Romney Has ‘Heated’ Exchange With Vet Over Gay Marriage: ‘I Guess the Question Was Too Hot’
- Posted on December 12, 2011 at 11:50am by
Jonathon M. Seidl
- Print »
- Email »
Mitt Romney got into a heated exchange with a gay man in a diner in New Hampshire on Monday. The man, apparently a Vietnam veteran, was approached by Romney, and things got testy after the man challenged the candidate on his gay marriage stance.
That man, Bob Garon, was sitting in a booth eating breakfast with his husband. What ensued was something the Washington Post calls “a rare heated confrontation.”
Republican presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney talks to Bob Garon during a campaign stop at the Chez Vachon Restaurant , Monday, Dec. 12, 2011 in Manchester, N.H. (AP Photo/Jim Cole)
The Post has the exchange:
While working the room, Romney spotted a man in a flannel shirt wearing a Vietnam Veteran hat and slid in next to him in a booth.
“Vietnam veteran!” Romney greeted Bob Garon.
“I have a question for you,” Garon told the former Massachusetts governor. “New Hampshire right now has some legislation kicking around about a repeal for the same-sex marriage. And all I need is a yes or a no. Do you support the repeal?”
“I support the repeal of the New Hampshire law,” Romney said. “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s my view.”
Garon, who lives in Epson, N.H., and was eating breakfast with his husband, turned to Romney and said: “If two men get married, apparently a veteran’s spouse would not be entitled to any burial benefits or medical benefits or anything that the serviceman has devoted his time and effort to his country, and you just don’t support equality in terms of same-sex marriage?”
“I believe that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman,” Romney replied, adding, “and we apparently disagree.”
At that, a Romney aide called for him to wrap up the conversation: “Governor, we’ve got to get on with Fox News right now.”
“Oh, I guess the question was too hot,” Garon told Romney.
“No, I gave you the answer,” Romney replied. “You said you had a yes-or-no [question]. I gave you the answer.”
“You did,” Garon said. “And I appreciate your answer. And you know, I also learned something, and New Hampshire is right: You have to look a man in the eye to get a good answer. And you know what, governor? Good luck…. You’re going to need it.”
“You are right about that,” Romney said, as he stood up from the booth and headed into a side room for his interview.
The exchange occurred Chez Vauchon in Manchester. Romney was at the restaurant for a campaign stop with Manchester Mayor Ted Gatsas, who officially endorsed Romney on Monday.
After the incident, Garon told reporters he was “definitely offended.”
“He doesn’t even open the door to a conversation,” Garon added. “It’s just a boom! But I did ask him ‘yes or no,’ so I got what I asked for.”
Popular Stories
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 583 Comments
‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 411 Comments
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 408 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 374 Comments
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 363 Comments
Faith
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 408 Comments
Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 411 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
- President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 363 Comments
- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 151 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 302 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 408 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (629)
Blazen420
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:19pmLibs find this type of confrontation heated?……..What makes me heated is that the media gives homos this much attention.
mad_hatter_
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:17pmI agree, thank goodness Romney stood strong. No question he would, he did back in 1994 with a gay reporter asking about gay marriage and Romney replied that he opposed gay marriage.
Could it be that the media is trying to make Romney look like a flip flopper because they want him out. I completely accept the fact that Romney had a conversion with abortion and as the Pilot Catholic News in Massachusetts, all evidence shows that it was a true conversion. All evidence shows it. They also attacked the Boston Globe for making it sound like Romney had flip-flopped on that issue. A cardinal came out hitting the Globe and they had to address it.
ROMNEY MAY ACTUALLY BE A MAN WITH CORE CONVICTIONS.
Report Post »cessna152
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:21pmWhy do these Gays always make it about “who gets the benefits”? Is that why you get married? I got married because I love my wife and I leave her everything I own when I pass on. I buy life insurance, I invest, I save and when I die she gets it all. … period, end of story. You can pass on what you earned as well.
Gays just don’t get it… if someone disagrees with them it means we stole their “rights”? Well, what about MY rights? My feelings? Do we need to change the entire system to suit you? NO!!! That is why America is about equal FREEDOM and not equal rights. There is a huge difference..You want to be gay, go ahead and be gay. Don’t expect us to change our entire culture to benefit you. That’s just selfish…
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:24pmI guess he was confused by Romney’s flips — the former Massachusetts governor — whose state began issuing same-sex licenses in May of 2004 — signed 189 same-sex marriage license. Which is something he didn’t have to do — he voluntarily signed them.
How likely will Romney to fight against same-sex marriage?”
Report Post »I say — only until he’s ELECTED
Ken
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:25pmAgreed!
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:28pmMad Hatter
Thankyou for the news on Romney’s abortion stance. With all the non-news news some of us would have had to wade thru pages of a Google search to find it.
P“ilot Catholic News” & “A cardinal came out hitting the Globe and they had to address it.’
Report Post »CharlesReese
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:30pmI agree. I didn’t find this like a knock brawl at all. It was treated professionally by Mitt and he did a good job of answering this individuals question. Perhaps he should take that lesson into the remaining debates.
Report Post »GilbertAcct
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:30pmWhy did Romney order his Department of Health to change the marriage certificates from “husband” and “wife” to “partner A” and “partner B” even though there was no law requiring him to do so?
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:33pmcessna152
If other people are getting benefits, I want them. But I would get married without any benefits.
I think eventually the gay movement along with the economy will destroy benefits packages. It will be the economy more that the gay right movement, but the movement will be like the straw the breaks the back of benefits (camel).
Report Post »HAPPYRWE
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:34pmRomney is a flip-flopper, he is a Big-Government guy period. Watch his actions, laws, not his mouth……..
Report Post »Buck Shane
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:34pmGay means happy. Marrage is between a man and a woman.
Report Post »If you want homosexual partnerships, I don’t care – but do not impose your changes on our language. You will convert me from not giving a dam to an enemy. Call it by it’s right name and leave me alone.
Nehemiah6.3
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:37pmSome people say they are not against gay marriage because what other people do, does not affect me. “If it does not affect my rights than its OK”. This issue does affect the rights of others. God has commanded that we multiply and replenish the earth. If a country would only allow gay’s to be their citizens, that country would cease to exist. God’s children have a RIGHT to be born to a mother and a father. To be raised by a mother who knows she is female, and a father who knows he is male.
Our country will never be put back on course by politicians as long as its citizens continue to go against natural law.
Report Post »LostDog54
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:37pm@blazen420 My thoughts exactly…
Report Post »GilbertAcct
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:38pmJustices of the peace warned not to discriminate against same sex couples
http://s120620558.onlinehome.us/GayPASG/PressClippings/2004/April%202004/justices_of_the_peace_warned_not.htm
New MA marriage license implemented by Romney…
http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/romney/mass_marriage_license.html
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:40pmA right is granted by a group to its’ members as part of a social contract. It comes with responsibilities, which are needed to maintain the group.
This is not so much about rights as acceptance. You could have every benefit in a civil union as a marriage & the gay movement will not be happy. By not calling it marriage with a smile on your face you are not accepting them. By not having a gay history month & promoting it with all your heart you are not accepting them.
Having gay marriage, gay adoption & a gay history month will not bring peace. If you don’t really believe in those things, they will notice it & raise a ruckus.
Report Post »FreedomWitness
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:42pmHaving breakfast with his husband? You mean that ugly dude is the ‘wife’ in the relationship? Does he limp when he walks? I think i’m call Ralph on the big white phone! YUCK!
Report Post »mad_hatter_
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:45pmGilbertACCT,
Stop trying to smear Romney with false claims. As I said before he fought with his AG, who was a lib. The courts would not back him, his own AG would not back him. Legally the clerks had to under the law. That is why he brought it to the people to fight this law.
The attorney general also fought him against the ‘Morning After Pill’ as the Pilot Catholic News, the oldest American Catholic Newspaper. They say he had a true conversion to full pro-life support and constantly wrote about the fight to amend marriage to between a man and a womnan. Here is the traditional marriage article written by the Pilot: http://www.pilotcatholicnews.com/article.asp?ID=3073
Report Post »Buck Shane
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:48pmI didn’t see a “heated” exchange. The gay vet was polite enough, although he was only pretending to ask a question. He was making a statement.
Report Post »Romney’s reply was honestly what his position is this week.
The gay vet will have to ask him again next week to see what his position is then.
toto
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:49pmMarriage is between an man and a woman. It is insane to take the meaning of a word and feel feel to change that meaning when the mood suits. It’s happening with many things in society and it is NOT good. I can accept that gays want equal treatment under the law, so I could support a law that says government and work benefits are owned and go to anyone so designated. That way tax exemptions available to marital couples, could be made available to legal partners, etc. It could work for the military and workplace. I believe much of the animus toward the gay population is that they feel it is their right to hijack the sacred word marriage and redefine it to include them. You can call a cat a dog all day long and it is still a cat. People are supposed to believe that up is down and down is up just because someone wants it that way. It’s crazy making for everyone.
Report Post »Roberto G. Vasquez
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:52pmI am wondering if the politically correct word for “PERVERT” is now “DEMOCRAT” ?
Report Post »Dotty4CommonSense
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:57pmEXACTLY — The media is the only one saying it is a “heated” discussion! Well done, Mitt! You told him what he wanted to hear, so if he didn’t like him, too bad! Mitt is a super great guy and I say: Mitt for president in 2012!!
Report Post »NHwinter
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:57pmThey all flip flop. Have you listened to Obama? He flops all over the place. Maybe we need to pay more attention to Bachmann and Santorum. They don’t flip flop.
Report Post »ahall1950
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:58pmI totally agree with Mitt on that!!!
Report Post »mad_hatter_
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:02pmHAPPYRWE,
Sorry you are completely wrong about Romney. You forget that he turned the Mass economy around, from a $3 billion deficit to a $2 billion rainy day fund, and he did this while cutting taxes.
He did this by dissolving two state agencies, laying off state workers, shrinking government, and cutting subsidies. He also cut may regulations. Another thing he did was cutting corrupt tax loopholes like those of GE that made them pay no taxes last year. If we have to pay it they have to pay it. Then he tried to lower taxes across the board every year he was in office, thought he legislature would not let them through. He still fought for them.
Yes he did make people more responsible by making them pay for services they were asking the state agencies to do. People need to pay for the services they want and not the taxpayers, this is Reagan’s argument for the Fees he had to increase on the Federal level. Romney did the same. No one was going to use tax-payers funds to subsidize things like using the golf course, yacht registration, and many others. Opponents say fees are taxes, this is completely false and Reagan on Feb 2, 1982, agreed with Romney of 2003.
ROMNEY HAS FOUGHT TO SHRINK GOVERNMENT AND REGULATION SINCE 1994
Report Post »Tiredof2partyropeadope
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:03pmIMO this a tactic to peel votes from Gingrich. Romney IS responsible for introducing gay marriage in Massachusetts and forcing the GBLTist “education” on school kids… Romney is a globalist and will amount to an Obama light. With Obama we will crash into the wall at 100mph and with Romney at 50mph, Newt may be smart enough to avoid a crash altogether. Scott Brown (R-MA) was elected to stop Obamacare, then he voted for Gays in the military, Dodd-Frank “financial reform.” Romney sponsored Brown in MA. They are cut from the same… elitist Republican cloth. We libertarians/conservatives worked for Brown and we are left holding the bag. Don’t be fooled!
For a chronicle of Romney’s pro gay marriage actions check out the Mitt Romney Deception type in massresistance.org/romney/
As a libertarian, I did not care about Gay Marriage, and I do not care what a person’s sexual orientation is— What I do care about is that gay marriage, along with the so-called hate crimes legislation“ is the avenue to force ”education” about being gay onto pre-adolescent and adolescent children in the guise of “education” AND the hate crimes legislation prevents parents from even having a say about whether this is “taught” or not!
Report Post »mad_hatter_
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:05pmGILBERTACCT,
Thanks for using anti-Romney sites to fight your battle. They are completely false accusations and for me, I agree with a Catholic Newspaper protecting a Mormon than a political anti-site, with a nominee he needs, attacking a politician.
Report Post »Buck Shane
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:09pm@ mad_hatter_
GilbertACCT,
“Stop trying to smear Romney with false claims.”
I’m having trouble understanding the difference between “smear” and “history.”
Report Post »Romney is amorphous in his positions and has always been. If we could figure out where he stood, it would only be a temporary victory.
Romney is not a conservative. He is not Tea Party. He is a RINO.
In his case, what is the difference between “smear” and “history.”
CultureWarriors
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:15pmSlow news day.
Report Post »Mark R Crawford
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:16pm@Cesna152 – you ask why the gays make it about benefits. Perhaps it is because they are discriminated against. Tell me, what constitutional role does government have in marriage? What constitutional clause is supported by unequal protection under the law vis a vis benefits for married people over single people? The problem they have is one that true constitutionalists should also have – the government has no role in marriage or any other religious issue and yet our codes are resplendent throughout with laws that favor one class of people over another. No one is asking you to change your religious beliefs, rather you are being asked to remove your religion from government and keep it in the church where it belongs. Benefits for gays? No. Benefits for married people? No. Treat everyone as an individual and we can end a lot of the nonsensical warfare that divides us.
COFemale
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:16pmWow Vechorik Since when does a Governor sign marriage licenses? When I got married, I could of sworn the Governor was never at my ceremony or signed my marriage license.
I think it is an officer of the court who signs a marriage license. The Governor signs what is passed by the state legislation, he does not personally sign each marriage license.
Report Post »GilbertAcct
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:17pmMadhatter… check out what the founder of the Republicans For Family Values website had to say about Romney. He OPENLY supported ENDA… and it ticked MA pro-family Christians off (not liberal anti-Romney websites).
Report Post »Wilsonpd
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:17pm@TOTO — well said! My feelings exactly except you manged to make the point concisely and coherently. ;)
Report Post »marjorie faye
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:19pmEver ask yourself why Beck never addresses the issue? He talks about God and righteousness and all that. So where is he on gay marriage, since the Mormons are totally against it. Why does he not address how this is destructive to traditional marriage?
Report Post »opinionated
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:23pmRight on!
Report Post »HippoNips
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:24pmThere are NO military vet benefits for the spouse . they go to the children. whether you are married or not.
Report Post »There isn’t even medical coverage free for the spouse.
mad_hatter_
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:26pmBUCK SHANE,
It is a smear when it is not history but instead a lie and GilbertACCT, only has lies about Romney. If he had accurate history then it wouldn’t be a smear.
Romney is a man of core conviction but he has been smeared ever since 1994. Starting with Ted Kennedy on the issue of abortion, when Kennedy called him ‘mulitple choice.’ Romney was attacked because he was pro-life, yet because of a death in the family due to a botched abortion, wanted the government out of a person‘s choice when it came to a ’safe and legal abortion’. Sounds like Cain’s controversial position) Yet in 1994, Kennedy showed people that were prompted by Romney, as a religious leader of his local church, not to have abortions. Sounds contradictory right, unless you know the whole story, which Romney first told in the debate against Kennedy. But you wouldn’t see that in those attack ads.
It was in 2005 when Romney was discussing harvesting stem cell research with a Harvard professor when he decided that Roe v. Wade opened the door to harvesting life just to destroy it and has fought against it ever since. Now he fights for adult skin cell research and made it more known throughout the US during his last run for President. It was the Pilot Catholic News in Massachusetts that defended him and showed the evidence that this was a true conversion. That is a Catholic News Group defending a Mormon. I feel they know more about this, being there at the time than any of us spectators.
Report Post »mad_hatter_
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:32pmGILBERTACCT,
You mean the Republicans for Family Values out of Illinois that site your own attack site and relied on their website for all the ‘facts.’ That is right, another source from an anti-site. Oh and I never called them liberal, I said anti-Romney site.
STOP TRYING TO SMEAR HIM WITH FALSE INFORMATION.
You will also see that Mass Resistence loves using the Boston Globe as their source, that is a liberal site that endorsed Ted Kennedy against Romney and ever the Pilot Catholic News’ cardinal started a battle over them trying to smear Romney and all conservatives and pro-life government officials.
SORRY YOUR SMEARS STAND NO GROUND.
Report Post »iamtyger
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:34pmAgreed!
Report Post »Buck Shane
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:40pm@ mad_hatter_
Report Post »It is obvious that you are pro Mitt to the exclusion of any other thought. It almost like you are on his staff.
Here are the things that are important to me in the next election.
1. Cut cap and balance.
2. Constitutional government.
3. Close the border.
4. No amnesty.
5. Support the 2nd Amendment.
The candidate I vote for will support those things.
If Mr. Romney said he did, it would only be temporary, but he is not saying those things.
worldwar3vet
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:46pmlibs love munchers and packers because they believe in breaking down morals and standards of society
Report Post »“dont care what or who you sleep with or get your jollies from…. just dont make it a political issue or try to force it on others”
TH30PH1LUS
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:54pmMitt,
thank you for standing up for marriage as God designed it – and as it has been understood for the last 6,000+ years of recorded human history!
Report Post »Armed Patriot
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:58pmROMNEY MAY ACTUALLY BE A MAN WITH CORE CONVICTIONS.
Convictions that apparently move with the polls.
Bachmann or Santorum for President. We either win with REAL conservatism or the whole thing is in the shitecan. Ron Pauls foriegn policy was effective in 1783, not in the modern world. It would lead to the military defeat of the US. Rmoney and Gingrich are both BIG govt progressives. Perry Im warm too, not hot. Huntsman…Dem in republican clothes. Besides, hes a wimp. We need a Cowboy, a Superman, a Wonder Woman, a Ronald Regan… not nobama lite.
Report Post »TH30PH1LUS
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 3:01pmI will also add here, that if you listen to the exchange of information between them BEFORE the gay stuff comes up, you will note that Mitt and the gay Vet are roughly THE SAME AGE.
And yet look at the MILEAGE in the face of the gay man.
Good understanding giveth favour: but the way of transgressors is hard. Proverbs 13:15
Report Post »sonomine
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 3:03pmIf Romney had sat down in front of a platter of corn-on-the-cob the press would have accused him of pandering to Iowa.
Report Post »GilbertAcct
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 3:08pmMadhatter… Nope, it is from the Christian Post (I guess you can call that an anti-Romney smear site if you’d like). Are you denying the fact that Peter LaBarbera was ticked that Romney supported ENDA? How is it a smear to state what the leader of a Christian organization said?… Here is a quote, these are not my words:
“Mitt Romney’s Christmas present to the homosexual lobby disqualifies him as a pro-family leader… “Laws that treat homosexuality as a civil rights are being used to promote homosexual ‘marriage,’ same-sex adoption and pro-homosexuality indoctrination of schoolchildren,” he said. “These same laws pose a direct threat to the freedom of faith-minded citizens and organizations to act on their religious belief that homosexual behavior is wrong.”
I love how you can use your “liberal anti-Romney smear attacking lies” argument on anything that speaks poorly of Romney. Maybe Romney should have used his brain before saying things like, “I’ll be better than Ted Kennedy for gay rights.” He deserves to be called out on his past positions.
Report Post »choppinczech
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 3:11pmRight on.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 3:13pmFreedomWitness
Report Post »Everyone gets ugly with age. Your point?
benelli
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 3:19pmYou really call that a heated exchange? And all this time I thought you guys were against sensationalist journalism, or I maybe you really need to see a heated exchange so you’ll know what one is.
Report Post »GilbertAcct
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 3:19pmMadhatter… Btw… You still haven‘t answered my questions I’ve posed to you previously:
Are you paid in any way by the Romney campaign?
What is your relationship to Fastfacts, FoundingFather2, Clinger_Bible?
Are you one of Romney’s sons?
Report Post »Hey Harry Lets Box
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 3:24pmPERVERTS!! I wouldn’t give them the time of day. And I wouldn’t let them watch my dog either. Keep this crap off the news, off the street, out of the military and out of the churches and OUT OF MY FACE!
Report Post »@leftfighter
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 3:25pmUnless I’m mistaken, this question is a Red Herring.
The Federal DOMA prohibits the Federal government from recognizing the abomination they call a marriage. This would prohibit his Other from getting any benefits, no matter what New Hampshire says, because the states don’t have anything to do with military benefits.
Slightly OT: the gay marriage debate is only an effort to make the value voting Right look like they hate people who are different, while at the same time attempting to change the meaning of the word, “rite” to the same as the word, “right.”
Look no further than the fact that they have 99% of what they want in civil unions and domestic partnerships, but it’s not enough; they want marriage.
Despite what the Left will claim, this issue is a direct assault on traditional marriage, religion, and traditional values.
A Religious rite is not a gay right.
Report Post »Clive
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 3:28pmThe fact that we have to choose between this soul-less turd, and newt makes me want to barf. and the other sad part, is that neither one of these guys can win. they will come close, but they won’t win.
mitt is basically a rino, and a mormom… i don’t see evangelicals getting out of their seat like they did for bush. Newt is a slimy, serial philanderer, and christians aren’t going to get out and vote for him either.
Repubs need that evangelical vote, and those two aren’t going to get it.
Poll numbers look good vs obama now… but he hasn’t even started his onslaught of ads, etc. he’s been fundraising and putting away the money. Newt and Mitt won’t have 10% off his cash, and these elections are pretty much bought with cash.
Report Post »mad_hatter_
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 3:34pmBUCK SHANE,
I am part of the Romney camp and they pay me millions of dollars to chat on these blogs with the truth… you must be from one of his opponents camps where they pay you millions as well. Who do you work for.
Now that we have gotten pass that poor argument, here is the truth about Romney.
Here is an easy way of dissolving these false claims. Here is a site with all the full quotes and full articles proving that he is not a flip-flopper. It says that he has mad mistakes and had changes in policy but he is no more a flip-flopper than Perry, Paul, Bachmann, and Santorum. Here is the site with all the full quotes: http://www.thedailycandidate.com/projects/nov/flip_flop_central.html
Dispute the whole facts and nothing but the full quotes. Don’t give me partial clips.
Report Post »mad_hatter_
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 3:46pmGILBERTACCT,
Funny, I read the Christian Post all the time and they constantly use sources they trust, even sources that are not from those areas. Here is the post where RFV admit they get their information from Mass Resistence, the anti-Romney site you mentioned: http://republicansforfamilyvalues.com/category/romney/
So they used an anti-Romney site like you used an anti-Romney site and got it wrong. Would you go to a Muslim site to get the truth on Christianity. No, you would go to the source or go to the facts, in the case of politicians you go to the facts. The facts say one thing, Romney is a politician, but he is no serial flip-flopper like the media and you would like to call him. No you didn‘t use the term ’serial’ but that is what you rhetoric is claiming, that Romney goes back and forth for political reasons and this is not true. He has a core of conviction as Bachmann put it and the media has been smearing him with these lies. Check the site I posted a few posts before and get the full quotes and full articles. Trust the facts not smear sites.
And is it bad to say someone wants to fight discrimination because of someone’s sexual orientation. It was true that there was anger from gays that Kennedy wouldn’t vote for a Republican bill to fight discrimination against gays in 1994. Romney said he would sign it, that did not mean he was ever for gay marriage or even civil unions.
Report Post »mad_hatter_
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 3:56pmGilbertACCT,
Actually you didn’t ask me anything about my relationship with Founding_Father2? When was this? I won’t deny I know who that is though.
And like I said minutes ago, we are paid millions of dollars by the Romney camp, just like you are paid millions by the Ron Paul camp. So at least everyone knows who we are now, shall we continue, me with the facts and you with your smears. (that was a joke, hopefully you can read that)
Report Post »AMERICA4EVER
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 4:17pmThere was nothing heated about it.
Report Post »19RANDY59
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 4:19pmI agree, to listen to the media, you would think there numbers are 25%. How do they get so much attention? The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Report Post »GilbertAcct
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 4:21pmMadhatter… You avoid answering questions worse than Mitt does. Yes or no. Joking aside. Are you paid in any way by the Romney campaign? Are you one of Mitt’s sons?
I am a Ron Paul supporter. I donated to his campaign. I don’t benefit in any way by arguing my points in this articles. I do not try to funnel people from the Blaze to a poorly constructed website called the daily candidate, which is a pro-Romney site. I do not try to come up with fake domain names which link to this pro-Romney site. I do not pose as a recent convert to Romney and post the daily candidate as if that is what is bringing me to vote for Romney. I do not use multiple user names on the Blaze to try to appear as a different person. You and your buddy do all of the above.
Now, please stop avoiding my questions and give me an honest yes or no answer.
Report Post »Buck Shane
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 4:33pm@ mad_hatter_
Looked at your site. Pro gun control. Abortion flip flop. Believes the “Global Warming” hoax.
Report Post »Weak on the border; did not say he would close the border “by whatever means necessary.” Did not state he was against amnesty. Nothing on Cut Cap and Balance.
If you are not on Romney’s staff, then you are as bad as he is and I won’t trouble you with my arguments anymore. You are not honest in your arguments.
I support God's Israel!
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 4:42pmThis says it all:
Report Post »http://www.elliscountypress.com/inspirational/10007-days-of-noah-sodom-and-gomorrah-and-america.html
FreedomPurveyor
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 4:54pmGilbert, you constantly spew the exact same smears that the liberal media does about Romney. Mad Hatter is right on all counts.
I wish that you anti-Romney folks could understand the simple fact that Romney was governor of one of the most liberal states in the nation. Every single piece of legislation came out of a liberal legislature. The people he served were liberals. Did he try to shove his conservative ideology down their throats? No. He worked with them to give them what they wanted, and tried his best to make it work. For that, he is labeled a “flip-flopper.”
This is contrary to the way Obama works. He shoves his liberal ideology down our throats, against our will. He listens only to himself. He only does what HE thinks is right, regardless of what the people say. Do we want to replace him with someone on the other side of the spectrum who does the same thing? Does it make it okay if you agree?
Report Post »Seasoldier
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 5:00pmFirst, let’s remember that there are more and more phony “Vietnam Vets” popping up every day. They‘ve been a dime a dozen ever since the 1960’s, when the press started accepting every claim of veteran status on face value, as long as it fit their stereotypical narrative or the current Liberal political line. John Kerry’s “Winter Soldiers” are a prime example. Second, Mr. Romney should get credit for sticking to his position on the issue of the legal status of homosexuals who co-habitate. Third, we need to stop employing the word “gay” as a euphemism for homosexuals and their activities. It’s a typical Liberal ploy to confuse the public and to provide cover for perverted activity.
Report Post »Paydert33
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 5:02pmWho cares what they say on the left or for that matter the foolish msm. We have to concentrate on who on is going to beat o-loser. Romney is the best in the polls so far, that’s why the left is pushing Gingrich. Neut will not get the votes from the independents or the blue dems. They will hold their nose and vote o-loser. Romney has the business sense and a great record in all areas. Let’s picture this……who has the stamina to climb the steps of Air Force One everyday. Picture Neut and Mitt. I go for the one with the business sense and strength and endurance in all phases of life. That’s what we have before us. Sure, Rubio, West, and others would be better. But we have to get that liar-in-chief, spender-in-chief and obamacare repealed, and we will never do these things if o-loser has another four years, along with his and moooooochelle’s extravagant spending from our sweat.
Report Post »median
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 5:13pmWhere in the hell are all these gays comming from? ruining the entire world in my opinion.
Report Post »mad_hatter_
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 5:20pmNo I have not, I have donate $5 to his campaign during a Day with Romney contest. That’s it, I am a state worker (who can only write on my time off)and before that I built homes. I am a supporter that gets very frustrated with smears. I wasn’t a supporter until I started to vet the candidates, including Ron Paul, Cain(who I use to support), Gingrich(who I will never support), and Romney.
I am glad he was converted to fight abortion. Besides that he has been as consistent as Ron Paul. I didn’t go to pro of anti sites, I went straight for the full quotes and articles and read hundreds of them. This is why I am so strong on proving the liberal media and anti-sites wrong and none of them will counter my claims, though I have offered to debate them. So oh well.
Report Post »mad_hatter_
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 5:29pmBUCK SHANE,
That is because you have no case. Look at the links, read the articles, they say exactly what is going on. Agree with them or not.
I am not a staffer, and I hope that you are not. All I hear is you trying to smear a candidates with false accusations.
Look at his history:
Pro-2nd Amendment, but for registration, as was Reagan, and for assault rifle ban, but promised no new laws against them. He worked with NRA and GOAL to pass 8 pro-gun bills in Massachusetts and they even praised him and made calls for him.Consistently said this.
Abortion, Pilot Catholic News has a great article about his true conversion as mentioned above.
Global Warming, he believes that the earth is warming as it has done before, and that humans contribute, though doesn’t know how much, but won’t support any policy that kills business or the economy. Consistently said this.
Immigration, never supported amnesty being ‘special treatment of illegals over those that have tried to get here legally.’ Created the Arizona Immigration Bill in 2006, before they did.Consistently said this.
I am completely honest in this information, it is all there on that site. I vetted my candidate.
Report Post »GilbertAcct
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 5:32pmFreedomp… again, your repeated accusations of “smearing” are a great way to distract from the quote and facts I lay out. How is quoting a Christian pro-family leader a smear? Was this guy ticked at Romney? Yes. Or from our previous argument, how is citing a conservative think tank a smear?
Here are some numbers I pulled from the MA Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Please call this a “smear” all you’d like. These number go directly against what Romney claims.
From the Massachusetts Comprehensive Annual Financial Report:
Report Post »Government expenses – year 2002 – $39 billion; year 2006 – $45 billion… a 15.4% increase.
Effective income tax rate – 2002 – 3.2%; 2007 – 3.5%… a 9.4% increase.
Per capita long term debt – 2002 – $2,470; 2007 – $3,150… a 27.5% increase.
Midwestgirl1116
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 5:32pm@Cessna ~ right on! Love your reply.
Report Post »GilbertAcct
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 5:33pmFreedomp… again, your repeated accusations of “smearing” are a great way to distract from the quote and facts I lay out. How is quoting a Christian pro-family leader a smear? Was this guy ticked at Romney? Yes. Or from our previous argument, how is citing a conservative think tank a smear?
Here are some numbers I pulled from the MA Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. Please call this a “smear” all you’d like. These number go directly against what Romney claims.
Government expenses – year 2002 – $39 billion; year 2006 – $45 billion… a 15.4% increase.
Report Post »Effective income tax rate – 2002 – 3.2%; 2007 – 3.5%… a 9.4% increase.
Per capita long term debt – 2002 – $2,470; 2007 – $3,150… a 27.5% increase.
Chuck Stein
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 5:40pm@ Gilbertacct
Report Post »Don’t let your political position shape your logical approach (and I’m not implying that I am above that). Romney’s conduct as governor vis-a-vis the Supreme Judical Court’s 4-3 decision on “gay” marriage was entirely consistent with the deferrence given to the judiciary since the Marbury v. Madison decision (back in 1803 or so). Maybe Romney should have said something to the General Court (that is the Mass. term for the legislature) like: “Impeach me or impeach the 4 justices who voted against the will of the People.” I sure wish he had. That sure would have been a “Horatio at the Bridge” sort of thing to do. Instead, Romney did what the executive branch has consistently done since Marbury v. Madison: he let the judiciary call the shots. While I like to imagine that I would have done something more “brave” if I had been in his shoes, Romney was no less “brave” than Presidents and Governors almost always are in such situations.
AvengerK
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 5:42pmCESNA..the “benefits” angle is just a ploy to garner sympathy. In the real world, two adult men should be earning some pretty good income between them and have more than credible benefits either through their work or their own investing. Likely they’re in better shape fiscally than a man and woman together whereby the woman has been out of the workforce at different times with children concerns. It’s a ruse…a play on emotions to make homosexuals sound as if they’re being hard done by.
Report Post »Buck Shane
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 5:47pm***Warning to Blazers***
Report Post »mad_hatter_ is politicking. He is slimy. He is trying to justify Romney’s positions to get him undeserved support. If he were a Romney staffer, he would be here to argue for his guy. That is what he is doing. Do your own research. This guy is not honest.
GilbertAcct
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 5:59pmSorry for the double post… and the bottom two years should be 2006, not 2007.
Chuck… Thanks for post. So if I cave and agree that Romney governed as a pro-family and anti gay marriage governor, I would still have a problem with what he promised the gay community as he ran for Governor. If he did in fact govern 100% in accordance with what he is saying today, I would still find it very troubling if he ran on a different platform in order to get support from the gay community (only to go against them once in office). Do you have any evidence that he didn’t pander to the gay community while he was running? I’ve seen a lot of stuff that says he is guilty of this.
I’m open for a learning experience if I can get past these guys thinking quotes and facts are “smears.” I appreciate your detailed argument.
Report Post »Goldsteinbergman
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 6:00pmdadburn mormins
Report Post »GilbertAcct
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 6:06pmMadhatter… Are you one of the Romney brothers? Is Clinger_Bible/FF2 another one?
Report Post »mad_hatter_
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 6:09pmBUCK SHANE
Report Post »(***Warning to all Blazers***)
Everything that Buck Shane said about me can be said about himself. I give facts, quotes, articles and when he can’t stand the truth he attacks me. Everyone should vet the candidates from the quotes and facts themselves, not the anti-Romney sites and smears that he want to quotes.
mad_hatter_
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 6:15pmGilbertACCT,
Can you produce the site address you got those quotes from and tell us what page of the PDF you found those numbers. Are you saying the income rates increased from 3.5% to 9% under Romney, that is insanity. Even the Boston Globe reports that Romney tried to lower taxes every year.
Now if you are stating the local municipalities increase taxes, those are not state rates and are not directed by the governor.
Now he did cut subsidies to the local municipalities, that is because he found that they were sending way to much money to these cities and told them to cut spending. If they chose to increase rates, that was up to them, no him.
Are you saying those are state based rates or local?
Report Post »GilbertAcct
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 6:16pmMadhatter… all you do is try to funnel people to your website. I’ve also seen you hypocritically accuse others of doing the same exact thing you do… The only difference is that they did not support Romney, so you were opposed to their solicitations.
Report Post »Chuck Stein
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 6:23pm@ Gilbertacct
Report Post »Sorry, I am absolutely in the dark as regards Romney’s promises to homosexuals while campaigning for gov. of Mass. If he had wanted to stand up against the Supreme Judical Court, though, he could have cited to no lesser light than Abraham Lincoln who criticized the Dred Scott decision. Lincoln said that a dramatic judicial change to overrule a long-established law should have attributes like: being a unanimous decision, being supported by the majority of the people, and being logically sound. Just like the Dred Scott decision, the decision of the mass. Supreme Judicial Court was contrary to the majority of the people, was not unanimous, and was not logically sound (the Massachusetts Constitution is the OLDEST constitution in the country — who could seriously contend that 18th Century Baystaters intended to require the availability of homosexual marriage?). Grrrrrrrr
donotdrinkthekoolade
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 6:27pmHey, I don’t want to pay any taxes. Can I create a special category for me?
Report Post »Hobbs57
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 6:28pmGot to love the Romney haters on here, cracks me up. Romney follows the letter of the law, but you seriously have so much hate in your gut you just can’t except what an honorable man is to do when faced with certain legal obligations. I am sure you want him to follow the law if he is to become President of the United States, No ?? He immediately sent out letters to the surrounding states telling there going to be no gay marriage fest in his state, as he was barring those from out of state to marry using a 1913 Law. Not that my friend he did not have to do. He most certainly did have to allow the marriage to happen. It‘s not like he got weak in the knee’s and bent over to allow don‘t as don’t tell, which eventually lead to what we now have in the service, but we haven’t heard anything about Newt doing that, have we ? HE changed the forms so not to take away from the sacrament of holy matrimony between a wife and Husband. Otherwise, we would have had a male wife or vise versa. No but your going to hit him anyways using all the ammunition from the Boston Globe. Gotta love how those on the right are no better than them on the left when it comes to eating their own, maybe worse.
Report Post »GilbertAcct
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 6:37pmMadhatter… the official MA state website. You’ll find the CAFRs going back to 1995.
http://www.mass.gov/osc/publications-and-reports/financial-reports/cafr-reports.html
No, it increased from 3.2% to 3.5%, which is about a 9% increase. Look, I voted for Romney in 2008 before I became politically active. I basically liked that he was a businessman and that he is Mormon. Now that I’ve studied him, I will not support him. I didn’t just get stuff from anti-Romney sites. For example, when he said, “I cut taxes 19 times” and “I closed a budget deficit” I went to the CAFR to find our how much he had to slash spending to achieve that. I found that he actually grew the government. When he says “People in MA like RomneyCare 3 to 1” I thought, well what poll are you looking at? It turns out that he cherry picked a favorable poll and states it over and over as a fact, when there are many polls showing that it is actually unpopular in MA (especially among republicans). I admit I do stumble upon the anti sites… but they can have a lot of legitimate info too. You just have to be more careful.
Report Post »Salamander
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 6:43pmServed his church for a few years, after graduation from high school in 1965 and one year of college? Sounds like a ‘draft dodger’ to me!
Report Post »Salamander
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 6:49pmI agree with Romney’s answer regarding the defense of marriage act, but I just wanted to point out his avoidance of Viet Nam War era, just in case Obama comes up with some sort of military service–you never know, we haven’t seen his college transcript!
Report Post »TTEXASTYLER
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 7:10pm@ Vechorik
I hope you aren’t a Christian, Vechorik, because you could at least smear Mitt and blatantly LIE while justifying your behavior with the “greater good” rationalization and not experience too much cognitive dissonance or guilt. However, if you are a Christian, please refer to what Christ said about bearing false witness again your neighbor. God isn‘t down with it and you shouldn’t be either. Just sayin’…
For all of Mitt’s flip-flopping, which– I am glad to say– seems to always be in the conservative direction, he has always been a rock against same-sex marriage. Mitt NEVER signed legislation that sanctioned same-sex marriage. That is a LIE. He fought it the whole way.
Please read: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/02/mitt_romney_never_flip-flopped_on_marriage_112251.html
Report Post »ACLUHater
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 7:50pmThe queering of America continues…
Report Post »bostee24
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 7:53pmAgreed! How was this a heated exchange? Now the Cinny / Xavier Basketball game was HEATED! I like to see someone sucker punch Barry like that! It would be deserved!
Report Post »mad_hatter_
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 8:08pmGilbertACCT,
We have discussed this in length before you and me. That increase was an increase that came from legislation that came before Romney. masscases.com/cases/sjc/444/444mass128.html. He even introduced the largest tax holiday till his time in the Northwest. Problem with those stats is that you have to have an explanation to go with them to see why they happened.
Boston Globe: “The first signs of life appear in the Massachusetts economy and the governor calls for a $225 million tax cut.” boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/05/11/romneys_real_agenda_is_national/
So we have already agreed that he shrunk government. We disagree that he raised taxes. Though read the article above.
Report Post »chingachgook
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 8:11pmThe thing is, this guy is a Vietnam vet ???? he has a hat that says so. I did not like his response to where did you serve. “The army 66 67”. This may be subtle but most vets will you where they were Tay Nin An Khe, LZ English Vung Tau, Qui Nhon . not just a year. I do not believe this guy is a Vietnam vet just my thoughts on this guy liked Romney’s responce on this. Vietnam vet status is claim by many who are not.
Report Post »mad_hatter_
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 8:13pmGILBERTACCT,
I know your background, you have told it before that you were a Romney supporter and then became a Ron Paul supporter, got you. I have friends that did the opposite, good for you. Doesn’t change the fact that you were giving false information from smear sites throughout this debate and not one of your issues stood ground.
Since you are a Paulie and you like eating the crackers (much like Kool-Aid) I won‘t waste my time to ask you to re investigate Romney’s record, I just ask that you stop spreading these false accusations.
Thank you for helping me prove my point. And I don‘t mean to offend you as a Paul supporter but many of his supporters are Paul ******* eaters and don’t listen to reason, I hope I am wrong about you.
Report Post »FreedomPurveyor
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 8:16pmSalamander, every devout Mormon goes on a two year mission shortly after high school. His number in the 1969 draft lottery was 300 and he was not selected.
Gilbert, the point I am trying to make is that a governor has less influence over the legislature, and subsequently legislation that is passed, than people assert. You think he is a liar, that is fine. I for one simply do not care about the bickering about statistics in Massachusetts, as these statistics don‘t necessarily say anything about the governor’s performance.
Go look at his actual record as governor instead of basing your opinion on the garbage spewed by the media. He has been incredibly consistent, despite the narrative that he is a “flip-flopper.” This is the big lie, and it is absolutely absurd and outrageous, especially considering that the people who level the charge against him routinely speak out of both sides of their mouths.
Report Post »HappyStretchedThin
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 8:34pmI haven’t picked my candidate yet, but you anti-Mitt people mystify me sometimes.
Report Post »If he had some other opinion about SSM, wasn’t a discussion with a gay guy in NH about military benefits over breakfast a perfect time for him to explain his nuances? Instead he just came right and and told him SSM is a bad idea.
Why is it so hard to understand that in the context of huge LIB MA, Mitt would have to make some concessions? Why does each concession mean he has flipflopped? Why can’t it mean he has core beliefs, but didn’t get his way?
And if he DOES change his opinion on something, it always seems to be in the conservative direction. Why are you complaining? By your purist logic no true conservative can EVER have had any other opinions, then?
You vote your convictions in the primary, then pick your poison in the general: fine. But this senselessly stubborn infighting has consequences. It undermines WHOEVER the candidate finally turns out to be. It depresses the turnout of our OWN side, and belies our own conservatism. What’s that you say? Yes, it belies YOUR conservatism–conservatives are optimists. We make common cause with people who don’t agree with us 100% on everything because we trust the future will be better for EACH ideal we convince them to work with us on. That‘s NOT what you’re doing dredging up half-truths and decontextualized attacks. Where he‘s slimy I’ll slam him too (i.e. in latest ad Obama cites McCain), but take good for good, people!
its_time_to_arrest_our_government
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 8:41pmit was adam and eve not adam and steve. its pretty pathetic that animals are smart enough to know its not right and dont work. but these sick humans dont know. its a mental disorder and they should be taken out of contact with other humans.
Report Post »joejmz
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 9:26pmTo a Lib any conversation where someone does not agree with him and or does not immediately apologize for not agreeing with them is a “heated” conversation
Report Post »GilbertAcct
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 10:15pmMadhatter… thanks for showing your true colors with the name calling. I find it particularly amazing that you ignore the audited financial statements of the MA government. Here’s a basic math lesson: 45 billion is more than 39 billion. Romney did not shrink government. You take one small piece of information, that he made some cuts somewhere, but you ignore the bottom line. Did you look at the CAFR? There are some great 10 year trend charts at the end.
You claim that I smear Romney, then I give you actual numbers from financial statements, you ignore them, call me names, and still claim that I am getting my information from anti Romney sites. Haha! Then you claim that I don’t listen to reason! Look at the numbers… they don’t lie.
You are a typical Romney supporter who, having lost an argument, resorts to irrational straw men and childish name calling. If you really want people to read your posts and support Romney, I would avoid using this tactic.
Keep up the hard work, Madhatter/Fastfacts. Tell your buddy(brother?) FF2/clinger_bible to keep at it too. I‘m glad that Romney’s supporters are out there representing the same qualities that their candidate projects.
Report Post »ccr
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 11:52pmRomney handled the situation very well.
Romney IS a man with CORE convictions.
Romney has shown he has character.
Romney is NOT an: entertainer, a comedian, a preacher in chief, a cheerleader, a tough talkin’ ANGRY Republican.
Romney IS: uniquely experienced in turn around economics, disciplined, pragmatic, principled, faithful, not sullied by crony capitalism or $$$ earned by political connections, a man w/a clean closet, pretty even tempered, AND a DOGGONE hard worker!
(anyone seen Ron Paul’s “Serial Hypocrisy” ad on Gingrich?? OUCH!!! What a TON of truth in that!! THAT needs to go on national TV and get this Newt fad over with!)
Report Post »etoddt
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 1:46am@GilbertAcct – @Mad_Hatter_
I was intrigued by your back and forth enough to read through your posts in that first thread. I’m going to have to say Mad_Hatter_ has the more convincing position on the issue.
Romney isn’t perfect – he was a businessman/manager; his job required flexibility; and he naturally began his political career with nuanced positions. But over time, especially when his decision matters, he makes the right decisions and sticks with them.
I’m ok with that.
Report Post »SamFox
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 1:58am@ madhatter: Here is some more of Romney’s goodness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3etUOq7hVE
Romney is a most duplicitous person. He told the Log Cabin R’s that he is on their side. Mitt is very flexible. He has a different answer for every group he speaks to.
Then there is Romn0bamny Care…
SamFox
Report Post »Restore the Republic
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 1:58amThis guy opened himself up the moment he started taking it up the tail pipe.
Report Post »rulken
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 2:58amWhat is with all this “Gay” crap? Their not “gay” their queer! You want to call them homosexuals? That’s okay also, come on call it what it is,,,Queer.
Report Post »book-fellow
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 10:28amSo out of HS in 1965 and served church for three years? I didn’t know a three year Mormon mission made you draft exempt. And then into college so he missed the whole thing – just like every middle class and up son that I was friends with, draft exempt.
Report Post »But that isn’t the topic.
Benefits!
Benefits were constructed when the loss of the man put his children into poverty and I agree that a man with children should have the benefits I never got for my family.
But a wife with no children or grown children – why does she need benefits that I have to pay for?
She can work.
The same in gay marriage of any type – the partner can find a job thank you so that I don’t have to pay for the rest of their do nothing lives or worse. add the pension pay to their already bloated government job pay.
A gay married partner that takes care of adopted children well I guess would be entitled to benefits if the partner providing support dies.
Nightjar
Posted on December 13, 2011 at 10:26pmAgree, IMO, marriage by definition IS between a man and woman.
Report Post »jpndhouse
Posted on December 14, 2011 at 1:41am@Buck Shane
All of the things you listed are what Romney talks about in his book and in the debates.
Also, as somebody who is a scientist, Global Warming is happening, the issue is whether or not mans “actions” are accelerating it (CO2). Not acknowledging facts, like other conservatives fail to do, just makes you looks stupid in the scientific community. Get off the global warming thing already. That is not the issue: Cap-N-trade is and ROMNEY SAID HE IS AGAINST IT. ‘Nuff said. That is all I need to know. Romney understands that Cap-N-trade is not going to solve the problem even if Global Warming is proved to be 100% accurate…
Report Post »spirit of freedom
Posted on December 14, 2011 at 12:50pmi dont like romney, but the media is trying to dispose of him now so that we will be stuck with the gingrich lemon. then in the debates between obammy and gingrich, gingrich will be taken apart easily. meanwhile the true conservative repubs Bachman, santorum, paul. have already been effectively done away with by the progressive media! when will we REALLY WAKE UP AMERICA?!!! “they” have already chosen our candidates AGAIN!! were frickin screwed!! my God, what do we have to do?
Report Post »IAM
Posted on December 15, 2011 at 11:39amBenefits should be between a employee and employer. Government jobs should make their benefits equal. Why should I get more benefits, because I’m married, then someone that chooses not get married? The private sector should make their benefits how ever they choose. It’s a form of payment for work. Marriage should be kept in the church. Why do we accept the government regulating a religious event? The government has destroyed the contract of marriage. We go to church to get married, but to the government to get a (quick) divorce.
Report Post »Vespo
Posted on December 27, 2011 at 4:32pmThis was a heated exchange? I had to go back twice to get into the article looking for a video with a “heated” exchange. Couldn’t find it. The Vet who posed the question did it in a respectful manner and Gov. Romney answered in a respectful manner. Politico needs to pound sand!
Report Post »sunshineIQ
Posted on March 15, 2012 at 8:29pmI agree with Governor Romney that marriage is between a man and a woman. Apparently Gays want the “benefits of marriage,” hence their push to make marriage between same sex persons legal. I have no intention of discriminating against Gays. Their love for a person is their business. But I disagree on redefining the word “marriage.“ They should call their relationship a ”commitment” or some other word. But it isn’t a “marriage.” Furthermore, if what they really want is the benefits of a marriage, it is discriminatory not offer those same benefits to heterosexuals who “live together.” For a time my maiden aunt and single uncle lived together because of money issues – cheaper to live together than maintain two separate residences. Why can’t they get “sibling commitment benefits?“ All the same ”benefits“ that Gays lobby for simply because they share an ”intimate bed.”
Report Post »arfarb55
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:18pmI also believe marriage is between a man and a women. Whatever one believes is his or her own choice. I do not believe others should be forced to acknowledge or condone what they do not believe in by passing laws that dictate that acknowledgement. What others do in the privacy of their own bedrooms is of no concern to me short of endangering other people or children. What we do will be ultimately judged by God, perhaps we will all be surprised on that day. I and mine will continue to do what WE believe God wills. I am the ONLY person I can change.
Report Post »mad_hatter_
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:25pmInteresting that so many people believe that Romney was for gay marriage. He has always been against it even back in 1994 and told a LGBT reporter that directly, in 1994. Told a gay reporter that he was against it. That is standing up for your values.
Report Post »teamarcheson
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:33pmDemocrat Homosexuals do not like yes or no answers if they disagree with the answer. If NH had the right to establish gay marriage, then don’t they have the right to repeal them too.
Report Post »stopspendingourmoney
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:38pmIf anyone cares about the Constitution and our dollar, better look into Ron Paul, the only one that can save the US dollar and the country from going bankrupt, your choice America…..God help, and bless us all..
Report Post »I support God's Israel!
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:40pmHow could the man be OFFENDED? He didn’t get the answer HE WANTED? So what. I agree with Romney and so do the majority of Americans, if truth be told. However, I do believe that a person should make his or her own choice about this, but there are consequences to every decision a person makes, whether it be legally, morally, or physically. God does NOT force us to choose Him. He gives all of us FREE-WILL. And so, if this man wants to live with this man in unholy matrimony, then let him. However, until the law changes in his favor (God forbid is my prayer), he should accept the difference of opinion and just buy a life insurance policy and make his Husband beneficiary.
These gay people want to FORCE all of us to accept them and in and of itself, THAT IS JUST PLAIN WRONG. Forcing someone into someone‘s else’s view is NOT what this country is founded on. THE TRUTH WILL SET YOU FREE. It seems to me that the devil has this man spiritually BLINDED and for that, I pray for him and I have compassion for him. But, the TRUTH is in Jesus Christ and if that man would just take the time to read the Bible, the truth would set him free of that perversion.
I do not object to people’s choices, AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT INFRINGE UPON MY RIGHT AS AN AMERICAN CITIZEN, AS A TAXPAYER, AND AS A CHRISTIAN. If you don’t like what I say, then that is your right, but do NOT force me, antagonize me, threaten me, make it illegal to express my opinion or you will have a civil war in
Report Post »encinom
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:49pm“I do not believe others should be forced to acknowledge or condone what they do not believe in by passing laws that dictate that acknowledgement. ”
The law is not about the individual, but about the State and forcing the State and Federal government to treat all person the same, with the same rights. You can continue to be a bigot, what is important is that the law does not create two tiers of citizens.
gordonknapp
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:54pmWell said. Sodom and Gomorrah are upon us. God have mercy!
Report Post »ChiefGeorge
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:57pmHe can’t even take the answer he asked in a yes or no format! Romney to his credit was straight up and to the point. He knew there was no point in arguing with the man, he would not have gotten anywhere. He says in the end he got what he asked for but made a big deal about it before hand. Am I supposed to feel sorry for you or something. Get outta here.
Report Post »jrmhrpr78
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:00pmARFARB55, If marriage was only the joining of a man and a women this would be a non issue. Problem is there are benefits that go along with it like tax breaks and such. In a free equal country we should all have the same rights and equal chances at things like this. Just because your gay should not mean you don’t have the same rights. I agree the church should not have to recognize gay marriage because that is their individual right. But if there are benefits to being married over not being married, everyone should have that equal chance. I cannot stand to hear so called christian’s trying to oppress others while complaining that they are being oppressed. I think you should all take a step back and read the bible again. I never saw a spot where it said Love thy neighbor “unless”, fill in the blank… Aren’t we supposed to be a free country? I don’t believe gays getting married infringes on your right to pursue your own happiness. Does it?
Plojka
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:02pmPerfect display of gay intolerance. That man asked for a “yes or no” answer and got his answer. But was it enough? Nope! He wanted Romney to capitulate and enter into a grey area. Right is right, wrong is wrong. The gay agenda can’t stand it.
Report Post »Bum thrower
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:04pmI agree; I am tired of this gay attitude of ‘if you don’t like it, your a homophobe’; well I only see homosexuality in Homosapiens………..I am sick and tired of the left, gay alliance jaming their perverted life style down my throat; come 2013, it will be shoved some where else, for sure!1
Report Post »Harry Assenback
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:25pmEninom……………you do understand your comment makes you a Bigot against Christian morals and beliefs don’t you. Way to throw around the “Bigot Card” in your attempt to take some type of liberal high ground. Silly Progressive.
Report Post »GilbertAcct
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:27pmLet‘s review Romney’s judicial record.
- Altered marriage licenses and ordered judges to perform homosexual marriages in the state of MA when no law required him to do so, earning him the title of the Father of Gay Marriage in America. He ordered his Department of Health to change the marriage certificates from “husband” and “wife” to “partner A” and “partner B” even though there was no law requiring him to do so.
- Awarded a MA district court judgeship to Stephen Albany, part of the MA Lesbian and Gay Bar Association and a proponent of the repealing of sodomy laws in the Bay State.
- Appointed a pro-choice judge to a lifetime appointment on a MA court AFTER his “pro-life conversion”.
Here’s a link about his gay marriage dealings in MA.
http://www.punditreview.com/2007/11/romney-violated-his-constitutional-oath-by-facilitating-same-sex-marriage-in-massachusetts/
Report Post »cessna152
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:28pm@encinom
Report Post »I usually don’t waste my time with you… you are a Marxist. So let me ask you this; “What is a right”? Please tell me, I really want to know what a “right” looks like. Who authors and grants that “right”? Then if someone gets a “right”, you do know that ultimately someone else losses a right. Why is that okay?
This is the last time I will try to get this through your Marxist little mind: America is about equal freedom…yes, equal freedom. We all have the right to be FREE. However, when you start dictating equal rights, we all lose equal freedom! You want equal rights? Then move to Russia, Cuba or N. Korea… tell me how that works out for gays.
Erabin
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:31pm“you do understand your comment makes you a Bigot against Christian morals and beliefs don’t you.”
Christian religious rules should have no word in the creation of laws. America is not a Christian nation, was not founded as one and will never be as long as I draw breath.
HAPPYRWE
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:33pmMad_Hatter What you do and what you say can be two completely different things…pertaining to Romney that is……….the politicians say a lot of things on air, hot air…………..their damage is done through their acts, their laws………..
Report Post »Ron Paul 2012
Harry Assenback
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:42pmErabin…..you get the funniest comment of the day award..almost fell out of chair laughing when you said we were not a Christian Nation LOL……..sure hope you are kidding because that would be very embarrassing for you.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:45pm@ARFARB55
I’m confused, you don‘t believe people should be forced to condone what they don’t believe in by passing of laws.
Well obviously homosexuals don’t believe that marriage is defined by man and a woman, yet you want to force them to condone what they don’t believe by the repeal of the law?
Seems eerily similar to “I don’t care if you raise taxes…..as long as it’s not mine.“ and ”cut benefits…….except mine!”
How does homosexuals getting married affect your life?(outside of news stories about it). Do you have homosexuals who know you’re anti-gay marriage come up to you and rub your nose in the fact that they can marry?
What if homosexuals are offended by heterosexual marriage?(which they obviously aren’t). Should they be forced to have to condone and recognize straight marriage?
“What people do in their own bedroom is their business.”
Do you see a lot of homosexuals outside having sex or something? I honestly don’t know where this is coming from. I live in Arizona and I honestly can’t remember the last time I saw two men or two women even kissing in public, much less anything more that I would feel compelled to think, “do that in the bedroom!”
I’m sorry the sight of two people in love is so disturbing to you.
Walkabout
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:46pmGays forces others in society to adept their morals. Point in fact is gay adoption.
Many young parents do not have wills. If both parents died intestate, the state would decide where the children are placed. A court could decide that 50ish or n60ish grandparents are too old, not rich enough, or are rednecks & place the children with gays than their grandparents.
If or when we lose the gay adoption battle it will behoove every church to ensure their congregation members have access to law services & a will.
This is what every self respecting pastor must do.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:48pmErabin, Monicne & Encinom
All write the same & think the same. Must be lonely in that basement.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:15pm“I’m sorry the sight of two people in love is so disturbing to you.”
why just 2 people? how bigoted of you!
since the definition of marriage is fluid…why not more than 2?
Report Post »encinom
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:17pm@cessna152
How are your rights affected when others are given equal rights. How is your right to marry diminished when a gay couple are also free to enter into a such a binding relationship with the same rights and priviledges. You talk of freedcom and rights as you are attempting to deprive others of the right you enjoy. You claim I am a communist, based on what, that I dare to argue that the rich need to pay their fair shar eof taxes, because I do not worship the Tea Party’s goddess of greed, Ayn Rand.
Wilsonpd
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:36pm@Rush_is_right –
It’s already happening. Remember that when the first same-sex marriages were proposed the gay activists said we were hysterical to bring up multiples and man/dog and whatever goes marriages? They said that was homophobe bullcrap and would never happen. Now we have The “Plural Marriage Alliance” or something like that. They say that they are being discriminated against because bigots won’t accept that three people can be in love and they should have the same benefits as couples.
Quad & Quintuplet relationships are next! Might as well go ahead and legalize it. There are quite a few new immigrants that have multiple wives, one couple is registered and the other wives and their children get the whole “single mother” welfare treatment. Might as well make the head of the household fess up and pay rather than make the rest of us pay for his lifestyle. Blech.
I’m done with it. Make the “legal” definition of marriage whatever the heck people want. Nothing will change the real meaning and all these folks know it in their hearts. That’s why they are never satisfied no matter how many law they get passed.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:42pm“You talk of freedcom and rights as you are attempting to deprive others of the right you enjoy”
are you referring to the gays who took away the catholic charities their right to practice their religion in MA? or the doctor who lost his freedom of religion and speech in CA?
@Wilsonpd
I didn’t know that…I’m not surprised though…the pedophiles will be next…after all if one sexual orientation deserves special rights, then all of them should..
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:43pm@rush
Wow, you really are a moron. I was giving an example based off of their scenario. If people want to have a legitimate talk about polygamy, that’s fine. It’s very easy to argue against polygamy without Christian values.
It’s okay, pick and choose what you do and don’t follow out of your Bible. Secularism has dragged hardcore Christianity and Judaism kicking and screaming through the centuries and will continue to do so.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 3:00pm“I was giving an example based off of their scenario. If people want to have a legitimate talk about polygamy, that’s fine. It’s very easy to argue against polygamy without Christian values. ”
their ‘scenario’ has logical consequences…like legalizing polygamy….but then you’re obviously not intelligent enough to follow an argument to its logical conclusion.
“It’s okay, pick and choose what you do and don’t follow out of your Bible”
uh go ahead and post the verse that authorizes polygamy….this should be good…
” Secularism has dragged hardcore Christianity and Judaism kicking and screaming through the centuries and will continue to do so.
”
yes secularism has dragged hardcore christians and jews to the gulags, the gas chambers, and the guillotine…I can see why you’re a good secularist.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 3:23pmModerationIsBest
” Secularism has dragged hardcore Christianity and Judaism kicking and screaming through the centuries and will continue to do so.”
Humanism in its’ current form arrived with the Renaissance. It seems to be that people in Europe & else where were making progress socially & technologically before it. Compare 7th century Europe to the 11th century before the Renaissance & Erasmus. The Catholic Church had a hand in advancing Europe during this time.
Report Post »MEANS2RESIST
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 3:23pmWell said ARFARB, but I have to ask, are there that many rump rangers & carpet munchers out ther that can make that much of a difference on a presidential election? I would like to know out of the 300 mill or so Americans, how many are gay and how many are gay republicans?
Report Post »encinom
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 3:24pmrush_is_right
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:42pm
“You talk of freedcom and rights as you are attempting to deprive others of the right you enjoy”
are you referring to the gays who took away the catholic charities their right to practice their religion in MA? or the doctor who lost his freedom of religion and speech in CA?
Report Post »____________________
With a Tag Rush is Right I know you are not series or a thinker. As for Catholic Charities, the organization unable to obey the law ended its adoption practice. It could of continued, only it had to obey the law, which ts bgotry prevented. It was infringing on the rights of others, it was lcensesd by the state. There is nothing in the bible that demands a Catholic organization must provided for adoptions. You are grasping at straws. As for the doctor I have no idea what you are talking about. You are just another small mind told by others to hate.
rush_is_right
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 3:47pm“With a Tag Rush is Right I know you are not series or a thinker.”
how would you know? since you are incapable of independent thought, and can only parrot talking points.
” As for Catholic Charities, the organization unable to obey the law ended its adoption practice”
oh yes the gays changed the law to end the religious liberty of the catholic charities…thats what gay marriage is all about…restricting the rights of christians who disagree.
“It was infringing on the rights of others, ”
this is laughable. the catholic charities did what was best for children…giving them to a REAL mother and father, not some woman in flannel pretending to be a man. so the catholic charities rights were restricted…which is fine with fascists like you.
“You are just another small mind told by others to hate.”
unlike you I can think for myself…and its painfully obvious you cannot…why do you hate christians so? and no surprise you haven’t heard about the case of the doctor in CA…you’re ignorant and ill-informed.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 4:23pm@the Mindless Dittohead:
First back to Catholc Charities, instead of a gay couple it was a mixed race or a jewish couple that the organization refused to allow adopt, you would still be in support? The organization was licensed by the state, once you are lcensed by the state you need to follow state laws regarding discrimination. I guess you rather see childs raised in orphanges than with loving parents, I guess you support Newts’ child labor camps.
As for the Ca. doctor, if you mean the one that refused care, again he is licensed by the State, as such he has to comply with the State’s anti-discrimination laws. Nothing prevented him from speaking out agianst the law, he just had to follow it.
I understand these concepts or equal rghts and fairness are foreign to those that listen to Mr. Oxycodone.
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 7:14pm@brain-dead commie stooge:
“First back to Catholc Charities, instead of a gay couple it was a mixed race or a jewish couple that the organization refused to allow adopt, you would still be in support?”
yeah its called FREEDOM OF RELIGION…how hard is this? do you think the NOI should be forced to admit white people?? what about FREEDOM don’t you understand? oh but you brown-shirted fascists can’t stand freedom obviously.
“The organization was licensed by the state, once you are lcensed by the state you need to follow state laws regarding discrimination. ”
yeah lets eliminate freedom of religion and speech in the name of ‘discrimination’ how fascist of you.
“I guess you rather see childs raised in orphanges than with loving parents,”
parents…ie a MOTHER AND FATHER…not a man pretending to be a mother, or a woman pretending to be a man. its only worked for millenia…yeah I’m sure you and your fascist gay allies know better…right. why do real american couples (a man and woman) have to go overseas to get children?? if children are sitting in orphanges?? hmmm?? I know you can’t answer this, you cannot go beyond talking points you brain-dead brown-shirted thug.
“As for the Ca. doctor, if you mean the one that refused care, again he is licensed by the State,”
yeah the one that lost his freedom of religion and speech to the fascist gays…no surprise you’d be for that…and it was a voluntary procedure…no freedom for ch
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 7:17pm“I understand these concepts or equal rghts and fairness are foreign to those that listen to Mr. Oxycodone.”
yeah orwell understood your fascist version of fairness….some pigs are more equal than others…in this case the gays get all the rights, and the christans have none….
did you starch your brown shirt today and polish you jack-boots today eva?
Report Post »let us prey
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:18pmI stopped reading at [eating breakfast with HIS husband].
Report Post »Spoiled breakfast for me.
Tsam
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:22pmwow, so much respect for a vet, eh? No one should get a blanket rejection just because they live their life differently from you.
Detroit paperboy
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:24pmHe asked for a yes or no answer, then bit(hes about it… Typical lefty, and also YUCK !!!! just YUCK….
Report Post »Redd
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:34pmHow does anyone know the homosexual was a vet? Just because he has a hat? A tee shirt that says vet? If the guy is in that lifestyle, he should have life insurance like the rest of us to bury himself.
Report Post »let us prey
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:44pmtsam
Report Post »This is an opinion site. That is my opinion. Sorry it differs from your progressive opinion.
hcartexas
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:47pmTSAM… shut your filthy hole… just because youre a “vietnam vet” only gets you respect when and where deserved. His abberant behaviour, and desires are a shame to his military service. One set of good deeds does not give one carte blanche to live the rest of his/her life disgracefully, and then still demand the respect of the former. Homosexuality is wrong. Gay marriage is wrong.
Report Post »I support God's Israel!
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:48pmTSAM:
You are also a narrow-minded person who perverts what you read. THE MAN ASKED ROMNEY FOR A YES OR NO ANSWER AND ROMNEY GAVE IT. How hard is that for you to understand???? There are 2 opinions at that table, both different. SO WHAT! Will you now try to create a fight about it? Will you make a big deal out of it? You leftists are so keen in demonizing ANYONE who has a differing opinion that you that you TRY to instill fear into those who disagree with you so they either lie and agree with you or say nothing. WELL bucko, HOMOSEXUALITY IS A SIN, ACCORDING TO GOD’S HOLY WORD – PERIOD, PERIOD, PERIOD. That is NOT just me saying it. I have it on authority from God Himself. So, if you have a problem with it, ASK HIM about it.
You leftists want to twist and turn everything someone says that disagrees with you and I am sick to death of it. Americans should just look a person in the eye and tell them the truth, no matter what, graciously and tactfully. I tell you the truth, HOMOSEXUALITY IN ANY FORM COMES FROM SATAN. That is the truth. Those who practice it will be surely die eternally without God. THAT IS THE TRUTH. I have seen men and women who have come to Christ and were healed of this and now lead normal lives. That proves to me that it is a lie and perversion of the devil, making you believe it is natural, when it is not. READ YOUR BIBLE. You can never go wrong with the truth. So stop lying and perverting people’s words and actions.
Report Post »freeus
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:54pmSodomites offend me.
Report Post »junior1971
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:04pmTSAM- In this case YES they should!!!
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:48pm@I SUPPORT GOD’S ISRAEL!
How can you talk about perverting what someone reads, when you then pervert what the person said.
The person was talking about the poster’s “Spoiled my breakfast” remark, which had nothing to do with what Romney said.
Report Post »FaithfulFriend
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:17pmI firmly believe anyone in public life needs to listen to these questions and ignore the “gay” part of the questions. Get to the question and not the flavor of the question. This was a question about benefits and not anything else, it was just cross-dressed into something different.
Report Post »GhostOfJefferson
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:23pmAstute observation, that’s exactly what it was when you peel away the controversey.
Report Post »HorseCrazy
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:10pmagree! what can the government do for me today question nothing else
Report Post »Lordchamp
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:15pmHE is due his rights as a veteran. He does not have a LEGAL marriage so his partner is not due anything because of his acts as a veteran, as it should be.
We are given our rights from GOD, NOT THE government.
One of nature’s (God’s) laws is marriage between a man and a woman. Let me see the offspring physically created by a homosexual relationship and then we can talk changing laws. As the old saying goes, “don’t mess with mother nature”.
Report Post »Vechorik
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 9:26pmI agree, FaithfulFriend. If the government is going to let gays serve in the military, then they should give benefits to their partners. Enlisted people in the military can barely afford to eat and live off base. Married enlisted people have a housing allowance that single people can’t get.
I’m just saying — open the door for gays in the military — then give them what they’re due otherwise as well.
Personally, I think women and gays in the military are a bad idea. Women could be civil servants and so can gays. It’s not necessary to have them in combat zones. When I served, in the late 1960′s (afraid to even say I’m a VietNam Vet) — women weren’t allowed in combat zones.
Report Post »californiapatriotmom
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:17pmWhen your convictions are solid, you don’t need to “open the door to conversation” about something. He asked for a Yes or No, and he got it.
May need to rethink Romney. At least he didn’t back down or back away from the question.
Report Post »red_white_blue2
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:32pmGood Point..many politians would dance around it..trying to stradle the fence. I admire he has a view, and sticks to it!
Report Post »wzanesdad
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:39pmI agree…..this is not what I expected from him, but I like his answer.
Report Post »mickie4
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:50pmI agree….Romney handled it well. It’s little things like this that speak well for him.
Report Post »I support God's Israel!
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:53pmCALIFORNIAPATRIOTMOM: you are correct.
Most people on this page have not read the FULL ARTICLE. They gloss over it and miss the whole thing altogether. Here is the most IMPORTANT PARAGRAPH:
“I have a question for you,” Garon told the former Massachusetts governor. “New Hampshire right now has some legislation kicking around about a repeal for the same-sex marriage. And all I need is a yes or a no. Do you support the repeal?”
READ IT S..L..O..W..L..Y….. Romney gave his answer nicely, I believe. THE GUY WANTED ROMNEY TO AGREE WITH HIM. He had a pre-agenda WANTING Romney to agree with him. And then he had an answer prepared if Romney did not. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT ALL LEFTISTS DO. Romney gave a heartfelt answer and he did not need to doctor it, tear it apart or anything else.
If you want to hear the truth, then ask. If you want a lie, go elsewhere.
Report Post »zorro
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:57pmYup! When Romney sides on an issue, he almost never changes his mind sometimes.
Report Post »HAPPYRWE
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:29pmRomney is still political establishment, pro-big government,he is a flip-flopper, said America makes plenty of money, never discussed our printing of money, and of all things in a debate said he would discuss things with his lawyers-Ron Paul said he would seek answers from the Constitution.
Report Post »God gave us the Constitution, man gave us lawyers. Hope you rethink what you were going to rethink.:o)
Vechorik
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 9:29pmReminds me of when Dr. Paul addressed the Latino television crowd. No special pandering. It was amazing to watch him tell those people “You’re an American first.” He didn‘t pander and didn’t waiver on “no amnesty”. He told them he didn’t believe in class warfare. That he was for the smallest minority — the individual.
Report Post »Muddywood
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:15pmThat Vet should be able to will his benefits to whomever he wants. He earned them.
Report Post »He shouldn’t need to be “married” to do that.
rush_is_right
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:31pmit is encouraging.
Report Post »JakeEllis
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:35pmAnyone can will anything they want to whomever they want. This is not the point. Homosexuality is an abomination. It is a sign of mental deviance, and a health risk for homos and heterosexuals. Gay is not a race, religion, or a society. It is a sin, and it is a learned trait being used to destroy the laws and morality of this nation.
Report Post »dschumac
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:38pmI believe one, through a will, can leave anything to anybody. But, without a
Report Post »will, the “other” is not automatically an heir.
encinom
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:52pmBut that is the issues, there are two classes, those that can freely marry and enjoy the rights and benefits that a reconized marriage offers and those because of religious bigotry who can not.
Elena2010
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:21pm@Enc — not so. I cannot marry a close cousin of the opposite gender. I cannot marry two men at the same time.
Marriage is not a right. It is a privilege that comes w/immense responsibility.
Two people living together have no responsibility to the other in any legal sense. It matters not if they are the same or opposite gender. Many states have done away w/”common law marriages.”
Report Post »Female
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:00pmAs a vet, I agree! Rather than making it for spousal benefit, make it an assigned benefit Or take away the benefit and make all vets pay for an extra plot to enjoy the peace of resting next to whomever? Yes, for whomever the vet wants…spouse, friend, mother, father, brother, partner, favorite ******, stranger, good person…..and even pet. Either solution alleviates the violatility of the issue. And due to the left, liberal, anti-war/military stance of most homos,,,I imagine very few would want to be “caught dead in a veteran burial ground”. It is a grave yard not like the “Holy Ground” set aside for the saints at a church!
They think by acquiring these marital benefits between a husband and wife, it will make them equal but it will never satisfy because….it will never satisfy! No matter how hard anyone tries to make or alter the pieces… the puzzle never fits, works, produces, truly fulfills, and is ultimately futile. Even if everybody choses to say live and let live…some child will announce “I always stop my dogs from doing that!”
Guess what, the fullness of the mystery given by God to be enjoyed by a man and woman forever escapes all the sexually immoral.
If these comments offends you…good…because your behavior offends and utterly disgusts me. I am tired of having it tainting everything. BTW for me…this goes for all sexual immorality. It is sin.
Report Post »encinom
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:20pm“Two people living together have no responsibility to the other in any legal sense. It matters not if they are the same or opposite gender. Many states have done away w/’common law marriages.’”
THat is not hte issue, here we have two adults seeking to enter into a binding relationship with all the duties and responsibilities. But becasue of religious and cultural bias and bigotrym they can not. This is no different than the laws against mixed marriages. Again, the bigotry of the few is standing between the freedoms and rights of others.
rush_is_right
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:39pm“THat is not hte issue, here we have two adults seeking to enter into a binding relationship with all the duties and responsibilities.”
why stop at 2?
” But becasue of religious and cultural bias and bigotrym they can not. This is no different than the laws against mixed marriages.”
mixed marriages have always been between a man and a woman.
” Again, the bigotry of the few is standing between the freedoms and rights of others.”
pedophiles and polygamists think that too.
Report Post »Salamander
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 6:51pmI agree with your position, that anyone should be able to ‘will’ their residual assets as they please! Gay marriage is not the answer to a tax question!
Report Post »nealb4zodd
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:13pmThe gay vet guy was there to stir the pot and be contentious. – — he asked his question . .he got his answer . . .it wasnt the answer he wanted. – — bottom line though, these petty questions shouldn’t be bothered with as a president- – let the house and senate deal with it. – -and from there. let each state work out its own legal union problems. – -Mitt’s a christian. he’s clearly going to lean that way . . marriage is between a man and a woman. – - -BUT . . .if for some reason your benefits are NOT going to someone you want them to . .because you’re not legally married. – – that’s for the states to decide. . but why not. – - leave your money to your cat for all i care.
Report Post »imallthatsman
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:29pmMitt is not Christian he is Morman… there’s a difference
Report Post »Diomasach
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:50pmIt’s spelled Mormon.
Report Post »And I will leave any judgements as to whether someone is or is not a Christian up to God, it’s not my place to judge.
Plan B
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:03pmMormons are Christian
Report Post »rush_is_right
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:55pmthe catholic church, the lutheran church, and other denominations do not consider the mormons to be christian
Report Post »Smoovious
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 8:05pmCorrect, Mitt, is a Mormon, not a Christian…
And, for the handful who keep tossing out “why stop at 2”?
Well, why indeed?
Marriage is about joining households, legally… no more, no less, no matter what the people who keep trying to blow this up into a major fight want the rest of us to believe.
Fighting about this, keeps our attention away from the issues the _Federal_ government SHOULD be dealing with. This isn’t it.
If 2 men or 2 women want to join their households together into 1 family, what do I care? It doesn’t make my own relationship any less than it is.
If 3 people regardless of gender, or more, wish to join their own households together into a bigger family, again, what do I care? It still doesn’t make my own any less than it is, and NONE of this, is any business of the Federal government.
The Federal government is supposed to administer those things that threaten our nation as a whole, not to dictate to use, what kind of people we are allowed to be, or micro-manage how we can live our lives. (I already have a mother, thank you).
As for the plural marriages… those weren’t always illegal here. The Mormons practiced them, among others. It was the Christian majority, that made it illegal. (and, don’t confuse plural marriages with the farce the Jessop group were about. they were _not_ representive of what they are about.)
Seriously, people. Lets stop allowing distractions like these and keep our attention on the real Federal issue
Report Post »zorro
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:13pmGood see Romney didn’t change his mnd of the subject. It wouldn’t have been the first time…
Report Post »nealb4zodd
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:14pmand how many times have you changed your mind on things? never?
Report Post »jakartaman
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:28pmRomney does have cajoles and convictions _ I saw him take off a a highway superintendent – got right in his face. He looks pretty but does have stones. He is also smart enough to help this nation – which needs some adult economic supervision.
Report Post »Other than that – My choice would have been Palin – Now she would have shaken the living H-ll out of the DC status Quo!
zorro
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:53pmI’m not running for office but no, I would not “change my mind” on social issues which for most people, come from their inner character. As easily as Romney “changes his mind” on these issues tells me he is a man of weak character. As Massachusetts governor, he did everything in his power to further the ridiculous gay agenda and nothing he has done since has given me any inidication he will do something different as President. Generally, a man’s word is enough. But unfortunately, his word is worthless. True, people can genuinely have a change of heart on such issues but one usually sees a life changing event which triggers such a change of heart. All Romney has done is run for office.
Report Post »Erabin
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:29pm“and how many times have you changed your mind on things? never?”
Well, there’s “changing your mind” if you were proven wrong or learn new facts (or both), and there’s “changing your mind” in the way of “telling the other guy exactly what he wants to hear to garner more votes”.
One is respectable and even expected of a person. The other is simply pandering. And historically, Romney is all about the latter and not in the slightest about the former.
Report Post »Elena2010
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:11pmHe is right — marriage is betw a man and woman. Marriage is a religious matter. In Judaism and Christianity, the Bible defines the boundary for life lived well. When we go outside the boundary, we need to repent (turn around and face God again). Boundaries in life are as important as boundaries in sports. It matters not how great the catch; if it’s outside the boundary of the field of play, it’s simply not a touchdown. It matters not how long the hit; if it’s outside the foul poles, it’s a foul ball.
God placed boundaries on human conduct for our own well being, not for His pleasure. Sexual misconduct just feels soooo good, that we make every excuse under the sun and moon to avoid God’s boundary on sex. In the end, though, unrepented sin costs us dearly. Adultery kills families. Homosexual lifestyles do not create families. In the end, it’s about the family unit.
Let the homosexuals have their civil unions to protect those benefits they want so much.
Report Post »smackdown33
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:19pmMarriage is a state, societal, matter that can be conducted religiously. The state has no obligation to promote, condone, legitimize, or sanction any of the multiplicity of human emotional attractions other than the one required for the propagation of society. This one special union is the only necessary one. It must be protected, condoned, promoted, legitimized and sanctioned.
Report Post »All others are no more than window dressing.
AvengerK
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:33pmThe Federal Government however SMACKDOWN..does have the right to codify definitions of status for the purposes of the Federal Government’s business. This why homosexual marriage is not recognized at the Federal level. Apparently New Hampshire may be wiping the scales from it’s eyes and repealing the homosexual marriage law as well. In typical militant homosexual style, I anticipate homosexuals and their advocate groups to litigate the matter if they lose and ignore the peoples’ vote..as we’ve seen them do time and time again. Apparently..much like Garon..when the people agree with homosexual fantasies it’s acceptable to homosexuals..when they disagree..it‘s time to get spiteful and get the courts to overturn the peoples’ will.
Report Post »COFemale
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:09pmYou know gays will never be with a No answer and will try to brow-beat you into an answer they want and it has to be yes men should be able to marry men and women with women. They are nothing buy bullies and I think candidates should call them on the bullying.
I would say, “If you think you are going to bully me into an answer that you want, you are sadly mistaken”. Marriage has always been between a man and woman period. If you can’t accept my belief, then that is on you. If I don’t stand by my beliefs, then what good are they. Then walk away.
Report Post »mad_hatter_
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:20pmROMNEY HAS ALWAYS BEEN AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE
Romney has always been against gay marriage. In 1994 he was being interviewed by a LGBT reporter that asked him straight out if he was for gay marriage and Romney replied, I agree with Gov. Weld, we are against Gay Marriage. He said it in the debates. In 2002, he fought against discrimination in the work place for gays but against doubled down that he was against Gay Marriage, when it came to the courts he fought his AG over this issues, plus the issue of the Morning after Pill and then when the courts wouldn’t back down he took it to the people and they worked on repealing Gay Marriage in Massachusetts.
Report Post »zorro
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:01pmMad_hater, stop it, man. Enough with the technicalities. Perhaps “in his heart” he was really always against it but his actions showed different. He helped further the homosexual agenda in Mass. Enough with your spins. You’re not fooling anyone. Cash your check from the Romney camp and move on to another website.
Report Post »CharlesReese
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:35pmRomney has indeed been against gay marriage his entire life. Whether it has been in the political or private atmosphere. Anyone who is affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints knows that marriage is between a man and a woman. Mitt knows that and I sure know that as well. So, for those who would like to exclaiming other wise. Do your fact checking.
Report Post »zorro
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 3:15pmSaying “anyone who is affiliated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints knows that marriage is between a man and a woman” and is therefore against it, is as stupid as saying all Catholics are pro-life and anti-abortion and therefore, Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic, must be pro-life and anti-abortion.
Romney “fought” for gay“rights” and abortion “rights” in Mass. No matter how many times you write it here, people won’t forget. I‘ve said it once and I’ll say it again, the only thing Republicans get with a Romney presidency is BLAME for the furthering of the PROGRESSIVE agenda. This is EXACTLY what he did in Mass.
Report Post »momrules
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:08pmWell at least Romney didn’t back down but he was hussled away awfully fast.
Bob Garon was having breakfast with his husband. That isn’t possible. A man has a wife or a lover. Bob Garon has a homosexual lover. I do not care what earthly laws that are passed, God Himself set the real laws. Homosexality was, is and always will be against God’s laws.
Report Post »nonamesleft
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:07pmHe gave his answer. You then either agree or not. This guy is an American Hero and I thank him for his service. I certainly hope that his vote is deeper than this issue. Really, there are a lot of issues that weigh much heavier than gay marriage. When gay marriage is the number one priority in this country we will all be doing very well. My top 50 does not even touch gay marriage.
Report Post »smackdown33
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:12pmI think that we throw around the word hero entirely too much. Hero includes noble qualities, of which homosexuality does not qualify.
Report Post »Elena2010
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:14pmNot all of us veterans are heroes. Most of us are not. We do our duty and serve our country, but we risked not life nor limb in doing so.
The heroes are the ones who were in combat and did something heroic.
Report Post »zorro
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:08pm“Not all of us veterans are heroes. Most of us are not. We do our duty and serve our country, but we risked not life nor limb in doing so.
The heroes are the ones who were in combat and did something heroic.”
THANK YOU!!! I’m so tired of people using the word “Veteran” to justify actions. I am a veteran also and during my time in the Air Force, I met all kinds of people. Some lied, some were thiefs, and others were just not very nice people. Most were honorable people but just because you’re a “veteran” doesn’t mean you can break the laws or demand anything.
Report Post »InversionTheory
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:10pmUnfortunately, many of my fellow homosexuals are no deeper than that. Would I like to see national recognition of some sort of civil union or gay marriage? Sure. But I’m not willing to put that, which is a WANT, ahead of saving us from fiscal collapse. A marriage certificate doesn’t affect our overall prosperity. Get us back on an even financial keel and then we can talk about the nice benefits and have a logical discussion. Until then, it’s controversial fluff.
Report Post »Git-R-Done
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 7:26pmInversiontheory – The legal aspect of marriage has to do with government benefits, child custody, and property issues. It also has impacts on the financial situations of families such as children living in single parent homes are more likely to live in poverty and be dependent upon government programs compared to married (husband and wife) parents.
Report Post »thekuligs
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:06pmI don’t dislike gay people, you have to love the sinner not the sin–but I am sooooooooo tired of them asking questions and trying to claim they “didn’t get an answer” when they did, they just don’t like the one given. The government did not “invent” marriage, and I don’t think they have the right to redefine it.
Report Post »CharlesReese
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:45pmI agree.
Report Post »JLGunner
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:02pmPoint on!
Report Post »Uechi
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:06pmMarriage has been and always will be between a man and a woman. No matter what these AHs want.I could care less if this guy wants to sleep with 100 men at a time, just don’t tell me iyt is normal or that the SACRAMENT of Marriage is allowed for same sex.
Report Post »Tsam
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:20pmGotta love it when the o-so-religious refer to others as “AH’s”…
chirodoc007
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:05pmSeems like Mitt was pretty straight-forward. The heat came from Garon who was looking for a fight.
Report Post »Walkabout
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:12pmLooking for fight? Definitely!
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2011/12/romney-vs-gay-vietnam-veteran.html
Anecdotal evidence, but I wonder what gay marriage is all about
http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/11/daily-grumble.html
Report Post »gramma b
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:05pmIsn’t it true that, at the time of the Viet Nam War, the man would have had to lie about his sexual orientation to get into the military? This was before “Don’t ask, don’t tell.”
Report Post »Biddle
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:15pmIf he was gay, yes, he would have to lie.
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:30pmWhich means he should have had a bad conduct discharge. I prefer to refer to them by their biblical name, “sodomites”. I’m not a Romney guy but kudos for not backing down.
Report Post »fatfreetoothpaste
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:05pmNotice the gay guy wasn’t talking about how in love he is or how much he wanted a husband. He was mad because he couldn’t get his husband his government “benefits.”
Report Post »trolltrainer
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:20pmOkay? and?
As a Christian I will not recognize homosexual “marriage” but this is the one aspect of the argument that I have to side with the gays. Why should a “life partner” not be entitled to the same rights as a marriage partner UNDER THE LAW? If the man wants to sign his gay partner up as beneficiary then he should be able to. Likewise, the partner should have spousal status.
Report Post »sawbuck
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:40pm@trolltrainer
Report Post »I disagree.
If a private company wants to go down that road w/benefits to whomever that’s their business.
But government entitlements ? Why stop their ,one could even make a argument made for the children/benefits also ( a better one I might add ). A marriage and benefits is between a man and a women and that’s all . I see no difference between the Homosexual Marriage / benefits argument and wanting to marry or pass on benefits to their pet dog; horse or any other living creature..!
It’s a perversion and nothing more and frankly I’m shocked that anyone who would call themselves a Christian would say otherwise. There is no grey area for a Christian on this argument and it should not exist in any Bible believing Christians life . We should quit making allowances and exceptions for what is a abomination in Gods eyes. Satan is the “Great Deceiver” and this has been a steady slippery slope. God has never changed .What was sin then ..Is sin now..! And at the risk of stepping on the author of this web sites toes and “ trying to baptize everyone” . I will just ask everyone to revisit… The Bible .. Genesis : chapter 19
Walkabout
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:53pmtrolltrainer
Agreed, if you do the work, you should get the pay & benefits. But call it a civil union not marriage.
Report Post »sawbuck
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:10pmAnd before someone comes in and says “they do for the kids of the parents”
Report Post »I’m talking about entitlements (Government Pensions) that would carry though from birth to burial . Pretty ridiculous right.. Well that’s what I think about gay benefits… Absurd .
trolltrainer
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:30pmSawbuck,
Jesus taught us to love, even our enemies. No one is condoning what is sin and a perversion, but you also cannot hold a nonbeliever accountable to God’s law. God will do that Himself, and brother, we are ALL sinners. They will go to hell for eternity, not because they are gay but because they did not accept the free gift Christ offered them.
As far as the benefits go, it simply is no one’s business what the relationship is, if the benefit is available for a married person then it should be equally available to a homosexual relationship.
you write, “I see no difference between the Homosexual Marriage / benefits argument and wanting to marry or pass on benefits to their pet dog; horse or any other living creature..!”
Exactly. If that is their declared beneficiary then so be it.
For a Christian you sound like you have some hatred going on. Do not overstep your bounds, let Christ judge. You can hate sin, but do not take it out on the sinners. Again, we are ALL sinners.
Report Post »MONIFICENT
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 4:54pm@ troll trainer very insightful and fair minded of you I could not agree more !
Report Post »sawbuck
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 10:27pm@trolltrainer
Report Post »I’m not trying to come off in a displaced anger moment ,it’s more like frustration. Our economy cant handle anymore government entitlements . I thought we were trying to figure out how to cut back on different programs instead of expanding them .?
One of my other frustration come’s from the fact that “Beck” once commented he would like to see “people to quit trying to baptizing everyone” . So I am a little offended by that. ( I have made this comment before and it never seen the light of day ). I’m not trying to come off like some kind of Bible Thumper , but when a topic such as this come’s up and you want to say “this is what the Bible says about this” . But then I stop and most of the time I respond without scripture “ in most of my comments” . I now consider this more of a secular website . I know if a person starts throwing around Bible verses here “on this site” it puts other people off and apparently the author Glenn Beck also. The Bible teaches us to love the sinner and hate the sin , “not condone the sin”.
I could no more consider legalizing Homosexual equality , that’s an abomination in Gods eyes .
As I could the legalization of abortion (murder) ,and we all know how that turned out.
You give an inch ,they take a mile…!
Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:05pmThat’s a “heated” exchange? Wake me up when Romney goes wild with rage.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:05pmIt seems New Hampshire may also be agreeing with Romney if the repeal measure gets through. Garon tried to ambush Romney with the question. Romney gave him an honest answer, but that answer was apparently not good enough for Garon. Too bad for Garon and I doubt he’d vote for a GOP candidate anyway. Perhaps more economic pain is what social agenda liberals need before they wake up?
Report Post »UBETHECHANGE
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:05pmI’m gay and nothing irks me more than liberal gays thinking gay marriage is a right. I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman only. I’m an anomaly and proud of it! I’m off the Democrap plantation!!
Report Post »AmericanStrega
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:19pmMy Sister-in-Law is gay. Her and her partner (of 20+ years) are the biggest constitutionalists I have ever seen! They don’t go for this Gay Rights B.S. and are not for gay marrying. They are two very smart consertive (I know some will have a problem with that, so sue me) women. They are not in-your-face about their life-style, but just live their lives. Some people, like this Garon guy, are just drama queens.
Report Post »miren
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:04pmThere are benefits for gay couples. It’s just that the term MARRIAGE cannot be issued to two men and two women.
Report Post »nealb4zodd
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:10pmExactly!
Report Post »WhatDoYouKnowJoe
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:11pmThe benefit that you get is to see how hot it is at the center of the earth.
Report Post »gramma b
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:04pmThere was nothing “heated” about that. And a man can’t have a “husband,” not matter how PC people have become. Even aside from the moral issues, sexual attraction and intercourse have an obvious biological purpose. The urge to imitate intercourse with a person of the same sex who lacks the proper accoutrements is objectively dysfunctional. I am sorry for people who struggle with this dysfunction, but that does not mean that society should abandon objective reality and go along with these people in their desire to imitate marriage.
Report Post »EM1956
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:09pmWell said!
Report Post »CatB
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:26pmI agree .. I didn‘t hear the ’heated” in the exchange.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 1:48pm@Grammy
I love that you talk about the biology of the human body, when you obviously know nothing about it.
Not only that, but you back up your knowledge of the human body, by holding beliefs in a work of fiction that was made up over 2,000 years ago.
rush_is_right
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:17pm“, by holding beliefs in a work of fiction that was made up over 2,000 years ago.”
no that book of fiction, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life, is only about 150 years old
Report Post »LibsSuk
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:02pmThis type of crap does not need to be tolerated. Would would 2 men (or two women for that matter) think they can call their perverse union a “marriage”. Find another word. Perverse union; disgusting sinful integration.
Report Post »blazingaway
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:02pmBenefits for vets should just be paid to their estate and who inherits the estate (man, women, child, trust, animal, charity, the state …etc.) can then do whatever they want to with the money. JUST DO IT! DISARM THIS STUPID INSANE ISSUE OF MARRIAGE FOR ANYONE OTHER THAN ONE MAN AND ONE WOMEN! DAMN, how stupid are politicians? They can’t think outside of the box and come up with an answer to anything?
Report Post »gramma b
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:09pm“Benefits” are paid to the living spouse of a vet. It can’t go into the “estate,” to be assigned to someone else. That is the issue. And, aside from those kinds of benefits, homosexuals can already leave their estate to whomever they choose. That isn’t what they are after. They are trying to force society to view the world through the homosexual prism, and accept objectively dysfunctional behavior as “normal.”
Report Post »KAdams
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:24pmWhat benefits? The government ends up taking them all… They just want to know who’s got rights to the Barbra Streisand collection.
Report Post »HippoNips
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 2:40pmThere isn’t even tax benefits for married couple , even after the Bush tax cuts in 2001 closed some of the marriage penalty
Report Post »Vet benefits do not go to the spouse , they go to the underaged children, whether you are married or not.
The spouse does not get to go to the VA for treatment and does not get paid
I.Gaspar
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:00pmI bet Romney let’s his aides vet out the next vet a little better before he sits down with one at a diner or coffee shop.
Report Post »AvengerK
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:08pmGaron got an answer..he just didn’t like the answer and got hissy with Romney. As if a militant homosexual would be voting for Romeny anyway? Trust me..Romney didnt’ lose or gain a vote from Garon and the farce he calls a husband. I hope New Hamphire repeals the law and then Garon and “hubby” can go cry in their cornflakes.
Report Post »marvel
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:12pmYep, Romney’s never been one to shy away from a challenge. Besides, this was no challenge. The guy asked for a yes or no answer and got one.
Marvel
Report Post »BrentW
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 12:41pmYou can tell the guy was planning on challenging Mitt anyway and maybe would have gone out of his way to say something if Mitt hadn’t already made it easy for him.
Report Post »sndrman
Posted on December 12, 2011 at 4:01pmWAS THAT GUY A PLANT? Chris Christy? was ahving breakfast with his husband? just a question who‘s the pitcher and who’s the catcher
Report Post »