One thing you have to conclude about presidential candidate Mitt Romney: His relatively brief political career is littered with conflicting positions.

Yet, in his continuing confusion (or, is it his effort to fool voters?), he, alone, doesn't see it that way.

On "Meet the Press" Dec. 16, he claimed he had only changed his position on abortion, though clearly as a presidential candidate he has run away from his tenure as governor of the state of Massachusetts.

But rather than take on all the issues on which he has flipped and flopped, as I have done before, let's focus like a laser beam on one fundamentally important topic – special government-created rights based on sexual behavior or proclivities.

Let's forget about his history. Let's just zero in on what he says he believes today. Here's what he told Tim Russert in his recent interview: "… [H]ere's my view. I don't believe in discriminating against someone based upon their sexual orientation. And so I would be effective in trying to bring greater recognition of the, of the rights of people not, not to be discriminated against."

(Column continues below)

Asked by the host for clarification on whether he supports the Employment Non-discrimination Act, a bill the former governor previously said he would enthusiastically co-sponsor at the federal level, Romney said: "At the state level. I think it makes sense at the state level for states to put in provision of this. 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."

Now, before you cast a ballot for Mitt Romney in the Republican primaries or caucuses, I want you to think about what this means.

Let's say you're an employer who has set certain standards of behavior for your employees. Among the requirements is that employees dress appropriately and in ways that will not turn off customers.

Then one day, a male employee comes to work dressed as a female. This new law, supported by Romney, would forbid you from firing a transvestite, because he is merely expressing his sexual orientation.

These laws also would mandate you, as a Christian employer, from rejecting an applicant based on such inappropriate behavior in a job interview. As a Christian landlord, you would be forced to rent out apartments to unmarried couples, same-sex couples, etc.

Somehow, Romney defines laws like this as expansions of freedom. I define them as strict new state control over your property rights and heinous violations of your morality.

In other words, Romney would support efforts by secular humanists to impose, under the coercive power of the state, their religious values that suggest all sexual behavior is appropriate and equal on Christians and Jews who disagree.

I don't know about you, but this is one of the reasons I fled California.

I wonder how Romney's Mormon constituents view this aberrant and abominable position.

Do people understand who this guy really is? Even if you want to suspend reason for a moment and accept him at his word that he is a changed man since his time as governor, you still need to accept and examine his positions today.

Romney is totally unacceptable to me.

I don't care who he runs against; he will not get my vote for president.

---

Related special offers:

"Male and Female He Made Them"

"Christianity and the American Commonwealth"