E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSAfter accepting the endorsement of NH Mayor Ted Gastas at a diner in Manchester, NH, Mitt Romney says he believes marriage is between a man and a women when asked about benefits for vets who are gay.
MANCHESTER, N.H. — It was an awkward moment over the breakfast table in Manchester.
On a campaign stop at a local diner, Mitt Romney sat down to chat with a Vietnam veteran who extended his hand to the former Massachusetts governor as Romney walked past his table. The vet, Bob Garon, who is gay, began to quiz Romney over his views on same-sex marriage, and what benefits the same-sex spouses of gay veterans should receive.
The exchange was brief, but testy.
"I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman and the defensive marriage act that is in Washington today defines benefits for whether for veterans or for non-veterans as between married spouses and for me that's between a man and woman," Romney said "We apparently disagree on that."
"You do not believe everyone is entitled to their Constitutional rights?" Garon replied.
"No, actually I think in the time the Constitution was written it was pretty clear that marriage is between a man and a woman and I don't believe the Supreme Court has changed that," said Romney.
"Oh, I guess the question was too hot," replied Garon, clearly disappointed. "No, I gave you the answer," Romney said.
"You have a good day governor," said Garon, dismissively.
As Romney got up to walk away after a few more not-so-pleasantries, Garon wished the former governor good luck, adding "You're going to need it."
"You're right about that," Romney said. "Good to meet you."
Garon later told reporters he would likely be supporting Ron Paul in the Republican primary here. He said it was his first, "and last" time meeting Governor Romney.
Leave a Comment:
Or, as the Fundamentalists (I think) Mormons believe....One man and many women!
What would Mittens say about that!
Correct me if I am wrong - but don't you have to have two fully functioning balls in order to get 'testy'?
Queen Callista has them in her purse !
I am thinking more along the line of she is wearing them for earrings!
The bitch does love her some bling! ;o)
The family values crowd seems to prefer Newt, who has had more wives than his polygamist Mormon challenger and our allegedly polygamist "Muslim" President have combined. I guess that is what they mean by "defense of marriage."
AWW Feisty this almost made me fall off my chair!!!!
Laughing my a** off......
Good one VERY Good one.....
While Romney and the Mormon "collective" have issues with gays, they sure don't seem to mind corrupt polygamists. Mormons spend countless millions fighting gay marriage yet turn a blind-eye to tens of thousands of innocent women and children systematically abused behind their secret Zion Curtain. There are over 300 polygamous cults thriving in Mormon communities where Mormons simply pretend nothing is wrong. Game over if Obama tells Americans to watch the documentary film, "Banking On Heaven". I mean, how can you trust people who ignore pain and suffering in their own backyard? The film shows how women and children suffer at the hands of brutal polygamists, how they're forced to live on welfare so their children don't starve, and how powerful Mormon legislatures, law enforcement, and millions of churchgoers do NOTHING to stop it. I would never vote for a Mormon.
1
It just never ceases to amaze me. The "we love the Constitution as long as it begins and ends with the Second Amendment" bunch can't get through their heads that equal rights means exactly that.
Mitt, you fail.
Mittens starting to get desperate now. Trying to show he is "the Man" to the GOP base. Good luck with that, kitten.
My daughter has a gay couple as her godparents and she grew up 'straight'. Imagine that. Mitt looked like it was a testicular exchange.
History lesson Mr. Romney! The constitution does not mention marriage. At all! So you telling the gay vet that at the time the constitution was written this is what it said was a bold faced lie in the face of someone who fought for our country so you could have the freedom to express this lie.
I've said it before, I'll say it again-
"marriage" is a religious term.
The government has no business allowing clergy to perform a civil function.
You want a state sanctioned union? Go to the courthouse, city clerk's office- wherever- and get one. That means everybody- men, women, or "mixed" unions.
You want "marriage"? Go to church, synagogue, mosque, or wherever.
Let the clergy apply whatever standards their religious beliefs dictate- but, in the eyes of the law, everyone should be treated equally.
This imposes no extra burden on "mixed" couples- they have to get a license anyway. It does, however, honor both everyone's equality- and the separation of church and state.
Given that polls show that a ridiculous majority of people favor civil unions, (which they believe confer equal rights- unfortunately, they are wrong), this is a simple solution to the issue. I suspect the issue is a monetary one- right now, there are more than a few people not enjoying the same benefits as the vast majority.
In this rare case, I say "so what"? Fair is fair, equality is equality, state is state, and faith is faith.
Just fix it, already.
*yawn*
Tell us something new you old broad... time to plug yourself in!
When I marry vermouth with vodka I call it a martini.
Cute, but I'm interested- do you object to your daughter's godparents having the same legal status as do you?
I simply do not understand how we ever got to the point where clergy performed a civil function- and no one ever objected. It's time to change it- and to put everyone on equal footing.
@nojo
Absolutely not and by the way dear one can also be married at sea by a captain, and he might well be an atheist.
My point is that the vast majority support "civil unions" but not equality in "marriage". I don't believe the clergy ought to be conferring "civil unions"- or state recognized unions. I believe that everybody who wants the benefits of a state recognized union should get one- from the state.
The term "marriage"- which is emotionally loaded, and creates most of the objections- is, frankly, a religious term. If we remove that from the equation- de-deputize the clergy from their state duties- the problem evaporates.
All but the money problem, which, by the way, should not exist.
My uncle and his partner have a "civil union". They have strong wills to protect my uncle from his partner's family- which has an issue with their relationship. They cannot file for spousal benefits from social security- and, while they do not have the need, as each would do better collecting his own benefit, there are many others not in their position. They cannot be covered on the other's medical plans.
It is, frankly, unfair.
Moreover, my grandmother always related the story of her parents- they were married at "city hall", each went back to their parents' homes, then, thirty days later, were married in Church, and started their own home. The point was that, in those days, our Church was not deputized to perform the civil portion of the wedding.
I say we go back to those days. It makes everyone equal.
nojo ... if a religious gay or lesbian couple wish to get married that is between them and their priest. I have no right to impose upon it. Marriage is not a religious act, it is an act of love and I support all acts of love.
"'marriage' is a religious term."
In fact, marriage is a social contract that defines the rights and obligations of the individuals who have entered into it. When the contract is dissolved the laws are clear on the limited rights of the individuals with regard to the property, children, and assets. There is nothing in the law that mentions or implicates religion with respect to the intent or management of marriage contracts.
There is a wide gap in what you perceive the institution of marriage to be and how the social contract of marriage works, no joe. You know, no joe, this might explain why your social contracts seem to fail so often.
No joe, I actually agree with you. There should be no civil recognition of a religious status. However, the religious right has made a concerted effort to push the exact opposite position: insisting that marriage is a vital social institution, not just a religious ceremony, and that no other institution (e.g. a "civil union") can substitute for it. If we accept this, then marriage cannot be left to the religions to define or manage, and must be a secular institution applied equally and indisciminately, which is not what they want either. They want to have their cake and eat it too, and by pushing religion into the public sphere, they must relinquish their control of it.
Since society largely defines a committed, familial relationship between two loving people as a "marriage", then we need to apply the term marriage equally to all, which means we have to allow same sex couples to marry. Now, if a religious group like the Catholic church chooses not to recognize that marriage as valid, fine. The Catholic Church doesn't recognize most marriages in the world as valid, but that doesn't prevent the government or society from recognizing them.
Oops! My sincere apologies to no joe! I appear to have misread her intentions and what I thought was sarcasm might actually be a genuine call to reject the notion that religion has a place in a civil contract. I see my error and I apologize.
Carry on.
no jo:
Unless your posts are meant to be sarcasm, we are in full agreement. If the church wishes to treat marriage as a special union, as a special contract, that's hunky dory. Let the clergy perform the ceremony, sanctify the union, or whatever it is they want to do. Let them record it in their special books and maybe even create a national registry.
Why should the state get involved in this particular civil contract except to the extent that the law governs any contract? Why not have contracts between two men, two women, two women and one man, or whatever permutations one wishes.
The state has no business in marriage and no business in religion.
Hey, I'll ninth or tenth this one, I have no objections to civil unions for anyone and everyone.
My wife and I have been civilly joined for 26 years (except for those times we haven't) we just happened to call it marriage and had ours done in front of a minister who was paid a few bucks for the service cause that's the way the wife wanted it....
but this being said, we do not need a constitutional amendment on any side of this issue, it is an issue for the individual states to handle.
And if Mittney knew what was actually in the constitution he would probably leave the country cause it is too progressive for him....
Poor Mittens always a bridesmaid never a bride ...his anti American rhetoric will keep him unemployed !
ideologyspoilstheview,
did you know the the martini was invented in Martinez, California. A very cute city in the East Bay across the Benecia bridge along the Amtrak route to the Bay. I had a chance to visit and spent some time one day while waiting for the train home. I was very impressed. Would not mind moving there. A true quaint American port city! Happy Martini!
AnaBanana,
I did not know that and thanks for the info. I did recently spend a few years in Monterrey and enjoyed many a fine martini at Clint Eastwood's fine establishment.
He sold Hogs Breath years ago. Now owns Mission Ranch. Which one are you talking about? I've only been in Hogs Breath in Carmel years ago. You are correct. Great food and even better drinking place. Never been to Mission Ranch. Tell me about it!
Mission Ranch is a great place to have drinks and good food accompanied by a fine soft jazz band. Clint Eastwood is often there and easy to talk to. There is no sense of I'm Clint and you are not. Another favorite place to go to was Doris Day's hotel in Carmel-by-the-Sea. My dog Jack, a rather large Landseer, was always welcome to share lunch on the outdoor patio after a long walk on the dog friendly beach with fine views of of the Pebble Beach golf course.
Sounds like heaven! On my "todo" list this Spring. Thanks!
he problem is, OBAMA and Hilary would have given him the SAME EXACT ANSWER, they both hold the SAME POSITION as Mitt Romney. ALL are in favor of the DOMA as signed by BILL CLINTON.
Look we have a diverse society, we agree and disagree on many issues, that is part of living in a free and democratic country. Now I am of the belief that equality should be available to everyone. However, marriage, by definition is between a man and a woman, it is very simple. That guy was a military Vet, Vet is defined as someone who served in the military during war time. I, as a non-vet, cannot receive or even expect to receive benefits as a military vet. I simply do not meet the requirements as DEFINED.
There should be civil unions that have attached to them every legal benefit as a married couple. This is what Bush supported and I think it is the most sensible solution to the issue. This notion we need to compel government to redefine words is a scary proposition. There are other ways of solving the issue without offending a large part of the country.
way to go Mitt!!! Don't cave in to the depravity of the moral-less liberals.
He needs to be BITCH SLAPPED...and Obama is just the guy to do it !!!!!
I have been married to my spouse for nearly 55 years and in all that time gays/lesbians have not interfered for 1 second with my marriage. We have never felt threaten by gays/lesbians or people of a different religion but we sure feel threaten by Republican/Tea Party people trying to take our retirement/medical away from us. There will be some of you that don't agree with me, but I worked for 45 years and earned this retirement, not a entitlement. For all you Ron Paul fans, if he doesn't win the Presidency, he will retire 01/2013 with about $115,000.00 a year. Do you think that is fair? I don't think his retirement benefits are in the Constitution. I'm not picking on Paul in particular, it just happens that this is a fact one way or another as I don't think Mr. Paul will refuse his Federal retirement.
Mitt has no balls and in true politician form, just can't make a decision unless it's politically expedient. What a wuss!!!!!!!!!!