Mitt Romney vs. Bob Garon: Gay Veteran Says He Didn't Expect GOP Candidate To Be 'Confrontational'

Bob Garon, a 63-year-old gay military veteran, spoke on MSNBC Tuesday about his tense exchange Monday in Manchester, N.H. with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney over same-sex marriage.

Garon was eating breakfast with his husband at Chez Vachon restaurant and was wearing a Vietnam Veteran hat that Romney noticed. Garon asked about New Hampshire's gay marriage law. Romney said he supported the repeal of the law and believed that marriage was between a man and a woman.

"It's good to know how you feel, that you do not believe everyone is entitled to their constitutional rights," Garon replied.

"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." Garon told reporters that "you can't trust" Romney.

Garon spoke on MSNBC about the exchange. "Well, quite frankly I'm not a professor of the Constitution but I don't believe it says anything about a man and a woman and defining marriage," he said. "I didn't expect the answer that I got -- I thought he'd be a little more diplomatic in his answer. But I did ask for a yes-or-no question and I've got to respect that that he did give me a yes-or-no answer."

He said he felt Romney was avoiding him: "I was getting a little frustrated that he was avoiding me -- at least I felt he was -- he seemed to be following the cameras ... and I was the last person he spoke with."

Garon repeated that he didn't expect the answer. "What I didn't expect from Mr. Romney is how confrontational he was and argumentative, I wasn't there for a debate with him -- I just wanted him to answer the question. And my question was really hoping that if he did get into the White House that he'd be in support of the benefits entitled to veterans and their spouses. Currently, they're not."

While gays and lesbians can now serve in the military openly after the repeal of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy, their spouses are not entitled to federal benefits because of the Defense of Marriage Act. The Huffington Post's Max Rosenthal reported that the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network filed a lawsuit in federal court in October challenging the constitutionality of DOMA as well as provisions in the U.S. code that forbid service members in same-sex marriages from receiving the same benefits as heterosexual couples.

Comments

[Ray Blodgetts]

10:43 AM on 09/14/2012

What a coward. What a worthless excuse of a human being.

[NathDaniel]

10:39 PM on 12/24/2011

The Republican party is based on Christianity and Christianity is a religion of hatred, intolerance, bigotry and WAR. Crusades? Inquisitions? I guess we should be glad that they're not burning us at the stake anymore. Small favors...

[pdsimdars]

07:07 PM on 12/14/2011

I have always been puzzled by the church-state haze around this issue. A corporation is a legal entity that has certain rights and responsibilities related to it. Similarly, the marriage certificate is a contract between 2 people with certain rights and responsibilities. How is it that the government should specify who can enter into that marriage contract? The reasons the Republicans give are all RELIGIOUS. How is it that the government is enforcing the interpretations of certain people about one religion?
The ONLY reasons for the man/woman stipulation are religious and they want our government to enforce that. And if they say the marriage contract is set up for 'procreation of the species' , are all those 1000+ rights associated with the marriage contract, for procreation purposes? And what about people who do not choose to have children or are unable to have children or are too old to have children. If you let older people or sterile people marry, then you can't say marriage is for procreation.
In either case, you can't have the government doing it. You can have government sanctioning this type of contract between 2 people, but the church can chose to sanction whatever kind of 'marriage' they condone. But the 2 should not be confused.

[pdsimdars]

06:45 PM on 12/14/2011

It is SO wonderful when those inside their bubbles are forced to confront REALITY . . like GHWBush and the store price scanner. . . it shows how out of touch they are with humanity.

[Steve Faria]

04:20 PM on 12/14/2011

There's really no coherent argument for traditional marriage stipulated in the constitution, because by golly, why would they go there? It is unnatural and a complete departure from the staid, calm and collected image anyone can paint of the founders' philosophies on social interplay. Such a debauchery for a people guided by Biblical and political norms of their day, they have left us with the modern hot potato arising from odd & deviant behavior taking some steam.

Soon there will be mob influence crying out for the rights of unicyclists, bowlers who don't drink, and outdoorsmen who want to ascend Brokeback Mountain in bare feet. They should have their particular cares and concerns codified in US law, or am I stretching here a bit?

[pdsimdars]

06:51 PM on 12/14/2011

"staid, calm and collected"? There's a great movie "Partiot" with Mel Gibson.about the Revolutionary war. . . Hey, dude, those guys were REVOLUTIONARIES, they were RADICAL. . Mother England was that conservative, staid, structure that our revolutionary forfathers decided to take that most radical, unthinkable step in history of setting up a country governed BY THE PEOPLE. . That was the great experiment that no one had ever thought of or tried before. If that isn't the OPPOSITE of staid. . . well, I misunderstood that word.

[aonemandog]

04:04 PM on 12/14/2011

While I thank Mr. Garon for his service, I have to question why any thinking gay person or military person would vote for a Republican. Any Republican, candidate or elected, will step all over gay people if it suits their agenda or re-election needs. And Republicans have no compunction about sending men and women off to war in support of the financial objectives of big business. That is really what Iraq and Afghanistan are about: making sure that Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, Northrop Grumman, BAE and other MIC contractors meet their sales goals and return high profits to the 1%..

[pdsimdars]

06:53 PM on 12/14/2011

Don't forget to mention that the Republicans send others to war, but also keep cutting the support for them when they return. They only "support the troops" when they are out their fighting for their corporate interests.

[tommecom]

12:26 PM on 12/14/2011

Hey you, yeah you... did you serve this country in the military? did you put your life on the line for the benefit of others? the LEAST we can do is be thankful of ANY veteran or ANY person serving and show them respect and gratitude, this includes treating them like any other veteran, including benefits. Yeah, that's what I thought, you sit there, lazy in front of that computer, getting fat, watching p0rn all day... I can see how you can blame everyone else for the degredation of the world when you cannot even get off your chair to help another human being. shame.

[ldnpaz]

11:20 AM on 12/14/2011

I wish some very intelligent and well informed heterosexual could explain to me why you are so afraid of gay marriage. How is gay marriage going to adversely affect your life? Don't want your opinion just because you don't approve of gay people. How will gay marriage adversely affect your life in such a way that you can't carry on your life just like it is today in your home, in your neighborhood, with your family? Please explain that to me.

[SomewhereInLeftField]

12:10 PM on 12/14/2011

You're going to be waiting for a loooooooooooong time for a rational and coherent answer to the question (read: something that amounts to more than saying "just because").

[rationalitymatters]

02:21 PM on 12/14/2011

Unfortunately, our benig_hted society thinks that civil rights for gay people can be denied based on the religious beliefs of an ancient culture that persist to this day. I am heterosexual and I do not in any way, shape, or form feel threatened by gay marriage. I am ashamed of our country for denying basic human rights to gay Americans. I will never support any politician or political party who deny homosexual couples those rights.

[lmoncrie3]

10:16 AM on 12/14/2011

I'm not a Romney fan but he got this one right! Good for him, regardless of his false religion.

[Freddie27]

11:37 AM on 12/14/2011

Denying Vietnam vets the right to marry the person they love is right?

[lmoncrie3]

11:15 AM on 12/15/2011

YES!

[here2makesense]

04:01 PM on 12/14/2011

He got what right? The only reason EVER cited for denying gays the right to marry are based in religion. And just so that it's clear, we have a democracy, not a theocracy.

[lmoncrie3]

11:51 AM on 12/15/2011

I would say that there are two reasons: 1. History repeats itself. Gay marriage makes no sense as for as a nation or empire having a long term existence. It has been shown through history to be one of the downfalls of past cultures. 2. You are correct. Judeo-Christian values are absolute and they disavow such legal and loathsome arrangements.

Also, in response to your last statement, you are correct. We are not under a physical,national theocracy. I would not want to live under one. We couldn't meet the demands of a theocracy as we see in pre-New Testament times as well as in modern times like we are seeing with Islamic nations. One of the failures of a Democracy is that it is allowable to Pantheistic and Polytheistic controls. Therefore, I think our nations forefathers were correct in creating a Republic for us ( the U.S.) to live freely in and not a Democracy. There are moral absolutes whether everyone likes them or not and there is no such thing as the false statement, "You can't legislate morality". It's done everyday of our lives and our citizenship. Atheism itself has a belief system.

[truth be told again]

09:19 AM on 12/14/2011

Could any of you "States' rights" folk explain to me why all citizens should not be covered under the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the US Constitution?

[PolishBear]

09:44 AM on 12/14/2011

Indeed, the issue of marriage equality for Gay couples CANNOT be addressed in a piecemeal, state-by-state basis, not only because of the "Full Faith & Credit" clause, but also the fact that MOST of the legal benefits and protections of marriage come from the FEDERAL government. A lot of this has to do with tax law and Social Security. So it just won't do for a Gay couple to be legally married in Iowa, only to become "UN-married" if they decide to move south to Missouri.

[Zippy1169]

08:49 AM on 12/14/2011

“As an independen­t who votes 95% republican­, I am done with them at least for this presidenti­al election. I cannot support an individual or party that in this day and age wants to suppress the rights of its citizens. We spend billions of dollars to help citizens around the world have rights but won't treat our own citizens with equality. We are talking about basic human rights, fair and equal treatment. Religion, and I do view it as a incorrect view of Christiani­ty, has NO place in this discussion­. (I was a religion major at a Catholic University btw) The point is two people who have committed to each other, through marriage or a recognized union, should have equal rights under the law. So either heterosexu­al couples and homosexual couples should have benefit and survivor rights or not. But it should be the same treatment. This is not a religious position it is a equal treatment under the constituti­on position.

Republican Presidenti­al politician­s need to remove the word marriage from their head because it is getting in the way of them thinking with any common sense. The word marriage seems to be causing them to be unable to think rationally (or without undo influence from the Christian Right) I don't care if you personally approve if I am gay, black, or a woman. I am do equal rights.... PERIOD”

[SomewhereInLeftField]

12:11 PM on 12/14/2011

Right on!

We can disagree about tax policy, or foreign policy, or energy policy, but equal rights for all is something we should all be able to agree on.

[Victoria Ayers]

12:45 PM on 12/14/2011

I wish we could redefine "marriage" strictly as a legal partnership between consenting adults, and separate that from the "sacrament of marriage" which is something only churches can provide. Let everyone have full and equal rights under the Constitution, and leave it up to the Baptists to whom they will provide the sacrament.

[Zippy1169]

01:40 PM on 12/14/2011

Exactly Victoria. Marriage is just a loaded term. There should be a sterile legal term for a union of two adults. We as individuals or churches can label that union anything we want or recognize it or not. But the legal government recognized union is equal opportunity.

[JedMerrill]

05:05 AM on 12/14/2011

Mitt is right, as usual.

There was no question at the time the Constitution was written what marriage entails.

There should be no question now!

Mitt 2012!

[VagabondBull]

07:37 AM on 12/14/2011

Please enlighten the audience and show us where in the Constitution it says this. Because it doesn't.

[Steve Faria]

04:30 PM on 12/14/2011

No, I've heard it said that no provision is made in the constitution regarding the norms of married life. JedM seems to be saying just that: founders gave no direction on it. I suppose there would be no call for attention to something so accepted as a sunrise or things getting wet when it rains. There was no cause to argue for or against any tenet involved in man & wife contractually. Just too weird to take a non-issue out of thin air, back then I mean. So it remains what they left us, lawfully.

[truth be told again]

09:16 AM on 12/14/2011

Marriage isn't even mentioned in the Constitution. But women not having the vote was. And treating blacks as 3/5 of a person wastoo.

Seems THAT is the time you want to take "your" country back to.

Ugh.

[DUSAA-1775]

07:00 PM on 12/14/2011

You are very incorrect. Treating blacks as 3/5ths of a person was not in the constitution.

[MBKFBOS]

01:38 AM on 12/14/2011

"Mitt he needs to shake it up, shake his perfect hair, let it go gray. Joke alittle...­yell alittle...­.be alittle intense...­show his love for the poor, the abused, neglected portion of our country...­the hungry....­the disabled..­..the middle class...Yo­u can be rich Mitt and still care about the little people. Talk about the philanthro­py you have done. Connect with every culture and creed. Connect with the gays, let them get married....Care about the unity of America, which makes it great! Talk about how you will bring this country together. Help us get jobs...get families out of hotels and shelters..­..laugh..h­owl, kiss a few black babies...listen to rap music...it would be good for you....hu­g your wife in public, dance...let GO!!!! Get angry!! Show you have charisma!! Show you are tough!! Make us like you, otherwise you won't win!!!!”

[LiberalLee]

02:52 AM on 12/14/2011

Dude, you're asking Mitt to show something he just doesn't have.

[Libertarians]

01:13 AM on 12/14/2011

Who or what you marry is not a federal issue nor a government issue, in America we have the right to Liberty and freedom of choice in this regard. Ron Paul has my vote.

[truth be told again]

09:17 AM on 12/14/2011

No one "marry" a "what", since things cannot give consent to enter into a legal contract.

Do better.

[anon004]

10:10 AM on 12/14/2011

"Who or what you marry is not a federal issue nor a government issue, in America we have the right to Liberty and freedom of choice in this regard."

Except for all the state constitutions that have been amended to prohibit it and DOMA.

"Ron Paul has my vote."

Not surprising. My experience is that, almost to a person, Ron Paul's supporters are reality-challenged.

[Celtic0k9]

12:54 AM on 12/14/2011

Romney consistently defers to the idea of "State's Rights" on a variety of different issues, so why does he feel compelled to assert that the constitutionally-recognized laws of the State of New Hampshire should be repealed to conform with his personal point of view?

Garon was a lot more composed and polite than many of us would have been in the exchange with somebody whose obvious agenda is to turn back the progress that has been slowly eroding the antiquated social and religious barriers that prevent all Americans from becoming that "one nation under God" that they profess to believe in.

[Counterglow]

02:46 AM on 12/14/2011

I might be wrong, but I think they added the "under God" bit to the pledge quite a bit later.

[somebody9191]

07:51 AM on 12/14/2011

No, you are not wrong.

[buytheway]

01:23 PM on 12/14/2011

from Wikipedia:

The Pledge of Allegiance of the United States is an expression of loyalty to the federal flag and the republic of the United States of America, originally composed by Christian Socialist Francis Bellamy in 1892 and formally adopted by Congress as the pledge in 1942. The Pledge has been modified four times since its composition, with the most recent change adding the words "under God" in 1954.

[SomewhereInLeftField]

12:14 PM on 12/14/2011

The denial of rights is the denial of rights. Whether it is the federal government saying gays don't have equal rights, or a state government saying gays don't have equal rights, the 14th Amendment has been violated either way.

[Steve Faria]

04:38 PM on 12/14/2011

'Denial of rights' is a supposition no one can validate here, unless you care to try. Where is there any right denied? It has always been the stricture we have now, one man & one wife. Change of rights is what LGBT folk are asking, and that's OK. Just recognize it.

Disruption of a long-standing norm is a special case of right creation, out of the blue, so to speak. Creation of such a new direction for marriage is going to be a long slog, undeniably. Don't hold your breath.