Skip to comments.Mitt Romney Comes Out in Support of Homosexual Boy Scout Leaders, Members
Posted on 08/07/2012 6:36:10 AM PDT by xzins
A spokesperson for Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney has advised that the former Massachusetts governor disagrees with the Boy Scouts current policy prohibiting open homosexuals from serving as members and leaders.
According to The Associated Press, Romney spokeswoman Andrea Saul told the news outlet in an email that Romney still stands by his beliefs that homosexual men should be able to serve in the organization. She specifically noted that Romney had outlined his views in 1994 during a political debate, and that his stance has not changed.
I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue, Romney stated during the debate. I feel that all people should be able to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.
As previously reported, last month, the Boy Scouts of America issued a statement reaffirming its policy prohibiting open homosexuals from joining the organization.
The committees work and conclusion is that this policy reflects the beliefs and perspectives of the BSAs members, thereby allowing Scouting to remain focused on its mission and the work it is doing to serve more youth, the statement said. The review included forthright and candid conversation and extensive research and evaluations both from within Scouting and from outside of the organization.
The decision to reiterate and reaffirm the Scouts current policy followed two years of deliberations from an eleven-member committee comprised of Boy Scout executives and other volunteers who represented a diversity of perspectives and opinions.
When all was said and done, the committee concluded that the restriction served as the best policy for the Boy Scouts.
The current policy reads, While the BSA does not proactively inquire about the sexual orientation of employees, volunteers, or members, we do not grant membership to individuals who are open or avowed homosexuals or who engage in behavior that would become a distraction to the mission of the BSA.
Mitt Romney also recently reiterated his support for homosexual adoption. This past May, in an interview with Neil Cavuto of Fox News, he explained that while he is against the concept of homosexual marriage, he does believe that homosexual couples should be able to adopt children.
[I]f 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, individuals of the same sex were able to adopt children. In my view, thats something that people have a right to do, Romney outlined. But, to call that marriage is something that in my view is a departure from the real meaning of that word.
He had first outlined his position on the matter in 1996 while talking to CNNs Wolf Blitzer.
Well, they are able to adopt children, he said. Im not going to change that.
Prior to Saul serving as Romneys press secretary, Richard Grenell, an open homosexual, filled the position.
With which waffle of Mitt's do you agree.
A significant percentage go after any kid they can get ahold of, regardless of the sex. There are women who abuse both little girls and little boys, as well as men who do the same.
Some perverts are fixated on control, or despoiling purity, or orgasms rather than the bodies of their victims.
What is true, however, is that an adult who is not sexually attracted to any but the opposite sex are generally safer around kids of their own gender.
I guess we will all just have to vote for Virgil to teach those nasty wepublicans a lesson.
Your crap is getting tiresome. Give it a rest.
Very good points: he covers both bases, like the moderate
he is. It is important at this point NOT to let issues like
this become top-heavy and get demagogued into allowing Team
Obama to gain the upper hand in the “Social Issues” realm.
You’ve got to pick your battles. I have no doubt Romney really believes what he is quoted as believing, and he’s managed to cover both bases “without even trying”.
He believes in the rule of law and in letting the voters decide.
Romney: "One-hundred-and-seventy-thousand citizens followed our Constitution's process to petition government. They followed the prescribed process to place an item of importance before the voters. They asked for democracy.
"But today, by effectively avoiding the constitutionally required vote on same-sex marriage, 109 legislators disgraced their oath of office. Each of them swore to follow the Constitution. The Constitution plainly states that when a qualified petition is placed before them, they 'shall' vote. By not voting, we have witnessed the triumph of arrogance over democracy. Whether or not you favor same-sex marriage, you should be very concerned that the rule of law and the sovereignty of the people have been trampled."
Editorial: Marriage fiat in Massachusetts The Washington Times Published November 11, 2006
If I were able to pick an ideal candidate, neither of the two on offer would make my list.
However, out of the two VIABLE candidates, Obama, with his unabashed contempt for the rule of law, is clearly the greater threat to our nation. Romney believes in following the law; Obama rules by his own personal fiat tool - the executive order.
It is an incontrovertible statement. A female pedophile is not, after all, a male. A male who has sex with a male IS a homosexual ~ the condition is defined by the act.
But, they are your only choice if you don’t want to support someone who stands up for things you abhor, that are against nature itself, that are against Nature’s God.
Thanks for the ping!
He will tell you anything he thinks you will believe that he said ~ and walk away and do what he said he was going to do anyway.
The man is a pathological liar, and probably bi-sexual, based on what he has said and has said recently, and will probably be saying somewhere today.
Mitt Romney did not ask my permission to come out in support of homosexual boy scout leaders and members. He did that all on his own.
Nor did he ask my permission to say of the 1st amendment speech and religious freedom, Chick-fil-A case, that it was not part of his campaign.
I don't have to make this stuff up, smm, Mitt's the source of it all.
Why blame me? All I did was post it.
The Republican candidate is still anywhere from 2 million to 6 million voters short.
He raised taxes on the blind. Somebody called it a “fee” and he jumped on doing that like a bedbug on your leg.
What Romney said is he doesn't care of pedophiles serve as Boy Scout leaders.
According to who or what?
But I wouldn’t want him on the Troop Board ~ nor would I trust this dude on camping trips. He’d be the kind of parent we’d want to stay home and away from our Boy Scout troop.
I'll type it again.
I feel that all people should be able to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.
So...Romney thinks it’s OK for my Grandmother to join the BSA?
The republicans will not displace Mitt. In fact, they must WANT to rebrand their party as a liberal-moderate party, home of the gay agenda, endless spending, and big government. They must WANT to get rid of those pesky conservatives.
Or they want to lose.
Nonetheless, there will be conservatives on the ballot in Michigan. You will have a choice.
Except for being an American?
Thanks to all who voted for Romney in the primaries. I’ll vote for him in November but I have never not wanted to vote for anyone so much in my life that I am going to vote for.
Some are working to establish a viable conservative party.
Everything starts someplace, and why not when 2 radical liberals are the only choice?
Romney is simply on the wrong side with his expressed personal beliefs.
He can't be trusted.
Now, do Mormons have some positions on whether or not children should be protected from sexual predators? Are they in favor of heterosexuality?
Maybe we should all turn against Romney for being, as it were, a sort of one-man Jack Mormon who twists and perverts traditional beliefs to suit his political agenda (rather than being against him for seeking his religious agenda by perverting political positions).
Or, maybe he's just an ol'perv into who knows what.
You don’t have to vote for Romney.
Interesting comment ~ probably just the way Romney likes it too.
Most New England politicians, both democrats and Republicans; support the sodomite agenda and abortion. Here in Red Hampshire; you have Republican Charles Bass opposed by Anne McLane Kuster, daughter of Satan. BOTH support abortion. What do you do?
Texas was sued by the DOJ for our new voting district map, then over voter ID.
These efforts threw Texas's primary out late. The nominee was all but decided by the time we were able to vote.
Now....we gotta deal with yet another freaking RINO.
He’s a religious man? How so?
And with Obummer and the 'Rats openly supporting gay marriage, they desperately need one.
That stuff is coming across to people who don't live in Massachusetts as if he IS gay.
The only solution is a quick visit to ol'doc Bachmann and a whole new staff, none of whom are from Massachuetts!
Oh, and he has a bunch of gays around him as well. Guess he thinks they are a significant part of the population ~ or maybe they're just there to be handy~!
You support the idea of a 3rd conservative party.
It really is the only option, wkwe.
There is no turning the republican party to the right. The GOP-E owns it lock, stock, and barrel. They’ve written the rules so that it will never be taken out of their hands.
Reagan tried, but the rules people simply waited for his time to pass. This is no longer Ronald Reagan’s republican party. This is Joe Liebermann’s republican party.
Thanks. The damned leftwing lying press got me that time.
Romney is still short, and with more discussion of his torrid love affair with the concept of homosexuality over the years, he could really, really, really be short.
I suspect he thinks 10 to 20% of the population are active, practicing homosexuals.
And just HOW do you propose the BSA be able to tell the difference between the “gay and pedophile” and then allow one over the other to participate in the BSA? Do we take their word for it? “Yes sir Mr. Scoutmaster, I’m a raging queen, but trust me, I’m not into boys.”
But I guess in your world, it would be acceptable if the Scoutmasters have to watch their own asses because the queers might target them instead?
Too many Satanists around spoils the broth fur shur.
More proof here of ROmney's idiocies.
Just like McLame pimped for Obama in ‘08, Mitt is doing the same for him this time as well. The GOP is worse than the RATS. At least with the RATS we knew game plan but the GOP is keeps stabbing us in the back and we keep taking it.
Reclaiming the Republican party is the more practical and direct route to conservative power. A conservative third party only advances the leftist agenda, numerically speaking (e.g. Ross Perot).
Meanwhile, our God-given freedoms are tottering on a dangerous precipice. Political differences become irrelevant when a corrupt leader such as Obama holds the Constitution and the Rule of Law in absolute contempt, and ignores or circumvents both at every opportunity.
The entire statement is a bit more revealing and not quite so damning:I concur with your observation. Unfortunately, your opinion is not going to sway anyone today.
I agree with the angels right to decline the abuse, but I personally think it is OK if they want to abuse them.
African Americans have a similar impact inside the Democrat coalition in the 25 some states where they are mostly located (and where they run some cities, which always gives a voting bloc a bit more clout).
The Democrats cannot afford to have a black walkout. The Republicans cannot afford to have a Conservative walkout.
All same thing in both cases ~ total party meltdown.
On the other hand, the 60% of the part that is not strictly Conservative is broken up into several different groups. There is the 15% GOP-e crowd ~ they are a full 25% of the remaining 60% which gives them a bit more recognition among regular Republicans than they deserve. They also control the rump Republican parties in the states like Massachuetts and New York without significant Republican control, and certainly without Conservative control.
But, they're still only 15% of the total on the ground Republican base voting strength and can be, if an attempt is made, KICKED TO THE CURB like an old paper cup from 7/11.
The Conservatives still outvote all the other blocs.
Maybe the way to start this is to deny the GOP-e a Convention Quorum. I don't know what the quorum rules are, but if the delegates don't go the convention doesn't happen. There are ways to make this an objective.
And while of that subject he said that he was reminded of that old 1950-60 era TV game show titled "I've Got A Secret".
I heard Romneys handler was out of touch..this proves it. No indoctrination into Gay life style for boy scouts should be his position.
So, what is your goal here? I am assuming it isn’t to make sure he is short enough that Obama is re-elected.
Yes, Respect his opinion. You are entitled to disagree with him all you like, but it’s important to note that Romney didn’t propose legislation to make it illegal for you to oppose him. I may not agree with him on lots of things, but he has never done anything to justify the personal attacks I have seen on this forum.
This is neither the first or last time I will wonder how many hard line liberals are trying to hide under the label of “Christian”. It’s almost like how many can get in the same closet.