Romney attempting to stop the Teavangelicals from divorcing the Republican mainstream.  

These exchanges are always interesting just because I don’t really get the sense that Romney cares at all about gay marriage.  It’s just a charade he has to perform to placate the extremist 20% who control the GOP primaries and prove his conservative cred.  So in a way I kind of feel bad for him, but in another way I think he totally deserves to have his feet held to the fire as much as possible on this issue mainly because he’s being so disingenuous about it.

And yes that goes for Obama as well and any other politician who adopts a “no gay marriage” position not out of personal conviction but rather out of political convenience.

Of all The candidates I would choose Romney only over 0bama, but I like the way he handled this question.

Eh.

He didn’t really handle the question, though, as much as just side step it by giving the canned, conservative, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman” response.  So I guess if you like canned talking points, Romney’s your man.

As much as I dislike Santorum, he’s really the only candidate that has actually tried to engage the issue of gay marriage and give real reasons why he is opposed to it.  Sure I think his reasons are all bunk, but at least he gives reasons.  Every other candidate has just avoided the issue entirely by saying “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman” and then refusing to give any other reason–as if personal belief is enough reason in itself.  Sure you might believe that, but that’s really not a reason for making it illegal nor does it address the practical problems involved in why we might actually need gay marriage.

It’s fine if you are going to be opposed to gay marriage, but at least be man enough to back up your beliefs and give us real reasons for them.

Gave a reasonable answer to his views.

Politicians meddling in scientific matters despite having no background in science, politicians telling people who they can and can’t marry, politicians telling a woman what she can and can’t do with her own body.  Isn’t limited government great?

During the 2008 campaign, Barack Obama explicitly and UNEQUIVOCALLY stated that he thought marriage was between a man a woman. 

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2008/11/obama-on-mtv-i/

Why don’t homosexual bullies confront Obama with the exact same question?

Um, because he has said that his views on gay marriage are evolving?  And because he, unlike Romney, has no problem with states allowing gay people to marry?  And because he specifically instructed his DOJ to stop defending the unconstitutional DOMA?  Any and all of those reasons?

Yeah, let’s analyze just how “reasonable” it was:

The Founding Fathers made no mention of gays having the right to marry.  Ergo, the Founding Fathers meant to disclude gays from such a right.

The Founding Fathers also made no mention of corporations having First Amendment rights.  Ergo, the Founding Fathers meant to provide corporations with such rights?

How utterly nonsensica….er, I mean “reasonable.”

…because he was at least for full federal recognition of same sex civil unions, which would extend many, though not all, of the benefits and legal protections of marriage to same sex couples. He has also affirmed his stance on gay rights in a variety of forums rhetorically and through executive action (federal employee policies and procedures, not defending DOMA) and legislative action (DADT repeal). His track record on the marriage issue specifically still rubs gay rights advocates the wrong way, but at least he has an overall affirmative record regarding gay rights.

…because he was at least for full federal recognition of same sex civil unions, which would extend many, though not all, of the benefits and legal protections of marriage to same sex couples. He has also affirmed his stance on gay rights in a variety of forums rhetorically and through executive action (federal employee policies and procedures, not defending DOMA) and legislative action (DADT repeal). His track record on the marriage issue specifically still rubs gay rights advocates (your so-called bullies) the wrong way, but at least he has an overall affirmative record regarding gay rights.

Mittens does not believe in same sex marriage, big deal.He was respectful of the guy while he explained his answer.This is not really a story ,so quit while you are behind.

If Romney wanted to be asked tough questions that he feels uncomfortable in answering, he would head back over to Fox News!!

 
The Conservative Viewpoint
 
The most common rebuttal, comment or argument given when any person, never mind a Christian, that speaks out against any social issue that is contrary to the word of God is, “Don’t be judging others.”, or, a slur to express that a person is a hypocrite, religious zealot or some other for not minding their own business”.
It is the obligation of every person with a common biblical moral standard, and especially a “practicing Christian of faith”, to make a “righteous judgment” of any person on any social issue regardless of any disapproval and personal reprisal.
Notice that John 7:24 doesn’t say “not to judge”, but to “judge a righteous judgment.”
 
John 7:24; “Judge not according to the appearance, but judge a righteous judgment.”
The Apostle Paul, himself, expounded and clarified a “righteous judgment is and defined what being a true “Conservative” means in;
 
2 Cor. 5:14, 15& 16;
: 14; For the “love of Christ constraineth us”; because we thus “judge”, that if one died for all, then were all dead:
: 15; And that he died for all, “that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves”, but unto him which died for them, and rose again.
: 16; Wherefore henceforth know we no man after the flesh…”
 
Just to be clear, allow me to explain. 
“Jesus speaking, paraphrased, of course:
John 7:24; Don’t be critical or condemning of someone because of their outer appearance but rather judge if their motives and lifestyle is of God.
Apostle Paul speaking, (paraphrased, also)
2 Cor. 5: 14-16;
:14;  It’s the love of Christ that motivates us to judge that if Christ died for all and rose again that all might not perish,
: 15; that he, (Christ), would not condone a person living however they want but rather a godly lifestyle that is acceptable in the eyes of “Father, God”.
(A true “Conservative’s” viewpoint of having established Godly standards.)
: 16; this is why we, (Christians), do not condemn, judge, or condone the practice of an ungodly lifestyle but rather discern the condition a person’s heart by the Spirit of God for the welfare of one’s eternal soul.   (A righteous judgment)
 
So far, Gov. Rick Perry is the only Republican Conservative Candidate bold enough to publicly set the example of a” True Conservative, and this is the type of President America needs to secure its’ future.
 
 
 
 
http://lafango.com/blog/brightfame_63/63741-the-true-conservative-viewpoint

Everyone should be proud enough to enlist and serve this great nation.  Some soldiers even get medals, but I have never seen anybody deserving of ”special privileges” for doing it.

Not believing in same-sex marriage is one thing.  Claiming fidelity to constitutional originalism while utterly ignoring it is another.  And my comment had nothing to do with how respectful he was, but rather with how reasonable his answer was.

“Homosexual bullies?” That’s funny! News flash: in these United States of America one could not be elected President if he/she were a supporter of marriage equality. Obama was a member of the “one man/one woman” when elected but his position has evolved. He has been challenged by supporters of marriage equality on countless occasions. Perhaps that’s the reason for his change in position. For Republicans, who are allegedly for smaller government and less government in our lives, to be in favor of a federal constitutional ban on same sex marriage is disingenuous and wrong.

Since when is knowing a candidate’s position on a controversial issue “not really a story?”

Bob Garon is a true romantic. He still dreams of his first love–John Holmes.

Bobbi Gayron…Vietnam….didn’t he “serve” the bullies over at Long Binh Jail?

Romney is right and handled that intentionally ( by the gay serviceman ) uncomfortable question session perfectly. Despite this veterans best efforts to ruffle Romneys demeanor.

Right about what, exactly?  At the time the Constitution was written, corporations had no First Amendment rights and were certainly not considered people.  And yet Mr. “Corporations Are People, Too” is trying to claim that, because gay marriage was not around when the Constitution was written, there is no such constitutional right?  Which is it?  Either we stick to the Constitution as written, or we don’t.  You don’t get to pick and choose which parts deserve an “originalist” approach.

That right there is the problem with modern day politics.

How is a gay soldier having employment benefits that are extended to his/her spouse/partner in anyway creating “special privileges” ? This whole “special privileges” and “special rights” attack on gay rights issues don’t hold up to even the most superficial logical analysis. Please someone present this argument rationally. If you acknowledge and respect homosexual relationships it’s impossible to believe this is anything about restoring equality, and, if you can’t acknowledge or respect that, then you have a lot to explain before you can be taken seriously in any conversation about social policy.A special privilege is dividing couples up on the basis of someone else’s religious beliefs and then allowing one group to have a series of rights and privileges and denying the other group entirely. Allowing two groups to be of an equal standing could not possibly be interpreted as creating “special privileges” in any world that is populated by rational human beings.

Maybe Mormons shouldn’t be allowed to get married.

Here we go again, blame the christians.