Gay Veteran talks to Mitt Romney - ABC News (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GRN9Y5Nvdqk&feature=player_embedded#)
I seen that days ago and was blown away at how shallow mitt is.
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.
Quote from: Snowpaw on September 12, 2012, 11:27:17 PM
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?
Quote from: Teela Renee on September 12, 2012, 11:20:18 PM
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.
Quote from: Jamie D on September 12, 2012, 11:41:45 PM
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.
Quote from: Jamie D on September 12, 2012, 11:41:45 PM
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.
Quote from: Teela Renee on September 12, 2012, 11:57:52 PM
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.
im aware of that, I just think mitt, isnt willing to see that himself, which is why I picked the word shallow.
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.
Quote from: Stephe on September 13, 2012, 12:50:09 AM
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 :P
Quote from: Jayr on September 13, 2012, 12:42:49 AM
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?
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.
Quote from: Stephe on September 13, 2012, 12:50:09 AM
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.
QuoteWe 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.
Quote from: Cindi Jones on September 13, 2012, 02:03:11 AM
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
The reasons I have seen for this not being legal are absurd. If someone finds 2 Gay men together "disgusting", I find an obese person walking at the beach in a bikini disgusting but I'm not expecting it to be made illegal. There is no practical reason how this would have a negative impact on other people, period.
And the arguments I see being made in defense of Romneys position is the same ones that were used when interracial marriage was on the table. Yet this time around we are requiring a popular vote. Now that a popular vote would likely win, these jerks politicians are STILL against it for personal beliefs.
IMHO it's yet another example of our country going socially backwards in time, moving away from freedom and democracy. The word freedom seems to now be defined as "You should be free to live like I do, as long as you live and believe the same way I do."
Quote from: Jamie D on September 13, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
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.
It is actually more accurate that at the time the constitution was written, marriage was between one man and one woman OF THE SAME RACE. This continued until the Loving case overturned that in the late 1960's.
If there is no constitutional basis for allowing gay marriage, wouldn't that also mean that there is no constitutional basis for allowing mixed-race marriage?
Doesn't that mean the Loving ruling should be reversed?
Quote from: agfrommd on September 13, 2012, 09:43:22 AMl
It is actually more accurate that at the time the constitution was written, marriage was between one man and one woman OF THE SAME RACE. This continued until the Loving case overturned that in the late 1960's.
If there is no constitutional basis for allowing gay marriage, wouldn't that also mean that there is no constitutional basis for allowing mixed-race marriage?
Doesn't that mean the Loving ruling should be reversed?
The race issue was addressed specifically in the Reconstruction Amendments.
Not an apt analogy.
I just don't understand this thread and those who would support Romney while being under the GLBT umbrella. I DO understand that some who don't feel they fall under that because they are just a straight woman/straight man. Therefore they feel that they don't belong under that umbrella... However Romney and most other republicans will see you as just another member of the GLBT. I hate to be blunt about it but if we all go down, you will too. When they start repealing rights from us, do you really think they will just stop at the GLB?
Hell there are so many R. Politicians right now trying to pass laws taking women's rights back to the 50s. Not only that but as it was mentioned in this thread or another I honestly forget... Obama while so extremely far from perfect has been hamstrung by the extreme amounts of filibustering going on. It's hard to pass laws when the people who vote on it hate you and spend a large amount of their time telling you what a miserable president you are.
The debt? He came into the presidency with mass debt already in place. It was falling apart to begin with.
Fiscally I can understand, and I don't think there are many here who are socially conservative, I don't think voting for Romney will be wise for this country at all. Everything about him just feels off. Maybe Ron Paul would have been better, he wasn't pro gay but I don't think he would have been flat out NO on it either. Hell the man wanted to legalize pot, that makes him pretty Shinobro to me.
Poor Mitt. It must have been tough keeping face during such a progressively awkward conversation.
Gotta hand it to him, though. He's a charismatic guy ( = 8) ).
"The story on same-sex marriage is that I have the same position on that I had when I ran from the very beginning," [Gov Mitt] Romney said in an interview last month with the Nashua Telegraph in New Hampshire.
"I'm in favor of traditional marriage. I oppose same-sex marriage. At the same time, I don't believe in discriminating in employment or opportunity for gay individuals. So I favor gay rights; I do not favor same-sex marriage. That has been my position all along."
"I oppose same-sex marriage," Romney told [CNN's Piers] Morgan. "At the same time, I would advance the efforts not to discriminate against people who are gay."
NPR: Romney Stance On Gay Rights? It's Complicated (http://www.npr.org/2011/12/12/143590615/romney-stance-on-gay-rights-issues-its-complicated)
Quote from: Snowpaw on September 13, 2012, 10:37:56 PM
I just don't understand this thread and those who would support Romney while being under the GLBT umbrella. I DO understand that some who don't feel they fall under that because they are just a straight woman/straight man. Therefore they feel that they don't belong under that umbrella... However Romney and most other republicans will see you as just another member of the GLBT. I hate to be blunt about it but if we all go down, you will too. When they start repealing rights from us, do you really think they will just stop at the GLB?
Hell there are so many R. Politicians right now trying to pass laws taking women's rights back to the 50s. Not only that but as it was mentioned in this thread or another I honestly forget... Obama while so extremely far from perfect has been hamstrung by the extreme amounts of filibustering going on. It's hard to pass laws when the people who vote on it hate you and spend a large amount of their time telling you what a miserable president you are.
The debt? He came into the presidency with mass debt already in place. It was falling apart to begin with.
Fiscally I can understand, and I don't think there are many here who are socially conservative, I don't think voting for Romney will be wise for this country at all. Everything about him just feels off. Maybe Ron Paul would have been better, he wasn't pro gay but I don't think he would have been flat out NO on it either. Hell the man wanted to legalize pot, that makes him pretty Shinobro to me.
A lot of excuses here.
First, with absolute control of both the House and the Senate from 2009 to 2011, Obama and the Democrats could have easily passed legislation like ENDA, or repealed DOMA.
They chose not to.Second, you can not quote a single statement from Romney indicating he would "start repealing rights" for GLBTQ people. That's hyperbole. As is "taking women's rights back to the 50s."
Third, the debt. On July 3, 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama stated:
"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents — #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."
Bush added $4 trillion in debt in eight years. Obama added over $6 trillion in 3 1/2 years. "Unpatriotic" indeed!
Quote from: Jamie D on September 14, 2012, 04:19:47 AM
A lot of excuses here.
First, with absolute control of both the House and the Senate from 2009 to 2011, Obama and the Democrats could have easily passed legislation like ENDA, or repealed DOMA. They chose not to.
Second, you can not quote a single statement from Romney indicating he would "start repealing rights" for GLBTQ people. That's hyperbole. As is "taking women's rights back to the 50s."
Third, the debt. On July 3, 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama stated:
"The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents — #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."
Bush added $4 trillion in debt in eight years. Obama added over $6 trillion in 3 1/2 years. "Unpatriotic" indeed!
So voting for Romney will fix things for us? Is that what you believe? Or would you just prefer to stay home and not vote? I am genuinely curious. I mean honestly, if Obama is so bad and Romney only wants to stop us from getting married...
Edit: It's not whether one is perfect. Both candidates suck in my opinion. However I choose to go with the one who is more socially progressive. Neither has a decent plan to fix this economy, one made his money off the backs of others, the other I don't know. One has been less of a pill about the whole gay marriage. He did have to "evolve" but now it seems like things are going the right direction. With the other every right will stop There will never be a chance at "signing" enda with him. That's not hyperbole. That's just obvious.
Quote from: Hikari on September 13, 2012, 07:07:51 AM
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.
The "Founding Fathers" recognized a natural right of all people to throw off the shackles of tyranny and oppression. That was a radical notion for that period of time. Hardly "bourgeois."
If you feel that you are oppressed by a tyrannical government, revolution is your right.
Quote from: Snowpaw on September 14, 2012, 04:24:38 AM
So voting for Romney will fix things for us? Is that what you believe? Or would you just prefer to stay home and not vote? I am genuinely curious. I mean honestly, if Obama is so bad and Romney only wants to stop us from getting married...
I'm not a single issue voter. I believe the best thing for the GLBTQ community, and the country in general, is to fix the economy, shrink the size and scope of government, and let businesses begin to create jobs again. Things Mr. Obama is incapable of doing.
You will recall that Obama was openly against same-sex marriage, until after his party was shellacked in 2010. Pardon me if I don't take that "conversion" with a grain of salt.
Quote from: Jamie D on September 14, 2012, 04:34:09 AM
I'm not a single issue voter. I believe the best thing for the GLBTQ community, and the country in general, is to fix the economy, shrink the size and scope of government, and let businesses begin to create jobs again. Things Mr. Obama is incapable of doing.
You will recall that Obama was openly against same-sex marriage, until after his party was shellacked in 2010. Pardon me if I don't take that "conversion" with a grain of salt.
What will Romney do that is so amazing and fantastic to fix the economy that it is worth putting aside his horrible civil rights issues? I haven't heard him mention anything that amazing that it is worth sucking up the 4 year stall/regression in our rights.
Again, lesser of the two evils. I will take the one who "evolved" and accept that this country is already too far into debt to china that it will matter much what is done.
Quote from: Snowpaw on September 14, 2012, 04:41:25 AM
What will Romney do that is so amazing and fantastic to fix the economy that it is worth putting aside his horrible civil rights issues? I haven't heard him mention anything that amazing that it is worth sucking up the 4 year stall/regression in our rights.
Again, lesser of the two evils. I will take the one who "evolved" and accept that this country is already too far into debt to china that it will matter much what is done.
"Horrible civil rights issues"? Really? What?
The country is evenly divided now on the same-sex marriage issue. It is trending toward legalization. That's good, and there is no going back. My opinion is that marriage is not a federal issue. Government shouldn't even be involved.
Obama's presidency has been a failed one on many levels, and disappointing to the GLBTQ community.
Quote from: Jamie D on September 14, 2012, 04:51:42 AM
"Horrible civil rights issues"? Really? What?
The country is evenly divided now on the same-sex marriage issue. It is trending toward legalization. That's good, and there is no going back. My opinion is that marriage is not a federal issue. Government shouldn't even be involved.
Obama's presidency has been a failed one on many levels, and disappointing to the GLBTQ community.
One link from NPR does not dismiss his general attitude towards gays. He can say how he approves of discrimination laws to protect us but his cold attitude towards anything glbt related says more than that link.
Yeah they said the same thing about California and it's Gay marriage. There most definitely is a going back. It's been proven. No they shouldn't but the fact is there are many legalities wrapped around it and it needs to be addressed.
I would say the same is true of Romney's campaign. Utter failure on many levels. I won't even get into his comments as of late regarding the Libya incident.
Edit:
Honestly I digress. In the end it doesn't matter :) *peace sign* I'm out :P
Quote from: Jamie D on September 13, 2012, 10:18:42 PM
The race issue was addressed specifically in the Reconstruction Amendments.
Not an apt analogy.
Are you saying the framers of the reconstruction amendment INTENDED to allow interracial marriage?
I only ask, because the issue here is that Romney is claiming the original framers didn't intend to allow same sex marriage, therefore banning it can't be unconstitutional.
Quote from: Jamie D on September 13, 2012, 02:57:16 AM
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.
I strongly second that view!
Quote from: agfrommd on September 14, 2012, 07:38:21 AM
Are you saying the framers of the reconstruction amendment INTENDED to allow interracial marriage?
I only ask, because the issue here is that Romney is claiming the original framers didn't intend to allow same sex marriage, therefore banning it can't be unconstitutional.
Not to mention as someone born in Caroline County VA, same as Mr. Loving I know full well that it didn't happen until nearly a hundred years after reconstruction. The constitution doesn't have anything to do with marriage, not the federal one at least.
Tradition is just dead peoples baggage, let them keep it. It is quite silly to continue to try to ascribe meaning between the words or even from the historical era of a government document.
Talking about a 'revolution' because of 'government oppression' in our current situation only makes sane people walk the other way.
Maybe I'm way off base but I recall at some point this country believed:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
If wanting to marry the love of your life isn't the pursuit of happiness, I don't know what is. How we can now deny some people the rights that are given to others and -defend- this being done is what I just can't understand.
My point with interracial marriage was: This too was wrong to tell people who loved each other they can't marry, the courts stepped in and made it illegal to not allow it 45 years ago. Now same sex marriage comes along and we require it be put to a popular vote. Why hasn't the supreme court stepped up and ruled this unconstitutional? You can say what you want about marriage not being a constitutional issue, nor is it in Romneys opinion, but the supreme court thought otherwise.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia)
Key point here is they ruled it unconstitutional.
And I really could give a crap about "it's not in the constitution" or these other distractions. This is a -Inalienable- right that Romney doesn't feel we should be allowed to have and he clearly says that in this video. You guys can try to spin this how ever you want but the bottom line is, he is NOT going to allow this to be passed and will most likely veto anything that comes across his desk on this issue. He believes it's OK to deny certain people their civil rights.
Quote from: Jamie D on September 14, 2012, 04:51:42 AM
"Horrible civil rights issues"? Really? What?
The country is evenly divided now on the same-sex marriage issue. It is trending toward legalization. That's good, and there is no going back. My opinion is that marriage is not a federal issue. Government shouldn't even be involved.
Obama's presidency has been a failed one on many levels, and disappointing to the GLBTQ community.
This video, he clearly plans to block any attempt of fixing this problem. If you can't see this is a civil rights issue, you are wearing blinders.
And yes marriage IS a federal issue right now and yes these conservative DO want to mandate who can get married at the government level and they regularly state they do. No republican I have seen wants to make this area of government smaller, they want to continue to control what people can do in their personal lives. What they mean by smaller government is disband the EPA, remove oversight on wall street etc.
And I guess you missed/ignored this other post of what Obama HAS done for GLBT rights and issues.
http://www.equalitygiving.org/Accomplishments-by-the-Administration-and-Congress-on-LGBT-Equality (http://www.equalitygiving.org/Accomplishments-by-the-Administration-and-Congress-on-LGBT-Equality)
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?
Since all I have seen is posts about the 2-3 items that didn't get done by Obama I will ask this question then, when the republicans have had control why didn't they repeal DOMA or pass EDNA?
Quote from: agfrommd on September 14, 2012, 07:38:21 AM
Are you saying the framers of the reconstruction amendment INTENDED to allow interracial marriage?
I only ask, because the issue here is that Romney is claiming the original framers didn't intend to allow same sex marriage, therefore banning it can't be unconstitutional.
I am saying the Framers of the Constitution designed a method so that the Constitution could be amended to meet nation, federal needs.
You mentioned the
Loving case. In that case, the Court's ruling was firmly based on its interpretation of the 14th Amendment, one of the three Reconstruction Amendments.
In my personal opinion, as I understand the Framers and Federalism, neither interracial marriage or same-sex marriage would have been deemed a federal issue.
Stephe, marriage is an administrative function which creates certain legal rights and responsibilities.
Your natural right is to associate with whoever you want. I know of no law or candidate who says you cannot be with the person you love. There exists no Constitutional "right to marry." There do exist Constitutional prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of race.
A reminder to all of our members: https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,123583.0.html (https://www.susans.org/forums/index.php/topic,123583.0.html)
The other day when asked about gay families Mitt said: "I didn't know you had families."
Quote from: tekla on September 15, 2012, 11:51:06 AM
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 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/mitt-romney-same-sex-couples_n_1875994.html)
Quote from: tekla on September 15, 2012, 11:51:06 AM
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.
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.
Quote from: Stephe on September 15, 2012, 03:14:16 PM
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*
Quote from: Jamie D on September 13, 2012, 01:11:58 AM
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!!!
Quote from: peky on September 15, 2012, 04:35:47 PM
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.
Quote from: Snowpaw on September 15, 2012, 11:57:34 AM
Yep
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/12/mitt-romney-same-sex-couples_n_1875994.html (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.
Quote from: Stephe on September 15, 2012, 03:14:16 PM
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.
Quote from: Jamie D on September 15, 2012, 04:54:11 PM
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.
Quote from: Jamie D on September 15, 2012, 05:01:02 PM
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 (http://www.hrc.org/press-releases/c/mitt-romney)
Or is HRC not a credible source?
Quote from: Jamie D on September 15, 2012, 05:04:19 PM
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.
Quote from: Snowpaw on September 15, 2012, 05:13:00 PM
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 (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?
Quote from: Jamie D on September 15, 2012, 05:30:39 PM
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.
QuoteA 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.
QuoteThe 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.
QuoteWe 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.
QuoteI 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.
Quote from: Snowpaw on September 15, 2012, 05:45:17 PM
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.