Mitt Romney Accidentally Confronts A Gay Veteran; Awesomeness Ensues

page: 2
72
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 09:38 PM
link   
Well he stuck to his guns, i have to give him that, he was atleast honest about his opinion. he judges his questioners a little differently after that one I bet lol


 
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
 




posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 09:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by r2d246
gaids,
Im thinking this is Red Neck Intelligence for the Disease known as AIDS.

Well sir, a lot more "straight " people die from AIDS than Gay people.

I guess you will buy them shovels as well.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by IsThisThingBugged
 



It is not mentioned as a right in ANY of our founding documents and is not as recognized natural right.


"The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

en.wikipedia.org...

The Constitution is a living document.....
edit on 5-9-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)


Great argument, except that marriage is not covered within this law... Marriage is a civil and/or religious institution meaning it does not fall within the prevue of the 14th amendment. If marriage was an action of the government you would be correct, but its not, so your wrong.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by IsThisThingBugged

Originally posted by RealSpoke
reply to post by IsThisThingBugged
 



It is not mentioned as a right in ANY of our founding documents and is not as recognized natural right.


"The Equal Protection Clause, part of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, provides that "no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

en.wikipedia.org...

The Constitution is a living document.....
edit on 5-9-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)


Great argument, except that marriage is not covered within this law... Marriage is a civil and/or religious institution meaning it does not fall within the prevue of the 14th amendment. If marriage was an action of the government you would be correct, but its not, so your wrong.


What are you talking about?! Marriage IS a state/government institution. I'd like to see you get legally recognized as married strictly through your church. Religion isn't even a necessary component to marriage. Nobody is trying to get churches to conduct same-sex weddings... why the hell would a gay couple want anything to do with a hateful church, anyway?!

Seriously, where do people get these ideas?

Ok, no more derailing with the basic gay marriage debate as there are at least 48 other threads to do that with. Go get owned there.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by IsThisThingBugged
 


You've said that you admire Romney for his "consistantcy" with regard to his stance on the subject.

Yet, as the saying goes, "Consistancy is the Hobbgoblin of a small mind".


Like so many, you seem to be stuck on the idea that gay marriage is all about whether it is, or should be, acceptable for two people of the same gender to be allowed to call themselves "married", and be supported by the law of the land in that status; despite centuries of social and religious tradition that would reserve that staus only to heterosexual couples.


But, like it or not, as soon as the government, ANY government, steps in and endorses the "special status" of married upon certain of its citizens, granting them privledges and benefits denied to other citizens not having said status, then it becomes a matter not of belief, tradition, or "political correctness", but of Equality under the Law.


And thank you, RealSpoke, for pointing this fact out for those who Still fail to recognize this most important point.


Remember, if we allow the law to marginalize ANY segment of the population, deny them their fair status as full citizens, possessed of all the rights and priviledges that we all enjoy; then we set in motion the means and method by which any one of use might one day suffer the loss of those rights and priviledges we so dearly enjoy.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:02 PM
link   
reply to post by IsThisThingBugged
 


Uh you're wrong. Marriage licenses are under government control and law. Religion has nothing to do with marriage unless you want it to.


edit on 5-9-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Cuervo
 


There was nothing really hilarious or embarrassing about it. I truly dislike Romney to the maximum degree, but he handled himself pretty well here actually. He didn't beat around the bush or try to spin up his position. He treated the gentlemen with respect and answered his question fairly. So in this case I'm going to have to applaud the guy for being consistent and straight forward in the representation of his position. If he believes marriage is only between a man and a women then that's fair enough. Of course I don't believe in that, in fact I believe marriage is pretty pointless in the first place anyway.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Iron7
reply to post by Cuervo
 


I hate Mitt Romney but he actually handled himself very well, hardly a "gotcha" like the OP suggested



Exactly. So how do you see it as a "gotcha" OP?

The man asked Mr. Romney a question and he got a direct answer. Just because it wasn't what he or you wanted to hear don't mean it's wrong.

I got news for you, No matter what the media pushes or the "progressives" of this country will try to tell anyone who will listen..... The vast majority of Americans believe marriage is between a man and woman and any other combination is abnormal.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Ok....

So Romney handled himself well and so did the vet.

What the real concern here should be is if the constitution states what Romney implied. Does the constitution make the definition of marriage quite clear?

I am not finding any such information.

Romney may have lied about that and it should be followed up. A good argument based on lies is no good at all.
edit on 5-9-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-9-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by mwood
 



The vast majority of Americans believe marriage is between a man and woman and any other combination is abnormal.


And? Most Americans agreed that segregation was necessary. There was nearly a riot when the first southern blacks were integrated in white schools.



reply to post by sheepslayer247
 


The constitution states that all citizens must have equal protection under the law. Marriage licenses are law.



Mitt isn't the constitutional scholar.
edit on 5-9-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-9-2012 by RealSpoke because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   
reply to post by mwood
 




The vast majority of Americans believe marriage is between a man and woman and any other combination is abnormal.


True, but they also don't care if gays get married. I have yet to come across one person, even the hardcore conservatives, that care a damn about gay marriage.

It's only an issue on mainstream news and partisan blogs. The rest of America doesn't care what they do as long as they stay out of their business.

C'mon.......20 years from now we will all be laughing at how dumb this issue is.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:29 PM
link   

I applaud any politician that is consistent


Mitt is many things, consistant is not one though.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by mwood
Exactly. So how do you see it as a "gotcha" OP?

The man asked Mr. Romney a question and he got a direct answer. Just because it wasn't what he or you wanted to hear don't mean it's wrong.


Nobody said "gotcha" besides you two. The video is funny for several reasons. If you don't see the humor in it, it probably can't be explained to you.



Originally posted by mwood
I got news for you, No matter what the media pushes or the "progressives" of this country will try to tell anyone who will listen..... The vast majority of Americans believe marriage is between a man and woman and any other combination is abnormal.


So the "vast majority" of Americans believe in withholding equality among a certain demographic? Never knew I was surrounded by such fine upstanding fascists in my nation. Thankfully, that's complete crap and not true.

Fortunately, the zealot extremists who are most likely to think that way are also mostly old. The war for equality seems to also be a war of attrition. Just like many other great strides in civil rights, it relied on old and bitter people passing on to their respective afterlives.
edit on 5-9-2012 by Cuervo because: gramer grammer grammar!



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by RealSpoke
 



The constitution states that all citizens must have equal protection under the law. Marriage licenses are law.


Isn't that wonderful?

We are all so different and I could be absolutely offended by what you do and believe. Good thing you have the right to tell me to shove it......and the law will back it up!

Like I said, this will not be an issue in the near future. We got better things to worry about.
edit on 5-9-2012 by sheepslayer247 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 10:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by IsThisThingBugged


Great argument, except that marriage is not covered within this law... Marriage is a civil and/or religious institution meaning it does not fall within the prevue of the 14th amendment. If marriage was an action of the government you would be correct, but its not, so your wrong.


Marriage is an action of the Government. You can not be legally married without sanction of the Government. You can argue if it is right or wrong that the Government is involved in the process but as of today that is how it is. A Government sanctioned marriage confers many legal and social rights on those couples.

To further that though I have an issue with any party that says it is about fiscal responsibility and stands against gay marriage. First and foremost it is good for the economy. The average cost of a wedding in the US is $25,631 now you tell me that you don't want that multiplied by how many gay people want to get married adding to the GDP.

www.costofwedding.com...



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Mitt has flipped-flopped on the issue so much, he now has to parse his answers based on whether he thinks the listener is pro or anti- marriage equality.



posted on Sep, 5 2012 @ 11:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Flip floppa floppa flim flam. Do hardcore conservatives even realize his state legalized same sex marriage while he was governor? Not sure of Mass. laws, specifically, but most states have a governor veto option.

Edit: now that I think about it, Mass definitely has a veto option because Romney vetoed a bill relating to abortion late in his term.

I think the Republican base is to blame for most of the Romney campaigns shortcomings, I actually think he's one of the most centrist Republicans in the country. His platforms are conforming to necessity, he'd have no problem supporting same sex marriage if it wouldn't cost him the presidential nomination.

I can't wait to see this issue on the debate stage, even though it is small potatoes when looking at the big picture.
edit on 5-9-2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)
edit on 5-9-2012 by PatrickGarrow17 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 12:49 AM
link   
reply to post by PatrickGarrow17
 



Flip floppa floppa flim flam. Do hardcore conservatives even realize his state legalized same sex marriage while he was governor? Not sure of Mass. laws, specifically, but most states have a governor veto option.

Edit: now that I think about it, Mass definitely has a veto option because Romney vetoed a bill relating to abortion late in his term.

I think the Republican base is to blame for most of the Romney campaigns shortcomings, I actually think he's one of the most centrist Republicans in the country. His platforms are conforming to necessity, he'd have no problem supporting same sex marriage if it wouldn't cost him the presidential nomination.

I can't wait to see this issue on the debate stage, even though it is small potatoes when looking at the big picture.


He would have made a much better candidate as a moderate Republican who would have upheld his former stance on marriage equality, as well as openly embracing his universal health care plan in Massachusetts. But he had to swing to the hard right just to fit in with the new version of the Teapublican party - that's why he allied himself with the more extreme right-wing members of his party like Ryan and has a foreign policy cabinet made up of all of Bush's neocons. Now Mitt is having to wear 2 faces and he can't do it.

FYI he was once a Democrat, he ran against Ted Kennedy in 1992 or 93, but Kennedy destroyed him in a debate for the primaries. Absolutely DESTROYED him, look it up on YouTube. For that reason as any other Romney flipped to the Republicans.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 01:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by IsThisThingBugged
reply to post by Cuervo
 


So should Mitt have said he supported gay marriage to appease this guy? I applaud any politician that is consistent, and doesn't just tell people what they want to hear.


This is why you can't win with Democrats. Any answer Romney gave is the wrong one and they will find a fault with it. I wish Obama could be consistent, I would applaud him for it even if I disagree with his stance.



posted on Sep, 6 2012 @ 02:03 AM
link   

Originally posted by PatrickGarrow17
reply to post by Blackmarketeer
 


Flip floppa floppa flim flam. Do hardcore conservatives even realize his state legalized same sex marriage while he was governor? Not sure of Mass. laws, specifically, but most states have a governor veto option.

Edit: now that I think about it, Mass definitely has a veto option because Romney vetoed a bill relating to abortion late in his term.


Some people may have thought you clueless. Good on you for removing all doubt. Maybe you need to get education on MA and their same sex marriage. I will be happy to educate you, and then you can apologize for your response.

Someone used the Constitution of Massachusetts to argue that not allowing same sex marriage was against the Constitution of Massachusetts. The court found that there indeed was a problem, and directed the legislature to deal with it, and set a deadline. Romney tried to force them to deal with the issue, Democrats saw an opportunity. They intentionally shirked their responsibility knowing doing so would force the courts to allow same sex marriage. Romney spent a very large sum of money trying to get Republicans elected who would do the job they were elected for, and remedy the problem. He failed. There was no bill, there was nothing to veto. The courts told Romney to issue marriage licenses because it was now the law. Romney obeyed the law even though he personaly did not agree with it.

Now, about that apology that I talked about?





top topics
 
72
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join