Obama: Pro-Gay Talk, but No Action

47 responses so far

• 1 balconesfault // Oct 11, 2009 at 1:15 pm

  Good luck with the Republicans leading the reversal of § 654 of Pub.L. 103-160 – when people like Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX) continue to be the Republican face on the issue:

  http://www.news-journal.com/opin/content/news/opinion/stories/2009/10/11/10112009_juan_column.html

  GOHMERT: If you’re oriented toward animals, bestiality, then, you know, that’s not something that can be used, held against you or any bias be held against you for that. Which means you’d have to strike any laws against bestiality, if you’re oriented toward corpses, toward children, you know, there are all kinds of perversions, [...] pedophiles or necrophiliacs or what most would say is perverse sexual orientations but the trouble is, we made amendments to eliminate pedophiles from being included in the definition. [...] But people have always been willing to give up their liberties, their freedoms in order to gain economic stability. It happened in 1920 and 1930’s. Germany gave up their liberties to gain economic stability and they got a little guy with a mustache, who was the ultimate hate monger. And this is scary stuff we’re doing here when we take away what has traditionally been an important aspect of moral teaching in America.

• 2 greg_barton // Oct 11, 2009 at 2:34 pm

  Yes, and things would be sooooo much better under republicans.

  Soooooo much better.

• 3 EscapeVelocity // Oct 11, 2009 at 3:59 pm

  These gays and their far Leftwing allies are trying to push their morality on everyone else.

  This is a losing strategy for the Left, people dont want to be lectured too, by the pious moralizing cultural Left.

  These people need to be ostracized from the Left so that the Left can attract centrist voters. The Left needs to move Center.

• 4 rbottoms // Oct 11, 2009 at 5:10 pm

  GOP, home of ghastly, vicious homophobes with guns.

  That’s a 2010 bumper stick if I ever heard one.

• 5 Kevin B // Oct 11, 2009 at 8:07 pm

  escapevelocity, I see what you did there.

• 6 SFTor1 // Oct 11, 2009 at 8:54 pm

  escapevelocity, does it ever occur to you that you are better off if you keep your mouth shut sometimes?

  T’

• 7 JupiterSuite // Oct 11, 2009 at 8:56 pm

  Amen, this should be a GOP issue, we should be pro liberty (i.e. gay rights) and pro conservation (i.e. environmental preservation, with sanity)

• 8 Obama: Pro-Gay Talk, but No Action - Hip Hop Republican // Oct 11, 2009 at 9:25 pm

  [...] don’t tell” and Golinkin highlights two lawyers fighting for equal rights in the courts.  more Share [...]

• 9 agentprovocateur // Oct 11, 2009 at 10:52 pm

  These gays and their far Leftwing allies are trying to push their morality on everyone else.

  Oh, would that be like many on the right who (often hypocritically) try to push their morality on everyone else? Project much?

  These people need to be ostracized from the Left so that the Left can attract centrist voters. The Left needs to move Center.

  Awww. Look at the pretty concern trolling.

  Meanwhile, it’s quite amusing for anyone to suggest that the GOP should take the lead in ending DADT. I mean, in what alternative universe would that occur?

• 10 EscapeVelocity // Oct 11, 2009 at 11:26 pm

  So, the GOP should ditch Christian Social Cons and move to the Center, but the Democrats should pander to Far Left Progressive Moralizers.

  Makes perfect sense! if you are a Leftwing shill.

• 11 SFTor1 // Oct 12, 2009 at 12:02 am

  escaperesponsibility,

  please give me three reasons, based on Republican political philosophy, for why gay and lesbian Americans should not have all rights and freedoms enjoyed by other Americans.

  I look forward to your reply.

• 12 EscapeVelocity // Oct 12, 2009 at 12:08 am

  for why gay and lesbian Americans should not have all rights and freedoms enjoyed by other Americans — sftor

  They already do.

  QED

• 13 EscapeVelocity // Oct 12, 2009 at 12:09 am

  Furthermore they have special rights, as well, not afforded other Americans….which is an abomination.

• 14 greg_barton // Oct 12, 2009 at 12:34 am

  Please list those special rights.

• 15 Kevin B // Oct 12, 2009 at 5:34 am

  Marriage is a special right.

• 16 sdspringy // Oct 12, 2009 at 7:35 am

  The only reason the Dems keep pushing this issue off on Rep. is because they can’t win on it either. How is it possible that traditional marriage was protected in California when the majority of voters are Liberal. Because traditional Democrat voters also voted against the Libs on this one. So why would Republican conservatives want to vote for this loser of an issue.

  In every state where traditional marriage protection is added to a ballot, it wins. As a crossover issue it is a big win for conservatives. Until the Dems can bring a majority of their own voters over to the extreme Lefty Lib side to vote for homosexual marriage the conservative should stay as far awaya as possible.

• 17 EscapeVelocity // Oct 12, 2009 at 10:42 am

  Gays are not prevented from marrying.

• 18 Claude // Oct 12, 2009 at 11:54 am

  The chief purpose of our military is to win the wars we are currently fighting. Given that winning the wars we’re fighting means first winning the support or cooperation of many ordinary Muslims, eliminating “don’t ask – don’t tell” would certainly seem to be counterproductive.

• 19 Kevin B // Oct 12, 2009 at 12:05 pm

  Yes, I know many gay people who are (or were) married to members of the opposite sex.

  Anti-miscegenation laws didn’t prevent anyone from marrying either. You just had to marry someone of your own race.

  Where same-sex marriage is legally recognized, it is of course open to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. Since there are more heterosexuals, this stands to benefit them disproportionately, don’t you think?

• 20 balconesfault // Oct 12, 2009 at 12:37 pm

  Given that winning the wars we’re fighting means first winning the support or cooperation of many ordinary Muslims, eliminating “don’t ask – don’t tell” would certainly seem to be counterproductive.

  What has actually been counterproductive is the large number of Arabic translators we’ve lost due to DADT.

  Meanwhile, do you really believe that retaining DADT will do anything to convince jihadists that America is not inherently an immoral nation? Even Pat Robertson adn Jerry Falwell made that argument after 9/11.

• 21 Claude // Oct 12, 2009 at 12:50 pm

  It is not “jihadists” we need to win over. It is ordinary Muslims who don’t want terrorism but also don’t want the cultural norms of their society to be overthrown.

• 22 DFL // Oct 12, 2009 at 12:52 pm

  Homosexuals are immoral and unworthy of respect. I know of no soldiers who wish to serve with them. Obama and the Left hates the military so it is no surprise that they wish to inflict homosexuals on a socially conservative institution like the military.

• 23 rbottoms // Oct 12, 2009 at 1:31 pm

  Inflict homosexuals?

  You’ve obviously never been in the military. There are and always have been gays in the military. Some of the brave who have laid down their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq count among them.

  All that’s being asked is to let them serve openly.

  But since the ridiculous premise of this OP is that the GOP would serve the gay community better than the Democrats what I really must have stumbled on is someone working on a comedy sketch in which the party that perfected gay bashing is actually home of the good guys.

  Any comparisons between homosexuality and bestiality is a mere slip of the lip.

  We kid. We’re kidders.

• 24 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 12, 2009 at 2:07 pm

  dfl wrote: “Homosexuals are immoral and unworthy of respect.”

  Given some of your previous rantings, I presume this view is based upon your interpretation of the Bible. If that is the case, do you believe adulters are also immoral and unworthy of respect? In fact, which types of “sinners,” if any, are worthy of respect?

• 25 SpartacusIsNotDead // Oct 12, 2009 at 2:08 pm

  I meant to write “adulterers.”

• 26 EscapeVelocity // Oct 12, 2009 at 2:32 pm

  This is the problem, the culture war being waged by the Left. If you actually want sanity and compromise and good governance to return to the West….this must be totally disempowered, then the reactionary right will settle down.

  But most are not serious about that line of reasoning, they are in fact just waging the Culture War from the Left….with disinguenuious arguments….which amount to ad hominems.

  The Looney Left 1- 60 Minutes

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aLlrfEYtqFU&feature=related

  The Looney Left 2- 60 Minutes

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDhLCg5c-gU&feature=related

• 27 sdspringy // Oct 12, 2009 at 2:33 pm

  The only reason the Dems keep pushing this issue off on Rep. is because they can’t win on it either. How is it possible that traditional marriage was protected in California when the majority of voters are Liberal. Because traditional Democrat voters also voted against the Libs on this one. So why would Republican conservatives want to vote for this loser of an issue.

  In every state where traditional marriage protection is added to a ballot, it wins. As a crossover issue it is a big win for conservatives. Until the Dems can bring a majority of their own voters over to the extreme Lefty Lib side to vote for homosexual marriage the conservative should stay as far awaya as possible.

• 28 EscapeVelocity // Oct 12, 2009 at 2:36 pm

  Homosexual agenda covered on video 2 at about the halfway mark, however the whole thing is worth wacthing as it shows the multifaceted identity politics and New Left attack on Western Civilization…..especially as regards education (where they can propagandize and indocrinate them).

• 29 sdspringy // Oct 12, 2009 at 2:55 pm

  http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/12/obama-wh-to-lefty-bloggers-take-off-the-pajamas-and-get-real/

  And here even the Obama WH officials tell the Lefty Bloggers, ie Bacon, Rbottoms, Annie, to ,”get out of their pajamas and join the real world”.

  So unless your a Lady GAGA liberal, drop the homosexual tears, grow a set, more importantly learn what they are for and move on.

• 30 Kevin B // Oct 12, 2009 at 3:04 pm

  Grow a set and stop standing up for what you believe in . That’s funny.

• 31 balconesfault // Oct 12, 2009 at 3:18 pm

  sdspringy: And here even the Obama WH officials tell the Lefty Bloggers, ie Bacon, Rbottoms, Annie, to ,”get out of their pajamas and join the real world”.

  Am I missing something … or are the only ones here who are claiming or implying that Obama is doing the wrong thing by putting the ball in Congress’ court instead of unilaterally nullifying § 654 of Pub.L. 103-160 a number of the Frum-chosen bloggers … and not any of the centrist/liberal commentors?

• 32 rbottoms // Oct 12, 2009 at 3:20 pm

  You mean the real world where we have a Democratic president and control both house of Congress? I like that world a lot. And the WH has since backed off that little dig.

  We won last year. You lost. So if there are any tears to be shed they are yours.

  Even if we lose seats next year we won’t lose either the House of the Senate. We’ll just give back some seats we wouldn’t have picked up if the previous president hadn’t been such a monumental disaster.

  And 2012 is shaping up to be the year you guys nominate the Moose Hunter and governor Urkel to head up you ticket. That should be fun. A brainless sweet talker and a part time exorcist as the best you have to offer against Barrack Obama. As Wolverine says, “Good luck with that.”

• 33 sinz54 // Oct 12, 2009 at 5:39 pm

  rbottoms:
  

  We’ll just give back some seats we wouldn’t have picked up if the previous president hadn’t been such a monumental disaster.

  Given how much difficulty Pelosi and Reid have had passing anything even with big Democratic majorities,

  a gain of 30 seats in the House should be sufficient to stop Pelosi in her tracks. The result will be liberals reduced to a minority in the House again.

• 34 SFTor1 // Oct 12, 2009 at 11:19 pm

  sinz:

  Do you believe these 30 Republican seats will help win gays and lesbians equal rights?

• 35 brandon // Oct 13, 2009 at 1:24 am

  Gays and lesbians already have the same rights as anyone else under the constitution. They aren’t asking for equal rights, they are asking for special rights.

  Now, I don’t believe anyone should be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation in areas like the workplace. But at the same time that doesn’t include the right to dress however you want either.

  It also doesn’t include the right to redefine marriage. What kind of contract two consenting adults want to enter is none of my business, but marriage is reserved for one man and one woman.

  Liberals, keep pushing the radical gay rights agenda like Obama’s “safe schools czar” Kevin Jennings down America’s throat and see how popular that is at election time.

• 36 Kevin B // Oct 13, 2009 at 2:19 am

  Brandon, as I said before, if marriage is extended to include same-sex partners, it won’t be a “special right” for gays; it will also be legal for straight people to marry someone of the same sex.

  It’s an expanded right for all.

• 37 EscapeVelocity // Oct 13, 2009 at 2:39 am

  As a spokesman for the victimized Muslim minority, I would like to expand marriage to include 6 year old girls. Its an expanded right for all.

  LOL!

• 38 Kevin B // Oct 13, 2009 at 3:39 am

  Six-year-old girls can marry when they’re old enough to legally consent. Dumb analogy. But if that’s what YOU want, lobby your congressman for it.

• 39 EscapeVelocity // Oct 13, 2009 at 4:18 am

  Exactly, thus the culture wars…in which Christians are villified for playing the same game as the Leftwing cultural groups….reacting to them.

  So now that we are just arguing whose morality should be imposed upon society….and specifically not one group seeking to impose its morality over other peoples freedom, but rather multiple groups seeking to impose their morality on other people and their freedom.

  Glad we cleared that up.

• 40 Kevin B // Oct 13, 2009 at 4:52 am

  Sure. In a freedom-loving society, the freedom to marry the one you love is a winning proposition.

  You may claim that my marriage interferes with your freedom to stop me from being married, but that’s a losing proposition. Your connection to my marriage is virtually nonexistent, and the two people who are involved are consenting adults. Our freedom to marry trumps your freedom to prevent us from marrying.

  There are obvious reasons why this does not apply to your freedom to marry a six-year-old. The six-year-old cannot legally consent to the marriage.

  Theocracies, such as those controlled by Islam, will be the last to accept same-sex marriage. And the last to give up cultural horrors such as honor killings and marrying children.

• 41 sinz54 // Oct 13, 2009 at 9:30 am

  brandon:
  

  Gays and lesbians already have the same rights as anyone else under the constitution. They aren’t asking for equal rights, they are asking for special rights.

  There’s absolutely nothing in the Constitution about civil marriage, one way or the other.

  But despite this, we’ve created a myriad of laws around civil marriage that deal with taxation (filing joint returns), estate planning, inheritance, hospital visitation rights, divorce, community property settlement, etc.

  Currently, gays are excluded from this. I don’t believe a gay couple can file a joint tax return and take advantage of joint return tax rates, for example.

  Gay couples are simply demanding the right to be treated by the law exactly as straight couples are treated. You must admit that right now, that isn’t the case.

• 42 sinz54 // Oct 13, 2009 at 9:30 am

  sftor1:
  

  Do you believe these 30 Republican seats will help win gays and lesbians equal rights?

  No.

• 43 brandon // Oct 13, 2009 at 10:16 am

  “Gay couples are simply demanding the right to be treated by the law exactly as straight couples are treated. You must admit that right now, that isn’t the case.”

  No, that isn’t the case. But the main reason government should even be involved in marriage is because the family unit is the backbone of any society. Granted not all straight couples will have children. But we know beyond any doubt that the best environment for children is a family consisting of one father and one mother. It is in society’s best interest for government policy to strengthen this type of family structure.

  The gay agenda has become about trying to get society to accept homosexual couples as an equal to heterosexual couples. We all know that is not valid. Again, people should have the right to enter into gay relationships but that should never be seen as an equal to one man and one woman entering into marriage.

• 44 Kevin B // Oct 13, 2009 at 10:44 am

  “But we know beyond any doubt that the best environment for children is a family consisting of one father and one mother.”

  “Beyond any doubt” is where you go astray.

  Some studies show that children raised by two same-sex parents do as well as those raised by opposite-sex parents. So it is in society’s best interest for the government to promote these kinds of families as well.

  Even for couples without children, it’s in society’s best interest to promote mutual commitment. It provides a buffer when one partner is briefly unable to work, or needs care. A married person can turn first to a spouse when times get tough, instead of to the public. When my brother was laid off earlier this year, his wife went to work full time (instead of part time) until he could find another job.

• 45 agentprovocateur // Oct 13, 2009 at 7:25 pm

  As a spokesman for the victimized Muslim minority, I would like to expand marriage to include 6 year old girls. Its an expanded right for all.

  What a vile and despicable comparison. As if two adults of the same gender wanting to marry is the same as pedophilia. Of course, we should expect such logic from the same warped mind that thinks that a bunch of traitorous losers from the 1860s were really just misunderstood and misrepresented patriots.

• 46 me // Oct 14, 2009 at 5:58 am

  Conservatives should welcome gays. This writer has it right. Read this smart link:

  http://americaspeaksink.com/2009/07/pro-life-pro-gay-marriage/

• 47 sinz54 // Oct 14, 2009 at 1:17 pm

  kevin-b:
  

  Even for couples without children, it’s in society’s best interest to promote mutual commitment. It provides a buffer when one partner is briefly unable to work, or needs care.

  Exactly–and that’s true for straight as well as gay couples.

  I knew a married straight couple once who were childless. Then the wife fell seriously ill. Her husband took care of her and kept the household running, so she could stay at home till she recovered. Without him she would certainly have been institutionalized indefinitely, a lonely patient, which would have not been as good for her. You can easily envision a similar scenario for a gay or lesbian couple.

  And there’s also the fact that permanently bonded, faithful couples are unlikely to catch STDs. Promiscuity enormously increases the risk of catching an STD.

  I don’t understand why some folks think it’s in society’s interest to promote commitment, sharing and bonding for straight adults, but it’s just fine if gays are single, lonely and promiscuous. Unless they just don’t want gays to be gay. I suspect that’s the case.

You must log in to post a comment.