Skip to comments.Romney: Gay couples should have right to adopt
Posted on 05/10/2012 6:38:57 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY
Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney (R) said Thursday that he believes gay couples should be allowed to adopt children, even as he reiterated his view that marriage is defined as a relationship between a man and a woman.
In an interview with Neil Cavuto of Fox Business Network, Romney was asked whether he believes the gay marriage debate is a new civil rights movement, as some Democrats have framed the issue.
I dont see it in that light, Romney responded. I believe my record as a person who has supported civil rights is strong and powerful. At the same time, I believe that marriage has been defined the same way for literally thousands of years by virtually every civilization in history and that marriage is by its definition a relationship between a man and woman.
He added that if two people of the same gender want to live together, want to have a loving relationship, even want to adopt a child in my state, individuals of the same sex are able to adopt children. In my view, thats something which people have the right to do, but to call that marriage is, in my view, a departure from the real meaning of the word.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
No, those people are not straight.
You might start reporting them to the cops also.
Well said. As it stands, no reply to the facts mentioned in your post.
Anyone who condones homo adoption must also condone the secularization of adoption. In other words, I am right here claiming that you want more government control of adoption. Government control is what leads to there being a large supply of unadopted children, even though there is a surplus of willing parents. I read that a prospective adoptive parent is 12 times more likely to adopt in San Jose than in Miami, for example. Government adoption has gone wild in Miami.
Please rethink your opinion.
God Bless you and your expanding family!
Same here, Mark. There is nothing I've seen that says Romney is worthy of the presidency. Nothing I've seen that says Obama is worth of the presidency, either. My best answer is to rebel against the establishment republocrats and work to institute/strengthen an alternative.
The very best answer is to pray for the survival of the nation. I believe we will lose this republic no matter which of those socialists would sit in the president's chair.
Romney is a social corporatist and Obama is a socialist.
Goode is a conservative.
I haven't investigated Gary Johnson beyond his "Limited Pro-Choice" position, as they call it. I reject that, though, so he's not my man. I'm betting, though, that he is not a socialist.
Romney's former acceptance of gay marriage, gay unions, and gay agenda is brought back to the fore by his saying that gay couples should be allowed to adopt.
Is there a quote that actually uses the expression "gay couples"? Any discerning American can see that he's got a shoulder in the door of gay marriage with that comment. He's trying to keep it wide open to reassure the log cabin types that he (wink, wink) supports "gay couples".
Anyone who would agree to give another person's children to gays is so deep in the cesspool that he cannot possibly be a PRAYING MAN TO THE ONE TRUE GOD!
Is anybody really surprised?
Even if it’s destructively confusing for kids Mitt?
Romney’s idiocy is painful to watch. It is precisely adoption of children where so-called gay “marriage” violates rights.
Shows 1999 in the fact sheet about me, but some of us lost our first entry point. It was through a software problem if I remember correctly.
What can w as conservatives do to get another candidate nominated? Can we storm the convention and demand Newt? At this point, I'm ready to file in behind crazy Ron Paul and I never believed that would ever happen!
If a child is stuck in an orphanage with only a gay couple available to adopt him, yes, adoption by a single gay person is preferable, and failing even that, adoption by a practicing group of perverts, -- whether that group is said to be in a "marriage" or not, -- is also, perhaps, an option to be considered by the orphanage, a judge, and a child's next of kin.
But this is not the reality. The reality is that plenty of normal, normally married people pay thousand of dollars and adopt from Ukraine and China, because there is not enough children offered for adoption even for them.
Further, when the advocates for the homosexuals such as Romney speak of "gay couples right to adopt" they presume an equal right alongside the straight and married couples, not right to adopt a child in a theoretical emergency.
This is a good reason not to vote for Romney. The presidency we cannot save, but maybe we can teach the GOP mucks a lesson that will last a few election cycles.
I will vote for Virgil Goode. I will live with the result of the next election but if it is Romney, then I fear that any hope for a conservative President in my lifetime will be dashed. Romney will be our Jimmy Carter and the first shot at a conservative executive branch will be no sooner than 2020.
This just about sums up my point of view as well. Those professing an 4 years of Obamao gloom and doom scenario if we don’t vote for Willard fail to understand that the deeper threat is moving the [R] party light years to the left and marginalizing Conservatives. We can survive 4 years of gridlock while resisting socialism tooth and nail, not 4 years of redefining the party to a point where its socialist itself. If Willard is elected, the GOP-e will have the “mandate” its always wanted: telling Conservatives to sit down, shut up, and “evolve”.
Thank you both, dear brothers in Christ, for sharing your insights!
WHAT? They can’t marry but they can RAISE CHILDREN? That’s even WORSE than letting the perverts marry!
Throwing the Homosexuals a bone at the expense of irritating those who may hold their nose and vote for him.
Wake up Mitt! they’ll still hate you.