Printable version - pass it on!

In Defense of Mitt Romney

(Why he should NOT be viewed as “The Mormon Candidate”)

Perhaps the greatest challenge facing presidential candidate Mitt Romney is the resistance of voting for a “Mormon Candidate”.

Especially among much of the conservative Christian camp, we hear concerns voiced that, if elected, he would take his orders directly from Salt Lake City, and follow lock-step, whatever his church leaders dictate, rather than represent the Nation.

John F. Kennedy faced a similar opposition to his Presidential Campaign, because he was Catholic. In order to assuage the public fears, Kennedy gave a speech in Houston, Texas, where he declared, I’m not going to be bound by the pope!

Outside consultants have been telling Mitt Romney that at some point, he’s going to have to make a similar “Kennedy Speech”.

He finally made such statements, as quoted in the New York Times:

"I certainly don't do what leaders of my church or any other tells me to do."

(Source)

However, if actions can speak louder than words, he has been making this speech powerfully over the course of his entire political career! Romney has fought against virtually every political stance made by the LDS Church (The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints or Mormons), his entire career!

Let’s briefly review his political history and the official statements of the Mormon Church.

Abortion

While official statements of the LDS Church declare it to be decidedly Pro-Life, Mitt Romney clearly has other ideas.

Romney ran against Senator Edward M. Kennedy in 1994. During the debate, Romney declared: ‘I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.’ NOTE: Romney supported abortion before the 1972 Roe v. Wade ruling!

According to the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts, Romney also supported state funding of abortion services for low-income women.

Gay Marriage vs. the Traditional Family

On three separate occasions, LDS Church leadership has issued official church statements in support of Marriage Amendments, in order to preserve the traditional view of marriage being between a man and a woman. On many occasions LDS Church leaders have declared the biblical position that the homosexual lifestyle is sinful in the sight of God, encouraging those with such tendencies to seek God’s help and the help of their church leaders in avoiding such practices.

In 2002, before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court declared same-sex marriage to be somehow protected by the Constitution, Romney denounced as “too extreme” the effort by pro-family groups to enact a preemptive state Marriage Protection Amendment prohibiting homosexual marriage, civil unions and same-sex public employee benefits.

Romney maintains that he has always been opposed to gay marriage, and even fought against it. However, when the Massachusetts Supreme Court decided to create new law by declaring same-sex marriage to now be legal, Romney did nothing. As Governor of Massachusetts, he had not only the power, but the Constitutional duty to stop the Supreme Court from usurping the power to create new law! If one branch should try to exercise power not granted to them, the other branches are there to keep them in check. Romney’s inaction was essential to the establishment of gay-marriage in Massachusetts!

In fact, Mitt Romney helped to secure the “legal status” of gay-marriage by directing his Department of Public Health to change the state marriage license to read “Party A” and “Party B”, replacing “Husband” and “Wife”. This change was strictly of Romney’s doing, as it was neither required by the state legislature, nor by the state Supreme Court.

In advocating homosexual couples’ adoption rights, Romney stated “There will be children born to same-sex couples, and adopted by same-sex couples, and I believe that there should be rights and privileges associated with those unions and with the children that are part of those unions.”

Multiple studies have shown that a child in the care of a homosexual couple is over 1,600% more likely to be sexually abused than in the care of Heterosexual couples. Very simply, advocating the adoption of children to homosexual couples is irresponsible, placing the children at great risk!

The Gay Agenda vs. Family Values

The LDS Church is well-known for its strong family values, including strict sexual abstinence before marriage and total fidelity after marriage.

In contrast, Mitt Romney’s political career is filled with efforts to promote the homosexual lifestyle.

In seeking the endorsement of the homosexual Log Cabin Republican Club, Romney wrote them a letter promising that ‘as we seek to establish full equality for America’s gay and lesbian citizens, I will provide more effective leadership than my opponent.’ His opponent was the ultra-liberal Senator Ted Kennedy, perhaps the foremost advocate of homosexual rights in the US Senate.

Before Romney was elected governor of Massachusetts, the Governor’s Commission on Gay and Lesbian Youth worked with other gay advocacy groups to sponsor pro-homosexual assemblies and workshops at public schools. At these events, presenters taught children the details of how to engage in homosexual intercourse, including gay sex “sports” activities, so depraved, if put in movie form, they would earn no less than an X-rating!

“But that all ended with the election of a ‘Mormon’ Governor, right?”

Wrong.

Not only did the Romney administration do nothing to prevent such atrocities, they added to the problem! Romney’s Department of Public Health contributed to ‘The Little Black Book: Queer in the 21 st Century”, a shocking publication apparently in violation of obscenity codes. Distributed to middle-school and high-school students at these gay-advocacy assemblies, it advocates the same type of X-rated sexually deviant “sports”. This book was considered so dangerous to children’s mental and physical health that Massachusetts physician John Diggs called the book “alarming, disheartening, and medically unethical.”

Support of The Boy Scouts of America

The LDS Church is probably the strongest single supporter of the Boy Scouts program. They also support the BSA’s right to restrict homosexuals from working as scout leaders. Despite over 2,500 pedophilia cases now on record involving homosexual scout leaders, Romney stated, “I feel that all people should be allowed to participate in the Boy Scouts regardless of their sexual orientation.” – Boston Globe, 10/27/1994

Perhaps as retaliation for the BSA insisting it has a right to protect scouts from homosexual leaders …

The 2002 Olympics – run by Mitt Romney – was the only Olympics that restricted the Boy Scouts from participating. According to news reports, this was apparently because of pressure from homosexual activists. (But also, according to reports, homosexual groups participated fairly prominently.) Romney would not respond to reporters’ questions about that action.

The largest Boy Scout council in the country responded to the call for volunteers issued by the Salt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee (headed by Romney), but the welcome mat was rolled up and the door slammed in its face. Olympic spokesmen for the 2002 winter games claim the exclusion has nothing to do with recent protests by gay activists. While the organizing committee for the Olympic event is prominently displaying a call for local volunteers, they have explicitly let it be known that the Boy Scouts need not apply. “For us not to be involved is discouraging, considering the Atlanta games. The Scouting council there was extremely involved,” said Kay Godfrey, professional Scout executive for the Great Salt Lake Council of Boy Scouts.

-NewsMax.com, Dec. 18, 2000

The U.S. Constitution

Although many sources could be cited for the LDS position on the U.S. Constitution, perhaps the one that sums it up best comes from the LDS book of modern revelations, The Doctrine and Covenants, Section 101, verse 80:

“[The Lord] established the Constitution of this land, by the hands of wise men whom I raised up unto this very purpose, and redeemed the land by the shedding of blood.”

And in Section 98, Verses 6 & 7:

“Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land; And as pertaining to law of man, whatsoever is more or less than this, cometh of evil.”

Thus, the LDS position is that the Constitution is inspired of God, and “whatsoever is more of less than this” is considered evil.

LDS Church Leader Elder Dallin H. Oaks states that “ U.S. citizens should … study the Constitution. They should be familiar with its great fundamentals [such as] the individual guarantees in the Bill of Rights”.

The Second Amendment

One such guarantee found in the Bill of Rights states “The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That simple wording demands no restrictions on the availability of arms. It was this right that made the Revolutionary War possible, for if the people were not armed, specifically with ‘assault weapons’, we would never have become a free nation!

Romney’s justification for infringement on the Second Amendment falls into the category of “whatsoever is more or less than this . . .”.

An example would be Romney’s 2002 campaign website declaring “He is a supporter of the federal assault weapons ban.”

He is also a supporter of the Brady Bill, which required waiting periods to buy a handgun. Of this he declared “I don’t think [the waiting period] will have a massive effect on crime but I think it will have a positive effect.”

In 2002, Romney had this to say about his state having some of the most draconian gun laws in the nation: “We do have tough gun laws in Massachusetts; I support them, I won’t chip away at them; I believe they protect us and provide for our safety.”

Incidentally, one of the few places on earth with stricter gun laws is Washington D.C., which has a total gun ban. D.C. has since become a more dangerous place to live than Bagdad, with a roughly 25% higher murder rate per capita!

Border Security

Article 4, Section 4 of the US Constitution states:

"The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion"

The US Constitution places the responsibility of executing our Border Security laws (and all laws) squarely at the feet of the President (Article 2, Section 3). President Bush has ignored this obligation, favoring instead the plan to erase our borders and grant amnesty to illegal immigrants.

This plan was drawn up by the New York political think-tank called the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). One of the CFR’s main objectives is the surrendering of some of our national sovereignty in favor of the formation of a North American Union, similar to the European Union.

In Mitt Romney's campaigning for President, he says all the right things about first securing our borders, and being opposed to amnesty. (incidentally, virtually all of his above positions are now being contradicted by his Presidential Campaign propaganda)

As a close affiliate of the CFR, however, Mitt Romney cannot be counted on to go against the CFR plans, by securing our borders.

Since the surrendering of national sovereignty is an anti-constitutional position, Romney’s close affiliation with the CFR should be considered “whatsoever is more or less than this”.

Conclusion

Mitt Romney has spent his entire political career fighting against everything his church is politically for! The claim of Romney following “lock-step” behind his church leaders apparently doesn’t have a leg to stand on!

Those who support his views should not let his religion stop them from supporting him. Mitt Romney is hardly “The Mormon Candidate”.