Posted on 08/18/2012 10:33:30 AM PDT by SoConPubbie
President Obama and Mitt Romney have found some new common ground -surprisingly – on an issue of gay rights.
Obama today joined Romney in publicly disagreeing with a controversial ban on gay members of the Boy Scouts of America, one of the nation’s largest and most well-known youth development groups.
“The president believes the Boy Scouts is a valuable organization that has helped educate and build character in American boys for more than a century. He also opposes discrimination in all forms, and as such opposes this policy that discriminates on basis of sexual orientation,” said White House spokesman Shin Inouye in a statement to the Washington Blade, a LGBT newspaper.
It’s the first time Obama, who was named honorary president of the Boy Scouts of America in 2009, has publicly taken a position on the issue.
Romney first voiced support for gay scouts back in 1994 — a position that his campaign spokeswoman Andrea Saul said remains his position today.
“I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts, regardless of their sexual orientation,” Romney said in the video from 1994 recently re-surfaced by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. He added at the time that he supports “the right of the Boy Scouts of America to decide what it wants to do on that issue.”
Get more pure politics at ABC News.com/Politics and a lighter take on the news at OTUSNews.com
Last month, the group affirmed its ban on openly gay scouts and leaders after a two-year review of the policy, prompting the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force to call on Obama to “reconsider” his honorary post.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
To me the article is deceptive. Aren’t they taking statements that Romney made in 1994 and saying this is his position today. I did not read any recent comments Romney made regarding homosexual scoutmasters.
Yes, and Romney has stated he’s a-ok with gays adopting children as well.
Makes me want to vomit. I’m so disgusted with the GOP, I just don’t think any words to really express it.
I'm disappointed at Romney's stance on this. But no politician in the world meets all of my criteria for POTUS. There are several politicians that come closer to my ideal than Romney. Unfortunately, they aren't in the running for POTUS.
I feel we have to play with the cards we're dealt. Unless something changes and because my overriding concern is to have my vote truly count towards getting rid of nobama, I find myself reluctantly voting for Romney.
I think that Joseph Smith and Brigham YOung would say why can’t I have plural wives if gays can marry, and I say I want plural husbands, one to mow the lawn, clean the gutters, etc.; one to earn a really good living; and one for fun a games. ;-)
I'm voting FOR weakening the mandate of whichever liberal wins -- every third party vote reduces the popular mandate percentage of the winner. You're voting FOR making liberalism more powerful in both parties, whether you mean to or not.
This is Realville, where you only get to vote "for" and where voting for a liberal guarantees a bad outcome. I'm voting to WEAKEN liberalism. You're voting to make it stronger.
With plenty of room left over.
The country is apparently being run by Homos with AIDS Dementia.
Of the L.G.B.T. group, which letter best describes the limp wristed girly boy Mittens Romney?
I would hope you're not just learning that about Romney.
Romney stands with the Scouts as well. He supports Freedom of Association. Obama is at war with Freedom of Association.
This is psyops from the MSM.
Whats yours at NAMBLA?
How does the fact the BSA has a charter from the Federal Government affect your statement? Does this fall in the same category that ultimately overturned the right of restaurants to choose to serve or not serve people of color?
If he was then that might go a long way to explain his strange twisted desire to have Homosexual Boy Scouts and Homosexual Scoutmasters.
And now you are repeating the process, digging up old Romney articles to once again, save us from our clueless selves.
You're not gonna be happy until we end up with another 4 more years of Obama, are you?
B
Which also requires polygamy
You've got that right. And one of the cards we have to play is PLURALITY. The last time a liberal was elected president on a plurality, conservatives impeached him; the time before that, they bulldozed him with the Republican Revolution. Pluralities favor conservatives.
Getting rid of "Nobama" is a flawed priority if you are only able to replace him with a Republican who advances all the same things Democrats do, and ROMNEY DOES. To describe Romney as simply "not meeting all criteria" is duplicitous -- in fact and in deed, Romney has ADVANCED every single major liberal agenda. Newt or Cain or Santorum would have required compromise on the part of conservatives; Romney requires absolute surrender. LOOK AT THE MAN'S RECORD.
We CAN and WOULD survive another four years of Obama, especially if he was elected on a plurality -- if he was as powerful as the GOP wants you to believe (fear of Obama is their only argument for voting for a liberal like Romney), then we wouldn't be having this conversation nor elections in 2012.
Vote for a plurality. That's the best hand we've got.
I think we should refer to Mitt Romney as a L.W.G.B.
I am so sick of the homosexual agenda being pushed by L.W.G.B. Rinos like Romney. Where have all the Men gone?
Vote gay, anyday!
When LWGB RINO Romney was asked about Chick fil A he responded that this was not part of his campaign.
But he apparently didn’t hesitate to take a stand in favor of turning Boy Scout camps into homosexual orgy fests.
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.