon we can be represented by individuals who share our ideals and values.
What I hate MOST about the current administration is how polarized they are and how divisive they are. I don’t want Romney to become the conservative Obama. I want a President who does not alienate all the people he does not completely agree with. We need to be pulled together, not torn apart. I don’t agree with Romney on everything, but that’s OK. I firmly believe that if we control the congress and the senate, Romney will sign the legistlation.
Let’s see now...
A few days ago, one of Romney’s spokespeople was razzle-dazzled into saying to a reporter/heckler “His position has not changed.”
You know, Romney’s position that the Boy Scount organization — not Obama’s Justice Department — should decide who is to be admitted.
And now YOU seem to think that Romney has plans to FORCE the Boy Scouts to admit deviant leaders.
In the first place, that thought does not fit the facts that we know.
And in the second place, consider that the US Supreme Court actually COULD force the Boy Scouts to admit deviant leaders.
So who is more likely to name Barney Frank to be our next Supreme Court Justice: Obama? Or Romney?
I do hope that this comment has cleared up what the REAL issue should be:
Obama delenda est!
How impossibly frigging stupid do you have to be to pander to 2-3% of the population at the expense of over half of the rest of us? He will NEVER get their vote, even if he marches in their parades. Same for blacks, hispanics and most Independents (someone who I believe is just an intellectual coward).
Is Romney taking the same pills that crazy McCain took when he ran? I just flat-a$$ don’t understand this undying whip-dog need for Republicans to pander to those sectors of the population that contribute nothing to the national advancement of principles and morals and overall well-being of its citizens.
Seriously? Let homosexual deviants join (and lead - this is what the homosexual deviants want- young boys? - Teach them all the BSA principles? Huh?). I just don’t get it.
I never supported him, but had resigned myself to voting for him because I know what Obama is and will do, but I’m beginning to think this whip-dog stuff is going to get Obama elected again. Has God left this country?
Romney’s position is evil. No one should vote for such a man
Romney’s position is that they boy scouts should decide for themselves. Anything else he said was politics. He threw the gay community a little bone so they didn’t freak out. I think it was smart of him to do so. He also let them know he supports the freedom of the scouts to decide for themselves who they want and who they don’t. I just don’t se that as evil. What IS evil is Obama getting a second term. I will never let that happen. Who exactly will you be voting for?
He has personally and quite publically aligned himself on the opposite side of conservatives on this issue
He said he supports the right of the boy scouts to choose for thrmselves who they accept. I agree with him. He stood up for the boy scouts and then he threw the gay community a bone so they would not throw a hissy fit. He did not say the boy scouts need to accept gays. He said it is a decision that needs to be made by the scouts. I fully support that . He aligned himself with everyone who does not want to be told what to think and do. That would be me.
Personally, I felt - and continue to feel - that Newt Gingrich would make an excellent president.
Alas, America’s Republicans didn’t agree with me.
” It has been my take that father volunteers pretty much ran the day to day Boy Scout efforts.”
Just as my dad did, when I was a Boy Scout.
” Why would there be a need for guys that weren’t parents to get involved?”
I wonder how many good Boy Scout advocates had the wisdom to ask this very question when under attack by the homo lobby? I can’t think of a better one.
I’ve often said that capable people with less than conservative personal beliefs should not be automatically discounted if they are willing to put “feelings” aside and abide by the will of the people.
Thank you! Most of the comments I have received have excoriated me for what I wrote. I don’t really understand where they are coming from. Perhaps the Obama campaign is just trying to stir up some controversy?
I am sad to say that you speak the truth.
I'm voting for a plurality, and the only way to do that is to vote third party. I hope you will join me. Every third party vote (it doesn't much matter who for) will count toward reducing the total popular vote percentage of whichever statist liberal wins, and God willing, whether it's Obama or Romney, he will enter office ONLY on a plurality, where the majority of the popular vote went to someone else. As it has done in the past, it would favor conservatives in Congress in opposing the liberal policies of the next statist in the White House. be it Obama or Romney.
Furthermore, providence and the Almighty have blessed us with the unique circumstance where Obama has become so loathed and deserted by former supporters, that he is WEAK and has little chance of netting a majority; many who voted for him last time will desert him at the ballot box this time. So rejecting Romney for a third party candidate presents very little risk of seeing Obama win a majority, and has double value in that it WILL count toward denying a popular mandate to either one.
It's all pretend to "vote against" Obama -- 100 percent imaginary, cannot be done, no more than I can vote "against" Romney. There's no such thing -- any ballot anywhere EVER only gives you the choice of voting FOR, never "against." Even when you vote "against" a proposition, you're actually voting FOR nixing it. VOTING "AGAINST" OBAMA IS ALL IMAGINARY.
ABOers tell themselves they're voting "against" Obama, but that is only feel-good talk. In practice and in fact, they'd be voting FOR an extreme statist liberal, albeit one registered in the Republican party, to become the most powerful Republican in America. That is ONLY and ALL that they would be voting for, as voting "against" is entirely imaginary.
I will be voting FOR a plurality, because I know no matter how I vote or which major candidate wins, an extreme liberal statist will get the White House, so the best I can do is vote specifically to weaken his victory and put him on the defensive. The last two times a liberal won the presidency on a plurality, he was bulldozed to the right by the Republican Revolution and then impeached.
You can vote to empower statism, or you can vote to weaken it. Those, ABOers, are your two choices.
Campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul confirmed that Mitt Romney continues to hold that belief today.
However, she said Romney, who served as a member of its executive board, has not pressured the organization to change its stance and does not wish to see the Scouts forced to accept homosexuals. LifeSiteNews.com revealed that some chapters of the Boy Scouts do not consider the national organization’s prohibition of homosexuals serving as scouts or adult leaders binding policy.
See the top quote, pfony. Those are Romney's words. That says to social conservatives that Romney BELIEVES in gays participating in the Boy Scouts.
Anyone can see why that has made social conservatives a bit antsy.
His spokesman comes out and says that position hasn't changed. She adds he hasn't "pressured" anyone and that he doesn't wish to see it "forced" to change. None of that is reassuring. Romney still believes gays should be a part, and he would hate to see a change forced on it. ("I'd hate to see you sent to bed with supper, son." does not mean "you are NOT under any circumstances going to be sent to bed without supper.)
All of these conservatives are seeing something there that worries them. What do you think it is?
Now, so far as Barney Frank, neither of them will appoint Barney to be on Scotus.
However, John Paul Stevens, one of the most liberal justices of our day was appointed by a Republican (Gerald Ford, I belive.)
So, I have no reassurance at all that liberal Mitt would appoint conservative justices. He did not in Massachusetts. His track record says he won't as president.
marstegreg – “He did not say the boy scouts need to accept gays.”
You’re parsing, here’s what he said…
MR – “I feel that all people should be able to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.”
SZ- “The problem for me here is that he has come out espousing a public position that is in agreement with the queer agenda.” [Premise for my position, which was ignored.]
I’m in the trenches fighting this war, and I know for a fact what comments like his mean in the overall battle plan. It gives comfort to the enemy and helps to demoralize those who are fighting against the queers.
When you have the presumptive Republican nominee coming out and publically siding with the queers with regards to participation, who benefits? The BSA or the queers?
His apparent disdain for the dangers of such a position also brings his judgment and character into question by the mere fact that male pedophiles are homosexuals, an “orientation”.
What part of “morally straight” doesn’t Mormon Bishop Romney understand? The Mormon Scouts and Scouters that I know are well versed in its meaning which makes Romney an outlier. Questionable to say the least.
Regardless of his “right to choose” comment, he then proceeds to completely undermine its signifcance by injecting his personal views in an obvious “bone” to the queers. It does nothing to offer support to the BSA or its advocates.
On the contrary, it helps to undermine it and serves only to further embolden the enemy.
Have you ever been in a meeting and there was one of those dead air moments, when there was an obvious question on everyone’s mind, and nobody was going to ask it?
I suspect this may have been one of those moments.
>>>Romney said, “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.” <<<
Weasel words. In the first sentence, he’s saying that it’s up to the Boy Scouts. In the second sentence, he’s telling us what he would do if he was in charge of the Boy Scouts, which he isn’t, so it doesn’t matter.
He’s just trying to wiggle around the issue by trying to appeal to all sides. Which, by the way, doesn’t make me feel real confident about the guy.
I suspect you are correct.
On the contrary, it helps to undermine it and serves only to further embolden the enemy.
I like that he stood up for the boyscouts without alienating the gay community. This is what Presidents do (or at least they should). They need to at least appear to represent everyone. This administration repersents ONLY their own ideology. I like that Mitt at least attempted not to alienate them while supporting the scouts. I do not agree with everything he believes, but I appreciate his attempt to at least acknowlege another point of view.
He did nothing of the kind. You are choosing to ignore the underlying danger here. His support for queers to participate in the BSA.
Let us not forget Earl Warren (Ike); Harry "Rest in Hell" Blackmun (Roe v Wade) (Nixon); David "Left of everyone" Souter (Bush 1). Three of the most liberal justices in history, all appointed by Republicans.
Why doesn’t Romney just hand the election over to Obama right now?
Geez...what a PUTZ...
When my kid was in the Scouts, we (fathers and Scout masters) got together and spoke of this issue, as it was just starting to surface.
We all unanimously agreed that it was unacceptable to have our boys anywhere near queer scoutmasters, should the organization cave in and allow them into the program.
I have no problem discriminating against anyone or anything when it comes to the safety of my kids. None whatsoever.
IbJensen, you are right; even on this forum, all the attention was on the Santorum-Gingrich fight for second place, which ultimatley meant nothing. Our own primary voters are to blame for American’s certain decline.
Sounds like Mittens is trying to get the JoePA backers on board.
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.