Congratulations Gay Obama Zombies! One more reason to realize that perhaps the people who keep saying they’re the ones on your side– aren’t. And maybe, just maybe, a reminder of the benefits that would exist if our vote and support had to won as opposed to taken for granted. So let’s check our Gay Rights scorecard:
Clinton: Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. Defense of Marriage Act.
Bush: Hmm, lots of rhetoric about the gays, but fascinatingly not one anti-gay executive order or piece of legislation in 8 years.
Obama: Just now, Sept 09: Obama admin: dismiss gay couple benefits lawsuit
June 09: Obama angers gays with marriage law defense
With friends like these it makes this cover of the Advocate one of the most prescient yet.
I take it that you’re trying to point out to advocates of gay marriage that they backed the wrong guy if they wanted a candidate who agreed with them. It should be noted however that, last I heard from you years ago, you are not an advocate for gay marriage. Maybe your point is that this is yet another constituency he deceived to get elected.
I’m personally ambivalent on the issue itself. On the one hand I like the idea of gay marriage for the sake of the principle that people should be allowed to pursue happiness, if they believe that marriage is that pursuit. On the other, gay marriage advocates have oversimplified the issue, particularly as it pertains to family law. Advocates believe that all that needs to be done is change the “man” and “woman” designations on the marriage license to “Partner A” and “Partner B”. I’ve read some accounts of gay divorces with children involved and I can see that judges struggle with the custody issue, because they’re used to making decisions around the gender of each parent. The law is even oriented this way. Advocates haven’t addressed this at all. They should if they want to be taken seriously.
the civil rights/ community organizing tradition the likes of obama would like to see themselves part of has a long ugly history of hating gays- something that still plagues even our dialogue about human rights in general vis a vis in particular homosexuals and specifically americans of african descent.how many times are even those not considered particularly political or radical seen getting outraged when gays claim their stake in the ‘civil rights’ pie. and you don’t want to know what highly radicalized black muslims think about homosexuals.
the anti-semitism aka known as wanting to destroy israel is also a hallmark of the tradition- from leftists of many ilks to black panthers to the church obama belonged in for 20 years. if jews like gays thought obama wasn’t going to flirt outrageously with them for votes than run them down…
bayard rustin was the architect of the march on washington where rev martin luther king gave the ‘ i have a dream ‘ speech. he was also black, a quaker and gay. he was the point man too on applying the principles of non violence to the protests. he was one of the most important people behind the civil rights movement and it’s success and you barely hear his name today. it’s criminal. and it was because he was gay in large part. he was also someone who dedicated his life to the basic rights of all humans- not just ones of a certain color despite those of a certain color. unlike the black panthers, who co opted the movement, he was pro israel, critical of affirmative action- that is he was against the sort of identity politics that has come to drive both gays and the sort of acorn-obama sickness that has been installed in the executive branch. rustin so important to civil rights in america has been disappeared by the very people he dedicated his life to.
the fault of obama is also the weak ankles of the gay movement- identity politics . they were told- black trumps teh ghey- but they weren’t listening or perhaps did not understand and that’s the point- not understanding the ethos behind such movements because of the patina of selfish lies and abstractions that coat them perhaps because you yourself use the same means- any means- to an end.
The real question is: Whether or not the gays will bark about Obama publicly, but still cast their votes in favor of Obama, or just completely disown him and the dems? I beleive the former is more likely than the latter.
I want to be a member of a FREE SOCIETY. Not a christian heritage nor a muslim heritage society. Period. What does a free sociey entail? It is a government that respects INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. I feel like a broken record. The founding principle is that of individual rights; each citizen is left to pursue his or her own happiness without government intrusion. I knew from day one that President Obama was a phony. He’ll do and say anything to get elected, just like all politicians. The gay establishment, which I am proud to NOT be a member of are leftist by nature. Their need to toe the line of hating America makes them unable to see when they are being played for fools. Every democrat needs the vote of the gay community, promising but not delivering.
This is why they can’t be bothered with defending homosexuals in the Middle East or other Third World countries. In Iraq right now we have regular murders of gays. It’s an Islamic war against gays, literally. I haven’t heard a peep from GLAAD or The Human Rights Campaign. And barely from the MSM. It would mess up their narrative.
Personally, I would like the Constitution to be followed. I know in this climate the Constitution is some old document with no meaning, but I take it seriously. I think gay marriage could have been handled years ago. For me I don’t need the states sanction. I don’t need approval from a bureaucracy. But when the federal government sanctions certain groups with a laundry list of tax benefits among other benefits, there is a problem. Some states have made it easier for same sex couples to establish legal arrangements. Since marriage is a contract, many establish their commitment with domestic partnerships, wills, living trusts, etc. However, it’s meaningless come April 15th. Which is the whole problem. Until the gay establishment wakes up, the hypocrisy will continue unopposed. It’s all about being taken seriously.
Hey, maybe the gay couple should have donned black berets, leather jackets, billy clubs, and sneered menacingly at voters at their polling place on election day 2008. If they had done so, they might have been given special treatment by [D]ear Leader, today.
Seriously, I agree with [email protected], September 19, 2009 at 4:29 pm. Nothing’s gonna change. All the old people in my family are big anti-Commies. They hate the Castro Twins and the Russians. And yet, when it comes time to vote for the president they vote for the Democrat Party candidate. Heck they think they’re still voting for JFK and the party is the Democrat Party of old.
Sad.
The reason I am against the gay benefits is because I believe a family is composed of a man ,woman and child. These institutions where set up this way by our society to encourage the creation of families. Now I am sure there are gay couples who would make very good parents just as there are hetersosexual couples who would make terrible parents. The fact still remains that the ideal situation is man, woman and Child. That is not even the strongest argument against gay couples sharing federal benefits though. In my opinion if the government where to give benefits to gays we would see a huge surge in the amount of gay couples. These won’t be real gay couples mind you, just people who say they are gay so they can get the benefits. What is going to stop two co- workers who are single to suddenly find out they are gay and move in with each other to save money on their benefits? What is going to stop me from marrying my own brother? Surely the state could not discriminate against that since there would be no offspring.
I am sure there are some heterosexual people who are not real “couples” who get married to share benefits but it seems to me it would be quite rare. As for why Obama wanted this ruling I think his lawyers told him it had the potential to cost the government lots of extra money because of fraud I have describe above.
pardon me for commenting again but i too am disturbed that any mention of homosexuality and rights under the constitution inevitably brings up religion- specifically how we’re all suppose to be happy to be denied the rights accorded to other humans more the better under a ‘ christian ‘ nation rather than elsewhere .
being born gives everyone the right to equality under the constitution with no exceptions. it is the beauty of and the most divine part of our country’s heritage and founding.
for the record, i don’t think government has any business being involved in any religion or religious institutions. religious beliefs ( or lack of them) can’t be forced upon nor taken from us . the constitution draws these lines for us- we all need to respect it. reflexively rubbing christianity or a specific religious based moral code in everyone’s face- especially those of us who are not christian-is counter productive and sometimes offensive. i am respectful of other people’s religious beliefs (although i am well aware that the left is dismissive and smug about faith in general)- all i ask is that others be respectful of mine or my lack of them. there is something deeply disturbing to me that any mention of homosexuality immediately pops up a religious monologue about unnatural behavior and marrying penguins or sheep or your brother.
i am thankful for and aware of the great influence of ‘christian’ beliefs upon this country but other non judeo-christian religions which predate christianity also embodied some of the same ideals- the bible borrows liberally from these traditions, my tradition, paganism. democracy’s birth place was pagan greece. the golden rule of doing unto others as if they were ‘thine self ‘comes from tantric law as well as appearing in ancient egyptian texts and those of the greeks, ‘reaping what ye sow’ comes from buddhist texts. christianity came out of older traditions. we and our chosen beliefs do not exist in a void; the past is longer than we have the will , desire, or ability to recall.
that said this so called christian nation was founded largely by men of the european enlightenment who were either outright Deists or heavily influenced by deism. thomas paine, john adams, james madison, benjamin franklin and thomas jefferson all espoused what could be labeled diest beliefs best represented today by the unitarian universalists. these men knew the horrors visited upon a nation, a people by religious belief as a vehicle of the state control and they constructed a government system that kept such a destructive often murderous power in check, respecting individual free will and self determination. this country is founded on the right to free will which exists beyond the powers or definition of any state or religion. we are a country based on freedom from state as religion/ religion as state- we exist despite the so very unchristian christian institutions that controlled and terrorized europe for centuries.
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice ? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.
George Washingtons farewell adress
While I can’t deny being influenced by religion in my opinion of this issue there is a much larger issue and that is of rights VS responsiblities. It can be summed up by the following.
At a time when most of our public discourse concerns rights, it may seem strange to speak of responsibilities. But a democratic republic needs patriotic citizens who are fulfilling their responsibilities as well as claiming their rights. No society is so secure that it can withstand continued demands for increases in citizen rights without producing corresponding increases in the fulfillment of citizen responsibilities. Responsibilities like honesty, respect for personal and property rights, self-reliance, and willingness to sacrifice for the common good are basic to the governance and preservation of our nation.
It is my opinion that even if gays are allowed to marry that marriage really doesn’t mean much anyway. I’ve heard of gay couples worrying about their children being taken away from them because they don’t have the so called protection of marriage. Well that is all hogwash because I was married and my wife was unfaithful and she unilaterally asked for a divorce. She did not have to prove fault on my part and was granted the divorce. At the time I lived in Utah and you would think they would be a little stricter than most states in keeping a family together. Wrong!! She met someone on the internet gave me one weeks notice and moved to Pittsburgh pa. There was nothing legally I could do to stop her even though I had joint legal custody of my two children. I could go on but this is not the place.
First, didn’t both Obummer and Biden state during the debates that they do not support gay marriage? Second, I have found conservatives to be FAR more accepting and inclusive than any liberal group. Lastly, for anyone to vote for president based on one issue is pretty damn naive. More important than who I choose to love is the continued survival of my country. Focus on that and all else will fall into place; imho. But these words come from someone who has never felt the discrimination that others have. Even in the deep South. Seems in my world folks are judged by who they are and not who they do.
One more time: “Marriage” is a religious covenant, that should not be granted by the state to anyone. A civil union, or civil contract should be the only state recognition of a legal pairing, for tax purposes, inheritance, and whatever advantages there may be, and should be open to anyone. No one should be able to have more than one domestic civil contract at a time, and it shouldn’t extend to your cat, unless your cat can recite the Declaration of Independence, and write his/her reason for consent, and sign in their own hand. I think the concept of informed consent would exclude animals, not that that’s a big worry. This is an area where all could benefit by a separation of church and state.