'...signed the The Family Leader's 14-point pledge, which calls on the
candidates to denounce same-sex marriage rights, pornography, same-sex military
accommodations and forms of Islamic law.' - Article (Sarcasm)
Because homosexuals who serve in it's US military... ALWAYS follow
Islamic law. Sarcasm off. Despite what others have
said: *'Gays greatest threat to America, Buttars says' - By Aaron
Falk - DSnews - 02/19/09 Huntsman and Romney truly are the best
Republican canidates I have seen in quite some time. And while they
are a fantastic example of people who adhere to the will of the PEOPLE... instead of party politics... Obama has done more than any
other president for LGBT rights. *'Pentagon study dismisses risk of
openly gay troops' - By Anne Flaherty - AP - Published by DSNews - 11/30/10 While Obama gets my vote... this small gesture from Romney
reminds me that there are good in the other side as well.
Mitt, say "bye, bye" to any tea party and ultra right Republican
Say good bye to the nomination Mr. Romney's true ultra libral roots finally show
themselves. Enought that the ultra-left commenter hereon offer their support.
He should not have signed the no tax pledge. Who knows what will happen in the
next few years?
Why should this Family Leader group determine who the GOP's nominee is? Who
gave the Family Leader group the authority to say that anyone who doesn't sign
this "no gay marriage" pledge (which contains many more provisions
beyond gay marriage) is therefore IN FAVOR OF gay marriage? This is not a
cause-and-effect document. I hate these pledges that arise at every
presidential campaign, forcing candidates to "sign them or else."
Isn't that called BLACKMAIL? Mitt Romney does not support gay marriage, period.
I, too, support traditional marriage only between a man and a woman, but applaud
Mitt's refusal to adhere to The Family Leader's pledge (or any other pledge by
those who are not running or who are not our elected officials). I agree
completely with nyca411, above. Who made this group the "leader?" They
do not speak for me, although I consider myself a conservative Republican. I
fear any candidate who absolutely pledges to follow a certain course of action,
thus ruling out the flexibility required to make hard decisions as changing
times demand. Most important, I support candidates who pledge to leave it to the
individual states--not the federal government or the president-- to decide moral
Good for him. Romney is a strong, rock solid, supporter of traditional marriage.
But there needs to be fine line drawn between same sex marriage and dignified
treatment of an individual no matter what they do in their personal life. If you placed a document that said will you support that marriage is
between a man and a women, he would sign it in a heartbeat.
I agree Mahem and nyca, there are too many other provisions in this pledge that
tie up their hands. I think he is making the right decision here. Although
Pagan's semi endorsement of Romney doesn't make me feel warm and fuzzy about
Romney rejected because he is a liberal.He is the creator of
obamacare by first introducing it in MA.Now gay marriage.This guy may be fiscally more conservative but he certainly is not a true
conservative.He is a political chamelon who will do anything to get
elected. That is the problem. They all sell-out to get elected.After this happens with every candidate we get, how do we expect anything but
the perpetual failure of administration after adminstration.More of
the same coming up regardless of who gets elected.How depressing.The choice is bad and then worse.
I think these "pledges" are wrong the way they are. First of all, who
made them the litmus test be being a viable candidate? Second, if someone agrees
in general with the pledge but has a problem with one part or the wording or
something like that then it gets blown out of proportion and they get labeled as
being opposed to even the general idea of it. That is dishonest. I
went to Austin to fight for the Defense of Marriage Act in Texas several years
ago but I wouldn't have signed that pledge either. I'm getting really tired of
all he strong armed tactic so prevelent in politics today. If there isn't even
room for compromise between people who are "on the same side" (either
side) then what hope is there for the nation as a whole??
This is the first smart thing Romney's done. Romney isn't going to need Iowa to
win the nomination. But he's still getting trumped by Obama.
"We are standing firm that the 14 points of the marriage vow are right on
target and we are creating higher standards for the presidential
candidates," said Julie Summa, director of marketing and public outreach
for The Family Leader. "We are not backing away from that at all."======Romney's refusal to sign this stupid family leader
pledge is finally something I can agree with him on. People running for the
office of president should be subject to one pledge only, and that's the oath of
office they take after winning. Anything else beforehand or after is trying to
supplant the constitution.
@junkgeekHe's getting trumped by Obama? Did I read that right? In
what possible way?? I don't think ANYONE is getting trumped by Obama right now.
I am generally in favor of what the Tea Party is doing and I don't
know that this 'pledge' is necessarily a Tea Party centerpiece. Either way,
it's a stupid and divisive pledge. Smart move by Romney.
Allow Mitt to explain himself.
One thing is believing marriage is between man and woman, and another one is
what those tea partiers are trying to do: instill hate among citizens. I am glad
Mitt didn't play their game. He has my vote.
Good for Romney. The GOP needs more candidates brave enough to stand up to
those Christians who've confused our politics with sunday school. Iowa is going
to become irrelevant to the GOP nomination process because of these dunderheaded
If he gets the nomination, this sort of thing (rejecting extremeists)will go
very well with moderates and independents like myself. It will also help him in
New Hampshire. The absolutism of the far right is getting scary.
Good on you Mitt, you made the right decision.
Romney's decision not to sign the ridiculous "pledge" is indicative of
his standing as a legitimate candidate who is can actually beat President
Obama.It's time for the GOP to stop catering to the loud, radical
fringe of the party and get back to what really matters (and what voters
actually care about) - fiscal restraint and economic growth.Those
who did sign the pledge will be long forgotten come November 2012.
Who cares. I just want to know that the next president will pledge to not be a
warmonger and get us out of immoral and unsustainable wars. I want to know that
the next president will stop the insane spending of taxpayer money, of borrowing
and of printing us into slavery. Who ever is willing to do this has my vote.
Still has my vote so far. I'm glad he didn't sign it, and I'm pretty
conservative. Frankly those on the far right come across as nut jobs and
embarrass me. I'm pretty sure Mitt Romney is still in favor of recognizing
marriage as between one man and one woman. And I'm okay with him wanting
homosexual partners to have some rights too. I may not agree with their
lifestyle choices, but they still need to be treated with respect and dignity.
Just look at Romney's track record. During the last Presidential Election he
was the only Republican Candidate that was still married to his first and only
spouse, if I remember correctly. That should tell one louder than any words or
signed pledge what he thinks constitutes a "marriage."
Mitt is smart and looking better, as time goes on.Even if Mitt signed the
pledge, it wouldn't matter in Iowa. That state voted for Huckabee, last election
and merely replaced him with Bachmann, this time around.It's not worth his
effort, neither in South Carolina, for that matter.However, there will be
(Cont.), However, there will be enough votes for him, coming from an even larger
voting block, than that of the Evangelicals, the Independents. Mitt can win,
even if many Evangelicals sit-out this election, due to disdain for a Mormon
candidate. The Independent voting block it that big.
Good for you Mitt. That there is some truth in the pledge does not make it all
true. By not signing he has signaled he is not going to be "wagged",
but will do the wagging. He is not the tail.These groups that want
to set themselves up as Kingmakers would have no power if all of the candidates
ignored them and set their own agenda. By signing these they are saying they are
willing to enter agreements that preclude further discussion. Something the
eveangelicals and Tea Partiers want.I am a conservitive and support
marriage between a man and a woman, but what else was in the pledge?I say it again, Good for you Mitt.
I'm considerably more worried about Christian law than Islamic law. Not that one
is worse than the other, but the Christians seem much more capable of actually
We need a president who has wisdom - the wisdom to get input from the wise.We don't necessarily need a president that has accumulated an abundance of
wealth.We need a president who is not tied to pledges except to do his/her
best.We need a president who considers all of the people.We need a
president who has the courage to do what he thinks is right.We need a
president that is not a puppet to special interests.We need a president
that is not beholding to some loud mouth bullies.I thought we had a
candidate like that with Mitt Romney but his no tax pledge says too much about
what kind of president he would be.Greed and love of money still have
adverse effects to society. Wealth should be used to promote good. God has
it all. How does He use it?
Romney did the right thing in this issue.The pledge is an affront to
GLBT Americans and should be considered an affront to ALL Americans.I could never vote for a candidate willing to sign such a discriminatory
document (and I still don't plan on voting for Romney).
I applaud Romney's refusal to sign the pledge - however, still looking for a candidate to sign a pledge to support same-sex marriage.
It is a moot matter whether Mitt signs it or not.No president gets
to choose if gay marriage is legal or not, or whether the country should have
abortions. That is all decided in the courts.Case in point is
shortly after Obama was elected they asked him his opinion on abortion and he
said "every person should have counselling before recieving an
abortion" Both parties lashed out at him, yet his opionion as president
matters the same as the rest of the readers of this paper, and not much more.
For this example and his current stance on the budget Obama has shown he is a
moderate and is tolerable compared to past Dem presidents.The courts
handle these matters without regard to feelings but in keeping with the laws of
the land.Mitt may think he is the front runner but recent polls show
him neck and neck with Palin and as far as I know she isn't even running yet,
and there is a long time til the primaries.
Romney is really a Democrat in Republican clothes. If you're a Republican,
follow the Republican platform...which he does not do.I still cannot
believe how society has degenerated so much to take seriously such a silly
notion as same-sex marriage. It establishes a dangerous precedent where
associations considered ridiculous today can become the norm tomorrow. Standards
of Morality provided by the Judeo-Christian ethic are what holds our
civilization together. When anything goes, chaos and ultimate self-destruction
ensue. We are witnessing daily the "good is evil" and "evil is
good." Mitt Romney is not helping matters by endorsing same-sex
marriage and the wanton killing of unborn children.
My first reaction was "What was he thinking?" Then I backed off and
wondered what the other points of the pledge were. The writer of the article
does his readers a disservice by not including other points of the pledge that
might be offensive to Mitt (and the rest of us).
Good for Romney. These activist should be arrested and ashamed of themselves
trying to blackmail and threaten people in government.
1. this article does not accurately represent the expressed point of view of
candidate former MN Gov Pawlenty, who has asked for changes to be made before
being willing to sign it. 2. I do not support Pawlenty. 3. I agree with KM of Cedar Hills UT who notes that there are issues of
importance to our nation's survival and same sex marriage is not one of them.
The military industrial complex succeeded this past week in getting Congress to
approve a new defense budget INCREASE while the GOP simultaneously claimed they
were going to reduce the debt. 4. Getting out the vote by finding
ways to divide the citizens by their sexual or religious preferences is low.Its none of our business whether homosexuals marry men. Its none of our
business whether lesbians marry women.Live in peace and deal with your own
lives in love and harmony.
I'm amused by posters like "no fit in SG | 8:05 p.m" who stated
"say bye, bye to any tea party and ultra right Republican votes".Romney is going to get a lot more votes from people like me, a socially
liberal but fiscally conservative voter. He just broadened his base
considerably!! anyone that caters to the tea party won't get any votes from the
largest category of voters - the middle.Tea party is a bunch of
whackos that wouldn't know how to run a country. They want to do away with the
FDA?? I like my food clean, thank you very much.
True Obama may lead Romney in the polls but it is not by much. The RCP average
is about a 4.6%. That number is a bit skewed due to an earlier outlier of 13 %
form the Ipsos institution. The rest were 2s 3s 4s 5s and 6s. So to say Romney
is getting whopped or trumped is wishful thinking at its best. Lying at its
By not signing this pledge, Romney shows why he is a much smarter candidate than
Bachman or Santorum.
Romney rejected because he is smart enough not to sign something that means
nothing. These pledges are a cheap political ploy.
People were worried that the Pope would have his own hotline to the Oval Office
if JFK was president. He didn't.People are worried that the LDS
Church President would have a hotline to the Oval Office if a Mormon were
president. He wouldn't.So why should Evangelicals deserve a hotline
to the Oval Office--regardless of the President's religious background? My sense
from this article is that that is what they are trying to accomplish.Mitt Romney did the right thing in not signing such a pledge, regardless of
his personal beliefs on the issue.
Pagan--you put to much trust in others. A champion runs alone.
@Lbone | 8:07 a.m. "Mitt Romney is not helping matters by endorsing
same-sex marriage and the wanton killing of unborn children."Your post only shows that you read headlines and do no research of your own to
know the candidates. If you tried doing some reading on the issues and
candidates you would know how false the above statement is.I get
tired of the ignorant rants that come from some people on here.
"stand up to those Christians who've confused our politics with sunday
school"Main Street Plaza.I agree with you about the
pledges but I get amused at people like you who somehow assume the moral high
ground with statements like above. Are you saying we should keep what we learn
in Sunday School out of politics? Should religion be kept out of business as
Lbone opines: Standards of Morality provided by the Judeo-Christian ethic are
what holds our civilization together. When anything goes, chaos and ultimate
self-destruction ensue." --1. its not the case, that anything goes.
You want to take "freedom to marry a person of either sex" and turn
it into "ANYTHING goes". Not really. 2. we do have legal
marriage of same sex intimates in some states, and gosh, there is no chaos to
be found. You must be wrong on your chaos theory, based on the fact of a land
in which - except for the occasional assassination of MDs willing to provide
legal abortions, we are a land of laws and there is certainly no chaos
anywhere in the USA. Stop exaggerating, extrapolating from same sex
marriage to CHAOS. its a mean spirited form of propaganda, intended to scare the
children. tut tut. 3. PS. In China they have different standards of
morality. life goes on, without the Judeo-Christian sky-father's commandments.
They have Confucian rules to live by. And recently, the repression of the RED
Army. I prefer freedom. Freedom from the Red Army and freedom from the Taliban,
and freedom from reactionary bible thumpers.
'Pagan--you put to much trust in others (journalists). A champion thinks and
forms opinions on there own.'
'A champion thinks and forms opinions on there own.' - worf | 3:03 p.m. July 13,
2011 I thought you said he was running? 'A champion
runs alone.' - worf | 12:31 p.m. Now I'm just confused. :) Sarcasm off.
Romney,supported rights for gay couples in Massachusetts, was criticized in Iowa
by some Iowa social conservatives during his 2008 campaign, when he finished
second in the caucuses after aggressively courting Christian conservatives.
Mormons will support Romney no matter what,not Christians.
@ worf "'Pagan--you put to much trust in others (journalists). A champion
thinks and forms opinions on there own.'"And on what does a
champion base his or her opinions? Facts and data? Made up stuff from the
ether? What? And how do you find these things on which you base your
opinions?Don Quixote tilted at windmills. Was he a champion because
he formed opinions on his own?Winston Churchill wrote for a
newspaper and it can be assumed he read them as well. Was he not a champion?Just because information or a fact are printed in the newspaper, that
does not make them false and something that should be ignored.
I am a fan of Huntsman and if I had to vote Repub he is the man I would go with.
I have never cared for Mit but this situation has opened my eyes a little bit.
I am impressed with Mit standing his ground and not letting these people
threaten him into a signature. Good on ya Romney!
Anti Government | 9:29 p.m.Romney rejected because he is a
liberal.================No. He rejected because he's
I'm shocked! For once Mitt didn't do the politically expedient thing.
I regret having ever voted for Romney. I already had decided a while ago that I
could not vote for someone who had donated to Planned Parenthood. This just
reconfirms that I was right in my assesment that I can not in good conscience
signing the pledge would require them to agree with all that is in them."The points include the promise to be faithful to their spouses,
enforce the federal Defense of Marriage Act and support a constitutional
amendment banning gay marriage."The wording and adding a
constitutional amendment banning gay marriage would be sufficient to block
signatures. That should not be used to denounce candidates. They can say
clearly, I will not support gay rights, most can be dealt with without reference
to the gay issue. Gay marriage is condemned in all holy books; we cannot
legally legislate it as acceptable without violating our religion clause in the
Doug10, And who appoints the federal judges? Oh yes, I almost forgot,
the president. It is very important to have a president who supports these
things, because if you have one like our current one who does not you get judges
who will reflect his views in their rulings. Elections matter.
Re: John Pack Lambert of Michigan I hope you realize that Romney is opposed to
same-sex marriages (he supports a U.S. Constitutional amendment supporting
traditional marriage; he just did not want to sign this pledge because 1) it's
meaningless and 2) it included other provisions in it that are ridiculous for
someone to have to sign publicly (e.g., "Personal fidelity to my
spouse" - of course that's important but why should anyone have to sign a
political pledge stating that?). Signing this pledge is nothing but political;
it does not have any bearing on the morals or moral stance of the candidates.
The pledge covers everything from personal marriage fidelity to Islam to
decreasing the deficit to military policy. Even assuming all of the points
should be supported (I'm not saying they should be, necessarily), it's insulting
to be expected to sign it.
@Kalindra:How about:1. Columbus2. Galileo3.
Thomas Edison4. Amelia Earhart5. Mother TeresaTheir
individual ability to process facts and data made them champions. Seventy
percent of what you hear and read are exaggerated or false. Only a fool would
believe everything they hear or read. Do you think a Japanese history book on
world war 11 would be the same as an American book?
Jared, Of course you can not refute my point that Romney has supported
Planned Parenthood. That is the heart of why I will not support him. Planned
Parenthood has a great many issues against it, including its consistent
disregard for FDA rules that have lead to the deaths of many mothers.
@ MarieDevine Divine-Way: How does legislating gay marriage as legal violate
the religion clause of the Constitution?To help you out, here is the
religion clause: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment
of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...."Please provide specific examples of someone not being able to exercise their
religion based on the legality of same-sex marriage.
@ worf: None of them rejected what they heard out of hand - they used multiple
sources to verify (or challenge) the facts. None of them were alone - they all
had support.Very few true champions - including your examples - have
ever claimed to do it alone.The DesNews will not allow you to post
links, so Pagan lists the titles of articles that contain facts that back up his
assertions.Instead of posting counter stories or facts, you attack
him for using sources.Do you have counter facts? Or is your arsenal
limited to personal attacks?
@ JPL of Mich: "Planned Parenthood has a great many issues against it,
including its consistent disregard for FDA rules that have lead to the deaths of
many mothers."You got any facts to back that up?
Hmmmm....I'm a Romney fan but I'll have to keep on eye on this
issue. I wonder what the "less than dignified" statements
were in the position paper that caused Romney not to sign it.
I'd better grab this chance while it presents itself to say, "good for you
Mitt." I haven't often said it and don't anticipate breaking my arms
writing it very often. But, give credit where credit is due.
Pledges like this are tantimount to coercion to candidates. No way should they
have to sign them.