Mitt Romney Grilled By Gay Veteran On Same-Sex Marriage Rights

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"No, actually, I think at the time the Constitution was written it was pretty clear that marriage is between a man and a woman," Romney replied. "And I don't believe the Supreme Court has changed that."

Another nitwit republican who never heard of Marbury v. Madison.

It's clear who that vet will be voting for in the next election.

And millions like him.

Seems to me, gays need to recognize that not everyone shares their definition of 'marriage'.

How gays define marriage is irrelevant – the only issue is the 14th Amendment’s requirement that every state make its law available to every citizen, including marriage laws.

 

[del]

Lots of people are discriminated against thusly. Polygamists, minors, parents and their children, close blood relatives, those who refuse to obtain a marriage license, etc. Just using the word 'discriminate' is not in itself an argument.

have a cookie

Would that be a DUCK flavored cookie?

it's your cookie pal, how the **** would i know?

there are good reasons for close relatives, minors, parents and children not to marry, so we have laws against it.

there is no good reason to prevent gays from marrying, or polygamists for that matter.

you forgot the bestiality meme.

 

[Unkotare]

have a cookie

Would that be a DUCK flavored cookie?

it's your cookie pal, how the **** would i know?

there are good reasons for close relatives, minors, parents and children not to marry, so we have laws against it.

there is no good reason to prevent gays from marrying, or polygamists for that matter.

you forgot the bestiality meme.

Ah, you decide there are good reasons for some but not for others? Ok, I see. The only real problem is that YOU don't get to personally decide all laws relating to the marriage contract. What could be more reasonable?

 

[del]

Would that be a DUCK flavored cookie?

it's your cookie pal, how the **** would i know?

there are good reasons for close relatives, minors, parents and children not to marry, so we have laws against it.

there is no good reason to prevent gays from marrying, or polygamists for that matter.

you forgot the bestiality meme.

Ah, you decide there are good reasons for some but not for others? Ok, I see. The only real problem is that YOU don't get to personally decide all laws relating to the marriage contract. What could be more reasonable?

silly me, to think that a greater occurrence of birth defects is a bad thing.

still butt hurt from the sjc ruling in '04, huh?

 

[Unkotare]

That's it, stay within your limitations...

 

[Unkotare]

it's your cookie pal, how the **** would i know?

there are good reasons for close relatives, minors, parents and children not to marry, so we have laws against it.

there is no good reason to prevent gays from marrying, or polygamists for that matter.

you forgot the bestiality meme.

Ah, you decide there are good reasons for some but not for others? Ok, I see. The only real problem is that YOU don't get to personally decide all laws relating to the marriage contract. What could be more reasonable?

silly me, to think that a greater occurrence of birth defects is a bad thing.

still butt hurt from the sjc ruling in '04, huh?

Why should there even be a court as long as we have YOU?

 

[del]

Ah, you decide there are good reasons for some but not for others? Ok, I see. The only real problem is that YOU don't get to personally decide all laws relating to the marriage contract. What could be more reasonable?

silly me, to think that a greater occurrence of birth defects is a bad thing.

still butt hurt from the sjc ruling in '04, huh?

Why should there even be a court as long as we have YOU?

i take a lot of days off; it's good to have back up.

 

[Unkotare]

it's your cookie pal, how the **** would i know?

there are good reasons for close relatives, minors, parents and children not to marry, so we have laws against it.

there is no good reason to prevent gays from marrying, or polygamists for that matter.

you forgot the bestiality meme.

Ah, you decide there are good reasons for some but not for others? Ok, I see. The only real problem is that YOU don't get to personally decide all laws relating to the marriage contract. What could be more reasonable?

banning you?

That would also be convenient for someone with your limitations. Why not ban everyone who makes you feel insecure?

 

[del]

Ah, you decide there are good reasons for some but not for others? Ok, I see. The only real problem is that YOU don't get to personally decide all laws relating to the marriage contract. What could be more reasonable?

banning you?

That would also be convenient for someone with your limitations. Why not ban everyone who makes you feel insecure?

that's what i do, and you're still here.

 

[JoeB131]

Mitten's problem is that after saying he'd be better for gay rights than Ted Kennedy in 1994, and presiding over the implementation of the first gay marriage law on the state level, he rushed to be righter than right on this one into trying to fool the funditards in Iowa that he was one of them.

Which almost worked until Mike Huckabee pointed out Mormons think Jesus and Satan were sharing bunk beds on Planet Kolob.

So now he's well and screwed. He needs to move to the left to win New Hampshire, but it'll screw him in Iowa and South Carolina...

Sometimes, the world is just!

 

[WorldWatcher]

Might be a logical step for someone to define what they mean by 'marriage' when asking about 'gay marriage'.

Very true, which is why I tend to use "Same-sex Civil Marriage" for a couple of reasons:

First, it defines that the statement is about "marriage" as it exists under Civil Law.

Secondly, it describes the term in the same language as that used under Civil Law. There are no laws in this country that prevent homosexuals from marrying based on sexual-orientation, all the laws (that I'm aware of) are based on gender.​

For example, I do not support 'gay marriage' because my personal view is that marriage is a religious commitment made before God. It has jack shit to do with the government. Having said that, if you ask me if gay couples should have the same rights and responsibilities as the rest of us.... my response is 'yes'.

Seems to me, gays need to recognize that not everyone shares their definition of 'marriage'.

Please don't take this in a personal manner, but... "Seems to me, people need to recognize" that there are at least two different realms for the use of the word 'marriage'. In other words "marriage" in our society exists in two distinct and separate realms: Religious Marriage and Civil Marriage.

Religious Marriage: Those marriages established as a function of a religious organization. There are some religious organizations that recognize same-sex marriages, there are others that do not. There are religious organizations that don't recognize valid Civil Marriages also if the Civil Marriage occurs outside the dogma of the specific religious organization.

Civil Marriage: Civil Marriages are established under the rules and authority of civil government. Individuals can be married by a religious organization, but if they don't follow civil law, then, as it pertains to Civil Marriage - those religious marriages are not recognized for governmental purposes. A couple can be "married" in a Church/Temple/Synagogue, but if they don't obtain the requisite paperwork from the State that marriage is not valid under Civil Law.​

So yes, I agree, people should be more clear about the use of the term "marriage". If you are speaking about Religious Marriage, fine, opinions can differ - but does not necessarily have any bearing on Civil Marriage under the law. Your (I'm using the "royal you" here) may not consider to people of the same gender as "married", but in States where such practices are legal - they in fact are "married" under Civil Law.



>>>>

 

[bodecea]

But of course the 9% unemployed, those paying 3.50 dollars a gallon of gas, 6.00 dollars for a pound of bacon, I'm sure this is the TOP of their PRIORITES..

friggen idiots.

Of course...take away your legal right to marriage and you'll be cool with that because you have other priorities........

 

[JoeB131]

But of course the 9% unemployed, those paying 3.50 dollars a gallon of gas, 6.00 dollars for a pound of bacon, I'm sure this is the TOP of their PRIORITES..

friggen idiots.

Of course...take away your legal right to marriage and you'll be cool with that because you have other priorities........

No one takes away your right to marriage. You can marry any guy who is a sufficent masochist to put up with you.

You just can't marry another woman. Or your brother. Or multiple people. Or someone below the age of consent.

To the point, I'm all for gay marriage. Why should just teh straights have to suffer. But it just isn't as important to me as the continuing disaster that Obama is causing to the economy.

 

[bodecea]

But of course the 9% unemployed, those paying 3.50 dollars a gallon of gas, 6.00 dollars for a pound of bacon, I'm sure this is the TOP of their PRIORITES..

friggen idiots.

Of course...take away your legal right to marriage and you'll be cool with that because you have other priorities........

No one takes away your right to marriage. You can marry any guy who is a sufficent masochist to put up with you.

You just can't marry another woman. Or your brother. Or multiple people. Or someone below the age of consent.

To the point, I'm all for gay marriage. Why should just teh straights have to suffer. But it just isn't as important to me as the continuing disaster that Obama is causing to the economy.

Isn't it odd that the Virginia lawyers arguing in front of the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia used that very same argument and the Justices laughed at them.

But sounds to me like you're the kind of guy who marries, not for love or attraction, but.....hey, what DO you marry for? Money?

 

[JoeB131]

Of course...take away your legal right to marriage and you'll be cool with that because you have other priorities........

No one takes away your right to marriage. You can marry any guy who is a sufficent masochist to put up with you.

You just can't marry another woman. Or your brother. Or multiple people. Or someone below the age of consent.

To the point, I'm all for gay marriage. Why should just teh straights have to suffer. But it just isn't as important to me as the continuing disaster that Obama is causing to the economy.

Isn't it odd that the Virginia lawyers arguing in front of the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia used that very same argument and the Justices laughed at them.

But sounds to me like you're the kind of guy who marries, not for love or attraction, but.....hey, what DO you marry for? Money?

My attitude is why buy a cow when the milk is free...

And it really doesn't compare to Loving at all, as much as you want it to. Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as one man, one woman. Now if you want to redefine it, fine. As long as you can get 51% of the population to agree with you. Have at it.

I don't have an opinion on this subject one way or the other. It has no effect on my life.

We can have total gay rights, or we can send the lot of you off to Christian Re-education centers. No difference to me at all.

Obama's continuing mishandling of the economy. Big deal to me. Has a real, honest to God effect on my life.

 

[bodecea]

No one takes away your right to marriage. You can marry any guy who is a sufficent masochist to put up with you.

You just can't marry another woman. Or your brother. Or multiple people. Or someone below the age of consent.

To the point, I'm all for gay marriage. Why should just teh straights have to suffer. But it just isn't as important to me as the continuing disaster that Obama is causing to the economy.

Isn't it odd that the Virginia lawyers arguing in front of the Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia used that very same argument and the Justices laughed at them.

But sounds to me like you're the kind of guy who marries, not for love or attraction, but.....hey, what DO you marry for? Money?

My attitude is why buy a cow when the milk is free...

And it really doesn't compare to Loving at all, as much as you want it to. Marriage has ALWAYS been defined as one man, one woman. Now if you want to redefine it, fine. As long as you can get 51% of the population to agree with you. Have at it.

I don't have an opinion on this subject one way or the other. It has no effect on my life.

We can have total gay rights, or we can send the lot of you off to Christian Re-education centers. No difference to me at all.

Obama's continuing mishandling of the economy. Big deal to me. Has a real, honest to God effect on my life.

No, not always.

 

[JoeB131]

Well, you are right, there was time that polygamy was accepted...

but no one, even societies that were tolerant of homosexual relations like Greece, ever recognized marriages between the same gender.

Not to say that it matters that much. I really don't care. If you can change the law through the LEGISLATIVE process, so be it.

I have a big problem with judges making the law. That's not their job.

 

[bodecea]

Well, you are right, there was time that polygamy was accepted...

but no one, even societies that were tolerant of homosexual relations like Greece, ever recognized marriages between the same gender.

Not to say that it matters that much. I really don't care. If you can change the law through the LEGISLATIVE process, so be it.

I have a big problem with judges making the law. That's not their job.

Sure there were...but they were religious or informal in nature....IN fact, civil marriage is a very very recent construct.

 

[whitehall]

Shows you what might happen if you turn your back on a gay veteran. Was it a consensual grilling experience?

 

[bodecea]

Shows you what might happen if you turn your back on a gay veteran. Was it a consensual grilling experience?

You're totally safe. Totally.