Mitt Romney Sits Down For a Chat With a Gay Veteran

[jabezcascade]

this dude is creepy.cant be trusted

[IDidYourDad1991]

I love his logic that when the Constitution was written, there was no such thing as gay marriage. Because, you know, society doesn't evolve and change over time, does it? That's why human sacrifice is still A-Okay.

[keithrig]

Kind of a dumb question. People should already be familiar with Mitt's positions on this.

[paulflorez]

So Romney is saying he will not support the families of all our troops. What a patriot!

[crystalsaete]

I SUPPORT THE TROOPS %100 GAY, STRAIGHT OR WHATEVER. THANK YOU SIR YOU HAVE MY FULL RESPECT.

[renesmecullen212]

wtfh at the time of the constitution gay marrage wasn't even a social issue. like im pretty sure back then if someone started talking about it, everyone would be like, wait what? that was like 300 years ago a LOT has changed.

[phoosc25]

Bottom line. The Government should not be in the business of making these decisions. It should be up to tthe states and they can debate it accordingly.

[renesmecullen212]

@phoosc25 i agree, but there are a couple states that do recognise gay marrage, but one of the main issues is that a married man and woman get federal tax cuts because the federal government recognises that their married, so they can get married but they wont have equal rights as straight couples

[phoosc25]

@renesmecullen212 True. My point is if it is dealt with on a state level, it will be more concentrated and those states that do not recognize gay marriage have a better chance of changing. I feel the Federal government mandating allows the people to have even less of a say. On a more local, state level, the people have a greater chance of making their votes and voices really count. Just a matter of time before all states recognize gay marriage.

[paulflorez]

@phoosc25 People SHOULDN'T have a say when it comes to individual rights. Individual rights should trump state and federal rights, and the federal government should restrain both itself and the states below it from denying those rights. That is what the Bill of Rights is, a restraint of government power at all levels. What other individual rights should we leave up to the states? Freedom of religion? I'm sure several states have majority citizens which would love theocratic rule!

[MarcinCalifornia]

@phoosc25 If "the government should not be in the business of making these decisions," then that means state governments too. Which I would agree with. Governments shouldn't issue marriage licenses, instead they should legally recognize civil union contracts that establish property rights, offspring custody, medical power of attorney, etc. What people call marriage and how they define that should be up to individuals, what religions they choose to (or choose not to) participate in.

[paulflorez]

@MarcinCalifornia Civil marriage is not religious marriage. Handing the definition of civil marriage over to a religious group which is a growing minority is not only unnecessary, but discriminatory. Why should they get to define what civil marriage is? Civil marriage should be for all loving, consenting adults. When interracial marriage was legalized, over 70% of Americans disapproved of it; did we rename civil marriage to something else to appease the racists?

[paulflorez]

@MarcinCalifornia Also, taking away the equal right of same-sex couples to marriage has little to do with preserving traditional marriage, divorce is a much greater threat. This is about continuing the demonization and ostracization of Gay Americans. Changing CIVIL marriage to something else to placate the bigots by giving them what they want: the affirmation that Gay Americans are not good enough to be treated equal to the way Americans are treated now.

[MarcinCalifornia]

@phoosc25 The problem is, this country's so ridiculously obsessed with religion. Christians don't want the government "interfering" with their beliefs and yet simultaneously want government to codify their beliefs into law. So if anybody dared to eliminate the government institution of marriage in favor of civil union contracts, Christian heads would explode everywhere.

[SirHappyThe1st]

A Mormon whose religion taught until recently that a man should have multiple wives telling a gay man that marriage should be between one man and one woman.

Oh the hyprocrisy.

[TheDarthgandalf99]

I hope this regressive man isn't representative of a large demographic in the US.

[seanetic1]

Mitt Romney flips flops on issues so much I'm surprised he hasn't gotten whip-lash.



[bliink182]

Romney, I applaud you.

[phoosc25]

@bliink182 search this on youtube - " Two Lesbians Raised a Baby and This Is What They Got"

[domydirtywork196]

I see a lot of people here who support Ron Paul. I do as well but I'm a little untrusting considering he is against things like medicade but being a doctor that is how he has made his living.... its just a distrust but I still like a lot of what he stands for

[zasabiibasaz]

So he looked him in the eye, did he see if he was a good man or a bad man?

[bosshog7169]

The government has no business being involved in marriage. No to gay marriage! No to straight marriage! No government marriage! Mind your damn business government. Ron Paul 2012.

[AndrewDeLong]

Well, I certainly DON'T agree with Romney on this one. But props to him for at least holding to his beliefs and stating them as respectfully as one can in such circumstances. His beliefs may be out of touch with reality, but at least the man wasn't a dick about it.

[phoosc25]

@AndrewDeLong I agree. he stuck to what he believes with cameras surrounding him. I am not a fan of Mitt but an off the cuff, unscripted encounter like this shows at least a little truth about him. Ron is the only guy who hasn't budged from his stances in 30 years...

[patarfuyfuy]

RON PAUL 2012

[PancakeRevolt]

Have you read the Bible? Have you really??? Okay, well I challenge you to read The Year Of Living Biblically: One Man's Humble Quest to Follow the Bible as Literally as Possible by AJ Jacobs. It's a lot shorter than The Bible, it's objective, it's intelligent, it's funny and it's enlightening.

[sublimefan421]

Go Mitt. I hope the Haters won't keep you down.. It's sad to see other Churches Teach Hate on another person for his Religion......... And we all know that is the only reason you are not the Front Runner

[lukemwp]

i think Mitt was extremely respectful while sticking to his beliefs. I disagree with him but i respect that he did show that respect.

[lukemwp]

@lukemwp To be clear: I REALLY disagree with Mitt Romney's stance on marriage. I strongly believe that homosexual marriage couples should receive the same rights as heterosexual couples. I am also glad the Vet reacted the way he did to Mitt's answer. There was a mutual respect for their opinions. Good job by both parties.

[jakedasnake51]

Marriage originated from Jewish/Christian culture so shouldn't they decide what it is? Why doesn't the government just create tax benefits for people who have "life partners" Marriage is a religious institution. if this is about government rights, why not just create them?

[MarcinCalifornia]

@jakedasnake51 Actually marriage didn't originate from Jewish/Christian culture. Marriage pre-dates all recorded history and is present in nearly all cultures in some form or another. Most notably, marriage is a part of eastern culture which is most definitely not Jewish or Christian in origin.

[UnknownFable]

@MarcinCalifornia Agreed. Let me further add that marriage was created to consolidate property between families and had no religious or cultural origin. It was just a way to increase your families influence in the time before cities.

[kaitzi]

@jakedasnake51 I agree that if people view marriage as a religious rite then it should be up to the religion to determine how it is run/achieved/whatever. However we should not give governmental privileges for those who have achieved this religious right - it is religious discrimination. I think this is the point you are trying to make, and I agree.

[gabekicksass178]

@jakedasnake51 i find it quite interesting actually. under jewish and christian law, if a virgin is raped, she has to marry the man who raped her. gotta love traditional definitions of marriage!

[angiem60]

I agree w Romney. A person has a free will according to the Lord. So, they can make their own choices with consequences. Those who say the constitution doesn't mention anything about marriage/ are looking for excuses for their acts. The Bible states marriage is between a man and a woman. I believe that also. And so does our Savior. But, everyone should be respectful to all people.

[omega2383]

@angiem60 Actually the Declaration of Independence states, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Who are you and the bible to say what people are aloud to do to be happy, within the contexts of reason?

Also there is only one passage in Romans that even talks about gays and it is compete hate speech.

[thomaseshuis]

@angiem60 "The Bible states"

1. The Bible is a book of stories, not the law the U.S.

2. There are way older religion with different views on marriage. In fact religions does not hold the rights to the word marriage.

[31415equalspi]

@angiem60 not only people who follow your bible vote. I think a candidate for any United States office should represent our whole country. Not just Christians.

[EYEIZAWEZUM]

@angiem60 The Bible is not US law, nor will it ever be. By that logic, it makes no difference whether or not your god approves. Bringing religion into a political debate is simply ridiculous.

[IDidYourDad1991]

@EYEIZAWEZUM Plus (I'm not an American, BTW) I'm pretty sure there's something in the Constitution called the 'Establishment Clause', which makes it unconstitutional to 'respect the estalishment of a religion'. In other words, no law can be based on the Bible, the Qur'an, the Torah etc

[420simpson]

@angiem60 the bible also says that shrimp is an abomination and that you can beat slaves as long as they dont die within a few days, and that witches should be stoned to death, and if you have sex before marriage, you are to be killed. it also says that wearing two different types of fabrics is punished with death, and it also says women are forbbiden from speaking in churches, it also says that if a woman is raped she must marry the rapist, so i dont care what your book says cuz its evil

[jakedasnake51]

@420simpson You need to learn how to separate jewish law from Christian practices. Two different religions Study the Bible and it's context. So many things sound wrong out of context.

[MarcinCalifornia]

@jakedasnake51 The problem with that argument is that all the passages in the Bible that even remotely refer to homosexuality are in the Jewish laws and Jewish parts (Old Testament) of the Bible. If it was such an "abomination," you'd think Jesus would have at least mentioned it once (he didn't).

[420simpson]

@jakedasnake51 actually you are wrong. Jesus said he was not changing the laws of the Old testament, and guess what?- the 10 commandments are from the old testament.  so if the old testament doesnt count, then christians need to stop putting the 10 commandments on government buildings. and by the way it is the book of timothy that says women are forbbiden from speaking in churches and must remain quiet and submissive to her husband. thats the new testament. lol.

[writersblock26]

Thank you for posting this, MarcinCalifornia.

[phogasm]

They mention marriage in the Constitution? Thats news to me. 

[classicguy2011]

@phogasm lol I was thinking the same thing? Perhaps he meant the Bible and not the Constitution

[cobrompton]

Look a man in the eye and tell him his love isn't legitimate. Romney has some huge balls and an even bigger ego.

[GorioOgunquit]

Romney is such a slime

[JulesUS]

At the time that the constitution was written, women could not vote and Slavery was legal. Things change, governor. Stop living in the past!

[BlackAcesBlackEights]

1. Bob Garon eats at that diner with his husband every day.

2. Mitt Romney was the one who identified him, approached him, and sat next to him.

Total set up.

[Water4Jeremiah]

I wonder if they have Proverbs 10:9 on those Mormon golden tablets(since Romney's strategy of laying low while the Cain and Bachmann ship sink seems to have backfired).

Well at least the elephants still have Chris Farley.

[redbrian3655]

Those Vets were a heck of a lot more gracious to Romney than I would have been. This was priceless. GO VETS!

[bernyg79]

at least he had the balls to say what he felt I guess.. even though he's a retard. Michele Bachman always seems to catch her off guard and she changes the subject or doesn't answer the question. Regardless OBAMA 2012 LOL

[cantilever]

Mitt handled himself well in an awkward situation. The "veteran" aspect is being played up to prepossess our minds to feel sympathy for the gay man, even though his military service is irrelevant to the issue of same-sex marriage. And the gay man is on thin ice when he claims that his Constitutional rights are being denied. Nowhere in the Constitution is there an enumerated right for same-sex marriage. And the Equal Protection Clause applies equally to everybody already...

[dsy9876]

@cantilever Nowhere in the Constitution is there an enumerated right for marriage, period. And the veteran aspect has less to do with sympathy than the fact that veterans have contributed more directly to the defense of our government than most of us non-veterans.

[cantilever]

@dsy9876 So you agree with me that he is wrong to say his Constitutional rights are being denied (because, as you said, there is no enumerated right of marriage, same-sex or otherwise)...and if the issue at hand *is* same-sex marriage (which it is), his status as a veteran is irrelevant...

[dsy9876]

@cantilever I agree that your statement, "Nowhere in the Constitution is there an enumerated right for same-sex marriage," is completely irrelevant to the issue, yes. His status as a veteran may or may not be relevant, depending on whether you think veterans should receive special benefits from the government. I happen to think they should.

[cantilever]

@dsy9876 No, you misunderstood me: the fact that there is no enumerated right to same-sex marriage is CENTRAL to the gay man's error in claiming that his Constitutional rights are being infringed. And his *status* as a veteran has no bearing on same-sex marriage. His stance is no more and no less valid than any citizen's. I also think veterans should receive benefits from the government as a result of their service--but that would be medical care/college tuition not same-sex marriage...

[dsy9876]

@cantilever The Constitution also doesn't guarantee a right to ride a bus, or use a drinking fountain, or even a right to government-funded education. But denying those privileges based on minority status is still a violation of their Constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment. And spousal benefits are part of the benefits extended to veterans (incl. medical care, burial rights, etc.).

[cantilever]

@dsy9876 The equal protection clause already applies equally. I explained that to another commenter, and will repeat it here. In the majority of the country where gay marriage is illegal, any man can marry a woman, and no man can marry another man--this applies equally to all men. The principle of equal treatment is preserved. When a white could eat at a lunch counter but a black couldn't, that was a violation of the 14th Amendment. But ALL men are prohibited from marrying another man.

[MarcinCalifornia]

@cantilever Using your reasoning, you could have said in 1966, "Any man or woman can marry any man or woman of the same race--this applies equally to all men. The principle of equal treatment is preserved." Technically white men weren't being treated any differently than black men. Both were only able to marry women of the same race.

[cantilever]

@MarcinCalifornia No, because to restrict marriage on racial lines violates equal protection. If marriage is defined as a union of one man and one woman, a black man must be permitted to marry a white woman if a white man can. There is no violation of equal protection if ALL men are proscribed from marrying another man (which is the case in states where gay marriage is illegal)...

[paulflorez]

@cantilever Wrong, the 14th Amendment requires equal treatment for both race AND sex. As such, if a woman can marry a man but a man cannot marry a man, you are engaging in discrimination based on the sex of the individual.

To say that banning all men from marrying another man, but not banning women from marrying men, is equal is to say that banning all black people from marrying white people, but not banning white people from marrying white people, is equal.

[cantilever]

@dsy9876 Which goes back to my central, inescapable, objective point: the gay guy is wrong to claim his Constitutional rights are being violated. They're not. If New Hampshire repeals gay marriage early next year, there is no enumerated right in the Constitution that is being violated and equal protection is *also* not being violated--so long as *all* men in New Hampshire are disallowed from marrying another man...

[MarcinCalifornia]

@cantilever The problem with your assertion is that the Supreme Court has held that marriage IS a "fundamental right" guaranteed by the Constitution. See the Loving vs. Virginia and Zablocki vs. Redhail decisions.

[cantilever]

@MarcinCalifornia OK, but define "marriage"--in the vast majority of states, it is one man-one woman. Not one man-one man, one woman-one woman, or polygamy. If those latter types of partnerships are illegal, there's no right to have one. Anti-miscegenation laws clearly ran counter to equal protection under the 14th and were rightly struck down. But if ALL men are disallowed from marrying another man--regardless of race--the principle of equal protection is preserved...

[MarcinCalifornia]

@cantilever Your premise is essentially that racial discrimination is illegal under equal protection, but that gender discrimination isn't.

[cantilever]

@MarcinCalifornia No, you're not seeing it. I'll repeat myself: if marriage is defined as one man and one woman, then a black man must be able to marry a white woman if a white man can. But in the majority of the country where gay marriage is illegal, NO man can marry another man--white, black, Asian, what have you, all men are treated equally under the law. You'd have a point if white men were allowed to marry each other, but black men weren't. This is NOT the case, however...

[MarcinCalifornia]

@cantilever But marriage isn't defined as "between one man and one woman." That's your definition.

[cantilever]

@MarcinCalifornia Has the Supreme Court ruled that there is a fundamental right to *gay* marriage? (No they have not.) And how about polygamy? Are Muslims and Mormons in the United States being denied their rights by not being allowed to have multiple wives...? (According to them, perhaps...but not, as yet, according to the Supreme Court...)

[jaseyjase12]

@cantilever Polygamy references are the reddest of the red herrings. Obviously marriage equality (the ability of any two consenting adults to marry one another to obtain legal protections) has nothing to do with polygamy (the ability of multiple and typically non-consenting adults to be married to obtain entrance into their version of heaven). You're equating two apples with a bushel of tangerines.

[cantilever]

@jaseyjase12 It's not a red herring in this context...it is analogous to same-sex marriage in that it is a type of marriage (unlike gay marriage, however, with a long historical/cultural track record) that the U.S. Supreme Court has not deemed a fundamental right held by Americans. (I think you saw the word "polygamy," had your hackles raised, and de-contextualized it.) You agree that the SC has not ruled gay marriage OR polygamy a fundamental right? Therein is the comparison...

[renesmecullen212]

@cantilever but even polygamy has a case as long as it isn't hurting anyone, but one issue with that is say there's a man married to 3 women, and the man dies, there's all this stuff about life insurance going to the other person, but how would that be divided up? plus, if the man went into a coma and it was up to his wife to decide what would happen, what if they disagreed? not to mention a relationship with more then two people has more potential to be abusive

[cantilever]

@renesmecullen212 Indeed, the definition of marriage is arbitrary and subjective. Why IS polygamy illegal? Why is gay marriage illegal? I am opposed to both, but I acknowledge that this opposition is only based on my personal value judgments. And if gay marriage does become legal, I don't see a rationale that keeps polygamy illegal for long either...

[MarcinCalifornia]

@renesmecullen212 This is why government shouldn't be involved in marriage period. Instead, they should stick to recognizing legal civil union contracts between consenting adults. Who people want to enter into those legal arrangements with is up to them and nobody else's business.

[MarcinCalifornia]

@cantilever They ruled that *marriage* is a fundamental right. No, they haven't ruled that specifically "straight marriage" or specifically "gay marriage" is a fundamental right. Polygamy is a separate issue and irrelevant to this discussion.

[cantilever]

@MarcinCalifornia These rulings were made before 2004, yes...? So they were referring to the union of one man and one woman in all cases. That was the definition of marriage in the entire country at the time, and it remains the definition of marriage in the vast majority of the country today. Polygamy is relevant in that it is a type of marriage that, under the current definition, is not a fundamental right of Americans according to the Supreme Court--alongside gay marriage...

[seedjar]

@cantilever LOL - if it applies equally, then why do straight veterans get privileges and benefits that gays don't? Did you not understand the question in the video?

[cantilever]

@seedjar Because marriage--in the majority of the country, and quite possibly once again in New Hampshire come early next year--is defined as a union of one man and one woman. The rules thus apply to *all* veterans equally...any man can marry a woman, and no man can marry another man. Do you see?

[MarcinCalifornia]

FYI: Yes, I do remove any and all hateful comments. I'm not at all ashamed about doing so. Freedom of speech doesn't require me to help people spread their hate. They can do it on their own channels and forums. You can agree or disagree with the Romney or the veteran, but if you start spewing hate speech, you will be blocked and your comments removed.

[TheBiAtheist]

@Truth77Absolute Do you have any, I don't know, actual evidence for any of those delusional beliefs? Nope. Nice try, next.

[Yoyoredman]

Snake oil salesman, that's all I see when I look at Romney

[DaGobbleGoblin]

first?

[melanie7877]

Love the comment from Citadel!!!!!!!!

[Citadel1221]

This is the bottom line: my parents were married over 20 years. For 15 they hated each other; for the last 5, they didn't even live in the same state. My mom (Dad was Airforce) gets 50% of the his pension and full health benefits. This man's lawful husband, who actually loves him and lives as his true spouse, deserves no less. In fact, this vet's marriage is a lot more sacred than my parents' ever was! (Don't get me wrong, I love my folks, just not together)

[snowbunni120]

no matter what i think, i have complete respect for mitt romney. he gave him a complete, respectful, honest answer. he didnt avoid the subject. he said, ... i believe marriage is for a man and woman. period. its his OPINION. if you think everyone has the right to their own opinion, dont slam him for his. 

[ohjeezriles]

@snowbunni120 Soooo, when Adolf Hitler wrote Mein Kampf and spoke terribly about all those Jews and Fags, it was HIS OPINION, and no one should "slam him" for it?

[snowbunni120]

@ohjeezriles r u honestly comparing the attempt at exterminating all Jewish people to not wanting to change the constitution to let homosexuals get married? Im sorry, did i miss the part where he said he hates all 'fags', that theyre the reason for the world's troubles, and that he was going to burn them alive? ....... id have to rewatch it. he's a CONSERVATIVE. no conservative will ever be for changing the constitution. if u dont like it, vote for a democrat and stop lurking on these vids

[AndrewDeLong]

@ohjeezriles "Soooo, when Adolf Hitler wrote Mein Kampf and spoke terribly about all those Jews and Fags, it was HIS OPINION, and no one should "slam him" for it?"

Correct. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, regardless of how well it suits anyone else's tastes. Even today, Mein Kampf is in print and distributed, thus allowing Hitler's opinion to continue.

No one should be slammed for an opinion. What they should be slammed for is ACTING on it.

[seedjar]

@snowbunni120 I think people are more upset with his trite attitude and the way he dodged the follow-up question and gave a totally hollow (and factually false) justification for his opinion - all too typical for GOP nominees answering anything but the softest of questions. And personally, I find his misquoting the Constitution and revisionist assertions to be very worrisome in a man who's telling me he should be allowed to run the country. I had a better grasp of the Constitution at age 10.

[31415equalspi]

@seedjar I am 11 and I have better grasp of the constitution than Mitt Romney.

[lukemwp]

@31415equalspi ...i seriously doubt that... Mitt Romney might have different views but he is a relatively smart guy and has a very good understanding of the constituation (though he may interpret it differently than other people).

[31415equalspi]

@lukemwp I don't know the amendments yet but I know the constitution and I don't recall it saying one thing about marriage.

[Truth77Absolute]

I can see from the look on Romneys face what he is thinking " I already answered your question, I dont care about what you think of me, fag." What an annoying circumstance. Oh, he should feel guilty or ashamed for saying that a marriage is between a man and a woman? Sick.

[Truth77Absolute]

Mitt Romney wont rely on luck to win gthe election he is going to rely on faith that Gods will  will be done if he is true to his beliefs , only he knows.

[curbsterify]

Give me a better argument and I'll reply.

[Truth77Absolute]

@curbsterify , You can be gay if you want its your choice. But do not force you belief system on the whole country. Marriage symbolizes the relationship between God and the church. God and the people. The woman represents the people. The man is God representative. You can be perverted if you want but do not force us to believe something wrong is right. Thats violating my constitutional rights.

[rohasfin]

@Truth77Absolute So... what happens in Buddhist marriages? Navajo Dine? I'm an Asatruar, what does that mean for my marriage?

[whateverpcb]

@Truth77Absolute When did you decide to be straight? Can you try to make a choice of being gay. Even for one day? I dare you to try it and see how this CHOICE works out for you. No one chooses to be humiliated and degraded on a day to day basis. But go ahead and try it!

[offpiste827]

@Truth77Absolute are you not forcing your own Biblical belief system on others?

[MarcinCalifornia]

@Truth77Absolute Which constitutional right of yours is marriage equality violating? Please quote the Constitution.

[seedjar]

@Truth77Absolute Who's forcing you to believe anything? You must be very weak-minded or totally lacking in faith if an argument on a YouTube comment thread is enough to threaten your belief system. You don't have to believe in gay marriage to permit it. There are plenty of people who don't believe in Christ, but you're still allowed to worship Him. You need to do some soul-searching and from the sound it a lot of Bible study, 'cuz you're apparently missing some key points of His teachings.

[angiem60]

@seedjar excellent response

[seedjar]

@Truth77Absolute PS - You have no Constitutional right to tell people they can't do something based on the laws of your religion. As it happens, the Constitution actually specifically says that you CAN'T do that.

[markcastletalks]

He and Rick Perry would look so super cute together. Lawlz.

[stalwartman]

That was a set up,

[MarcinCalifornia]

@stalwartman Quite the contrary. Romney walked into that diner and chose to sit down next to him (probably because he had the Vietnam Vet hat on and figured he'd be a receptive audience).

[redbrian3655]

@stalwartman No set up at all. Romney actually barged in on the Vets dinner! That will teach him to interrupt a meal!

[420simpson]

@stalwartman yes mitt romnney set a actor to play as a vetran to then say he was gay, to make mitt romney and his campaign look bad so he could be president...that makes total sense.

[MEpianist]

This guy is an asshole!!!!!!!!!1

[Newreligion100]

How can he look a soldier in the eye and say his relationship doesn't matter? These people astound me.

[Truth77Absolute]

@Newreligion100 , Marriage is between a man and a woman. They are able to have kids. I does not matter what your occupation is or if you are a soldier. His relationship is not equal to a married man and woman. A gay relationship is a gay relationship. A married couple is between a man and a woman. I dont feel any sympathy for you only that you have been programmed to thing what is right is wrong and wrong is right. Upside down thinker.

[brax303]

This video illustrates very well the lack of a platform the republicans are running on. They are running on petty issues nobody cares about and have no plans to fix the economy. Their plan is to suppress minorities and to let rich people keep their wealth after laying off workers and hoarding their money. Actually I should say OUR money thanks to tarp... I'm sick of their dumbed down arguments designed to entice the most uneducated among us into an emotional frenzy.

[foxsux123]

Insert both feet into mouth!

[joshvanhorne]

ROMNEY IS CHICKENFOLDER

[jakeluv7]

Romney is chicken folder. that is why he will nver be president. He is simply on the wrong side of history, one day he will wake up to release that his anti rhetoric won no votes, and in fact likely cost him many.

[AndrewDamron]

@jakeluv7 Andrew Johnson was on the wrong side of history (he became president after the Civil war) and still tried to veto the Civil Rights Act. let's hope this doesn't happen again.

[DrakeMagnum]

That guy sure held his own. Romney's such a phony jackass.

[joshvanhorne]

38 People Watch CNN HEADLINE NEWS! 2 People Watch CNN!

[greenleaflink]

LMAO! that dude owned him..."have a good day..."

means = get lost.

he is so use to people pandering and wanting to talk to him. lol

[elder18]

What a dildo. All's Romney has done for this country is to grow up rich.

[biggrex]

Good for Romney, nothing phony about that, stuck up for what he believes in.

[FallenRaccoon]

“Who’s married and who isn’t married. I have my standards but I shouldn’t have to impose my standards on others. Other people have their standards and they have no right to impose their marriage standards on me.”

- Ron Paul

[ThisCallsforaToaster]

Slavery wasn't abolished in the constitution either not until many, many years later was that law changed. Is it still correct to apply the Puritan beliefs of our founding fathers to our 21st century diverse culture? I think its time to pry open your closed minds now.

[MoMember88]

again showing the GOP nomination is a race to the bottom inb4 the polite fan boys... wait too late

[GLaDOS123]

Fucking strict constructionists.

[2AProductions]

@GLaDOS123 actually the constitution says NOTHING on the subject of marriage.

[Awwscrewit]

@2AProductions It says nothing on a lot of subjects, so it's funny when people go all "It's not in the Constitution!!" when it comes to things like gay marriage or health care.

[IHKumicho1]

@2AProductions There's nothing in the Constitution on the subject of marriage... However, there *are* stipulations that women can't vote and slaves are worth 3/5ths of a person. Does Romney think that we should uphold those parts too?

[curbsterify]

@2AProductions You're totally right marriage isn't in the Constitution but there is the 14th amendment that includes the equal protection and the due process clauses. Since the Supreme Court has stated in many decisions (including Loving v. Virginia) that marriage is a fundamental right, any discrimination or revocation of that fundamental right is a violation of those two clauses, thus unconstitutional. The Supreme Court has linked the two (Right to Marry and 14th Amendment) together forever.

[2AProductions]

@curbsterify Yeah my point was coming out in defense of Equal marriage for everyone. I should have made that clear.

[curbsterify]

@2AProductions Haha sorry. Caffeine=Combat for me and people online usually get the tip of the spear. Glad to hear it!

[Truth77Absolute]

@curbsterify , Marriage is bewteen a man and woman. Men and men cant have sex. neoither can a women and a women. What they do is not real sex. Its called lusting and rear ending. Fool

[sleeplesseye]

Clearly, Mitt should also denounce his polygamous great grandfather Miles Romney... and his great grandmothers, Hanna and Caroline.

[DmanLT21]

Shared at Sexy Atheists on Facebook. This clip needs more views!!!

[bro7merrill]

This video of Romney clearly shows that he does not truly believe in freedom. I like what Ron Paul's answer to this situation. Ron Paul would have answer like: "I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman but you have the right to call your relationship whatever you want and the government should stay out of the business of marriage".

[AndrewDamron]

At least Bachmann says marriage equality is up to the states. Sounds like Romney is going to dabble in marriage equality among the states, as well. #notmypresident

[ImSoPeeved]

@AndrewDamron If you're using a hash tag on youtube you're probably too young to vote anyway. Hahaha.

[AndrewDamron]

@ImSoPeeved ha! 25.

[AndrewDamron]

I bet Romney didn't see that one coming. Mr. Garon is a hero!

[bcourter82]

Romney is a flip flopper who is soft on illegals. I'd rather vote for Obama than Romney.

[superdav650]

Quit whining

[tuskedbeast]

Meet reality, you unctuous weasel.

[californiahummus]

Romney is a boob.

[mpetrie]

Finally... a calm question about a sensitive subject was met with a calm response. This is how politics should be. People sitting down like adults and listening to each others positions despite their disagreements.