Romney Has Heated Exchange with Gay Vietnam Vet

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Dec 12, 2011 11:42 PM GMT
    Sitting down at a table with two men Romney THOUGHT would give him softball questions
    One of the men asked him about his stance on Gay Marriage

    Mitt Romney, while touring the Chez Vachon restaurant in Manchester, sat down at a table with two older men, one of whom was wearing a “Vietnam Veteran” hat.
    Bob Garon, 63, of Epsom, N.H., asked Romney if he, as president would seek to overturn New Hampshire’s law legalizing gay marriage. Romney gave his standard response affirming his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman.
    Garon, who is gay and was seated with his husband, Bob Lemire, then said to Romney: “It’s good to know how you feel, that you do not believe everyone is entitled to their constitutional rights.”
    Romney replied: “Actually, I think at the time the Constitution was written marriage was between a man and a woman and I don’t believe the Supreme Court has changed that.”


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2011 12:24 AM GMT
    That was great. Romney sat down with the old vet figuring he'd be conservative and anti-gay, then learns the guy is gay. Here's the full conversation.

    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-mitt-romney-spars-with-vet-over-gay-marriage-20111212,0,5543756.story
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2011 12:40 AM GMT
    GQjock saidRomney replied: “Actually, I think at the time the Constitution was written marriage was between a man and a woman and I don’t believe the Supreme Court has changed that.”

    Actually, at the time the Constitution was written slavery was legal, and women couldn't vote, only male property holders had that right.

    And marriage isn't addressed in the US Constitution -- it's a matter for the States. Which also at that time, and long after, prohibited interracial marriages. It wasn't until Republicans in Congress pushed through DOMA that the concept of a national conservative Christian standard for marriage was adopted, in violation of the Constitution.

    But this is what happens when you have bigoted demagogues campaigning for office, and not men & women who actually understand our US Constitution, our history, and our individual civil rights.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Dec 13, 2011 12:46 AM GMT
    I guess I'm just a horrible gay, because I did not have that big of a problem with Mitt Romney's response, nor did I find it all that surprising. To be clear, of course I wish we lived in a world in which Mitt Romney and others could have answered that question differently and still have a chance to actually get the nomination -- however, reality being what it is, we do not. Let's not forget that Obama ALSO has stated that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman -- What I think this relatively polite exchange between Romney and the veteran did NOT fairly show is that Romney (like Obama, and I would imagine many Americans) being for the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman does NOT mean that he hates the gays. I think a deeper and broader discussion would unveil far more support for gays than this exchange revealed in terms of "civil unions" and other areas.
  • rioriz

    Posts: 1056

    Dec 13, 2011 12:56 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI guess I'm just a horrible gay, because I did not have that big of a problem with Mitt Romney's response, nor did I find it all that surprising. To be clear, of course I wish we lived in a world in which Mitt Romney and others could have answered that question differently and still have a chance to actually get the nomination -- however, reality being what it is, we do not. Let's not forget that Obama ALSO has stated that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman -- What I think this relatively polite exchange between Romney and the veteran did NOT fairly show is that Romney (like Obama, and I would imagine many Americans) being for the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman does NOT mean that he hates the gays. I think a deeper and broader discussion would unveil far more support for gays than this exchange revealed in terms of "civil unions" and other areas.


    Maybe you should run for office! Half the time your responses are clearly the most rational in this forum. Took the words out of my mouth

    - from another "horrible" gay
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Dec 13, 2011 12:57 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Mr. Ding, er, uh, mister poster (my new "civility" plan in effect where I don''t call you by that name that I used to).



    Yes, I think we need to adapt a much kinder gentler tone around here so names like Art Dingbat and my personal favorite, Arty, (which I thought was kind of cute) should be retired.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Dec 13, 2011 12:59 AM GMT
    rioriz said
    Maybe you should run for office! Half the time your responses are clearly the most rational in this forum. Took the words out of my mouth

    - from another "horrible" gay



    Thank you --- us "horrible gays" need to stick together icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2011 1:23 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    Art_Deco said
    And marriage isn't addressed in the US Constitution -- it's a matter for the States. Which also at that time, and long after, prohibited interracial marriages. It wasn't until Republicans in Congress pushed through DOMA that the concept of a national conservative Christian standard for marriage was adopted, in violation of the Constitution.


    Mr. Ding, er, uh, Mr. poster (my new "civility" plan in effect where I don''t call you by that name that I used to).

    The Federal government has been involved in the definition of marriage long before Democrat President Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law. Surely you recall all those pre-DOMA tax returns you filed when you weren't gay, but a straight married guy and you checked the box that said "Married, filing jointly."





    To quote Herman Cain (remember him?), you're comparing apples and oranges!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2011 3:27 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI guess I'm just a horrible gay, because I did not have that big of a problem with Mitt Romney's response, nor did I find it all that surprising. To be clear, of course I wish we lived in a world in which Mitt Romney and others could have answered that question differently and still have a chance to actually get the nomination -- however, reality being what it is, we do not. Let's not forget that Obama ALSO has stated that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman -- What I think this relatively polite exchange between Romney and the veteran did NOT fairly show is that Romney (like Obama, and I would imagine many Americans) being for the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman does NOT mean that he hates the gays. I think a deeper and broader discussion would unveil far more support for gays than this exchange revealed in terms of "civil unions" and other areas.
    Ok Jim Crow.
  • waccamatt

    Posts: 1918

    Dec 13, 2011 3:33 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI guess I'm just a horrible gay, because I did not have that big of a problem with Mitt Romney's response, nor did I find it all that surprising. To be clear, of course I wish we lived in a world in which Mitt Romney and others could have answered that question differently and still have a chance to actually get the nomination -- however, reality being what it is, we do not. Let's not forget that Obama ALSO has stated that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman -- What I think this relatively polite exchange between Romney and the veteran did NOT fairly show is that Romney (like Obama, and I would imagine many Americans) being for the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman does NOT mean that he hates the gays. I think a deeper and broader discussion would unveil far more support for gays than this exchange revealed in terms of "civil unions" and other areas.


    Sorry, but I'm an all or nothing kinda guy - you're either with us or you're against us. "Civil Unions" are civil rights light, in my opinion. Separate is not equal.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2011 3:51 AM GMT
    The sad part of this whole thing,..the only defense for the republican bigotry is pointing out that the democrats are bigots too.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2011 3:58 AM GMT
    sdgman saidThe sad part of this whole thing,..the only defense for the republican bigotry is pointing out that the democrats are bigots too.


    [raises hand timidly]Can I be a bigot too? I want to be part of the in-crowd. icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2011 4:00 AM GMT
    MATTHEWS: If they end up agreeing on a civil union solution, would you continue to fight for change to go back to the original man-and-a-woman proposition?

    ROMNEY: Well, yes. I'm going to want to see a marriage limited to a man and a woman. I don't want to see civil union either.


    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9086489/ns/msnbc_tv-hardball_with_chris_matthews/t/romney-plays-hardball-gay-marriage/#.TubNR_I8eEg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2011 4:03 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    sdgman saidThe sad part of this whole thing,..the only defense for the republican bigotry is pointing out that the democrats are bigots too.


    [raises hand timidly]Can I be a bigot too? I want to be part of the in-crowd. icon_lol.gif
    NO!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2011 4:07 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI guess I'm just a horrible gay, because I did not have that big of a problem with Mitt Romney's response, nor did I find it all that surprising. To be clear, of course I wish we lived in a world in which Mitt Romney and others could have answered that question differently and still have a chance to actually get the nomination -- however, reality being what it is, we do not. Let's not forget that Obama ALSO has stated that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman -- What I think this relatively polite exchange between Romney and the veteran did NOT fairly show is that Romney (like Obama, and I would imagine many Americans) being for the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman does NOT mean that he hates the gays. I think a deeper and broader discussion would unveil far more support for gays than this exchange revealed in terms of "civil unions" and other areas.

    this ^
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2011 4:07 AM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    q1w2e3 said
    sdgman saidThe sad part of this whole thing,..the only defense for the republican bigotry is pointing out that the democrats are bigots too.


    [raises hand timidly]Can I be a bigot too? I want to be part of the in-crowd. icon_lol.gif
    NO!


    But it seems to be so fun and hip being a bigot...everybody wants to be one, even presidential candidates.icon_biggrin.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2011 4:25 AM GMT
    Oh don't worry, Romney will flip flop on this issue as soon as he sees the political expediency of the opposite viewpoint.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2011 4:34 AM GMT
    As much as I dislike Obama...all the GOP selections are terrible. At least Bush was quiet on some of his views....comparatively speaking.
  • stratavos

    Posts: 1831

    Dec 13, 2011 4:49 AM GMT
    so essentially any man or woman who is in a same sex relationship, needs to donate everything they have to their lover in their will, and explicitly state that those are their personal wishes?

    that's what you're saying? Because the families of said couples can intervene with the will even when they actually were not close to the deceased.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2011 5:02 AM GMT
    mickeytopogigio saidOh don't worry, Romney will flip flop on this issue as soon as he sees the political expediency of the opposite viewpoint.


    Right?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2011 5:10 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI guess I'm just a horrible gay, because I did not have that big of a problem with Mitt Romney's response, nor did I find it all that surprising. To be clear, of course I wish we lived in a world in which Mitt Romney and others could have answered that question differently and still have a chance to actually get the nomination -- however, reality being what it is, we do not. Let's not forget that Obama ALSO has stated that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman -- What I think this relatively polite exchange between Romney and the veteran did NOT fairly show is that Romney (like Obama, and I would imagine many Americans) being for the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman does NOT mean that he hates the gays. I think a deeper and broader discussion would unveil far more support for gays than this exchange revealed in terms of "civil unions" and other areas.


    I agree that Mitt Romney's response is not in the least surprising. He has, after all, signed NOM's Marriage Pledge. Also he more than any other candidate must prove his dedication to conservative ideals.

    However, I disagree that substituting "civil union" for "marriage" would be beneficial given the outcome in Hawaii.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/06/hawaii-civil-unions-veto_n_637213.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2011 8:19 AM GMT
    CuriousJockAZ saidI guess I'm just a horrible gay, because I did not have that big of a problem with Mitt Romney's response, nor did I find it all that surprising. To be clear, of course I wish we lived in a world in which Mitt Romney and others could have answered that question differently and still have a chance to actually get the nomination -- however, reality being what it is, we do not. Let's not forget that Obama ALSO has stated that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman -- What I think this relatively polite exchange between Romney and the veteran did NOT fairly show is that Romney (like Obama, and I would imagine many Americans) being for the definition of marriage to be between a man and a woman does NOT mean that he hates the gays. I think a deeper and broader discussion would unveil far more support for gays than this exchange revealed in terms of "civil unions" and other areas.


    While I understand your sentiment, I am betting that Obama will change his views (if only for the votes) towards a pro gay marriage stance, and that Romney will keep his current view, if only for the votes. Obama has nothing to lose to 'evolve' his view, whilst Romney is desperate to prove his conservative nature.

    I am all for a deeper and more civil discussion, but given the position of every Republican candidate (except for Paul and Huntsman, whom I REALLY hope stick around for the next election cycle) that discussion will not likely happen until after 2012. Unless of course, Obama decides to voice support for same sex marriage in a debate with Romney.

    And I don't think that civil unions are a good idea as an alternative.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2011 8:59 AM GMT
    I'll add Mitt Romney to the list of psychopaths.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2011 9:25 AM GMT
    At the time the Constitution was written, there was slavery, women could not vote, and people could not marry someone of a different race......and yes, marriage was considered between a man and woman.

    I guess Romney yearns for the old days of 1787

    when everyone, including us sodomites, knew our place.....

    Except Mormonism wasn't even invented yet then. whoops. icon_exclaim.gif Maybe Mormons shouldn't be allowed to marry either because their religion did not exist in 1787. lmao.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Dec 13, 2011 9:46 AM GMT
    Mitt is one of the most liberal fuckers out there. He's playing hardball for the votes. Funny shit is if he beats "O" he might actually get shit done.