Mitt Romney meets a gay service veteran

[suzifrommd]

Gay Veteran talks to Mitt Romney - ABC News

[Teela Renee]

I seen that days ago and was blown away at how shallow mitt is.

[Snowpaw]

Those comments... nothing incites rage like the people who just found the internet and don't afraid to show their uneducated opinions. Major props to Romney though, for showing his absolute true colors here, and well where ever he opens his mouth.

He kinda reminds me of Sideshow Bob when he ran for office in the Simpsons.

[Teela Renee]

Those comments... nothing incites rage like the people who just found the internet and don't afraid to show their uneducated opinions. Major props to Romney though, for showing his absolute true colors here, and well where ever he opens his mouth.

He kinda reminds me of Sideshow Bob when he ran for office in the Simpsons.

lmao, yeah, we do gotta give him props for boldly stating his opinion and sticking to it. I dont like the guy, but at least he was honest.

edit:  i've heard rumors he supports civil unions tho, and that they should have the same rights are married couples, he just doesnt want it labeled "marriage"  anyone have any proof or links to said info? or is it just pure rumors?

[Jamie D]

I seen that days ago and was blown away at how shallow mitt is.

Why was that "shallow"?  He answered the question directly, based on his beliefs.

[Snowpaw]

Why was that "shallow"?  He answered the question directly, based on his beliefs.

I would say his inability to even sit and listen to that vet's point makes him many things if not shallow. Spitting out canned lines then getting up as fast as he could. I can only imagine what he had to say to his PR guy who got him to sit there. I don't support either side fully but many of the things I see coming out of his mouth and others disturbs me. It actually instills me with fear of what could happen, the religious right are like a wild animal cornered.

[Teela Renee]

Why was that "shallow"?  He answered the question directly, based on his beliefs.

I guess in a sense its the wrong word, but I do think it was for my lack of a better word, I dont like how he is forcing his belief on other people, and letting others do the same. We only ask for the same rights and protection anyone else has.   that's just my take on it tho.   He made the comment "I dont think the founding fathers had that in mind when they wrote the constitution."   I draw the word shallow cause I dout he has thought into the fact, back then it was even more taboo then today, and even further, people didnt have the ability to fully be trans back then also, so in a way I think his view is flawed.             I've always wondered if the founding fathers could have insight to how groups are treated today if they would of wrote the constitution differently.

[Jamie D]

I guess in a sense its the wrong word, but I do think it was for my lack of a better word, I dont like how he is forcing his belief on other people, and letting others do the same. We only ask for the same rights and protection anyone else has.   that's just my take on it tho.   He made the comment "I dont think the founding fathers had that in mind when they wrote the constitution."   I draw the word shallow cause I dout he has thought into the fact, back then it was even more taboo then today, and even further, people didnt have the ability to fully be trans back then also, so in a way I think his view is flawed.             I've always wondered if the founding fathers could have insight to how groups are treated today if they would of wrote the constitution differently.

The point Romney was making was about the original meaning and original intent of the Constitution.  There is nothing in the Constitution that, when it was written, or amended, anticipated same-sex marriage. It neither condemns it nor authorizes it.

His view may be "flawed" (from some perspectives), but it is based on centuries of tradition.  That's why I support working for a political solution.

The Framers of the Constitution provided for two methods to amend the document, to meet the changing needs of the country.  They actually were a very forward thinking group.

[Teela Renee]

im aware of that, I just think mitt, isnt willing to see that himself, which is why I picked the word shallow.

[Stephe]

See 1:55, seems Romney believes the constitution does say that it's between a man and a woman.

I'm all for "building bridges" but clearly he has no interest in listening to anyone on this subject. He has made up his mind just like the tea party candidates do not understand the concept of compromise. If GLBT people think giving him support and your vote will soften him up and change his position, that isn't going to happen in our lifetime or his. Romney will NOT allow a political solution to occur where gays have the same rights as cis people.

And I'm sorry but I really just can't fathom how anyone in the GLBT community can defend his position on this. This other man fought in a war and comes back to not have the same civil rights as a cis person and 40 years later still doesn't. And people like Romney are going to make sure he doesn't. I could give a flip about who's economic policy is right when things like this hang in the balance. This is a human rights violation and Romney is dead set on keeping this "centuries old" human right violation in effect. Maybe it would be also good to get more "family values" so being trans is more like it would have been in the 1950's too?

You maybe can make the abstract argument that if Obama is elected it probably won't happen either but at least I know he isn't going to actively stop it. I know it won't if Romney is, he just said from his own mouth he doesn't support it. And I'm not an idiot who needs what he said translated unless republican speak is some sort of code language you need their decoder ring to understand.

[Jayr]

And I'm sorry but I really just can't fathom how anyone in the GLBT community can defend his position on this.

Wait..are you talking about me?

I'm not supporting Romney! o_o

If you weren't, than okay

[Stephe]

I'm gonna get my butt kicked;

Well what about when the church is OK with marrying gay people, should it still then only be called a civil union unless it's a man and a woman? You assumed no church approves of same sex marriage.

What I still have never seen a good answer to is how does it affect some other married couples lives if a gay couple is married?

[Jayr]

The law should only refer to it as 'civil union' for EVERYONE (hetero and homo relationships)

Afterward, if you want to go to a church and your church recognizes gay relationships, than all the power to you.
Go have it recognized as marriage.

I did not assume anything.

If your church recognizes it, than AMEN.
If not, you can go search for another church, or just keep it as a 'civil union'

It doesn't effect any other relationship but your own.
I just believe we should have one term used by the law and one used by the church.
Religion and politics should not mix. But marriage is a religious term used by the law.
See what I mean? Right there we're mixing religion and politics.

It's hard to clarify my point, because it is such a touchy subject.
Politics and religion should not mix. It is even written in one of the Amendments.

Two different terms should be used in my opinion.

ninja admin edit: no hateraid plz.

[Jamie D]

See 1:55, seems Romney believes the constitution does say that it's between a man and a woman.

I'm all for "building bridges" but clearly he has no interest in listening to anyone on this subject. He has made up his mind just like the tea party candidates do not understand the concept of compromise. If GLBT people think giving him support and your vote will soften him up and change his position, that isn't going to happen in our lifetime or his. Romney will NOT allow a political solution to occur where gays have the same rights as cis people.

And I'm sorry but I really just can't fathom how anyone in the GLBT community can defend his position on this. This other man fought in a war and comes back to not have the same civil rights as a cis person and 40 years later still doesn't. And people like Romney are going to make sure he doesn't. I could give a flip about who's economic policy is right when things like this hang in the balance. This is a human rights violation and Romney is dead set on keeping this "centuries old" human right violation in effect. Maybe it would be also good to get more "family values" so being trans is more like it would have been in the 1950's too?

You maybe can make the abstract argument that if Obama is elected it probably won't happen either but at least I know he isn't going to actively stop it. I know it won't if Romney is, he just said from his own mouth he doesn't support it. And I'm not an idiot who needs what he said translated unless republican speak is some sort of code language you need their decoder ring to understand.

To be precise, Romney said, "I think at the time the Constitution was written, it was pretty clear that marriage was between a man and a woman, and I don't believe the Supreme Court has changed that."

Which is 100% correct.

We should not mistake "civil rights" - those created by legislation, with Constitution rights - those found in the Constitution, as amended.  And above both of those are natural rights (aka human rights), which are imbued by our own humanity.

[cindianna_jones]

We should not mistake "civil rights" - those created by legislation, with Constitution rights - those found in the Constitution, as amended.  And above both of those are natural rights (aka human rights), which are imbued by our own humanity.

True. But we need to assume certain rights before we can make a case for those who do not have them. Let's follow the founder's lead... as they did in the declaration of independence where they asserted basic given rights to all men before they were legally granted.

[Jamie D]

True. But we need to assume certain rights before we can make a case for those who do not have them. Let's follow the founder's lead... as they did in the declaration of independence where they asserted basic given rights to all men before they were legally granted.

I don't disagree with that one bit, Cindi.  Those are the "natural rights," of which four were enumerated:

All men (mankind) were created equal
Right to life
Right to liberty
Right to the pursuit of happiness

[Flan]

There are douchnozzles in both of the main parties in the US, let's please keep the discussion to the crappy policy and not groups of people or accusing others of X.

[tekla]

The original quote - taken from John Locke - was "life, liberty, and property" and was edited by Jefferson to appeal to a wider audience.

And I would consider voting for a religious person within limits - say a nun or priest (Buddhist or Catholic) for a city council seat, or parks commission, or a hospital board, but never for a Board of Education, I would however never vote for a Catholic Bishop to be President of the US anymore than I would vote for the Deli Lama into that position, or a Mormon Bishop for that matter.

[Jamie D]

We could list numerous other natural rights that apply:

The right to free association
The right to self defense
The right to profit from your sweat or ingenuity
et cetera

My libertarian view is that government has no business in the bedroom, or in the personal actions of consenting adults.

[Hikari]

The problem is, the opposition of same sex marriage is divorced from practical reality. In the District of Columbia SSM is legal and sociey is the same there as it was before aside from a few more married couples. None of the practical criticisms that have been voiced by social conservatives such as increased suicide rates, crime, etc have came to pass. Some of the claims that were made were just ludicrous.

So lacking any tangible factor, all that can said is that they don't like it, but that is no reason at all for government to take a position. We don't like Nazis but we allow them thier freedom of speech, yet we don't want to allow homosexuals the pursuit of happiness?

And as far as the founding fathers go, I could care less what they thought, they were just bourgeois politicians, I see no reason to ascribe any sort of value to them above bourgeois politicians of this day and age.