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 Scout’s 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 committee’s work and conclusion is that this policy reflects the beliefs and perspectives of the BSA’s 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 Scout’s 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, that’s 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 CNN’s Wolf Blitzer.
“Well, they are able to adopt children,” he said. “I’m not going to change that.”
Prior to Saul serving as Romney’s press secretary, Richard Grenell, an open homosexual, filled the position.
Related Stories:
I AGREE.
NO BAMA. NO HOW, NO WAY
I see Brack Hussein-0sama and his lefties are trying to pick Patraeus for our VP now.
What is your opinion on him? Someone called him Patra-us some time back. Don’t remember what it was about.
In Massachusetts in 2006, Romney pushed and passed law that DENIED the right of adoption agencies to set their own rules with regard to homosexual adoption. When Romney says he thinks gays should have the "right" to adopt children, what he really means is that government should have the right to PUNISH adoption agencies that refuse to cooperate with homosexuals.
In place of Obamacare, Mitt will pursue policies that give each state the power to craft a health care reform plan that is best for its own citizens. The federal government’s role will be to help markets work by creating a level playing field for competition
RomneyCare = "state..healthcare reform plan..."
shame on you, Soetoro’s secrets, lies and fabricated past are not supposed to be mentioned.
Yes, I know. That's what I mean. I don't understand why he has always been so devoted to sodomites.
I think a lot of Romney voters are as disgusted by him as we are (or at least they say they are). But since they can’t bring themselves to actually defend either Romney’s record or his conservative creds, too many are reduced to insulting those who can’t bring themselves to vote for him.
I love talking with intellectually honest ABOs. We have solid debates and I enjoy the conversations. The others do no credit to their candidate or, frankly, the cause of beating Obama. Which we ALL want to see. Some of us just can’t support Romney as the candidate to do it.
In other words, Romney rightly affirms it is the right of an organization to set its own rules. If he were making the rules, he’d let homosexuals participate.
In Massachusetts in 2006, Romney pushed and passed law that DENIED the right of adoption agencies to set their own rules with regard to homosexual adoption. When Romney says he thinks gays should have the “right” to adopt children, what he really means is that government should have the right to PUNISH adoption agencies that refuse to cooperate with homosexuals.
The Catholic Churchs’ adoption services had to close in MA after providing adoption services for 109 years, because Romney said adoption agencies must let gays adopt. Sounds like the libs who say Chic-a-fil must agree with the homosexual lifestyle or close down your business. Actually it’s worse, because poor innocent children will suffer for Romney’s decision.
“Keep the Govt and politicians’ opinions out of private organizations.”
Nonsense! Romney wants the “votes” of moral conservatives, but basically takes a “moderate” position on something we feel strongly about. He has revealed he true character. HE IS A HOMOPHILE and it will affect his actions as POTUS. I don’t think he is fit to be POTUS. I won’t vote for him anymore than I would Obama. They are both equally bad, in differening ways...but both bad for the country.
But this article is misleading in its basic emphasis. While I deplore the comment of the Romney staff member, one must not overlook this statement by the candidate, even in Massachusetts, years ago: “I support the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue.”
So long as Governor Romney respects basic American freedom, my essential point in the "virtual" endorsement, remains the valid approach: Gov. Romney & American Conservatives.
By polite, persistent & persuasive appeals to Romney's strengths as a "problem solver," we have both our best chance to move him in the right direction, while moving others in the right direction. Why? Because the Conservative position on all issues is based upon human experience--what actually works for the betterment of all. We need to calmly appeal to reason, not denounce those who are only partly on our side. Those partly on our side are the most obvious ones to recruit next!
Think about how to win!
William Flax
If 0bama wins, America is lost forever. Simple as that. He will finish the destruction—Supreme Court will be completely leftist FOR YEARS TO COME! Dictators don’t need no stinkin’ constitution either. And those are not even the worst things...
We have to start somewhere. THIS IS OUR LAST CHANCE to even BEGIN with half a fighting chance.
Then look to get your ‘can do no wrong’ candidate in and then work on the boyscouts, the homo, illegal and the pro-life debates.
Sheesh, those are not the most dire problems we have AT THIS TIME.
Just because a candidate doesn’t stand up to all your soapy clean beliefs, you are willing to keep 0bamao in power.
You are the ones that will help take down America. It’s on your hands.
GET 0BAMA OUT FIRST!
BOSTON (AP) — Republican Gov. Mitt Romney proposed legislation Wednesday that would allow Catholic Charities to refuse to arrange adoptions for gay couples....
Arline Isaacson, the co-chair of the Massachusetts Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, said that Romney's proposal was reprehensible and that exempting groups from anti-discrimination laws would lead other groups to seek their own exemptions.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-03-15-gay-adoption_x.htm
I'm also an Ohioan. I actually listened to Romney's statement on Youtube and you were only told half of it, Ohio.
He went on, and this is what the next line was:
“I feel that all people should be able to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.”
I heard it with my own ears.
“GET 0BAMA OUT FIRST!”
Oh really smart.(not) Replacing an evil with another evil just gets you more evil.
No, Romney is NOT a viable option. FOCUS on getting conservative elected to the House and Senate - that WILL keep Obama in check (If he keeps urinating on the COTUS, they will impeach and convict him). Stop wasting effort on a loser like Romney. Electing Romney will bring only momentary relief with long term disaster the result. It would be a totally hollow victory.
Of course they do. There is not a doubt in mind FR is overrun by DU trolls and Soetoro supporters. They are beyond thrilled that they can now come here, bash Romney and support the Kenyan homo. Life is good for them now.
“By polite, persistent & persuasive appeals to Romney’s strengths as a “problem solver,” we have both our best chance to move him in the right direction, while moving others in the right direction. Why? Because the Conservative position on all issues is based upon human experience—what actually works for the betterment of all. We need to calmly appeal to reason, not denounce those who are only partly on our side. Those partly on our side are the most obvious ones to recruit next!”
PURE SOPHISTRY. You make the assumption that Romney has strengths...he DOES NOT. NO Romey is NOT the answer to OBAMA. He is as bad as Obama. He cannot be moved to the right....he is NOT subject to persuasion.
Just say no to Obama!
Just say no to Romney!
Vote third party this cycle...and concentrate on getting conservatives elected to House and Senate and again in 2014. This election to already lost in regards to the position of POTUS. Romney is NOT an acceptable candidate...he is a country club GOP establishment candidate and DOES NOT represent the REAL party base - he will DESTROY conservatism. It is best to punt until 2016 when we have a chance to get a REAL conservative as the GOP candidate.
????
This belief about not giving homosexuals access to young boys is older than the Old Testament and New Testament combined, TP.
This isn't something new or unususal. It has been uniformly condemned as a terrible offense against creation and God Himself for millenia.
What is unusual in human history is for someone to be saying, "Hey, ignore it. It's no big deal."
That's a hard sell, particularly after we've already been forced to suffer 4 years of his flamboyant presence in the White House.
Voting for Romney is clearly as nuts as voting for Obama. I'm voting for a plurality -- third party -- to help in the vote count to deny either Romney or Obama a majority. The last time a liberal president was elected on a plurality, he was IMPEACHED -- and the time before that, he was bulldozed by the Republican Revolution and forced to the right. People piss and moan about the "Perot plurality" and at the time I was furious with folks who voted for Perot, but in retrosepct it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that the plurality created the opportunity for significant advances for conservatism that simply wouldn't have happened if HWB had been re-elected or if Clinton had ever won a majority -- which he didn't; he was elected by a plurality both times.
I'm voting FOR A PLURALITY because pluralities favor conservatives as per Clinton's two plurality wins. Others here are pretending to vote "against" Obama by voting TO strengthen liberalism in the Republician party. They don't mean to do that, but it is exactly what they are on the verge of voting for.
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.