DiscussMormonism.com

MANCHESTER, NH – It started out as a seemingly safe situation. Mitt Romney, working a friendly room at a the Chez Vachon diner here, approached an older man wearing a Vietnam Veteran cap and sidled up next to him.

After some friendly banter about their ages, Bob Garon asked the former Massachusetts governor whether he supports repealing New Hampshire’s same sex marriage law.

Romney said he did, saying, “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. That’s my view.”

With that, it started to become clear that a routine campaign conversation could become hostile. Though Romney had no reason to know it, Garon – a 63-year-old from Epsom, N.H. -- was sitting at the table with his husband.

Garon challenged Romney, saying, “If two men get married, apparently a veteran’s spouse would not be entitled to any burial benefits or medical benefits or anything that the serviceman has devoted his time and effort to his country, and you just don’t support equality in terms of same-sex marriage?”

Romney reiterated his support for the Defense of Marriage Act, and added, “And we apparently disagree.”

“It’s good to know how you feel,” Garon said. “That you do not believe that everyone is entitled to their constitutional rights.”

“No, actually, I think at the time the Constitution was written it was pretty clear that marriage is between a man and a woman,” Romney replied. “And I don’t believe the Supreme Court has changed that.”

With that, a Romney aide interrupted, saying, “Governor, we’ve got to get on with Fox News right now.”

“Oh,” said Garon. “I guess the question was too hot.”

“No, I gave you the answer,” Romney said.

“You did,” Garon said. “And I appreciate your answer. And you know, I also learned something and New Hampshire is right. You have to look a man in the eye to get a good answer, and you know what, Governor, good luck.”

“Thank you, appreciate it,” Romney said. “Have a good day to you, sir.”

“You’re going to need it,” Garon replied.

“You are right about that,” Romney said as he left the table, and a group of reporters crowded around Garon.

Garon said he was gay, and that he married his partner -- Bob Lemire – in June. He said he came to the diner – where he comes often for breakfast – undecided about Romney. He left decidedly disappointed.

“I’m totally convinced today that he’s not going to be my president at least in my book,” Garon said. “At least Obama will entertain the idea. This man is ‘No way, Jose.’ Well, take that, ‘No way, Jose’ back to Massachusetts.”

Garon said he was a Democrat most of his life, but recently became an unenrolled voter. He’s unsure whether he’ll vote in the Republican primary, saying “The only one who tickles my fancy is Ron Paul” but “his age is a little on the rickety side.”

“The guy ain’t going to make it,” he said of Romney. “He is not going to make it…You can’t trust him. I just saw it in his eyes. I judge a man by his eyes.”

When asked whether there was anything he agreed with Romney on, he said there was. But even that was not in the Romney talking points.

“I kind of liked his health care plan in Massachusetts,” he said.

Matt Viser can be reached at maviser@globe.com.

Here is an interesting Dialogue article entitled, "Toward a Post-Heterosexual Mormon Theology" where the author proposes a basis for reimagining the practices of the Church with respect to homosexual relationships.

https://www.dialoguejournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/Dialogue_V44N04_110.pdf

Very interesting, thanks for sharing

"Why call Gay Marriage differently if it's basically the same thing that adds the same benefits?
It's simply not worth giving it a different name."

Well, first it's not basically the same thing, it's an entirely different type of marriage, an entirely different type of institution. Ideologically it's entirely different. It's Man with Man, or Woman with Woman, etc.

Also, let's be clear, we are not talking "benefits" here. No one has contested "partner" benefits whatever type of partner they are.

Second, Gay Marriage and Plural Marriage while both similar to Heterosexual Marriage, they ARE different enough. Plural Marriage, while it's still Heterosexual Marriage, it is with more than one partner, thus it's an entirely different kind of marriage, and as is correct, it has it's own name, it's called Polygamy. Gay Marriage while similar in that it's between just two persons, it also is completely different because it's marriage between two persons of the same sex, thus radically changing the definition.

It's like this..... Gays are not called Heterosexuals, and the same for anything else, anything that is different has a different name. Likewise, Gay Marriage should have it's own name. Like I've mentioned, "Gayarriage" is available.

Religious people while they may not want the gay lifestyle promoted and normalized in society, we know that's their right as adults to be and do what they want. Thus, we don't have an ultimate problem with that. But, we do have a problem with gays being intolerant and co-opting an institution that belongs to US. We don't see them trying to co-opt the institution of Polygamy, thus clearly there is a liberal entitlement mentality occurring here, and it's wrong.

Marriage is our institution.... We don't want it's definition changed. All of human history it has always been between man and woman. Yet, all of a sudden gays think they have a RIGHT to it??? That is wrong. It is not us being intolerant, it is they who are first being intolerant.

You do understand that a persons "rights" end the moment they begin to infringe on the rights of others right? Well, gays are infringing on OUR rights. We have not consented for our institution to be co-opted and changed. That is why we have been fighting against gay marriage. Marriage is not "gay", it's between a man and a woman. If they want a different form of marriage, then they have a RIGHT to create it, just like Polygamy is a form or marriage, but it's completely different, and is even named differently, as it should be.

Anyway, it IS worth it.... to name it differently.

I hope you understand that this is a reasoned and tolerant position, as well as an important one.

Take care.

ldsfaqs wrote:Second, Gay Marriage and Plural Marriage while both similar to Heterosexual Marriage, they ARE different enough. Plural Marriage, while it's still Heterosexual Marriage, it is with more than one partner, thus it's an entirely different kind of marriage, and as is correct, it has it's own name, it's called Polygamy. Gay Marriage while similar in that it's between just two persons, it also is completely different because it's marriage between two persons of the same sex, thus radically changing the definition.

One on one heterosexual marriage is an entirely different kind of marriage, and as is correct, it has its own name, it's called monogamy.

Buffalo wrote:One on one heterosexual marriage is an entirely different kind of marriage, and as is correct, it has its own name, it's called monogamy.

True..... But that term only exists because other types of marriage existed, i.e Polygamy.

I'm simply stating that Gay Marriage needs it's own name and definition.
As well, marriage has always been heterosexual. Different kinds of marriages simply need to be classed differently and identified differently. To classify them the same as traditional marriage, that marriage is marriage no matter what kind it is is wrong both intellectually and morally.

ldsfaqs wrote:Second, Gay Marriage and Plural Marriage while both similar to Heterosexual Marriage, they ARE different enough. Plural Marriage, while it's still Heterosexual Marriage, it is with more than one partner, thus it's an entirely different kind of marriage, and as is correct, it has it's own name, it's called Polygamy.

From the Greek, meaning often married, but a polygamist doesn't say to his wife-to-be number 7, "Hey, let's get polygamated!" Polygamy describes the relationship and not the ceremony.

ldsfaqs wrote:Gay Marriage while similar in that it's between just two persons, it also is completely different because it's marriage between two persons of the same sex, thus radically changing the definition.

So Gay Marriage isn't marriage at all?

ldsfaqs wrote:It's like this..... Gays are not called Heterosexuals, and the same for anything else, anything that is different has a different name. Likewise, Gay Marriage should have it's own name. Like I've mentioned, "Gayarriage" is available.

Gays aren't called hetrosexual. A sheep isn't called a hamster.

Your point? Should I stop describing my chocolate pudding as a marriage of chocolate and cream?

ldsfaqs wrote:Religious people while they may not want the gay lifestyle promoted and normalized in society, we know that's their right as adults to be and do what they want. Thus, we don't have an ultimate problem with that. But, we do have a problem with gays being intolerant and co-opting an institution that belongs to US. We don't see them trying to co-opt the institution of Polygamy, thus clearly there is a liberal entitlement mentality occurring here, and it's wrong.

The scoundrels! Whatever next?

ldsfaqs wrote:Marriage is our institution.... We don't want it's definition changed. All of human history it has always been between man and woman. Yet, all of a sudden gays think they have a RIGHT to it??? That is wrong. It is not us being intolerant, it is they who are first being intolerant.

Yes, in all of history. Those ancient Greeks never celebrated same sex marriage.

Is that how you view intolerance? Just because they want to celebrate their union in marriage?

ldsfaqs wrote:You do understand that a persons "rights" end the moment they begin to infringe on the rights of others right? Well, gays are infringing on OUR rights. We have not consented for our institution to be co-opted and changed. That is why we have been fighting against gay marriage. Marriage is not "gay", it's between a man and a woman. If they want a different form of marriage, then they have a RIGHT to create it, just like Polygamy is a form or marriage, but it's completely different, and is even named differently, as it should be.

You're not a bigot, they're just making you appear a bigot?

ldsfaqs wrote:Anyway, it IS worth it.... to name it differently.

I hope you understand that this is a reasoned and tolerant position, as well as an important one.

Take care.

I understand this as a huge display of bigotry.

As one who is an 'owner' of this 'institution', I do not find any offence in any sort of same sex marriage. Hell, I'll even marry any who wish to make that step.

ldsfaqs wrote:

Buffalo wrote:One on one heterosexual marriage is an entirely different kind of marriage, and as is correct, it has its own name, it's called monogamy.

True..... But that term only exists because other types of marriage existed, i.e Polygamy.

I'm simply stating that Gay Marriage needs it's own name and definition.
As well, marriage has always been heterosexual. Different kinds of marriages simply need to be classed differently and identified differently. To classify them the same as traditional marriage, that marriage is marriage no matter what kind it is is wrong both intellectually and morally.

Marriage was always about treating women as property, until we changed it.

lemme get this straight, ldsfaqs. they can have all the same rights and privileges as heterosexuals, you just want them to call it something different? "gayarriage" is ok with you? so it's about the name only? does that mean it boils down to prescriptive linguistics for you? you don't want the english language perverted?

or is it that you think that what you have (or can have) as a heterosexual somehow becomes lessened by homosexuals being permitted to participate? would you also feel that your neighborhood home values would go down if homosexuals move in? would your home somehow be less desirable to you?

Isn't ironic that Mormons work with other religious groups to exclude homosexuals from marriage and at the same time are fighting with these same groups to be included as Christians.

I think we should pass a law that defines Christianity, it is, after all, an institution with a long tradition that needs to be protected from those that would infringe on the rights of the true believers. Those that are not Christians can still practice their religion as they wish they just have to call it something different.