2012 Election | Mitt Romney | New Hampshire

Mitt Romney Both Defends And Disparages LGBT Rights At Second New Hampshire Debate In 24 Hours

Picture 19
Thanks to Think Progress for excerpting this bit of this morning's GOP debate. Yes -- the very same candidates who tore into each other (and LGBTs) so feistily last night gathered again this morning, somehow looking both fresh-faced and punch-drunk, to hack it out again. Again, the subject of LGBT equality was raised, and again the candidates poo-pooed it. Incredibly, Mitt Romney managed to both promise to do nothing for the LGBT cause and get around of applause for being pro-gay. Watch, AFTER THE JUMP ...

 

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Pro gay, pro straight, pro black, pro white...god, it gets so tiresome. How about just sticking up for individual civil liberties and dropping all the groups rights crap. Defend the smallest minority - the individual - and you defend everyone.

    Posted by: Jason | Jan 8, 2012 1:53:23 PM


  2. Is this the old Jason or a new one?

    Posted by: George M | Jan 8, 2012 2:26:54 PM


  3. When Santorum was asked, "What if you had a son who came to you and said he was gay?" the follow-up question should have been: "And what do you think that son would think of his father's views?"

    Posted by: JeffNYC | Jan 8, 2012 3:24:03 PM


  4. The follow-up question should have been "Does that mean you would get him into 'Reparative Therapy'?"

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Jan 8, 2012 3:28:51 PM


  5. He probably has gift certificates for the therapy just in case

    Posted by: George M | Jan 8, 2012 3:36:58 PM


  6. The logical follow-up to Santorum is "what other group you treat with 'respect and dignity' doesn't have the equal right to adopt?"

    Still, the questioner was far better than most. Pity he let Romney get away with a joke instead of an answer.

    Posted by: BobN | Jan 8, 2012 4:11:35 PM


  7. Well, Obama isn't that hot on gay rights either. What has he done since he's been in power? DADT was repealed because of Joe Liberman, not Obama.

    Posted by: jason | Jan 8, 2012 4:15:46 PM


  8. Jason of the former Cain is amazing and better than Obama comments

    Posted by: say what | Jan 8, 2012 4:23:01 PM


  9. I'll stick with Obama, thanks. He has unquestionably been more supportive of gays than ANY other president ever in the history of the US. And I've been watching American presidents since Truman was in office.

    Posted by: Stick | Jan 8, 2012 4:23:34 PM


  10. If it wasn't for your said aka republicans we wouldn't have needed 60 vote and No republicans. Some still would have voted for it anyway and thats a good thing. The only thing negative about Obama is that he's not at marriage yet but is ok with states making that choice unlike MIT. Obama's 95% better then Romney 100% better then the other clowns that could actually win the nod.

    Posted by: George M | Jan 8, 2012 4:28:28 PM


  11. DADT repeal would not have happened under a Republican president, period, (most would seek to reinstate it) so we can stop that lie.

    The difference between Obama and anti-gay zealots like Romney and Santorum is that Obama does not support DOMA, his DOJ is no longer defending it, as theirs would be, and he is not in support of a federal constitutional amendment that would forever prohibit marriage equality.

    Santorum also believes it's appropriate to invalidate all legal marriages of same-sex couples, effectively divorcing many thousands of couples because he doesn't like them. So if you're going to say that Obama isn't that hot on gay rights, put it in context with the Republican contenders for 2012 and their potential SCourt nominees. Otherwise you're either stupid or a liar.

    (And I have a feeling I'll be repeating this for the GOProud morons/trolls until election day.)

    Posted by: Ernie | Jan 8, 2012 4:28:50 PM


  12. Mitt said: “If people are looking for someone who will discriminate against gays or will in any way try and suggest that people — that have different sexual orientation don’t have full rights in this country, they won’t find that in me.”

    How is that disparaging?

    Posted by: alan | Jan 8, 2012 5:11:23 PM


  13. Could you please transcribe the important and relevant moments in these dreary "debates" so we don't have to watch them? Thanks.

    Posted by: cranky1 | Jan 8, 2012 5:12:29 PM


  14. The question to Romney could have been, "Your home state of Massachusetts has allowed gay couples to marry since 2003. What negative consequences have you seen?"

    Posted by: William Quill | Jan 8, 2012 5:17:14 PM


  15. Ok Alan maybe that line isn't but what about his want for an amendment or his backing of the repeal efforts in NH, does that bother you at all?

    Posted by: George M | Jan 8, 2012 7:06:48 PM


  16. "If people are looking for someone who will discriminate against gays or will in any way try and suggest that people — that have different sexual orientation don’t have full rights in this country, they won’t find that in me.”

    Yes they will.
    Denying people the right to marriage (established in Loving v. Virginia in 1967) is discrimination. Gay people do not have full rights in this country and Romney will do / has done nothing to change that.

    Every single one of the Republican candidates is in favor of discrimination. And that includes Romney and Paul, and even Huntsman.

    Posted by: KevinVT | Jan 8, 2012 8:20:03 PM


  17. true KEVINVT

    but you have to give credit to Huntsman for being the lone voice in the repub wilderness saying we deserve at least civil unions

    watched him say that last night and was like "No wonder he is only polling at 1% amongst repubs"

    Huntsman should leave the repub party and try being a blue dog conservedem

    Posted by: say what | Jan 8, 2012 8:39:51 PM


  18. Huntsman is much better than the others, but, as you say, he's polling at virtually nothing, which is an indication of how far a moderate Republican can get in the primary process.

    Alan, surely you were being sarcastic and are not giving Romney credit for that completely false statement? He's in favor of a federal constitutional amendment that would forever restrict civil marriage to one man-one woman; he supports DOMA; he supports repeal of equality in NH. So, clearly he doesn't support our full rights, or anything remotely close to them, and he supports discrimination and setting back the clock on progress. If you're fed BS, spit it out.

    Posted by: Ernie | Jan 8, 2012 9:01:54 PM


  19. Say What, my hats off to him
    That took a lot of courage, the republican party will never back someone like him. Their not ready yet.
    But Thank you Gov. Huntsman for standing up for what's right

    Posted by: George M | Jan 8, 2012 9:51:51 PM


  20. The GOP is the Gay Opposition Party...or has someone already said that? Pretty obvious...feeling stupid. Time for bed.

    The URL Jason above must be a new Jason which will be a big relief for a lot of you. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.

    Posted by: uffda | Jan 9, 2012 4:32:40 AM


  21. Marriage equality is a big, big deal, but neither Romney's nor Santorum's answers were ugly or hateful. I'm not quite sure else we should want from someone who opposes marriage equality. After all, our current president professes opposition to marriage equality, although his actual views are surely different and his not defending DOMA in court is commendable. But get real, guys, these are genuinely positive answers from would-be presidents when so many think we deserve to "convert" or die.

    Posted by: Kelly Young | Jan 9, 2012 6:49:20 AM


  22. They both seemed like they were coached since the last debates and appearances.

    Posted by: Snoopy | Jan 9, 2012 7:08:52 AM


  23. I say we throw the whole damn lot of politicians out of office and start over. When I say the whole I am talking EVERYONE. Start putting hardworking average people into office. This is when you will see a change take place. I am sick of being represented by people who were born privileged that know nothing about my values and models!!

    Posted by: classychazy | Jan 9, 2012 7:24:41 AM


  24. They think they are not discriminating, and that they treat us equally, WHILE they discriminate, do NOT treat us equally or with dignity, and deny us the pursuit of happiness like they have. You CANNOT say you are NOT discriminating against someone, WHILE you are discriminating against them. This is called HETERO-SEXISM.

    Posted by: Jim | Jan 9, 2012 8:19:09 AM


  25. "But get real, guys, these are genuinely positive answers from would-be presidents when so many think we deserve to 'convert' or die."

    So-called positive answers aren't positive when they are total fictions. Those are called lies. Santorum and Romney were telling whoppers, because their policies are on a different planet than those statements. Sometimes ugly things get wrapped in pretty packages, but when you open the packages up, still ugly.

    Chazy, we tried that, it was called the tea party freshmen. Never works out well. I'd rather have an experienced Bernie Sanders representing me than an unexperienced plumber.

    Posted by: Ernie | Jan 9, 2012 10:43:37 AM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Minor-on-Minor Sex Abuse« «