Mitt Romney probably wants to deep six the anti-gay fundies at MassResistance, which has been on his case releasing as much of the former governor's gay-positive, pro-choice views as often as it can in its “Mitt Romney Report..”
The Freepers are not feeling Mitt these days, after MassResistance highlighted passages from a 2005 speech he gave at the Massachusetts State House on June 16, 2005. A few excerpts follow in Freeper comments.
A few cuts that Mass Resistence lighted. Romney's rhetoric is quite revealing and enlightening. Pandering and political expediency from old Mitt Boy. Romney is no conservative.
“I think it's important that in any discussion related to marriage that we should reiterate time and again our view that individuals in our society should be able to make the choices they want in their lives, and that we have respect for people's choices. We have a high degree of respect and tolerance for people whose lifestyle and choices and orientation is as they may choose.
I am pleased that a new amendment has been brought forward that's quite clear, it defines marriage as a relationship between a man and a woman, and it therefore would provide to the legislature the opportunity from time to time to provide benefits and rights associated with same-sex couples as the legislature and the administration felt appropriate.
You know, I think the Family Institute is wise not to try and dissolve marriages that will have occurred. And I think that would be a confusing factor that would muddy the issue even further. I think it's a wise course to have the amendment take its effect from its passage forward and not try and change things that have passed.
If this amendment were to pass, at that stage I would support legislation which would provide certain domestic partnership benefits, like hospital visitation rights, and rights of survivorship, and so forth. There will be children born to same-sex couples, and adopted by same-sex couples, and I believe that there should be rights and privileges associated with those unions and with the children that are part of those unions.”
Who knows what he is. He said one thing when running for office in Mass and when talking to Massachusetts log cabiners and he says another thing now. Just like on a lot of issues. Mitt is an opportunist flip-flopper. We can do better!
[DING DING DING – We have a winner for the batsh*t crazy comment of the day.] WE HAVE A WINNER FOR THE BATSH*T COMMENT OF THE DAY] this is one of romney's “yes dear” issues. he doesn't care about it and he doesn't think its important so whatever the mrs says on the matter goes. she's a liberal currently most american liberal women are ignorent sluts on homosexuals. they have been educated to believe that homosexuals are their natural allies “against” men in the war of the sexes. In reality homosexuals are the mortal enemies of interests of women. Its easy enough to show this. It is most in the interest of women to be monogamously married. Yet in the countries where homosexual marriage has been legitimized the marriage rate has dropped to 20-30%—while the marriage rate for homosexuals has remained the same.
[OK OK OK – We have another winner…] I came across this by accident. I had seen a story on the Salem witch trials and a thought came into my mind if possible could a state be filled with evil. So I typed in the words Massachusetts and evil and came up with this web-site. The story on seeing the face of evil was fearful of what is being done to children in public school. I don't think I could trust my conservative views with that of Mitt Romney.
I'm not homo. Nobody in my family is. This doesn't affect me. Meanwhile, somebody is picking my pocket. That affects me.
Nobody in my family is gay either. Perverts marching on public streets with NAMBLA signs performing disgusting acts and forcing their agenda on the schools DOES affect my family.
» Is Romney conservative enough on homosexuality?
Depends what polling data he's read most recently.
No one is conservative enough on Homosexuality. That it still is even a political issue shows that is the case.
Death penalty for queers? I personally would not address homosexuals as queers and where did I mention the death penalty for homosexuals? Gay activists are out there to get children so that they can grow up thinking homosexuality is ok. That offends me. And gays want to get married especially if they can force religions to recognize their marriage as legal. This is not about hate! But I do not want our next president to go ahead with gay marriage or place a judge on the supreme court who would make it easier for liberal causes to get through. And so others may understand I am not bashing Mitt Romney,he seems like a nice enough man and his sons seem to be quite charming but each of us want the MAN who can represent our views and causes.
Those who ask this question, don't really know what conservative means, if you ask me. Holding a position or two is not as good a measure as how one lives. Romeny is the only real capitalist in the bunch of career government candidates, yet the ignorant parse a word or two and try to make him out to be a liberal. Although he has been married to the same woman he adores for 38 years, some think he favors gay marriage. He has five sons, but he must be pro abortion. Use your head and avoid all of the campaign spin.
Gay activists are out there to get children so that they can grow up thinking homosexuality is ok. That offends me.
It offends me too. And its not just children who can be fooled. The Democratic party openly accepts homosexuality/sodomy. Congressman Gerry Studds had sex with male pages for several years and the party knew it. Congressman Barney Frank is openly homosexual. From Tip O'Neill to Nancy Pelosi, the House leadership under Democrats openly accepts homosexuality. I think the current crop of Democratic Presidential candidates do also. It looks as though the nation is divided. As I read these articles, it seems that Mitt is on the right side today. I think I have choices in the primary, but will probably have no choice but to vote Republican in the general election.
Well, being honest about his support for homosexuals would be a good start. Problem is, if he's honest – he's DONE. Next candidate please!