Mitt Romney meets a gay service veteran

[Devlyn]

A reminder to all of our members: https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,123583.0.html

[tekla]

The other day when asked about gay families Mitt said: "I didn't know you had families."

[Snowpaw]

The other day when asked about gay families Mitt said: "I didn't know you had families."

Yep
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/mitt-romney-same-sex-couples_n_1875994.html

[suzifrommd]

The other day when asked about gay families Mitt said: "I didn't know you had families."

Those folks have to answer that way. If they didn't pretend that gays raising kid didn't exist than their whole marriage-is-for-procreation argument against marriage equality crumbles like a stale cookie.

[Stephe]

 Please post the GLBT rights and issues that were moved forward by Bush and maybe a page of what Romney is promising to do for us?

I'm very interested in how Mitt Romney plans to further the rights of the GLBT and what he has promised to do for us.

[Snowpaw]

Please post the GLBT rights and issues that were moved forward by Bush and maybe a page of what Romney is promising to do for us?

I'm very interested in how Mitt Romney plans to further the rights of the GLBT and what he has promised to do for us.

I too am interested in this. *waits with bated breath*

[peky]

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.

What it was is as inconsequential as the bible is about "slaves" and "multiple wives( a topic dear to the mormons)."

  Who has the authority to define what or who is a man or woman, certainly neither the constitution neither the CFR do define what a man or a woman is.

I am afraid if Romney or the republican get their way, we, homosexual and transgender, will be put in concentration camps,

Vote for freedom and equality, vote for Mr. Obama!!! 

[Jamie D]

What it was is as inconsequential as the bible is about "slaves" and "multiple wives( a topic dear to the mormons)."

  Who has the authority to define what or who is a man or woman, certainly neither the constitution neither the CFR do define what a man or a woman is.

I am afraid if Romney or the republican get their way, we, homosexual and transgender, will be put in concentration camps,

Vote for freedom and equality, vote for Mr. Obama!!!

Peky, with all due respect, that is absurd.

[Jamie D]

Yep
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/mitt-romney-same-sex-couples_n_1875994.html

Huffington Post, quoting a Boston Spirit article about a purported incident, written eight years after the fact.

I hope you can do better than that.

[Jamie D]

Please post the GLBT rights and issues that were moved forward by Bush and maybe a page of what Romney is promising to do for us?

I'm very interested in how Mitt Romney plans to further the rights of the GLBT and what he has promised to do for us.

Steph, which President was it that enacted DADT?  I forget.

[Snowpaw]

Peky, with all due respect, that is absurd.

Sounds like bashing of views. Without addressing any part of it and simply dismissing it as absurd. I thought that wasn't allowed.

Huffington Post, quoting a Boston Spirit article about a purported incident, written eight years after the fact.

I hope you can do better than that.

And yet it still holds to his views to this day. Unless you can point out where he has changed his views on this it is still valid. I await your source to prove otherwise.

Here is a HRC list of all the wonderful romney related glbt stuff.

http://www.hrc.org/press-releases/c/mitt-romney

Or is HRC not a credible source?

Steph, which President was it that enacted DADT?  I forget.

Times change, pre 50s or 60s I forget, the democrat base was very hateful and anti civil rights campaign. Yeah it was signed by a dem but there are so many little fun things the right is doing now. Try and see that both sides are out for themselves but the lesser evil is clearly the dems.

Which president redacted that DADT? Which presidential hopeful would like to reinstate it? Come on, I await the answer.

Edited: to sound less hateful.

[Jamie D]

Sounds like bashing of views. Without addressing any part of it and simply dismissing it as absurd. I thought that wasn't allowed.

And yet it still holds to his views to this day. Unless you can point out where he has changed his views on this it is still valid. I await your source to prove otherwise.

Here is a HRC list of all the wonderful romney related glbt stuff.

http://www.hrc.org/press-releases/c/mitt-romney

Or is HRC not a credible source?

Times change, pre 50s or 60s I forget, the democrat base was very hateful and anti civil rights campaign. Yeah it was signed by a dem but don't be so blind that you cannot see all the fun little things the right is doing now. Try and see that both sides are out for themselves but the lesser evil is clearly the dems.

Which president redacted that DADT? Which presidential hopeful would like to reinstate it? Come on, I await the answer.

The accusation that GLBT persons would be put in concentration camps if Mr. Romney was elected is ludicrous on its face.

A story sourced eight years after the fact lacks contemporary corroboration.  It is about as substantial as a rumor.

The HRC is a partisan source, and as such its lists must be viewed with an eye toward accuracy and impartiality.

We all know that movement on civil rights for the GLBT community has been happening primarily on the state level.  And we also know the Democrat majorities in the Congress from 2007 to 2011 did nothing.

I still haven't seen anyone explain why, when they had supermajorities in both Houses of Congress, and a Democrat President, during 2009-2011, there was no action taken by the Democrats on ENDA or DOMA?

[Snowpaw]

The accusation that GLBT persons would be put in concentration camps if Mr. Romney was elected is ludicrous on its face.

I thought we weren't trying to bash views here but ok then. Some people are scared, there is talk of a civil war if Obama is elected again. People can be psychotic if things don't go the way they want. Yeah the camps is a little misguided but never forget how things can go when the economy is bad, the religious feel they are being pushed into a corner and people fear that the "antichrist" will be elected again. Hell even Perry said he wanted to split Texas from the US.

A story sourced eight years after the fact lacks contemporary corroboration.  It is about as substantial as a rumor.

So by your logic the dadt being implemented by bill clinton is a moot point. Thanks for making that clear. Because it happened in the past.

The HRC is a partisan source, and as such its lists must be viewed with an eye toward accuracy and impartiality.

Yeah well everyone has a side. Good luck finding one outside of factcheck. That's life. Everyone is biased.

We all know that movement on civil rights for the GLBT community has been happening primarily on the state level.  And we also know the Democrat majorities in the Congress from 2007 to 2011 did nothing.

Yeah because every politician is self serving. Why would would they go against the grain? That doesn't get votes, only credibility.

I still haven't seen anyone explain why, when they had supermajorities in both Houses of Congress, and a Democrat President, during 2009-2011, there was no action taken by the Democrats on ENDA or DOMA?

Again see above. Pick the least evil. That's all you can do.

[Jamie D]

I thought we weren't trying to bash views here but I guess only if it's against Romney. Some people are scared, there is talk of a civil war if Obama is elected again. People can be psychotic if things don't go the way they want. Yeah the camps is a little misguided but never forget how things can go when the economy is bad, the religious feel they are being pushed into a corner and people fear that the "antichrist" will be elected again. Hell even Perry said he wanted to split Texas from the US.

So by your logic the dadt being implemented by bill clinton is a moot point. Thanks for making that clear. Because it happened in the past.

Yeah well everyone has a side. Good luck finding one outside of factcheck. That's life. Everyone is biased.

Yeah because every politician is self serving. Why would would they go against the grain? That doesn't get votes, only credibility.

Again see above. Pick the least evil. That's all you can do.

Peky has made an outrageous, baseless claim, and further embarrassed themselves with Hitler comparisons.

If someone wrote on these pages that they would incite riots or start a civil war if Obama was re-elected, they would be banned.  I suggest the rumormongers tread lightly.

Pointing out the absurdity of the claim is not bashing the poster.  It is addressing its complete lack of credibility.  When you have over 5,000 posts and are a moderator, you will understand the difference.

And there is a difference in the credibility of any story that has contemporary sourcing.  I can find thousands of news stories about DADT being signed into law when it happened.