Republicans For Family Values
Contact: Peter LaBarbera: 630-717-7631; email@example.com
Peter LaBarbera, founder of Republicans For Family Values (www.rffv.org), today criticized GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney for his “novel pro-homosexual positioning in the GOP.” On Dec. 16, Romney (the alleged “conservative” in the race) told NBC’s “Meet the Press” that “it makes sense at the state level” to enact pro-homosexual “sexual orientation” laws. Last week, CNN’s Roland Martin reported that Romney told him that he opposes “gay marriage,” but supports “gay rights.”
LaBarbera issued the following statement:
Mitt Romney just doesn’t get it on the homosexual agenda, and if he doesn’t get at after serving as governor of liberal Massachusetts — where “gay marriage,” homosexual adoption and pro-homosexuality indoctrination in schools ALL were advanced by the sort of pro-gay “sexual orientation” laws he’s now espousing — then he’s not going to get it at the federal level.
Romney is already using his bully pulpit as a candidate to affirm “gay rights”– even AFTER he’s earned the backing of pro-family leaders who seemingly would have much to teach him about the danger and misuse of pro-homosexual laws. (Note that Romney uses gay-affirming “discrimination” rhetoric even with regard to the Boy Scouts’ ban on homosexuals.)
I don’t know any serious pro-lifers who are pro-homosexuality. We all have compassion for homosexual strugglers, but we draw the line at laws that would distort “civil rights” to include sinful and changeable homosexual behavior — because these laws will be used to compel individuals, business and even ministries to violate their beliefs and support homosexual relationships (see the Weekly Standard article, “Banned in Boston,” about Boston Catholic Charities electing to close down its historic adoption agency rather than place kids in homosexual households.
Romney is trying to shift the GOP’s pro-family paradigm on homosexuality, and it’s an unwise shift — much like retreating from a principled position on pro-life (e.g., “I’m pro-choice but not pro-partial-birth abortion”). Due to Romney’s potential for being the “Nixon-goes-to-China” president who advances pro-homosexuality agendas in the GOP — I cannot support him.
Why do the same conservative pundits who have assailed Mick Huckabee and John McCain as too liberal, promote the fiction that Mitt Romney – who strongly defended abortion-on-demand and who remains in favor of anti-Christian homosexual special rights laws as a Mormon – is a “conservative”?