By Gary P Jackson
Last Wednesday millions of Americans came together in support of Chick-fil-A. Black, white, gay and straight. Even a few that completely disagree with Chick-fil-A’s founder’s notion that we must protect traditional marriage, but celebrate his right to say it. So many came that Chick-fil-A restaurants were running out of food, and had record breaking sales.
Conservative leaders stood with Chick-fil-A, many stopping in for a bite. It was only natural the media would have asked the presumptive Republican nominee for President to comment. In response, Noted Profile in Courage™ Mitt Romney told the reporter: “That’s not something that’s part of my campaign.”
Some have taken Romney’s side in this, saying he was smart not to “fall for the trap,” noting the reporter also asked about Hillary Clinton’s aide and her ties to an Islamic terror organization. Let’s take a look at this “trap” the Romney apologists speak of:
The Chick-fil-A issue is rather cut and dry. You either stand with Liberty and Freedom, or you think it’s OK for a vicious mob to rule the day. This was a gift to Romney, a no brainer, and he punted. As to Huma Abedin, Hillary’s assistant, there has been plenty of evidence brought forward on this subject.
Mitt Romney is supposed to be a smart man, couldn’t he have found a way to stand with Chick-fil-A while saying something mild about Huma, like he would leave that investigation to the proper authorities?
Romney’s timidity, and lack of character, disturbs me greatly.
I didn’t comment on this initially though, because if I comment every time Romney does something dumb, or aggravating, I’d never get anything else done!
What has forced me to comment is a stand Romney HAS chosen to take. While Romney has no guts when it comes to standing for [or against] Chick-fil-A, and refuses to talk about a serious national security risk, he has no problem commenting on the Boy Scouts of America’s policy of not allowing openly gay men serve as leaders, and openly gay boys to become members.
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.”
Again, Romney won’t weigh in on Chick-fil-A or Huma Abedin, but the campaign will offer up this?
Our readers know I don’t really care what two consenting adults do in their private life. I believe in traditional marriage, and do not want that concept changed. But if someone is gay, that’s who they are. Folks need to accept these things and go about their business.
I’m not even against gay couples adopting. Better to have a child adopted by two loving parents than to be raised an orphan.
But allowing openly gay men to be among of young, impressionable boys is just too much. Obviously, gay men are no more or less likely to be pedophiles than straight men, but the situation is ripe for trouble. It’s an unnecessary risk.
If Romney had just said he stood with the BSA, as a private organization, to decide what was best for their group, that would have been fine. But Romney took it further by advocating for gays to be able to join.
Mitt Romney claims he supports traditional marriage, but as I reported in June of 2011, it was Romney, by executive fiat, who created same-sex marriage in Massachusetts:
While the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared that Massachusetts’ marriage law was unconstitutional in the summer of 2003, the Court explicitly declared that the original law, which does not authorize same-sex marriage, was left intact. “Here, no one argues that striking down the marriage laws is an appropriate form of relief.“
The court acknowledged that the original law, left intact by its ruling, banned homosexual marriages and gave the legislature 180 days to “take such action as it may deem appropriate.” The legislature did precisely nothing.
Gov. Romney, acting on his own, ordered town clerks to begin issuing marriage licenses to same sex couples on May 17, 2004, in contravention of Massachusetts state law and under threat of termination.
Gov. Romney in essence told these town clerks that if they did not break the law, he would fire them.
Town clerks meekly complied, and became lawbreakers in the process. Massachusetts state marriage law is quite explicit: “Whoever, not being duly authorized by the laws of the commonwealth undertakes to join persons in marriage therein shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars or by imprisonment for not more than one year, or both.”
Re-read that carefully. Town clerks must be “authorized by the laws of the commonwealth” to issue marriage licenses. They are not allowed to do so under the authorization of the Supreme Judicial Court or the governor. The “laws of the commonwealth” to this day do not authorize the granting of same-sex marriage licenses.
Massachusetts state marriage law has never been changed. Same-sex marriage is still illegal in the Bay State.
So the bottom line here is that Gov. Romney broke state law and ordered his town clerks to do the same.
After Gov. Romney legalized same-sex marriage by fiat in a burst of executive branch activism, Connecticut’s Supreme Court followed suit in 2008 and Iowa’s Supreme Court in 2009. Same-sex marriage was not legalized through the legislative process anywhere in the United States until Vermont’s legislature overrode a gubernatorial veto in April of 2009.
There are just two states now, New Hampshire being the other, where the elected representatives of the people have solemnized same-sex partnerships. In every other case, same-sex marriage has been forced down the throats of residents by an activist judiciary or, in the case of Massachusetts, by an activist governor imposing an activist ruling on his own citizens.
For time and eternity, Mitt Romney will go down in history as the man who abused the power of his office to give the United States homosexual matrimony.
Like most Conservatives I have always viewed Mitt Romney as a poll tested, homogenized, milquetoast politician, with no core principles or values whatsoever.
We’ve all always thought of Romney as a flip-flopper, a human windsock, if you will. Much like Claude Raines’ Captain Renault in Casablanca, who tells Major Strasser: “I have no conviction, if that’s what you mean. I blow with the wind, and the prevailing wind happens to be from Vichy.”
But is this really true?
A lot of us Conservatives have resigned ourselves to the fact that Romney is the presumptive Republican nominee, and nothing is going to change that. We’ve consoled ourselves that Mitt’s infamous reputation as a spineless, blow with the wind, unprincipled opportunist, wasn’t a bad thing, because if we elect more Conservatives to the House and Senate, they will most certainly keep Romney in line. Their steadfastness would overcome his liberal tendencies.
I submit that we were all wrong.
The prevailing winds are filled with the beautiful bouquet of strong, fresh brewed T.E.A. And yet, Mitt Romney has refused to embrace the ideas and values that patriotic Tea Party Americans hold so dear. Romney has done absolutely nothing to show us that he will listen to the will of the people and act accordingly.
We face a dangerous dilemma. On the one hand, Barack Obama is deliberately, and systematically destroying our country. He must be defeated at all cost. Mitt Romney is the only one in a position to make that happen.
Can anyone, with any amount of certainty, tell me what we get if Romney is successful?