In case you missed it I addressed my heavy hearted concerns about some of the heavy handed tactics being taken by Romney critics. The prominent ones in particular...

If you missed the column, here it is: Romney Critics: NOT telling the whole story!

One of those - and a nice guy at that - Brian Camenker wrote to respond to my encouragement to at least present both sides.

His response:

Dear Kevin,

I enjoyed your article on Romney, Sandy Rios, Gregg Jackson, and me.
However, there are a few points you might note:

(1) I don't find Romney's opinion on a federal Marriage Amendment very important because, constitutionally, the President has no part in the amendment process. Only Congress and the state legislatures affect it.

(2) In 2002 when there was a solid Marriage Amendment being proposed in Massachusetts, Romney refused to support it because (he told the Boston Globe) it didn't allow for civil unions. He later supported a "soft" amendment that did not ban civil unions.

(3) After Romney's "conversion" on abortion, he signed into his "universal health care" bill that gives us public funded abortions and puts Planned Parenthood in an official advisory capacity.

(4) I am not an evangelical Christian. I am Jewish.

Best regards,
Brian Camenker

It's truly interesting that on the notes that Camenker wishes that I would "note" he falls guilty of the very same thing the original column discussed - CONTEXT. Let's go through them one at a time.

(1.) Support of the Marriage amendment is irrelevant to this critic in particular because he can't pass it? Such an odd thing to say given that there wouldn't even be a federal marriage amendment had the PRESENT President not consistently fought to get it into Congress. The next President will have at minimum the same ability as the current President to rally support, pressure lawmakers and speak of the need to pass such legislation.

(2.) Words like "solid" and "soft" are very big gaps in this criticism. To be more specific - Romney did not support the version of the state marriage law that used the term civil union as well as marriage. Would I have liked him to - sure. But it is also reasonable to argue that civil unions (not homosexual in nature) are of need in our society. (A dying parent allowing their child to form a civil union with them to operate bank accounts, manage money, oversea medical care - is not a pipedream - but a reality for thousands of Americans. Such "civil unions" are done with two individuals and an attorney. This also goes to demonstrate why homosexual "civil unions" are so unneccesary - they already - AND have already existed.) My battle is for the term, idea, and institution of marriage being a unique and seperate entity that we as a society protect. This concept and literal understanding is the same concept that Mitt Romney espouses. Camenker, Rios, and Jackson can not prove otherwise...

(3.) On abortion is Mitt where I am on 0% abortions being allowed under the law? No. Therefore his mandating the health insurance issue in his state to outlaw all abortions was unrealistic. In Mitt's case he believes they should be outlawed 99.97% of the time. (Only exceptions - mother's health, rape, and incest. Again the exact same position as our current president - THE MOST PRO-LIFE PRESIDENT in history.)

(4.) I DO APOLOGIZE for misrepresenting Camenker's faith. It was an oversight. The time's he had been on my show - he spoke with such fervor for the righteousness of our nation - I made a bad judgement call. Though the Jewish faith cares equally as much about TRUTH as Biblical Christianity does - therefore the principle I was arguing stands strong!

To date, I have not yet heard from Sandy Rios or Gregg Jackson, but will be glad to post their responses - in the interest of as much transparency as possible. (Something the three of them - have yet to afford the former Governor.)