Pro-family leaders urged to leave Romney over ENDA stance
December 28, 2007
A grassroots conservative activist is calling on pro-family leaders who have endorsed Mitt Romney for president to withdraw their support over Romney's endorsement of "sexual orientation" non-discrimination laws at the state level.
Governor Romney recently remarked on NBC's Meet the Press that it "makes sense" at the state level to adopt the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA). Conservative and Christian groups have ardently opposed such legislation because it grants special protections to employees based on their "actual or perceived sexual orientation."
Peter LaBarbera, founder of the website RepublicansforFamilyValues.org, is urging conservative Romney backers to withdraw their support. "He's now openly promoting the homosexual agenda at the state level. I don't think he can be trusted at the federal level if he's [promoting gay rights] at the state level ...," he argues. "You know, our leaders don't support candidates who are pro-abortion; why should they support leaders who are pro-homosexual agenda?"
LaBarbera believes the respect of the pro-family movement within the Republican Party is at stake. "If pro-family leaders look the other way while a guy like Mitt Romney [actively and publicly] supports ... the homosexual agenda at the state level, it's only going to erode the respect for pro-family voices within the Republican Party," he believes.
The pro-family spokesman says a similar pro-homosexual law in Massachusetts did much damage by forcing Catholic Charities, an adoption agency, to cease due to fear of violating the law. "So Mitt Romney knows how these homosexual laws can be used to promote so-called homosexual 'marriage,' to promote homosexual adoption, to promote homosexuality in schools -- and to erode our religious liberties," insists LaBarbera. "And yet now he's recommending the same laws to other states."
On Meet the Press, Romney told host Tim Russert that although he originally said he would sponsor ENDA at the federal level, he changed his stance because the "policy makes more sense to be evaluated or to be implemented at the state level."
Some high-profile conservative leaders in