Mitt Romney isn't as solid on the social issues as you think he is

I think that most people assume that 2012 Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, being a 'faithful' man and a conservative, is solid on the social issues. Further many people believe that compared to the travesty that is Obama, Romney is a conservative answer to prayer, who operates within the framework of his Mormon faith and is against the behaviors that are the main social ills of today.

They would be wrong.

He is not.

I took a look at his record on three main issues, though there are many issues to look at, including foreign policy and economics. I examined Romney's stance on two social issues and a foreign policy issue of interest to Christians: Abortion, Homosexual agenda, and Israel. I included links so you can check them out yourself. I noted the date, some articles are from 1994 and others are from today.

Homosexual agenda

Boy Scouts:
Romney believes that openly gay people should be allowed to participate in Boy Scouts as members or leaders. Currently the Boy Scouts of America does not allow. Romney is in agreement with Obama on this issue. "Romney says Boy Scouts should admit homosexuals"

Homosexual marriage:
Romney’s views on this have changed since 1994 when he first ran for office. Initially he believed in “equality for all citizens”. He declared he would be more liberal and effective than his opponent, Sen Ted Kennedy.

Said the same in 2002 when running for governor. (source)

When the Mass. Supreme court said that denying gays a legally sanctioned marriage, Romney sought to establish same sex civil unions, but stated that his personal views were that marriage should be just for one man and one woman. (source)

Has stated he would seek a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriages. (additional source)

Romney has consistently opposed expanding marriage to gays and lesbians, while paradoxically insisting that he supports equal rights for everyone. And he has tailored that message to please his shifting audiences. (source)

Other homosexual issues

He supported the Federal Employee Nondiscrimination Act and President Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy allowing gay men and women in the military in 1994.

Says he is for Gay Rights, (Aug 2011)

Romney’s stance on homosexual agenda issues is contradictory. When asked if it turned out that one of his grandkids was gay Romney said “I love my children, and I love my grandchildren, and of course I’d want them to be happy. My view is this: individuals should be able to pursue a relationship of love and respect and raise a family as they would choose. I would like to have the term ‘marriage’ continue to be associated with a relationship between one man and one woman, and that certainly doesn’t prevent two people of the same gender living in a loving relationship together having a domestic partnership, if you will.” (source) (source)

Abortion

--Said in 1994 that abortion should be safe and legal for all women (source)
--Said the same in 2002, affirming his stance that a woman has a right to choose
--Said in 2005 said he is staunchly pro-life
(source)

Oct 11, 2012- Believes abortion is wrong but will not seek to institute any laws about it. Abortion issues are not part of his agenda, he told reporters today. (source)

Oct 11, 2012 Later the same day he backpedalled on the statement (source)

Said he would de-fund Planned Parenthood. (source)

Here is a link showing Romney’s “evolution” on abortion issues. (source)

This is a straightforward factual listing of the issues written by AP, just out today. The title is Obama and Romney: where they stand on the issues. Side by side comparison of all issues, not just social. The piece includes compasiton of stances on debt, economy, Social Security, abortion, homosexual agenda, etc, the whole gamut is on this page. (source)

Tracy Bloom at TruthDig reports the following:
"GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney “reaffirmed” his staunch pro-life abortion position on Wednesday, saying his stance on the hot-button issue hasn’t changed. At least not since he became pro-life midway through his political career. Like on many issues—taxes, health care, stem-cell research, minimum wage, immigration reform, etc.—Romney has flipped-flopped positions in a seemingly concerted effort to appeal to a certain ideological group of voters.”

I posted Bloom's piece because I have found the same flip-flopping as I travel the course of Romney’s life. I agree that whatever his personal feelings on an issue, when it comes to public policy, Romney changes to match the situation, constituency or to attain a political goal. This also includes a less than candid reporting of the reasons his grandfather fled the US to Mexico in the 1880s. And I’m not just talking about flip-flops on issues that are decades apart, but for example, the abortion flip flop that occurred the same day.

Israel

At a private fundraiser, a donor asked Romney how the "Palestinian problem" can be solved. Romney immediately launched into a detailed reply, asserting that the Palestinians have "no interest whatsoever in establishing peace, and that the pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish." (source). The Main Stream Media treated this "discovered video" as a smoking gun, but in fact, Romney is absolutely right on the issue. The Palestinians do not want peace and it is futile to pursue it with them.

I agree with Romney on this and I’m also pleased he had a reply that included details. A two state solution only presages the judgment from God in Joel 3:2 where God said He will judge the nations because they have divided up His land. The much vaunted "Two State Solution" is no solution.

I post this tonight because I want us to be aware of the fact that Romney is not the answer to conservative prayer that he is being made out to be. The issue is not black and white and in fact is more complicated. Christians are in a quandary for good reason.

Add to that, Christians are weary. We are dejected in seeing the country crumble. We are concerned about the effect Obama has had in a mere four years and are heartily concerned with what will happen if he gets another four. We long to see faith played out on the national arena. We desire to see standards of morals and behavior applied consistently in at least one leader. The vacuum of goodness surely is dark on our hearts. Romney is the Republican candidate, conservative and intelligent, and many people are despondent enough with the way things are to say "good enough... close enough... what else we gonna do, anyway?"

Be mindful that Mitt Romney, while likely being a very nice man, generous and charitable, intelligent and having a grasp of economic issues, is unsaved. His ethics and morals have only been solid as far as they have served his political ambitions. I say this not to denigrate the man, but because I have spent the last two days reading numerous articles and seeing interviews and his positions change, sometimes over years, but more troubling, sometimes depending on who he is speaking to on the same day. I was saddened to read his responses to the hypothetical query about his grandchildren if they turned out to be gay. He wants them to be happy and in a relationship? As a man who claims God and says he adheres to His standards why did he not say that homosexuality is a sin and he would pray daily for the Spirit to transform the person through the saving grace of Jesus, because the homosexual lifestyle is one of despair, illness, and eventual condemnation by Holy God?

It is a paradox for Romney to say he wants his grandkids, if they turned out to be homosexuals, to be happy and in a peaceful relationship then say he would push for a constitutional amendment banning a legal relationship for them...wouldn't that make them UNhappy?

People say all the time, choose the lesser of two evils. I don't agree. Choosing the lesser of two evils means you are still choosing evil. Charles Spurgeon said, "When a Christian is faced with the choice between the lesser of two evils he should do neither."

In the bible, should a person choose Jannes over Jambres? No. Both were condemned. Choose Ananias over Sapphira? No. Both were condemned. Why? They were both evil. God didn't say, 'I condemn the lesser of two evils', He judged the evil. Period.

We vote for someone who we believe to the best of our diligent ability who will uphold Biblical principles and protect Constitutional government, regardless of that candidate’s perceived likelihood of prevailing. I sympathize with each and every mature Christian out there because I am agonizing over this as well. I know full well that there is no candidate out there who fully represents and lives out biblical principles. There are few enough who even appear moral.

Randy Alcorn wrote in part 1 of a series he began regarding this election, "Honestly, I am deeply concerned about this election, but not excited about it. I have very little faith in politics. Republican and Democratic administrations have combined together in the last forty years to establish a staggering track record of economic, personal and moral irresponsibility. They’ve proven themselves poor stewards of our country. And in many ways we have proven ourselves poor citizens and stewards."

Here is a response by the pastors over at Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry to the question "Politics, Mormonism, and Christians." The last few paragraphs get to the meat of the matter.

Here is another essay answering the question, "Should a Christian vote for a Mormon?"

Hopefully, some of the resources I've posted on this issue here and at the other blog entry may help you clarify your thinking. My thinking on the matter is clarified. And it was completely clarified last night before I changed my mind today. I am not settled on this by a long shot.

Lord, I not only pray for wisdom to make a God-honoring decision, I admit I also pray for the rapture so that we can be settled at your feet, enjoying a perfect theocracy once and for all. No voting necessary.