The Candidates
Featured Archives
A guest post by A. Harris, HucksArmy.com
Even though they are fierce rivals for the Republican nomination, Mike Huckabee and Mitt Romney have been, for a long time, two of my top choices: Huckabee number one. Romney number two or three. I have some concern over Romney’s position changes on abortion, gun control, the Bush tax cuts, etc… But for the sake of all of you who have traveled that well-beaten path many times already, I don’t want to question Romney’s sincerity here. Huckabee’s positions have simply been stronger and more consistent in those areas, and that’s why he has my support.
All that said, yesterday I was confronted with a startling revelation about Mitt Romney’s current position on gay rights. It is one, to be honest, that greatly concerns me. Not the least because his own experience as governor means that he should know better.
What am I talking about? Well, I refer to Romney’s continued support for employment non-discrimination laws for sexual orientation – laws that would prohibit discrimination based on “actual or perceived” sexual orientation. This is serious, my friends.
When he was running for Senate in 1994, Romney voiced his support for the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (the strongly-opposed ENDA bill) in this interview:
Newspaper: Do you support the federal lesbian and gay civil rights bill that would ban anti-gay discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations and credit?
Romney: This is Barney Frank’s legislation?
Newspaper: This is not just employment, but also housing, public accommodations and credit.
Romney: I am not fully aware of that bill, so I would need to study that more fully. I am aware of the legislation that Barney Frank proposed [the Employment Non-Discrimination Act] and do support that and would vote in favor of that.
[Interview with Senate Candidate Mitt Romney, Bay Windows, 8/25/94]
Source: http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/12/massachusetts_m.php
However, in a December 14, 2007 interview with Kathryn Jean Lopez of the National Review, Romney renounced his support for the federal act, providing many good reasons why:
Lopez: And what about the 1994 letter to the Log Cabin Republicans where you indicated you would support the Federal Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) and seemed open to changing the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy in the military? Are those your positions today?
Romney: No. I don’t see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges.
Source: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmY1MTQyMTk0Yjk2ZDNmZmVmNmNkNjY4ODExMGM5NWE=
Romney’s characterization of those laws – which as he says, he saw up-close in Massachusetts – is entirely accurate.
Similar laws on the books in 17 states are not only a threat to employers, but to religious freedom: effectively forcing businessmen, pastors, and/or leaders of religious organizations to hire persons engaged in lifestyles they believe are sinful.
It was these same non-discrimination laws that laid the groundwork for legalizing gay marriage in Massachusetts – and also forced Boston’s Catholic Charities to shut down its century-old adoption agency because it refused to place children in gay households against the teachings of the Catholic faith. There are many other examples.
So what is my concern about Romney? Well, whether you call it a flip, a flop, or a slip, just two days later on NBC’s Meet the Press, Governor “Should-Know-Better” Romney said that he does support non-discrimination laws for sexual orientation on the state level.
Here’s the transcript from MSNBC:
Russert: You said [in 1994] that you would sponsor [Sen. Ted Kennedy's federal] Employment Nondiscrimination Act. Do you still support it?
Romney: At the state level. I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this.
Russert: Now, you said you would sponsor it at the federal level.
Romney: I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level.
In case you missed it: Russert asked Romney if he still supported ENDA. Romney replied that he did support them at the state level. He said that implementing such laws “makes sense.”
Mitt, how could you? You’ve shown that you understand the problem conservatives have with these laws. You said that your own experience in Massachusetts showed you that those laws at the state level are bad news. Two days later you express your support.
I’m sorry, but if that is what Romney said – and the transcript and the video (see 2:34) show that it is – I cannot see how conservatives can trust him to be strong in standing against the homosexual agenda, I just can’t. I’ve been part of this battle in my own state, and this is serious.
If you are a Romney supporter, I ask you to not simply brush this off or just attack me for supporting Huckabee. I know our guys are in a fierce fight in Iowa, but like so many of us have said, this race is about the issues. Coming from a guy who wants to support the Republican nominee and who wants to like Romney, I’m asking you to take an honest look at what I’ve shared. This is something voters have to consider.
December 31st, 2007 at 4:56 am
Um… Wow.
*waits-for-the-fireworks*
December 31st, 2007 at 4:58 am
These pro-family groups send all their money fighting ENDA then some of them back Mitt. What gives? Maybe they just do not know about this one or choose to look away or maybe Romney will be strong for them on another issue that matter more to them.
December 31st, 2007 at 5:02 am
When He said ‘makes sense’ he meant that figuratively
December 31st, 2007 at 5:59 am
You know What Brett have you ever heard of FERDERALISM! Mitt is right about this. The FED gov. does not have the constitutional right to control state laws on this issue. It is a state matter and the federal gov does not need more Moral regulation.
December 31st, 2007 at 6:03 am
Lutie, you can’t pull federalism on this one. He didn’t say “it’s up to the states,” he said he supported it in the states. Plus, ENDA policies are unconstitutional anyway.
December 31st, 2007 at 6:04 am
Like it or not Lutie, this is a serious MORAL STANDARD question that is being raised, not a states rights issue.
From the Evangelical POV this is unacceptable at any level.
And as stated above “I cannot see how conservatives can trust him to be strong in standing against the homosexual agenda” – I don’t have any confidence that he would veto this bill if it crossed his desk…
December 31st, 2007 at 6:36 am
Discrimination is bad.
You honestly think big bad Huck can win a General with his evolution and gays are sinful views??
Good luck with that.
December 31st, 2007 at 6:41 am
I find it super ironic that you feel Mitt is vetted over that statement when you support Huck, a member of the Baptist Bigotry Bureau. (The BBB, to replace the KKK). The Southern Baptist Convention is considered the second largest religious group in America and it took until 1995 to repeal in writing the statements in their creed that blacks were inferior and of lesser privileges. It was called the “Repentence Creed”. Isn’t Huck a Southern Baptist Minister?
December 31st, 2007 at 6:47 am
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Since when is anyone arguing that the problem is that Romney is not tolerant? The problem we’re talking about here is that he is too “tolerant,” to the point of supporting laws that restrict freedom of religion and encourage senseless litigation.
December 31st, 2007 at 6:48 am
And does anyone else find it interesting that the response to this, in my opinion, important post is to slam Christianity and Baptists?
*chuckles*
December 31st, 2007 at 6:53 am
Lutie: You are missing the point…read what Jordan says. Some of these Christan leaders and most Reps I think that back Mitt are against this ENDA legislation that increases legislation. Basically ENDA stops churches and other religious organizations from refusing to hire gays even when it contradicts their religous beliefs. If a church or other organiation fires a gay then they could get a bigtime suit.
Shawnie: I thought we are talking about Mitt not Huck.
December 31st, 2007 at 6:54 am
*litigation…not legislation.
December 31st, 2007 at 7:10 am
I don’t have a lot of time to reply right now, but from a quick look at the transcript, I find I am extremely disappointed that when Romney says, “let me explain why,” Russert changes the topic. Why is so much emphasis put on this guy’s interviews if he isn’t even interested in what the candidates have to say?
December 31st, 2007 at 7:14 am
NGThagg, yeah… Russert was being really tough in that interview — but Romney wasn’t cut off when he said that he supported it at the state level, he was cut off on why he changed his position on the federal act… And that gets us back to the point that simply saying “federalism” isn’t the answer here.
December 31st, 2007 at 7:38 am
Are you kidding me? Romney supports NOT DISCRIMINATING against people in the workplace. What a jerk! I can’t believe this phony, two-bit, stupid, backward thinking, moron.
I’ll tell you what, I’ll take Romney any day over the other GOP candidates. He is the only that shows any intelligence.
December 31st, 2007 at 7:39 am
What is the “homosexual agenda” Brett?
December 31st, 2007 at 7:48 am
JohioW, you’re kind of missing the point… Which is that many conservative bloggers, pundits, activists, and voters (for good reason) oppose ENDA-like policies, including a lot of Romney supporters.
December 31st, 2007 at 7:49 am
Part of it is obviously to erode religious liberty. There’s no other reason one would use the government to force a Church to hire a gay pastor or face legal action.
December 31st, 2007 at 7:53 am
BTW, Zogby was just on with Monday’s (3) day rolling average numbers for Iowa.
Huckabee 29
Romney 27
McCain 13
Thompson 8
Giuliani 7
Paul 7
He did mention, however, that for the latest single day number Romney and Huckabee were tied.
December 31st, 2007 at 7:54 am
ecg,
“Part of it is obviously to erode religious liberty. There’s no other reason one would use the government to force a Church to hire a gay pastor or face legal action.”
Exactly.
December 31st, 2007 at 7:56 am
err…
egs
December 31st, 2007 at 8:01 am
Romney is a pandering, Ken doll phoney. He cant win.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:03 am
Jordan,
No one slammed Christianity. Baptists do not encompass the whole of Christianity.
We’re not trying to say we’re the ‘”same as Christians”. We are Christians. It doesn’t mean all our doctrine has to be the same as anyone else’s. And with approximately 2000 different denominations in our country, no one has the same doctrine anyway, everyone is different. Having the same doctrine as you does not qualify or dis-qualify us a Christian. Who we believe in does. And since the LDS (Mormons) absolutely believe in Jesus Christ as their one and only personal Savior, we are Christians.
We’re not shy about anything we believe in either. You can answer any question, check any rumor, verify any “belief” we have at http://www.lds.org
For anyone who is really interested, you won’t get real info off of blogs or from anti-Mormon folks, or competative preachers with an agenda. Go to the real source if you really want to know about Americas fourth largest and fastest-growing religion.
We are very Christian, the “not Christians” label was designed to prejudice you and convince you not to look in the first place – by some top brass at some major American religious institutions in the South. And it has grown from there. They are also the group that continues to breathe life in the “not Christian” label. It’s a lie, always has been.
Mormons are Christians. No faithful LDS will ever deny the Christ. You or any other evangelical religion do not have a monopoly on the title “Christian” or exclusive rights to Jesus Christ.
The arrogance of “I’m a Christian and you’re not because you don’t believe some narrowly defined piece of doctrine that I believe” is a shallow excuse for denying others the title of Christian.
Evangelicals believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost as three persons of one substance. That is the Trinity.
LDS believe in the Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost as three persons of one purpose. That is the Godhead.
The Bible has just as many quotes that seem to support one idea over the other. You could Bible bash forever on that topic.
To condemn others that don’t share your same exact doctrine with the “I’m a Christian and you’re not” is simply arrogance and bigotry. Nothing more.
The post was aimed at Brett, for aiming at Romney, which wasn’t logical because Huck has far too many, greater gaffes to defend.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:04 am
Governor Romney had better clear this up asap. No one wants to see people lose their job due to private issues, but people of all faiths need assurance and that our religious liberty and freedom of speech will not be infringed upon.
Isn’t there an LDS Romney supporter out there that would agree with that statement?
December 31st, 2007 at 8:08 am
Shawnie, I think you’re totally missing the whole point of this post. Did anyone say anything about the LDS church? All I remember is you saying that Baptists are the next Klu Klux Klan. =P
Back to point… Do you support ENDA?
December 31st, 2007 at 8:11 am
Romney holds the strong position here. Americans need to understand that most republicans don’t oppose everything that involves gays, we just oppose the laws that give gays more rights than average people such as gay marriage. When it comes to individual rights, it turns out gays are Americans first and deserve equal rights as Americans. The problem is when the gay agenda pushes for special privileges above the average America.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:13 am
I read this and it seems much ado about nothing. I think Mitt could’ve handled it better, but personally, in regard to the way ENDA was portrayed here, so what if Mitt supported it or now supports it at the state level? Discrimination against anyone for any reason is unacceptable in the public sector or in the work force. Now if this legislation made it possible for churches to be punished for not allowing openly and practicing gay members or to become pastors, then that would be a major issue. But discrimination against one group only makes it more acceptable to discriminate against other groups, a domino effect essentially.
Perhaps I am missing the point, but I also do not see a flip flop or even a flip here. I see a refinement of views and policy. It appears that Mitt still supports the general idea of ENDA, but not the actual legislation as he has observed problems with such legislation over the last 13 years.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:13 am
great article.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:19 am
I don’t really have a dog in this fight. I have no problem with people’s religious beliefs or, er, gaiety so long as neither is foisted upon me.
But this ENDA business sounds like more of the rampant, runaway anti-discrimination stuff that extends public law “protections” (legal entitlement) into the remotest corners of private enterprise, private organizations, and — presumably at some point — private households. Cui bono? Probably politicians attempting to play special-interest-group identity politics and a clutch of economic vultures, er, trial lawyers…
December 31st, 2007 at 8:20 am
#26 – Chris, I think every candidate agrees that we don’t oppose everything that involves gays. The problem with ENDA is that it gives special rights. “Actual or perceived” sexual orientation is a whole different, subjective, and non-scientifically verifiable ballgame — and nor has there been any history of discrimination against gays like there has been against women and blacks. This is not even about firing someone because they are gay — it’s about gays being able to sue you if they feel like their gayness played a role in your decision not to hire them. For many Christians, that’s the case, and not because they hate gay people.
#27 – Swint, this isn’t about discrimination against gays, this is about discrimination against religious conviction. That’s the problem here. And how can you not see a flip-flop when he tell National Review that his experience in MA shows that those laws are bad — and that two days later he’s saying that he supports those very state laws? And that’s not even including his original position.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:22 am
So what is so wrong with basically adding “sexual orienation” to the Non-Discrimination policies that already exist in the workplace (race, gender, etc)? To that matter what is wrong with saying the states should have the ability to do what they please as their citizens want? Federalism anyone….
Also, for anyone that says that including sexual orienation in ND policies is an infringment on some religious liberty….what the heck are you talking about? Since when was it your fault (the religious person) that another person (who you don’t know) sinned? Are you going to go to hell for something else that someone did or because a man-made law allowed it? No. There is no infringment on your religious liberty.
Romney doesn’t hate gays….oh golly gee, he can’t be President. Discrimination is discrimination is disrcimination. By leveling the playing field (and NOT GIVING SPECIAL TREATMENT) we are being fair. There is nothing wrong with that.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:23 am
So now an official can’t refine his position on a single detail without being called a dishonest flip-flop. With this logic, a President should have nothing to do in the last 3 years of his term. In the first year, he should implement his policies. Then he must not flip-flop (i.e. refine any details of his policies) in the last three years, therefore there is nothing left for him to do. Sorry, life, and America, is much more complicated than that.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:24 am
I do believe that if we don’t want to add “sexual orientation” to ND policies, we should just get rid of them in general. I am ok with that (in a pure sense of policy). That way no one recieves special treatment or protections.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:27 am
#23, well said shawnie – however I would differ with you on one point. There are many, many more biblical verses supporting our position of the Godhead, i.e. (1) Jesus was not praying to himself in the Lord’s prayer, nor in the Garden of Gethsemane. (2) All three were there as separate entities at Jesus’ baptism (3) Even after Jesus’ resurection, he said “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father, and to my God, and your God. Now this was after the resurrection, with his glorified body, and he and the Father were still separate and distinct beings. Furthermore, Stephen in vision saw Jesus sitting at the right hand of the Father in heaven.
I get sick of being told I’m not Christian because of this Trinity thing. At least Joel Osteen has recently on tv two different times indicated that he believes Latter Day Saints to be Christian; that’s a start.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:28 am
JohioW: You have no problem with people being sued because they don’t want to hire someone who is gay? You have no problem with a Catholic adoption agency that has been around for 100 years having to shut down because it wouldn’t place children in gay households because it contradicted Catholic teaching? That’s what happened in Massachusetts because of these laws.
Chris: It’s one thing to refine a single detail. Romney has “refined” himself on every issue… But let’s not go there. Here it went from a strong positive statement to a negative statement in just two days. That’s a flip-flop… Or a major slip… Or something.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:30 am
Jordan I think the fact that Romney doesn’t slip up more shows he’s a genius. Someone making such a drastic transition from social liberal to social conservative usually shows some confusion but Romney’s story is always very tight.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:30 am
Could someone explain to me how, if this is as big a deal as Brett and the other Huckanuts are making it out to be, why it took them (literally) seven days to raise the issue?
Give me a break, folks. You’re getting pretty desperate. Romney has always supported non-discrimination of all kinds.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:36 am
#36 – I have no doubt he is a genius, though I do take issue with the claim that his story is always very tight. And genius or not, whether I trust him is a whole different question. =D
#37 – Why did it take all year for people to raise Huckabee’s AIDS and Christ comments? You raise it as you become aware of it. If I remember correctly, the coverage coming out of MTP was about how he changed position from supporting ENDA in 1992 to opposing it… And everyone kind of missed that he still supported that kind of legislation. There were a few news items on the Christian newswire about it yesterday, which is how people starting catching on, I think. Besides, how long it took to come up has nothing to do with the merit of it. Do you support ENDA? Do you support two-day flip-flops?
December 31st, 2007 at 8:38 am
Brett, I happen to agree with you that I would like Mitt to clarify his thoughts on this. I have confidence that he would not wish this to extend into anything that would prohibit a religious organization from hiring whom they wish to in terms of any pastoral responsibilities, etc.
Our church has no paid clergy, but they obviously do pay for certain services at the church office building, and janitorial jobs, etc., so it could impact us also if it did what you claim. I would like to hear his viewpoint and reasoning, but I’m confident in what he would say on it ahead of time. He used the term ‘provisions’ so I think he was speaking of certain aspects of it.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:43 am
Also, have any of you people actually ever hired anyone? This statement by Brett, “Similar laws on the books in 17 states are not only a threat to employers, but to religious freedom: effectively forcing businessmen, pastors, and/or leaders of religious organizations to hire persons engaged in lifestyles they believe are sinful.” is absurd on its face. No law that I’m aware of forces anyone to hire anyone else. There is no reason to ask directly about someone’s sexuality. Even if, during the course of an interview, the candidate announced “I’m gay”, there are a million ways to avoid hiring that individual that do not expose you to the penalties of these laws. Short of placing a sign in the window that says “Fags need not apply”, all these sorts of laws are is “feel good” stuff. Unless your hiring person is a boob.
Finally, does it even matter to you spinners that Romney vetoed legislation that would have forced Catholic adoption agencies to do as you describe?
December 31st, 2007 at 8:43 am
Illinois,
“I get sick of being told I’m not Christian because of this Trinity thing. At least Joel Osteen has recently on tv two different times indicated that he believes Latter Day Saints to be Christian; that’s a start.”
I know the purpose here is not to debate theology, so I’ll leave it at this.
The “Trinity thing” is a big deal, because the Trinity is God.
And Joel Osteen and his Gospel of Health and Wealth isn’t worth a bucket of warm spit.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:45 am
MWS, I hold Joel Olsteen in similar disregard as a false prophet and a phony. I’m just waiting to see the scandals from his ‘Church’.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:47 am
I could not disagree more with the unhealthy dangerous lifestyle or homosexuals. Having said that, even I would not want those people to be discriminated against at the work place. It is unfair to criticize Romney for standing up against discrimination. If Huckabee wants to do it, then fine – he can.
I think the larger problem may be with Huckabee wanting to sequester all persons with AIDS.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:48 am
MWS, I won’t debate it any further either, but the preponderance of the biblical evidence is very much on our side on this issue. Enough said
December 31st, 2007 at 8:50 am
Maybe the sequestering of people with AIDS could be the next comparison ad.
Lighten up guys.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:52 am
egs,
“I hold Joel Olsteen in similar disregard as a false prophet and a phony. ”
Indeed. What he preaches is the anti-Gospel and is downright evil. Osteen believes in the Genie god, not the God of the Beattitudes who promised trials and tribulations for his sake, and warned against the allure of the very wealth that Osteen promises from his Genie god.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:54 am
“Maybe the sequestering of people with AIDS could be the next comparison ad.”
Now there’s and idea. I’m sure given Romney’s commitment to the truth the add would open with pictures of both he and Huckabee side-by-side with the caption and intonation:
Two Men. Both Baptist Ministers……
December 31st, 2007 at 8:56 am
#40 – Are you unfamiliar with the many stories of these kind of hate-crime and non-discrimination-based-on-sexual-orientation laws being enforced in those 17 states? The reason this matters is because this is a big conservative issue. Kathryn Jean Lopez, huge Romney-backer from National Review, asked him about it, then posted about his *phew* good response because it is a big conservative issue. His later statements put into question his real stance.
#43 – CWPete, this isn’t Romney vs. Huckabee… This is liberals and Romney vs. most conservatives. It has nothing to do with wanting to shun homosexuals, it’s about religious liberty… And these laws are just bad. The whole sexual orientation thing is way too subjective and non-verifiable. I can find people stories if they want them.
December 31st, 2007 at 8:57 am
MWS, it could start with:
Two men both clergy in their Church. Romney was a Bishop wasn’t he?
December 31st, 2007 at 8:58 am
I am getting sick of the Mormon/Christian debate, but as luck would have it, I posted a bit on this precise issue. Please, read it if you are interested in this debate.
http://mydryfly.wordpress.com/2007/12/30/mormons-and-the-origins-of-christianity/
December 31st, 2007 at 8:59 am
#35, I do have a problem with public and private business and organizations discriminating against people because of sexual orientation. So sue me.
But, you brought up the point of the Catholic Church. I don’t believe that religious organizations, including churches and religious organizations, should be subject to these policies. Religious organizations should be exempt.
December 31st, 2007 at 9:04 am
#47 lol
December 31st, 2007 at 9:11 am
Jordan,
I realize that this is an important conservative issue. It is an important issue to me, as a conservative. It is also a straw man. First, just on the face of it (as I said above), anyone who is actually caught violating these laws is an idiot. Second, Romney’s record as governor puts these issues to rest, as far as he is concerned.
I invite y’all to continue this line of attack in the same way I invite McCain to continue his personal attacks on Romney. It makes you look small.
December 31st, 2007 at 9:19 am
#53 – I think you’re just saying it’s important to you because you recognize that it’s an important conservative issue, not because you truly grasp its importance or have any experience with it. Regardless, if you don’t care about it, then this is small… But it’s not small to a whole lot of conservative voters out there, many of whom are supporting Romney. right now.
December 31st, 2007 at 9:25 am
This is somewhat off original topic but with a Mormon running for president his personal beliefs are worth examination as has been Huckabee’s intensely scrutinized. A question for my mormon friends.. 1st: a male mormon with a temple recommend believes he will be a “God” of his own planet. Mitt as a former Bishop obviously has a temple recommend so will he be a God of his own planet? 2: missionaries I recently spent a good deal time with had no idea that the book of Abraham has been accurately interpreted now by Egyptology scholars from the original papyrus discovered in Metroplitan Museum of Art in 1968 to be writings from “the book of breathings” involving egyptian burial instructions not the writings of Abraham as Joseph Smith had purportedly been able to interpret it as being prior to anyone actually being able to make these interpretations. These are just a few of the reasons evangelicals question the vailidity of the Mormon claim to be Christian. I recommend everyone do some online research from alot of various sources as there obviously could be some bias by only going on the LDS site.
December 31st, 2007 at 9:26 am
Jordan,
As a businessman of 30+ years experience, I can assure you that I am well aware of its importance. That’s how I can speak of the practical nature of these laws and declare them nothing but “feel good” legislation. It’s not the issue that’s small, it’s the people that continue to raise it, once it is dispelled.
Which brings up one of the preeminent issues of the campaign. Romney has experience dealing with these laws from both the business side and the government side. No other major candidate can make that claim. It’s not insignificant.
December 31st, 2007 at 9:27 am
And since people keep saying that people who “get caught” in laws like this are dumb, here are a few examples of what we’re talking about here:
A District of Columbia human rights commission ordered Georgetown University, a Catholic college, to violate church doctrine and sponsor a pro-homosexual group on campus. A court agreed, saying the District’s “sexual orientation†law overrode the school’s religious freedom.
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/oct/07103008.html
In September 2002 the Berkeley, California, City Council pulled the low-cost lease for city dock space for the Sea Scouts, saying that the group is associated with the Boy Scouts, and thereby violates the city’s “sexual orientation†law.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/11/BAGFIGLHQI1.DTL
A California software maker was forced to pay a settlement and legal fees totaling over $1 million because the company did not promote a man who had come to work dressed as a woman. It did not matter that the company did not even know the “woman” was a man. The “victim” sued under California’s “sexual orientation” law. As legal fees escalated, the company finally settled out of court. To pay for the loss, eight employees were laid off, with the number eventually growing to 20.
(The incident was related in “Computer Soft-Wear,” in The Other Side of Tolerance, p. 12.)
December 31st, 2007 at 9:27 am
I used to lean toward Mitt but Mitt seems to be a chronic liar. I actually think he has a problem. He lied about a NRA endorsment, that his father marched with Martin Luther King and even lying about his hunting experience. Then looking at all of his position changes over the years, I personally just have a lot of doubts about him. He does not seem to be an honest man. He is to Clintonian in his words. I actually have been reading about Huckabee. There have been a lot of negative stuff said about him but when
I read his rebuttals they make a lot of sense and I can see the politics at play in the negativity. He seems to have more integrity, vision, and a less polarizing attidude. I am really leaning towards Mike Huckabee.
December 31st, 2007 at 9:27 am
PRESIDENT MIKE HUCKABEE / VICE PRESIDENT JOHN MCCAIN 2008
More on Romney’s Leadership check out these links:
http://www.massresistance.org and http://rightsmart.blogspot.com/
See this video for Mitt Romney caught lying!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6DJO_XuM4eM
mitt Romney saw his dad march with Martin Luther King! CAUGHT IN A LIE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_zpa77Ehic
also he supports ENDA gay rights also check out this transcript.. click here… he can not be trusted. He will turn on America just like Arnold turned on the people of san Francisco…
Romney is a flip flopping flake, I just found out that he has stock in all of the companies that are major promoters of homosexual rights & abortions, he is not going to do anything to these companies or the procedures but try to implement things that would advance them another example of how eloquent speaking politicians are embedded within Wall Street! HE IS ANOTHER WALL STREET CANDIDATE!all this rhetoric is follishnes and an intent denial to dismiss truth. The Demo-wacks have had control over congress for 2 years now and have done NOTHING but fund pork barrel projects and have not come close to making any kind of real progress that the promised their poor demo-wack supporters. There credibility is SHOT! and as for Huckabee… People fear that he will win, which he is… At this point I will vote for anybody other than a Demowack. i am so frustrated that I have changed party position and will vote Repub this year.I am so proud of Huckabee i do not know what to do. He is a man of principle and he surely just sealed the deal with my vote. He will win and big he will, and while the pundits try to demise him, or his other political rivals try to make him look bad. They may want to look at the mirror at themselves. You got flip flopping mitt, dead fred who makes me sleepy everytime I look at the him and his saddle bags around his eyes, pimped out guiliani , small brain mccain, and “paul is crazy and derangedâ€! And as for the Dems: you got Hell-ary that have sold her soul to the left party lobbyist in america, and you got chronic smoking Obama? which neither one has ANY experience in foreign policy. If it was not for Hell-ary having bill clinton last name, she would not even be known. Huckabee is the sure winner and will win big. I can not wait for romney to get out of the race. i bet he will go back to hiring illegals to work in his yard. check more out about him at http://www.massresistance.org he is the biggest flake since kellogs!
And as for Romney religion if he knew that it did not include black people, why would he join that religion? He is pandering and changing info what ever he needs to get voted in… he is worse than a flip flopper he is a deceiver…
December 31st, 2007 at 9:29 am
#55 – spfldFT
Somewhat off topic????
Go take your scree to a religious site, please.
December 31st, 2007 at 9:44 am
Overall, all of this disturbs me. Number one, if you take this ENDA issue and combine it with his previous “refinements” on abortion, a casual, un-biased, undecided Republican observer will find that Mr. Romney has decided to play politics with moral values.
Now, I lived in Utah for eight years. I have several good mormon friends who I believe have joined the faith because of the family values the church espouses. I also believe that there are some actual, genuine Christians among some of the mormons because Scriptures do say “That if you confess with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified and your mouth that you confess and are saved” (Romans 10:9-10 NIV). One can also admit that just because you are a follower of any Christian denomination (Baptist, Methodist, Pentecostal, Non-denom, Catholic, Lutheran, Episcopalian, etc.) does not mean that you have accepted Jesus as Lord and Savior of your life, and therefore are not truly a Christian in the sense of having a relationship with God through Christ, Who said that He is the only Way to the Father.
As Jordan has aptly pointed out, why does it not concern others of the mormon faith that one of their own has made political gains from not being grounded on issues of morality — the one subject they eagerly push?
As far as the mormon/Christian debate goes…
A true Mormon who believes everything exactly as the church teaches is not a real Christian. Aside from the jumbled semantics over the Trinity and Godhead debate — which btw is very important, for the church believes in polytheism, unlike what the standard Creed of the Council of Nicea (sp.?) teaches as ONE God in THREE Persons— the mormon faith also states: “as man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.” In other words, God isn’t much of one in their faith if we can all be one ourselves. Also, Joseph Smith constantly taught his followers to pull themselves up by the bootstraps — implying that salvation is not a free gift (as asserted in Ephesians 2:8-9), but must be attained through good works. This is a grotesque misinterpretation of “working out one’s own salvation through fear and trembling.” For the record all faith and works dialogue can be boiled down in this: Faith provides salvation; man cannot attain it through works. However, when one is saved by grace, the natural effect will be shown by the person’s fruit.
Finally, one of the most obvious and apparent attritions of the mormon faith: their multiple attached “scriptural” documents, and their belief in progressive prophecy. They believe in a Book of Mormon that has been revised hundreds of times to update itself to meet cultural standards, and that their church leaders can hear from God and change any doctrinal stance or issue stance as is needed. However, when investigating the doctrinal stances, one finds they include polygamy and racism among others. Now, thankfully, they have denounced that. That is a step in the right direction.
I could go on and on, from the lack of archealogical (sp.?) evidence to support their claim of Native American tribes that had Jesus appear to them, to the bald-faced liar, murderer, polygamist, etc. that Joseph Smith was. I could also talk about the church’s coverup of the Mountain Meadows Massacre, involving Brigham Young, etc. But I will leave with this: 1)Now, one knows why mormons hold tightly to family values, since it is a matter of earning their salvation, and 2)you also can see why Mitt is acting as a true mormon who can change his views on standard moral issues to benefit his political standing since his church fathers and leaders do the same.
December 31st, 2007 at 9:45 am
Irish #56: If it’s insignificant, then why would special interest groups push for such legislation? If it’s insignificant, then why can’t Mitt come out and say just that and oppose ENDA for that very reason? If it’s insignificant, then it would appear that you and Mitt think it’s little more than political gimmickry aimed at fooling people who think they have a stake in the matter one way or another.
Is Mitt simply pulling another three-card monte trick with SoCons and the gay rights crowd?
December 31st, 2007 at 9:49 am
As for the Mormons are Christians versus Mormons are not Christians controversy: Can’t you guys just damn each other to Hell and believe whatever you wish about yourselves and refuse to care how others choose to pigeon-hole you?
December 31st, 2007 at 9:53 am
It appears that Romney was for ENDA, before he was against it, before he was for it. That seems consistent to me. Consistent at least with the rest of Romney’s flip-flops on every other social conservative issue. What is this? John Kerry–take two? I am not interested in a flip-flopper from Massachusetts being president. Check him out for yourself: http://www.trueromney.com
December 31st, 2007 at 9:57 am
JM: I totally agree. I’m an independent who will be voting in my state’s Republican party, and as of right now it will be either Huckabee or McCain.
Irishright: your claim that mccain should continue attacking romney because it makes him look small — this is true, and so is the inverse.
December 31st, 2007 at 9:59 am
aside from my earlier religious caveat, let’s realize that faith is not a reason to vote for or against a candidate. i would be in favor of supporting Mitt if he wouldn’t be such a two-faced establishment candidate.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:02 am
#61, Who says he won’t clarify it? He probably doesn’t know its an issue, since he made his viewpoint clear in the National Review, but in the extremely short answer opportunities that Russert gives people, it wasn’t as clear. I’m confident that Mitt is with the social conservatives on this issue,.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:09 am
So between Deroy and this trash we now have 2 “guest” contributors whose only purpose is attacking Romney – very classy.
Anyways – this is why the Southern Baptist Convention (of which I am a member and attained my degree from an SBC college) is shrinking in numbers. The 80 yr old elders and pastor who hate gays need to realize that this country is not a theocracy and that most people are no longer bigoted against gays. Seriously, the fact that someone would oppose hiring discrimination being a bad thing is absurd.
Yes, I believe homosexual acts are a sin (the Bible teaches that) but I don’t believe that the Bible teaches to discriminate against those in sin (since we all have sin in our lives). These religious tests for candidates are ridiculous and Anti-American.
It is sad that i am embarrassed by and of so many of my brothers and sisters in Christ. What ever happened to bringing the lost into the fold? How will we ever reach out to gays when all they hear from us is that you are inferior and don’t deserve anything in this world?!? And when did homosexuality become the worst sin? Last time I read my Bible ALL sin was the same in God’s eyes. Why have denominations decided that homosexuality is the one sin that God can not forgive and that homosexuals are the one sinners who deserve to be treated like dirt?
December 31st, 2007 at 10:11 am
MarkG #62 – that may be the first time I’ve ever agreed with anything you have posted.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:19 am
Ray,
No one wants to see people lose their job due to private issues, but people of all faiths need assurance and that our religious liberty and freedom of speech will not be infringed upon.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:27 am
Thank God that Romney has admitted his true beliefs. This confirms what some of us have been trying to tell people for several months.
An open letter to Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh:
http://www.dayspringpublisher.com/An%20Open%20Letter%20To%20Ann%20Coulter%20and%20Rush%20Limbaugh.html
December 31st, 2007 at 10:33 am
Ray i agree that sin is sin is sin. i also agree that Christians have unfairly dealt with the issue of homosexuality and have portrayed the Christian faith in a light of bigotry. however, i am a Bible-believing Christian who does not go along with that line of thinking and support what you say wholeheartedly. i believe the issue everyone is bringing up is what kind of impact a nondiscrimnatory law would have on religious institutions. my church recently had to let our children’s pastor go because he decided to admit he was gay and leave a twenty-plus year marriage and four kids behind. it is a sad thing, but it wasn’t as much because of the gay part of things — after all, if it had been drug addiction or pornography or alcoholism, he would have been asked to leave as well. and i agree that if there are provisions to be made that will not affect any religious institution at any time, both present and future, then there should be no problem adding that to a nondiscrimination policy.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:34 am
MarkG -
You misread my comment. the thing that isn’t insignificant is Romney;s varied experience.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:39 am
#70 Louis – Are you kidding with that link? I thought the Ron Paul Conspiracy Theorists were ridiculous, but if this is the kind of stuff coming from Huckabee supporters, Rush Limbaugh is absolutely correct in stating that Huckabee is in trouble becaus of the ignorance of his supporters and campaign staff. I’m sure if your man Huckabee doesn’t get elected, Christians are going to go to prison!? Give me a break. You need to spend more time reading your Bible than buying into these conspiracy theories.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:42 am
spfldFT and all the other mormon-haters here, chill out guys – you’re not helping the cause any. Anyone with half a brain knows that that mormonism is a cult, so what’s the point arguing? Evidence: http://mormoncult.org/
December 31st, 2007 at 10:42 am
Josh – thank you for a fair-headed reply. I must ask, how many homosexuals to most Evangelical, Bible-believing churches get who are applying to be their pastor? Other than in a position of church leadership I don’t see how one’s sexual orientation would preclude them from a position in church, say as a janitor or maintenance person. Just a thought.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:46 am
nothing like a mormon-hating, gay-bashing thread to bring out the best in everyone, oh, and tons of new posters and ‘guest’ bloggers to boot. Welcome to Race42008 – we hope you enjoy your brief vent – you can return to your usual conspiracy theory, theocratic programming shortly.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:49 am
The whole premise of this post is invalid because Romney gets cut off and doesn’t get to expain the “rest of the story”
“I would not support at the federal level, and I changed in that regard because I think that policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level. And let me describe why”….(gets cut off)
now add his statement from 2 days prior for his reasons…
“I don’t see the need for new or special legislation. My experience over the past several years as governor has convinced me that ENDA would be an overly broad law that would open a litigation floodgate and unfairly penalize employers at the hands of activist judges.”
December 31st, 2007 at 10:51 am
I take Mitt’s side for most of this one. They do deserve all the same rights. I’m not that familiar with the bill, and didn’t really read the post that closely, but there shouldn’t be any discrimination against gays, just like their shouldn’t be any bans on smokers.
Now, if he does support a federal law, I’d have to read into the actual law before I commented, because every one knows I have a strong allergy to federalization of anything.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:53 am
The whole premise of this post is invalid because Romney gets cut off and doesn’t get to expain the “rest of the story
Don’t make me laugh. you guys did the same thing with Thompson’s appearence on Hannity and Colmes, putting words into his mouth.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:55 am
honestly, in most churches case i don’t think that would be a problem in a maintenance or janitorial position, only because i don’t know how most churches view those positions. however, in our church we view any and every position — even scrubbing toilets and emptying trash as ministry. so, i guess with our church it would probably be out of the question. again, i could not answer for everyone on that.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:57 am
80 tommy – I’m not familiar with that post so i wont comment. Im just saying this post is not valid because Romney didnt get to finish his statements.
December 31st, 2007 at 10:58 am
[...] This post is backup material for Mitt Romney: Flip, Flop, or Slip on ENDA?. [...]
December 31st, 2007 at 11:00 am
oh, and thank you for your warm welcome fcoh. i hope i don’t come across as a gay or mormon basher; regardless, i do appreciate the opportunity to exercise my opinion and free speech in this forum. and i for one actually like all the back and forth; it’s quite enlightening to be able to gain some insight on other’s viewpoints.
December 31st, 2007 at 11:04 am
josh – step away from the ‘mormons are freaks’ kool-aid for a minute and try to square your thought in 84 with your assertions in 61.
61
“A true Mormon who believes everything exactly as the church teaches is not a real Christian… blah blah blah blah”
84
“i hope i don’t come across as a gay or mormon basher”
Please…
December 31st, 2007 at 11:05 am
passmore, just look at romney’s record. he is has fought against gay marraige with a vengeance. no worries there for me.
I highly doubt he will be pushing any state laws to protect homosexuals. as president that is not his job. what matters is that he doesn’t support the federal one. i guarantee he would not support it federally.
the only reason he probably didn’t say it unequivocally was becuase he opponents would be lying in wait to nail him on ‘flip flopping’
December 31st, 2007 at 11:18 am
Josh,
“A true Mormon who believes everything exactly as the church teaches is not a real Christian.”
Says you.
You misuse the word “polytheism” which is a common tactic of the anti-Mormon crowd and you go on to cite summaries of the LDS belief which also originated in the anti-Mormon crowd.
Polytheism is multiple gods who compete with each other. We are not poly-theist any more than your belief in the Trinity is. The creed of Nicea does not say “One god in three persons” (how convenient for you), it actually says the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, three persons of one substance. Get your wording right.
You can characterize it however you want, but we believe John in Revelations 3:20-21 when he says:
“Behold, I stand at the door and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him and he with me.
To him that overcometh, will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.”
But to stretch that and say that we now consider ourselves gods and thus that supports your claim of polytheism is a bigoted twist. It is meant to smear, not clarify doctrine. In fact your whole post has that intent.
You grossly mis-characterize progressive prophecy. There have been no major or substantial doctrinal changes in the Book of Mormon, only grammatical and mis-spellings. And none of them were by prophecy either. Just good old fashioned proof reading. But an anti-Mormon stops short of listing what the changes are, because no one would be very impressed.
“one finds they include polygamy and racism among others. Now, thankfully, they have denounced that. That is a step in the right direction.”
Have you denounced polygamy? Because multiple prophets in the Old Testament practiced polygamy. Is polygamy a sign that someone isn’t a prophet or a proper religion? You need to open your own scriptures and see if you really want to espouse that claim.
The LDS church was no more racist than ANY of the American religions. ESPECIALLY the Southern Baptist. We just don’t typically attack and try and find things wrong with you. If we were, it would fill volumes. You do not have “holier than thou” legs to stand on here. None.
The Mountain Meadows Massacre did not involve Brigham Young and people familiar with that event know that. No, Josh, you just opened your anti-Mormon literature and paraphrased what you found there. It isn’t anything you’ve come up with by personal investigation. You are guilty of passing on smears that don’t reflect the real truth.
You can find lots of accurate info at http://www.lds.org and http://www.mormon.org but Josh doesn’t know what he is talking about, only what he got third hand from some one with an agenda to malign.
Oh and the “saved by works and faith both” belief? The Bible is full of many verses that support that stance. It may not be your view, but Romans, James and others. Galations 5:19-21 gives a detailed list. There are dozens of mini sermons that support what the LDS believe in that vein, and again, I don’t expect you to agree with our doctrine, but I would never tell you you weren’t Christian because you don’t believe just as I do.
December 31st, 2007 at 11:22 am
sorry. wasn’t trying to bash mormons; just mitt. i guess it can seem like i’m pulling a mitt romney, but i’m not. i’m actually able to stand by it. again, i have several friends within mormonism who know where i stand. do i condemn them? no. do they always agree with me? some do. some don’t. but isn’t that the beauty of free will? ultimately, you choose how you want to believe. my big beef is not with mormons themselves as much as the behemoth of the organization that continually covers up their hidden agenda. and again i understand that there have been many examples of hidden agendas and double standards that have come from “christian sources.” but one can easily see that those hypocrites aren’t christians themselves.
December 31st, 2007 at 11:25 am
Josh – you mean like their secret plot to turn the country into a Mormon theocracy or to eventually take over the world? Could be more specific please. This sounds like big news. You need to expose the Mormon Church. Please let us know what the hidden agenda is. I need to know if I need to go get my pitch fork and torch and start hunting down the Mormons!
December 31st, 2007 at 11:35 am
Summing up:
Mitt has always opposed discrimination against gays and other minorities. He is compelled by Christ to do so because our religion has always believed in and practiced loving our brothers and sisters as God has commanded. There is no way this will ever change. Take it or leave it.
December 31st, 2007 at 11:41 am
bill: lol. come on. now, am i saying that mormons are here to take over the government? no. again, would i elect a mormon as president? yes, if he were able to do it. i don’t support romney because of his political career and stance and changing of said stance. the mormon agenda is not one of political ambition, but it is one of religious ambition to convince others that it is not a cult of Christianity, but IS christian. that is what i am arguing against in that regards.
shawnie: i understand your frustration with what i am saying. as far as smearing the mormon faith goes, newsweek did a good enough job drawing comparisons between mormon doctrine and traditional christian faith in a recent edition that featured that holy huckabee cover. and for the record, you’re right in an ultimate sense that i cannot say whether or not you personally are a christian. i don’t know you, and i don’t pretend to. i do apologize for coming across very harshly. that is very wrong for me to do. i am very easily stirred up by this topic if it was not very apparent. but what concerns me even more than that is mitt’s attacking of supposed double standards for both mccain and huckabee when he has plenty of skeletons in his closet…
December 31st, 2007 at 11:43 am
RayinNH,
You should really reconsider the way you speak, if you would like to continue stateing that you have a degree from a SBC seminary. It would only take five minutes and you would no longer be able to say that truthfully. Carefull.
December 31st, 2007 at 11:44 am
and dave i support that. i know we should not and can not discriminate anyone on the basis of their sexuality. that is wrong. again, i believe that the main bone of contention was how it could possibly affect religious organizations.
December 31st, 2007 at 11:48 am
Michael – I’m curious if you would be as brazen with Mr Huckabee as you are with RayinNH?
” if you would like to continue stateing that you have a degree from a SBC seminary”… Hmm?
December 31st, 2007 at 11:52 am
#94, You missed the point; I’m talking about recinding a degree, not the accuracy of his statements.
December 31st, 2007 at 11:54 am
Josh,
You seem like a good guy, albeit theologically challenged. As a devout Mormon, I’ll tell you all about our secret plot to take over the world. The Mormon church in America is growing twice as fast as the population as a whole. In many other countries we are growing many times as fast as the population. We are even growing in countries in which the population is declining. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that if these trends continue, eventually everyone on the planet will be a Mormon. So, our not-so-secret plan to take over the world is based on converting people to the true religion….one soul at a time.
December 31st, 2007 at 11:59 am
well dave i appreciate the honesty… at least its not radical islam and forced conversion, right? or am i not allowed to go there….
December 31st, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Michael – so the way in which an SBC graduate opines online could lead to the SBC recinding the degree? Interesting.
December 31st, 2007 at 12:12 pm
#98, Yes; just like any other educational institution, degrees can be recinded for conduct anywhere, online or other. Espeacially if it is stated as some basis, which does injustice to the institution who granted the degree.
December 31st, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Josh,
The key understanding what is happening in the world is God’s gift to us of free agency. It explains good and evil, happiness and sorrow, pleasure and pain, freedom and coercion, truth and mendacity, wealth and poverty. Free Agency is necessary for us to develop our talents, character, and spirituality. It is necessary if we are going to grow up and help our Lord carry on the family business of expanding creation and universal happiness and competence. So, absolutely no forced coercions. People become Latter Day Saints because of personal revelation, following soul searching and study and prayer. Ever may it be so.
December 31st, 2007 at 12:25 pm
dave i wholeheartedly agree with that concept. i of course call it free will. and just so you know the forced coercion thing was directed at the radical islam not the mormon part. i figured that was one thing we could both easily agree on…
December 31st, 2007 at 12:41 pm
From 92
Sounds like a subtle threat of thought policing. Is that how they do things in the SBC? Excommunicate people who oppose others politically?
December 31st, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Here we have people saying that they should be able to put Gays out of their jobs, homes, and communities. We also have petty attacks against Mormons.
What a great gousp of people these Huckabee supporters are. What’s next??? Quarentining gays and Mormons?
December 31st, 2007 at 12:50 pm
“Part of it is obviously to erode religious liberty. There’s no other reason one would use the government to force a Church to hire a gay pastor or face legal action.â€
I agree.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:04 pm
It’s nice to know there are still plenty of anti-mormons out there. And yes I’m a Christian. Great post Shawnie!!
December 31st, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Michael,
So you want to rescind my degree why, again?
December 31st, 2007 at 1:19 pm
Joseph,
That’s what I was thinking as well. Apparently, Michael is implying that if I don’t tow the party line (whatever that is and whoever decides what it is) my degree is going to be rescinded. I don’t seem to remember them teaching me to not think for myself, but maybe I skipped class that day.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:28 pm
#31 JOhioW – sexual orientation is wrong because it legislates feelings and immoral behavior. Liberals have for a long time screamed about legislating morality while they pursued legislating their immorality. They convinced many Americans that legislating morality forced others beliefs or values on them; at the same time, they were and are seeking force their immorality onto those who do not accept their beliefs and unnatural behavior. For example, the state of Massachusetts and California passed law to force gay sex-ed (diversity training) onto all children in public school. Gay and supporting lawmakers and public officials intend to indoctrinate every kids into accepting gay feeling and behavior as normative.
ENDA does the same to businesses and other organization. It has nothing to do with civil rights because it has nothing to do with violations of equal rights under law of people of race, gender, nationality, or other inherent human quality or nature. That is what discrimination law like the 14th and 15th amendment are about. ENDA violates ever clause of First Amendment.
What may be worse is the fact that all it is based on legal deception. It is as another secular-liberal legal deceit as is abortion and Separation of Church and State. Again, it has nothing to do with civil rights because, sexual orientation is about feeling as homosexuality is about behavior–sadomasochistic and unnatural behavior. It opposes everything our nation and laws used to represent.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Moreover, Romney’s support of ENDA at any level reveals his liberal status-quo views. Huckabee might be a good president but Paul has already come out against ENDA. He has a long record of defending the Constitution and its underlying principles. Those who believe those principles are secular should read Prof. Philip Hamburger’s Separation of Church and State book and Benjamin F. Wright’s book titled American Interpretation of Natural Law.
December 31st, 2007 at 1:59 pm
I also wanted to thank FCOH and Joseph D Walch for standing up for me while I was unable to comment for myself.
December 31st, 2007 at 3:23 pm
[...] Read more about it here. [...]
December 31st, 2007 at 3:25 pm
Bottom line, Mitt Romney is a social liberal and worse he is a fraud, deceiving everyone. Check out this website http://www.trueromney.com/ and you will see that Mitt is saying whatever he needs to get elected. Mitt reminds me of Bill Clinton, in both character and platform. Duncan Hunter has asked Romney several times to denounce the actions of the company that provided Romney a lot of campaign financing, who he was last CEO of, Bains. It seems this company is setting up a Chinese company with the purchase of a USA company that has National Security clearance work, thus a breach of Security? Is China also contributing to the Romney campaign? Mitt Romney is a yes man for the GOP insiders, which include many insider democrats, by observation from the heartland. Do we really want to continue down the road we are on?
Governor Huckabee will change the course of this Nation and for the better. As to the denomination battle, there is not one denomination that can walk on water. All fall short, but all are in focus on one truth, the quest of being Holy and righteous. To that end our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution and to that end we need to unite.
December 31st, 2007 at 3:49 pm
Mitt Romney changes his opinion faster than he changes his undergarments. Mitt is a liar. You’d be crazy to vote for someone so unstable.
December 31st, 2007 at 4:05 pm
Whoa everyone, for those of you that seem to be “rubbing edges” with each other, take a step back and evaluate what’s really at stake here. We’re trying to pick the President of the United States. It doesn’t make sense to elect or reject a candidate just based on some bloggers that support him. Listen to the actual men (*cough* and I must include woman) and make your choice. It’s juvinielle and petty to do otherwise.
On Non-Descrimination laws: theoretically, it’s a nice idea. The problem is the logistics of enforcing it. What exactly constitutes descrimination? Who decides when a person is being treated unfairly? The “victim”?
I see a huge gap for this to be taken advantage of. Just like all the other theoretically nice laws that have culminated in a suite-fest.
Case in point: you don’t want your kid being exposed to dangerous equipment and hurt. However, if your neighbor’s kid comes over and does something foolish on your trampoline and breaks him collar bone, you can be sued into Wahzoo.
See?
The rubber just doesn’t hit the road effectively when utilizing these vague bills against “descrimination”. Civil rights made progress by acting on tangible rights, like the right to vote, go to school, and be paid for labor.
Trying to outlaw and intangible like “decrimination” amounts to legislating morality, which just doesn’t work in actuality. It has to be a tangible action that is being inhibited.
See?
This is the main driving reason that a lot of people don’t support bills in the likes of ENDA. It’s time we all begin to take a little personal responsibility, and stop expecting the government to take care of everything for us.
It’s not that bad things won’t happen, or that you might even experience descrimination, but this is life. We can’t go crying to Uncle Sam for all our woes. Just pick yourself up, dust yourself off, and go at it again. And if you really believe in something, it doesn’t matter how hard anyone persecutes you anyways. But that sort of peace ONLY comes when you *really* believe in something.
*sigh*
…the end…
December 31st, 2007 at 4:09 pm
May I suggest that it’s reasonable to “refine” positions on economic and national policies, being that the political situation is always changing, but it’s also reasonable to distrust a man that keeps “refining” his own moral compass?
hmm?
*not naming names, here*
December 31st, 2007 at 4:11 pm
*clarification: “refining” as in changing.
December 31st, 2007 at 4:15 pm
It looks like that second effort to get more Huckabee commenters is working as it has breathed new life into thoroughly beat and dead thread.
December 31st, 2007 at 4:18 pm
“It looks like that second effort to get more Huckabee commenters is working as it has breathed new life into thoroughly beat and dead thread.”
Hehe, there, you would be right, my friend.
Just had to get in my $0.02
Actually, more like 2 bucks.
December 31st, 2007 at 4:51 pm
Unfortunately, the “Mormons are Christians–No they’re not” debate has taken over what was essentially an important discussion topic.
From a federalist POV, Romney is correct — this should be handled at a state level. From the perspective of people in Canada and some of the blue states who have suffered under this type of law, it is a concern that people of conscience rightfully express: Do we want a pro-gay, liberal president who would appoint judges that would uphold such discriminatory laws?
Discriminatory laws? Absolutely! When the government (even if it is state or local) tells a church they have to hire gays when doing so would violate their charter, they are practicing a form of religious discrimination that may well be unconstitutional. We learned after McCain-Finegold that simply signing a bill or ENDORSING the spirit of a bill does not guarantee it will be defeated in the courts when its constitutionality is challenged. McCain-Finegold was upheld as constitutional. If the court can find the First Amendment unconstitutional in incumbant protection anti-speech laws, why would it not also believe laws that restrict a church’s right to practice its religion also be unconstitutional?
Whether Mitt supports state or federal ENDA type laws is important because it gives us insight into the kind of judges he will appoint. Clearly, he supports the violation of our religious freedoms and our freedom of association if he believes these laws are good at any level.
As with Mr. Romney’s other flip flops, half truths and distortions, it is not his membership in the LDS church that anyone is debating (some may be concerned about that, but I suspect it’s a tiny minority of people who have come out of Mormonism). No, it’s not his church that concerns me — it’s his character.
FWIW: On the “Is Mormonism Christian” debate, it should be pointed out that there is no objective answer. Mormons believe “As man now is, God once was and as God now is, man may become” — Joseph Fielding Smith. They also believe they are the only true church (SOME christians may go to the second heaven, the Terrestial Kingdom), however only Mormons in good standing who have practiced all the ordinances of the Gospel, who have held the Melchesidik priesthood (or who have married a member of the priesthood) will enter the first heaven, the Celestial Kingdom where marriage is eternal. Most — though not all — Evangelical Christians might see such doctrines as outside Christian orthodoxy. Again, it’s all how you define Christianity. If Mitt were to address this, he might say, it is all summed up in “that depends on what the meaning of is…is.”
December 31st, 2007 at 4:56 pm
G.T. you spoke a rather clear position,, and I believe the old name for it was the Cass system, which is still in play. If someone is considered out of line, they are made an outcast, shunned. Of course with cities as large as they are, if someone open’s their closet door, no one may even notice.
The U.S. Constitution does not allow for much power by the Federal Government, yet they continue to eat away the States sovereignty. At what point is all in vane? Are we past the oint of no return? Shall we who pride our naton as a nation of law and order continue down the road of choosing which law we wish to honor and not honor? It was a sad day when President Bush signed into law the campaign finance law, stating that it is unconsitutional, yet was made law. To what end are we headed? If we part off the Constitution for ignoring, how long before the entire Consitution is ignored?
I am of the opinion we are at the crossroads now and that the only salvation we have is Mike Huckabee.
December 31st, 2007 at 9:13 pm
[...] perceived” sexual “orientation” as a protected characteristic in employment law. Here’s the article at race42008.com Russert asked Romney if he still supported ENDA. Romney replied that he did support them at the [...]
December 31st, 2007 at 11:08 pm
Brett, what’s your position on discriminating against gays and people who can be perceived as gays, and people who have gay tendencies but don’t act on them, in the context of hiring? Oh, and why?
January 3rd, 2008 at 1:40 pm
[...] Also see this: http://race42008.com/2007/12/31/mitt-romney-flip-flop-or-slip-on-enda/ [...]
June 11th, 2008 at 5:56 pm
[...] Read more about it here. [...]