Romney’s “homosexual problem”

by Jack Minor —

 

While Mitt Romney may be the presumptive GOP nominee for president, he still has credibility issues with evangelical and conservative voters and a statement of over the weekend did nothing to help assuage their concerns.

Romney has stated publicly on multiple occasions that he supports traditional marriage between a man and a woman, questions still persist over his support for the “gay” agenda.

 

While he did come out with a strong affirmation of traditional marriage following Obama’s announcement that he now supports “gay” marriage, Romney subsequently made a statement that is disturbing to traditional values groups with his support for “gay” adoptions.

Last week, the presidential hopeful told Fox News host Neil Cavuto, “I know many gay couples that are able to adopt children — that’s fine. But my preference is that we … continue to define marriage as the relationship between a man and a woman’”

 

Peter LaBarbera with Americans for Truth about Homosexuality (AFTAH) has a problem with Romney’s position, saying that one of the major reasons for fighting for natural marriage is so that children will be placed in homes where they will have a father and a mother.

As a pro-family person, he shouldn’t be fine with homosexual adoption,” LaBarbera contends. “Just because it exists and it’s happening doesn’t mean you’re fine with it. And so here Romney is undercutting his base, and it’s sad to see, but he’s obviously conflicted on all the issues surrounding homosexuality.”

By placing children in the homes of same-sex pairs, the AFTAH president says this means homosexuals now become the role models for children and the picture of what an ideal family should be.

“When your children are forced to be in a situation where the person that’s closest to them is a homosexual and they’re being exposed daily at a very young age to homosexuality, you are teaching children that immorality is okay,” he argues. SAnd that’s destructive.”

While Governor of Massachusetts, Romney signed an executive order directing marriage clerks to issue same-sex marriage licenses, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. This was in response to a state Supreme Court decision declaring that limiting marriage to opposite sex couples was incompatible with the state’s constitution.

However, the court’s decision ordered the legislature, which is the branch tasked with making laws to come up with legislation that would incorporate their decision into law. To this day, the Massachusetts legislature has not done so. With no legislation passed same-sex marriage technically is still illegal in the state and is only permitted based on an executive order, not legislation.

With Romney’s executive order, Massachusetts became the first state to permit same-sex marriage and opened the door for “gay” marriage in other states.

 

LaBarbera points out that Romney has left himself wide open, because activists will suggest that if he is okay with homosexuals adopting, why would he not want the adoptive couples to be able to marry?

This entry was posted in General News and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Romney’s “homosexual problem”

  1. Ray says:

    LaBarbera is mistaken. When children are exposed to same-sex loving couples regularly, they are taught that being gay is okay. It’s not a morals issue at all.

  2. Mitt Romney’s “homosexual problem” is a matter of equal treatment as specified by the 14th Amendment. Right now the federal government grants 1,138 legal benefits and protections to legally married heterosexual couples, but Romney thinks nothing more than a few crumbs should be tossed to Gay couples: “You’re spouse is dying of cancer? Well, you can visit her in the hospital. But survivor benefits under Social Security? No way, babe!!”

    Truth be told, President Obama has his OWN “homosexual problem.” He thinks the issue of marriage equality can be left up to the states. But the federal government has complicated this issue, since it grants most of the legal benefits and protections of marriage. The only way marriage can be a “States Rights” issue is for married Straight couples to give up all the federal benefits they are accustomed to.

    Ultimately the Supreme Court is going to have the last say on this issue, and I’m confident that they will determine that there is simply no constitutional justification for denying law-abiding, taxpaying Gay couples the same legal benefits and protections that Straight couples have always taken for granted.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *