I don't agree with Mitt on this issue, but I don't see how you call it an act of cowardice. The man asked for a yes or no answer, and Romney gave him one. The man admitted that himself.
Tell me, were you as upset with Obama before his views on gay marriage "evolved"?
It's cowardice to say he would deny the man equal benefits just because he wanted to please the GOP base. Robot Romney's response was quite telling.
You're right to point out Obama has been a coward also. I've called him out for it. But Obama is not campaigning on bigotry to win an election. DADT did end. That would not have happened under a McCain presidency, or a Romney one, and there is no denying that fact.
But even if I completely concede your point, it doesn't make Romney look any better. He would still be a coward, just like when he refused to stand up to Rush Limbaugh when he called Sandra Fluke a slut. "Those aren't the words I would have used." LAUGHABLE.
I guess we can conclude Obama and Romney are both cowards on same-sex marriage, but Obama is slightly less so, because he is willing to openly state he is in favor of gay marriage, and he was willing to end DADT.
I totally agree that Romney should have rebuked Rush.
Socially, I'm pretty liberal, and I thought of a good reason tonight for the far right to support gay marriage: no abortions! Whatcha think?
Haha. That's one aspect. There would be little threat of an abortion ever occurring due to procreation between the partners.
It really seems to be as though gay marriage would fit more naturally with the GOP than the Democrats, because the GOP uses the rhetoric of individual freedom. Government can stay out of my business, as long as I am not hurting anyone else. Same-sex marriage wouldn't be hurting anyone, except outdated sensibilities perhaps, but there is no constitutional right to not be offended.
I'm glad to see you are a Republican and in favor of gay marriage though. I think the Republican party is slowly changing.
I also agree that Romney has done things to appease the base, but I think he really believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Personally, I don't care WHAT people do as long as it doesn't hurt others. Maybe I'm really a Libertarian?? lol
Fiscally conservative, socially liberal would be a libertarian for sure.
http://presidential-candidates.org/data … atform.pdf
I think their candidate this year is Gary Johnson.
I guess it is becoming that... but technically, libertarian doesn't really have much to do with where you fall left-right, it only has to do with your opinion on what the government's role is.
I think the libertarian party makes those claims to try to get moderates, even though most moderates wouldn't like a true libertarian situation.
I'm not so sure...
It's a very important topic for LDS... that proclamation is considered official doctrine.
Mitt Romney is cowardice because as a member of the straight citizenry, he is a part of a STRONG majority, and he is all for discriminating against the 10-12% who would like their marriage recognized. Then he's a hypocrite on top of it, because he wants to canonize our veterans, but then not give the veteran's same sex partner the same benefits, yet they gave to our country as much as a straight veteran. What, so as a commander in chief wannabe, he can't accept that the military may be irked with him? Then he shouldn't be running for president, he's too weak.
Brutal. Agonizing to watch.
Love that he gets "rescued" to go talk to Fox News!
But, let's not forget that it;'s not just about gay veterans' spouses being entitled to benefits, it's about serving openly in the military at all.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but this appears to be another flip-flop from moderate Mitt to hard right Mitt (?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWjehgwT … re=related
I disagree with how you feel was to watch it. Mitt Romney could have blown that question off or danced around it, instead he gave them is true honest answer on how he felt on that subject, those are his beliefs based on his faith whether we agree with them or not. And you're right about one thing his handlers did try to get him away, while Romney stood up to go when the man made the comment the leaving Romney blew off his handlers in gave the man the courtesy by sitting back down. Romney was willing to continue to listen to that man.
I don't think you'd say Mitt Romney flip-flopped on the don't ask don't tell policy. He made it clear originally he was against it, he thought it was a distraction it would not work. He made in that debate that he was wrong and that was the policy of the military and it there seemed to be no issues over it. All he was saying in the debate was that it was the wrong time since it was wartime to make major policy change, backspace. He did say in it was quite clear that it should be addressed somewhere down the road in the future.
You have to admit that the original question from the veteran was a pretty good one. People cannot help who they fall in love with, we walked down the road of life than one day a person crosses in front of us and then you want to be together. Whether it be traditional or same-sex, people should be allowed to marry and devote themselves to each other and take advantage of all the benefits that are available to married couples. To me this is a people issue, not a religious issue.
Romney is entitled to his opinion as to what marriage means to him. It should only mean something to the indivduals that have an interest in making that their priority. That could come to a head for them if congress comes up with a bill that he would sign or veto.
This issue has many facets to it. The extremeists who are against the "marriage" title as applied to their heterosexual relationships wish to keep the title purely religious only they want the government to enforce its' integrity with laws to that effect. The "gay marriage" people claim to want the same rights afforded "married" people as defined by the law for death and life decisions as outlined legally for married people. The real crux of the matter is that civil unions can afford the gay couple the same rights as all but won't settle for that civil union definition because it will not carry the same social status that heterosexual couples receive.
This whole thing is so convoluted and mixed up that all the issues run together and to try and detach the emotion from the facts is fraught with confrontation that avoids the facts.
I will probably get flamed for this post but I really don't care if they call it marriage of civil union as long as we can get onto fixing this broken political system without the sideshow.
Well what did we expect from Mitt the Twitt, along with Paul Ryan they would be happy to take us back to 1788 with the founding fathers ideals of "We the People"
Well he did reference the Constitution.
Not that there has ever, ever been an Amendment to it.
You're right. I expected Mitt to treat people as though they have dignity. I should've known better.
http://www.nytexaminer.com/2012/08/the- … tt-romney/
This is the most frightening piece I've seen to date.
I'm not a chump, Willard.
What shame that MM does not put a similar effort into vetting Obama...she buys that one lock stock and barrel...no questions asked. ~WB
Nit-Wit Romney is a big fat liar. The Constitution did NOT define marriage until 1996 when DOMA defined it as between a man and a woman. The federal Constitution recognizes all marriages that come from the states. It doesn't matter if no other state has the same definition. If Wisconsin were to make same sex marriage just as legal today, as heterosexual marriage, the Constitution would HAVE to recognize it as legal, or it's stepping on the state sovereignty. The only question was in 1967, when they didn't recognize interracial marriage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_m … ederal_law
There are too many people who will find an excuse for anything that Romney does wrong. They also make excuses for anything that they themselves do wrong. I am sick and tired of them.
Romney has always been a spoiled brat, a coward and a truly disturbed cult follower. I will be glad when he loses and we don't have to hear about him anymore.
It is unfortunate when people become so blinded by partisanship, they cannot see straight.
As a liberal, I am disappointed in Obama on numerous fronts, from not standing up more extensively for gay rights, to his inaction on pushing Congress for a cap and trade bill. He should show some political courage and be the change we can believe in.
Romney is much worse though. With Romney, there is not even a potential to get things like that done, UNLESS the political winds drastically change, and Romney thinks it will help him get elected. That's not likely to happen though.
Yup, just like people who find an excuse for anything Obama does wrong.
But why bring baseless personal attacks into it? Romney a spoiled brat? I really don't consider his actions those of a brat. He gave away his inheritance, gives millions of dollars every year, worked in his church, as governor, and on the olympics for no compensation... what makes him a spoiled brat?
What makes him a coward?
What makes him a disturbed cult follower? Is that just your label for Mormons?
by Sheila 4 years ago
Should Romney run for President again in 2016? Why or why not? Who should be his running mate?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 2 years ago
How do you feel about marriage equality? For? Against? Why?
by John Coviello 6 years ago
Mitt Romney Has a 20 Point Lead in South Carolina. Is the GOPNomination Over? I thought that Romney would take New Hampshire, then lose some southern states, and leave the door open for someone else to come from behind. But it's now looking like Romney will roll to a GOP...
by Nicola Thompson 6 years ago
Mitt Romney or Obama? Why?I already know who I'm voting for, but I feel like I haven't heard good arguments for either side as to why either one should win, other than - "lesser than the two evils". I want to hear your thoughts - respectfully. Debates are certainly welcomed as long as...
by silverstararrow 3 years ago
Hello everyone! I've been on HP only for a short while, three weeks to be exact. In that time, I've come across one prominent topic on both the forums and the questions section. The Gay Issue. Why people are gay, how being gay affects religion, how homosexuality undermines the institution of...
by Man from Modesto 5 years ago
Do you research candidates before voting? How could anyone vote for Romney or Obama?I wrote articles about a local Modesto mayoral election in 2012. Though I was on the first Google results page for the biggest search phrases on Google (and there weren't too many!), only a few dozen read the...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|