Mitt Romney Sits Down For a Chat With a Gay Veteran

While walking through a New Hampshire diner, Mitt Romney sits down to chat with a man wearing a Vietnam Vet cap. Romney didn't realize he was sitting there with his husband. The vet takes the opportunity to confront Romney on his anti-gay policies and how it would effect him and his husband.

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.

• Category

  News & Politics

[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.

[MarcinCalifornia]

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.

[jabezcascade]

this dude is creepy.cant be trusted

[IDidYourDad1991]

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

[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!

[paulflorez]

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.

[paulflorez]

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!

[paulflorez]

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]

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.

[crystal saete]

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