Printable View
What kind of love? You mean have sex with them? Guess there are more kinds of gender identity than anyone ever knows.Quote:
Originally Posted by April78945
Steve Martin was talking about opportunistic people. Those who will do anything to get what they want. Must be an equal user person---for their own gains.
How very un-Christian to think that non hetero people love for selfish reasons. That's not love. It doesn't matter if you are gay, bi, or straight. If you are using someone for your own gains it is not love. It's also not confined to the gay community.Quote:
Originally Posted by janelle
That's true. It was Steve Martin's interpretation but then it was also his relationship.
portraying gay characters on tv isn't an agenda-it is a reflection of life, same as portrayal of people of different races, physical appearances, religions, disabilities, etc. and I don't see it as in your face, if I hold hands w/my DH in public is that pushing my heterosexuality in your face, no I don't think so. If you don't like a show, don't watch it, and by all means monitor what your children watch. I love Two and a Half Men, one of my fav shows, but the content is completely inappropriate for my children so I don't allow them to watch. Gay people don't choose to be gay anymore than I chose not to be so these complaints just seem silly to me. People are who they are and this world is made up of all kinds. And as far as Leave it to Beaver, some may think they grew up in that kind of neighborhood, but you never know what goes on behind closed doors.
That being said there is a lack of quality family programming on network tv but IMO there is a lack of quality programming of any kind on network tv nowadays. Sad, but they choose shows which will win advertising dollars.
There are however some good choices and cable/sat if you have it offers many. Seems to me that networks have moved away from family type shows maybe because there are so many channels that cater to children, families, now-ABC family, disney, etc.
I know I thanked you already but I have to say again thank you and that was a great post. Very well spoken.Quote:
Originally Posted by krisharry
Here I will have to disagree with you ... as the WRITERS and DIRECTORS of the sitcoms and tv dramas have THEMSELVES stated that they do in fact have an agenda...Quote:
Originally Posted by krisharry
Quote:
Los Angeles magazine writer David Ehrenstein boasted in a May cover story, “More than Friends”: “There are openly gay writers on almost every major prime-time situation comedy you can think of … In short, when it comes to sitcoms, gays rule.”
“Ehrenstein, a professed homosexual, cheerfully admits that gay writers are attempting to influence viewers with a homosexual agenda:
... the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation now routinely vets all TV scripts dealing with homosexuality to make sure that the public sees only what the activists want.Quote:
The gay and lesbian writers of today have been pushing the envelope any chance they get. In fact, they’re encouraged to do so. Since current comedies are positively obsessed with the intimate sex lives of straight young singles, who better to write them than members of a minority famed for its sexual candor … as a result of the influx of gay writers, even the most heterosexual of sitcoms often possess that most elusive of undertones – the “gay sensibility” — ‘Frasier’ being a case in point.’ “The ‘gay sensibility consists, according to two homo-sexual writers, of ‘a very urban, very educated, ironic, detached, iconoclastic attitude.’ Plus, a deliberate over-dose of sexuality.”
---
A September 2008 fund-raising mailer from GLAAD proclaims: Quote:
“History proves that social change drives legal and political progress. To succeed as a community, we must transform the way millions of Americans feel about us.”
---
With a record number of homosexual characters on television, and only pro-gay story lines, it’s not surprising that polls show that Americans are becoming increasingly accepting of homosexuality.
The activists are well on their way toward their goal of recasting traditional sexual morality as a form of bigotry.
2 agendas going on-one for advertising dollars and one for people to accept gays as part of life-that's how I took it-not as an agenda to turn us all into gay people or to push their lifestyle on others. I don't think it's any different than black writers wanting stable middleclass black characters instead of gangster thug. Well, crud I'm having a hard time trying to put this in words.
I guess what I am saying is if there is an agenda it's one of people accepting them for who they are -people, just people- if everyone stopped labeling everyone it would be simpler. No different than any other group wanting to be accepted.
To those who say tings like "there is no agenda" or "ther are always the family channels".....
First off there IS an agenda and many Gay activists have openly admitted it in interviews AND books.
2nd I know that at least "The N" a teen Nickelodeon slot is actively pushing "tolerance" and acceptance of gays. Abc family actually advertises itself as "A Different Kind Of Family" with shows about teenage "love" mostly revolving around sex, and also the occassional political statment about all kinds of human sexuality.
When does it become safe for families to let kids watch tv? When it says it is a family or kids network?
NOPE! The political activists say that when kids are taught "tolerance and acceptance of any and every "lifestyle", it is now safe".
Many schools and networks are openly teaching children that "any" opposition to homosexuality is rooted in bigotry and ignorance!
Where is the "tolerance" for the traditional Biblical values that most in our country once held?
I don't think gay characters make tv any less family friendly, it is the entire content of the show that matters. Accepting people for who they are and teaching my children tolerance is a good thing IMO. Just because you are accepting of people doesn't necessarily mean you condone their behavior either. And I am talking about being tolerant of all groups gays and Christians included.
Tolerance means exactly that. You can tolerate gay couples, blacks, whites whichever, having the same rights as you....to get marrried to who they love, to have TV shows that represent them etc. You don't have to do it yourself or even condone it.
You don't have to believe IN everything someone else believes, just be tolerant of it.
5/9/2012
Why Team Obama dodges gay rights issues
The right has had a lot of fun watching Pres. Obama, his administration, and his campaign contorting over the issue of same sex marriage. But there is a serious message beneath the laughter. The most powerful man in the world does not knowingly make a fool of himself (esp. against his presumed ideological leaning on the issue) without reason. He does not pass up big campaign donations by refusing to sign an executive order barring same sex discrimination by federal contractors without reason. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...sl8T_blog.html
Yesterday, I opined in passing that Obama was backing off in hopes of keeping North Carolina in the mix of battleground states where the GOP has to spend money. http://hotair.com/greenroom/archives...-events-in-nc/ Others have suggested Obama’s concerns are bigger than that. The Hotline’s Josh Kraushaar suggested Obama’s gay rights kabuki is more about the Rust Belt than North Carolina and Virginia, asserting that Obama has a much better shot at winning white votes in the former region than the latter. https://twitter.com/#!/HotlineJosh/s...08255043043329 Kraushaar tweeted this shows Obama is still playing for Ohio and Pennsylvania, casting doubt on the VA/NC model. https://twitter.com/#!/HotlineJosh/s...08639157403648 He believes it shows that Obama’s path to reelection remains challenging, because it relies on getting votes from working-class whites who oppose same sex marriage. https://twitter.com/#!/HotlineJosh/s...08864622198786
If Kraushaar is correct, he was understating Obama’s plight. That is the lesson of the otherwise funny candidacy of federal inmate Keith Judd, who racked up an impressive 41 percent of the vote against Obama in the West Virginia Democratic primary. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...wtCU_blog.html The sort of Jacksonian, bitter clingers voting ABO in that state are also found in southwest Virginia, Western Pennsylvania and southern Ohio.
Moreover, Sean Trende suspects Obama’s reluctance to back SSM relates to the African-American vote and the importance of black churches in getting to his 2008 turnout numbers. https://twitter.com/#!/SeanTrende/st...78297365118977 Trende suggests that if Blacks voted in composition and number at pre-2008 levels, Obama has little room for error. https://twitter.com/#!/SeanTrende/st...78494870708224 Given that Black voters overwhelmingly backed the SSM ban on the ballot in North Carolina, despite Obama’s token opposition and a vigorous campaign against it by the NAACP, Trende is likely on target here. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/201...s-approve.html Obama likely needs very strong Black turnout in the urban centers of states like Pennsylvania and Ohio (and perhaps Virginia and North Carolina) to balance projected losses among rural and working-class white voters in these states.
In one sense, this is not news. http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/2...working-class/ But it gives needed perspective to the propaganda establishment outlets like TIME churn out about the confidence of Team Obama supposedly has in facing Mitt Romney. http://swampland.time.com/2012/05/07...-so-confident/ The media can write for months about how many paths to victory Obama has, and how few Romney has. But Team Obama is not campaigning that way. They are projecting confidence, while campaigning as though November will be a nail-biter. Team Romney would do well to follow that example.
http://patterico.com/2012/05/09/why-...rights-issues/
comments
1.Of COURSE, Obama is for SSM. His supporters know this.
That means that he gains nothing, and risks losing a lot, by actually SAYING he is for SSM.
I suppose he can be justly taken to task for not demonstrating the courage of his convictions. But Karl is right — he is playing this for the campaign.
..
3.Obamanable is amoral, what, he worry? The blacks in general and Black Muslims in particular are dead against ‘gay marriage’, Trende is correct.
Why blow your base for 1.5%? Donks are wilier than Repugnants.
..
I know many African-Americans as well as “liberal Christians”, all of whom are pro-life, who voted for Obama in spite of his being “pro-infanticide” (with at least some of them knowing he was “pro-infanticide”). I don’t know if people’s opinions on SSM would be a stronger or weaker determinant on voting for President Obama. I agree that he basically wants to pander to two different constituencies at the same time, but most politicians would like to do that and for Obama it’s his MO (eg., “bipartisan not Washington as usual” and “we won, elections have consequences, get over it” at the same time).
I imagine some people are tired of me bringing this up; and I’m tired of bringing it up to typically be ignored (this time, if you think it is a non-issue or you’re just bored over it, please say so).
Freedom of religion makes it possible for some people to believe that Jesus was/is God Incarnate and for others to reject that. The official government position is that the government will not affirm one view over another or otherwise support one view over another. (For some, this is interpreted as meaning the govt should not make any references to religion at all, others believe to never include any reference to theistic religion at all is to in effect support the non-belief view).
I think many people, especially those who are for SSM, think of the issue in the same way; one is free to either support SSM or one can not support it, there is no specific “right or wrong”/”yes or no” that can be demonstrated with evidence. I think many people who themselves are “not interested personally” in the issue nonetheless are happy to “live and let live”, and give legal sanction to SSM to those that want it.
The main question that I (and I believe many who are not in favor of making “SSM” legal) is how similar or dissimilar these examples are in their consequences. As I said before, most people (I think) agree with the idea that a student could write an essay on why they believed or did not believe Jesus was/is God Incarnate and the essay would be judged on the merits of how well it was written, how rational was the flow of thought, etc. If examples of each view were presented for an assignment to “write an essay about some strongly held belief that you live by”, the view itself taken would not be an issue.
What would it mean if two people of the same sex could “get married just like two people of opposite sexes”? How is/would that be different from approving “civil unions” (or whatever you want to call them) for a same sex couple that is identical to the legal rights and obligations of “marriage” as now defined? If use of different terminology is objected to, what are the ramifications of using identical terminology? It makes no sense in any other legal example I can think of to say that “I approve of X for heterosexuals but not for homosexuals” (or vice-versa). One can’t rationally say “Burglary is allright for heterosexuals but not homosexuals” because the law, and societal opinion, both recognize that “burglary is burglary”, and is wrong no matter the identity of who performed the act.
Will students (when asked to write on, say, an issue in the news) be able to write both for or against SSM and be judged on a “topic-neutral” basis as in the religious belief example, or would it be treated like pro-con is it OK to discriminate against someone on account of race?
I primarily want truth in advertising. Do people who are championing SSM want the law and societal opinion to ostracize people who disagree with the moral/societal equivalency of SSM and HetM? It is fair if they want to. I am sure there are people who believe that someone who “disbelieves” in SSM is just as misguided or evil as someone who is an overt racist, and it I believe that is a reasonable and logical view. But I don’t think that view is what many who approve of SSM are thinking; I think many believe, as the argument goes, “what difference does it make to me if two people of the SS want to get married”. Well, if law demands that you agree not only that two people of the SS can get married if they want to but that you are required to think that SSM is “no different than, in every way equivalent to” hetM, then two people of the SS getting married does make a difference to others in society.
The other concern is, “OK, SSM today, polygamy tomorrow”; if not, why not? Because the definition of “marriage” can be whatever we want it to be, but right now there are not enough people who want to define polygamy as marriage to do so? In other words, “No, it’s not ‘SSM today, polygamy tomorrow’, it will be at least 10 years before polygamy will be seriously considered”. I think historically polygamy has been far more common and accepted by society than the idea of “SSM”. Functionally there is more reason for polygamy, societies after a major war often have a shortage of men (Germany post WW II). (China is developing a shortage of women, though polygamy of the form of several men with one woman is not at all normally thought of when people speak of polygamy.)
http://patterico.com/2012/05/09/why-...rights-issues/
comments
Again, I just want truth in advertising. If you think there is a guiding principle that allows marriage to be changed from the union of 2 people of opposite sex to the union of any two people but prevents marriage to be changed to any 3 people please describe the principle and explain why it does not work the same for the proposed endorsement of SSM. If you think there is no guiding principle other than “words mean what society wants them to mean”, and that currently few people want a polygamous relationship to be defined as marriage, but if 10 years from now it’s ok if they do, then let’s just be clear about it.
May 09, 2012
Obama's Latest Gutsy Call
Presumably muttering "'Effing Joe Biden" off-mike, Pres. Obama ended the suspense and finally evolved on gay marriage. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...-in-interview/
Jacob Sullum has more background. http://reason.com/blog/2012/05/09/ob...s-gay-marriage
And by way of Bill Jacobson we see that, having declared his personal view, Obama has exhausted his gutsiness; this is from ABC News: http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/05...ge-gutsy-call/
Bold. That puts the President spectating on the sidelines with me. Of course, I am not running for President... http://justoneminute.typepad.com/mai...wt-mostly.htmlQuote:
The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own. But he said he’s confident that more Americans will grow comfortable with gays and lesbians getting married, citing his own daughters’ comfort with the concept.
WORD RETRIEVAL ISSUES: From Obama's interview:
Oh, please - the greatest speaker in the history of speech meant "at my behest". Or maybe he really beleives these guys enlisted to fight for him and not the USA.Quote:
...when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf...
http://justoneminute.typepad.com/mai...utsy-call.html
Obama declares support for gay marriage
By Rick Klein ABC OTUS News – 5 hrs ago
Video of THE interview : http://news.yahoo.com/obama-announce...-marriage.html
President Obama today announced that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his longstanding opposition amid growing pressure from the Democratic base and even his own vice president.
In an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, the president described his thought process as an “evolution” that led him to this place, based on conversations with his own staff members, openly gay and lesbian service members, and conversations with his wife and own daughters. "I have to tell you that over the course of several years as I have talked to friends and family and neighbors when I think about members of my own staff who are in incredibly committed monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together, when I think about those soldiers or airmen or marines or sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf and yet feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask Don't Tell is gone, because they are not able to commit themselves in a marriage, at a certain point I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama told Roberts, in an interview to appear on ABC’s “Good Morning America” Thursday. Excerpts of the interview will air tonight on ABC’s “World News with Diane Sawyer.”
The president stressed that this is a personal position, and that he still supports the concept of states deciding the issue on their own. But he said he’s confident that more Americans will grow comfortable with gays and lesbians getting married, citing his own daughters’ comfort with the concept. “It’s interesting, some of this is also generational,” the president continued. “You know when I go to college campuses, sometimes I talk to college Republicans who think that I have terrible policies on the economy, on foreign policy, but are very clear that when it comes to same sex equality or, you know, believe in equality. They are much more comfortable with it. You know, Malia and Sasha, they have friends whose parents are same-sex couples. There have been times where Michelle and I have been sitting around the dinner table and we’re talking about their friends and their parents and Malia and Sasha, it wouldn’t dawn on them that somehow their friends’ parents would be treated differently. It doesn’t make sense to them and frankly, that’s the kind of thing that prompts a change in perspective.”
Roberts asked the president if First Lady Michelle Obama was involved in this decision. Obama said she was, and he talked specifically about his own faith in responding. “This is something that, you know, we’ve talked about over the years and she, you know, she feels the same way, she feels the same way that I do. And that is that, in the end the values that I care most deeply about and she cares most deeply about is how we treat other people and, you know, I, you know, we are both practicing Christians and obviously this position may be considered to put us at odds with the views of others but, you know, when we think about our faith, the thing at root that we think about is, not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf, but it’s also the Golden Rule, you know, treat others the way you would want to be treated. And I think that’s what we try to impart to our kids and that’s what motivates me as president and I figure the most consistent I can be in being true to those precepts, the better I’ll be as a as a dad and a husband and hopefully the better I’ll be as president.”
Previously, Obama has moved in the direction of supporting same-sex marriage but has consistently stopped short of outright backing it. Instead, he’s voiced support for civil unions for gay and lesbian couples that provide the rights and benefits enjoyed by married couples, though not defined as “marriage.” At the same time, the president has opposed efforts to ban gay marriage at the state level, saying that he did not favor attempts to strip rights away from gay and lesbian couples.
The president’s position became a flashpoint this week, when Vice President Joe Biden pronounced himself “absolutely comfortable” with allowing same-sex couples to wed.
Obama aides insisted there was no daylight between the positions held by the president and his vice president when it comes to legal rights, but as other prominent Democrats also weighed in in favor of gay marriage, the disconnect became difficult for the White House to explain away.
The announcement completes a turnabout for the president, who has opposed gay marriage throughout his career in national politics. In 1996, as a state Senate candidate, he indicated support for gay marriage in a questionnaire, but Obama aides later disavowed it and said it did not reflect the candidate’s position.
In 2004, as a candidate for the US Senate, he cited his own religion in framing his views: “I'm a Christian. I do believe that tradition and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman.”
He maintained that position through his 2008 presidential campaign, and through his term as president, until today.
As president in 2010, Obama told ABC’s Jake Tapper that his feelings about gay marriage were “constantly evolving. I struggle with this.” A year later, the president told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, “I’m still working on it.”
“I probably won't make news right now, George,” Obama said in October 2011. “But I think that there's no doubt that as I see friends, families, children of gay couples who are thriving, you know, that has an impact on how I think about these issues.”
Obama’s decision has political connotations for the fall.
The issue divides elements of the Democratic base, with liberals and gay-rights groups eager to see the president go farther, but with gay marriage far less popular among African-American voters.
Just yesterday, in North Carolina voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage. President Obama carried North Carolina in 2008, and its status as a 2012 battleground was guaranteed by Democrats’ decision to hold their convention in Charlotte this summer.
Obama’s likely Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, opposes gay marriage, and fought his state’s highest court when Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2004, when Romney was governor. Romney said on the campaign trail Monday that he continues to oppose gay marriage. “My view is that marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman,” Romney said. “That’s the position I’ve had for some time, and I don’t intend to make any adjustments at this point. … Or ever, by the way.”
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-announce...-marriage.html
North Carolina voters approve gay marriage ban; liberals say: ‘go kill yourselves, you redneck ****tards’
Posted at 10:24 pm on May 8, 2012 by Twitchy Staff
North Carolina’s Amendment 1 has passed 60-40. Apparently the massive majority of people in North Carolina who voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman are hateful bigots. That’s why the righteous tolerant liberals had to remind them all via Twitter that they’re backward rednecks with a stupid religion who should kill themselves!
Quote:
RAPE PEOPLE FROM NORTH CAROLINA IN THEIR BUTTS!
8 May 12
Quote:
Well done North Carolina, you bunch of idiotic ****tards!
9 May 12
Quote:
Can I just kill everyone in North Carolina? #angry #gaymarriage
9 May 12
Quote:
**** the bigoted mother****ers voting for Amendment 1. I hope you all get your d**ks locked between two Legos.
8 May 12
Quote:
Oh yeah and North Carolina can go suck my c**k. Even if they would hate that. ESPECIALLY if they would hate that.
9 May 12
Quote:
why is everyone surprised that amendment 1 passed? these hicks must have prayed to jesus and asked him to pass the bill.
8 May 12
Quote:
Oh, **** you, *******s in NC who voted for Amendment 1.
8 May 12
Quote:
Are we really that shocked by North Carolina? Pretty sure they only abolished slavery in 2008. #bigots
8 May 12
Quote:
****ing North Carolina.. backwards *** redneck hicks live here.. I would kill to get the **** outta this **** hole place!
9 May 12
Quote:
Congratulations to the people of North Carolina - you've proven your rednecks credentials.
8 May 12
http://twitchy.com/2012/05/08/north-...als-freak-out/Quote:
People who voted for amendment 1<<<< ignorants . go kill yourselfs .
8 May 12
There's more ... but you get the idea ... sorry for all the vulgar language... for some this represents "tolerance"
As usual from the left...respect and tolerance....when they don't get their way.
/sarcasm
Same-sex civil unions bill fails in Colorado
By Keith Coffman | Reuters – 3 hrs ago
DENVER (Reuters) - A Colorado bill that would have allowed same-sex civil unions failed to advance to a full vote on the last day of the legislative session on Wednesday, setting up a potential stand-off with the state's Democratic governor.
Governor John Hickenlooper, who supported the bill, said he planned to call for a special session of the legislature to take up civil unions and other measures not dealt with by lawmakers.
Had the bill passed, Colorado would have become only the second state in the largely conservative, libertarian-minded Rocky Mountain region to endorse civil unions or domestic partnerships for same-sex couples after Nevada did so in 2009.
A vote in the state House of Representatives, where Republicans have a one-vote majority, had been expected to be close, with supporters of the bill saying they expected several Republicans to vote for it. A similar bill failed to win passage last year.
The bill's failure came as President Barack Obama gave a major boost to gay rights advocates when he told ABC News on Wednesday that he believes same-sex couples should be allowed to marry, reversing an earlier stance from the 2008 campaign.
Under Colorado House rules, a bill must have a preliminary vote before a formal one, and those two steps cannot occur on the same day. The bill did not get a preliminary vote late on Tuesday, after it passed a key committee earlier in the day by a 7-6 vote.
When Republican House Speaker Frank McNulty announced late on Tuesday the bills that would not be heard, the civil unions bill among them, gay rights advocates in the gallery chanted, "Shame on you, shame on you."
The House sponsor of the bill, Democratic Representative Mark Ferrandino, who is gay and the House minority leader, told reporters the bill had advanced farther than any previous Colorado civil unions bill. "We'll continue to fight," he said.
Representative Mark Waller, a Republican and the assistant majority leader, blamed Democrats for trying to force a vote on the issue ahead of other bills. "They (Democrats) sat on this bill for 108 days," he said.
Nine states already allow civil unions or domestic partnerships, while another eight plus the District of Columbia have gone further and allow gay marriage or are awaiting enactment of laws legalizing gay nuptials.
On Tuesday, voters in North Carolina approved a state constitutional amendment that bans same-sex marriage and civil unions, dealing a blow to efforts across the country to expand gay marriage rights.
The Colorado bill would have allowed domestic partners to make medical decisions for each other and become eligible for certain insurance and retirement benefits.
Brad Clark, executive director of gay rights group One Colorado, said in a statement that House leaders had decided to "play politics" by not voting on the bill.
"We will now take our fight to the election, and come November, we will win a pro-equality majority that will vote to protect all loving couples," he said.
Hickenlooper told reporters, "This is a circumstance where we are depriving people of their civil rights."
But it was unclear how soon a special session of the legislature would be convened, and it would still be up to members of the House whether to bring the civil unions bill to a vote.
Lawmakers were expected to work through Wednesday on the current session.
http://news.yahoo.com/same-sex-civil...001822206.html
4 reasons Obama's gay-marriage support is pure symbolism
By The Week's Editorial Staff – 5 hrs ago
Obama made history by bestowing the gay-marriage movement with presidential support, but it's not likely to change much on the ground
President Obama made history this week by supporting same-sex marriage "from the tallest and most important bully pulpit in the world," says Frank Bruni at The New York Times. With a few words, Obama was able to offer gay couples "a new, heightened degree of respect," and his announcement was a "poignant and compelling marker" of America's progress on civil rights. That said, it's not guaranteed that Obama's evolved views on gay marriage will have any impact on gay rights or the November election. Here, four reasons why his endorsement is mere words:
1. It won't change the dynamic in November : "People who care deeply about same-sex marriage are primarily clustered on the ideological left and right of their respective parties," say Chris Cillizza and Aaron Blake at The Washington Post. They would be voting for or against Obama "no matter what he did" about same-sex marriage; and "for everybody else, it's a back-burner issue — at best." For most voters, it's just a "temporary distraction" from the economy.
2. Neither Obama nor Romney wants to talk about it : While both sides will use the issue "to energize their bases," Republicans and Democrats both know that "there is danger in inflaming passions and raising expectations about one of the most volatile social and cultural issues of the day," says Karen Tumulty at The Washington Post. Obama still wants to win over states where voters have banned same-sex marriages, while Romney is making a push for independents who might support them. So both would rather talk about something else.
3. Obama's support stops at the states : Obama said he personally supported same-sex marriage, but conceded that states should be able to determine their own marriage laws. "That is a half-assed, cowardly cop-out," says John Cook at Gawker. It means that states can continue to pass gay-marriage bans (as North Carolina did earlier this week), and that Obama doesn't believe that same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.
4. He's just mirroring his administration's views : Obama is merely playing catch up with his administration's legal position… "without going beyond it," says Emily Bazelon at Slate. In February 2011, the Justice Department began to refrain from defending the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman. With that move, the Justice Department essentially said that the federal government should recognize the legal rights of same-sex couples in states where gay marriage is legal. Obama is just officially supporting that idea.
http://news.yahoo.com/4-reasons-obam...145000328.html
comments
Gay marriage is an issue that the states have a right to decide. The Pres, by stating an view on the issue, is doing nothing to effect any laws. So yes it is symbolism, it shows what he believes in.
..
He has stated repeatedly that he does NOT believe in "gay" marriage, but now, that election time is nearing, he flip plopped once again. He has no standards or shame.
...
So what. Obama and Biden have finally shown that they will say and do anything to be reelected. What else is new?
..
Memo: Henceforth, the term "Flip-Flop", when referring to a liberal/socialist, will now be changed to, "Evolve".
..
Democrats can see a landslide coming. This is damage control. Whether the voters reject the Commie leaning Democrats for Eisenhower, or the rejection of Humphrey by the voters, the Democrats try to cloud the issue. Now when President Obama loses, it won't be incompetence.
..
I guess 'symbolism' is the new word for 'pandering'
http://blu.stb.s-msn.com/i/56/B7A868...77F04D57E6.jpg
http://now.msn.com/now/0513-obama-fi...president.aspx
The mainstream media has always thought of Obama as the Messiah but now he is the Gay messiah? I wonder what Obama thinks of this?
.
Obama calls pastors to explain gay marriage support; black churches ‘conflicted' by president's decision
By Dylan Stableford | ABC OTUS News – 3 hrs ago.
After making his historic remarks on same-sex unions last week, President Barack Obama led a conference call with black church pastors to explain his support for gay marriage, the New York Times reports. The call, which was held with "eight or so African-American ministers," occurred about two hours after the president's interview with ABC's Robin Roberts.
Obama explained to them that he struggled with the decision, pastors on the call told the paper, but several voiced their disapproval.
"They were wrestling with their ability to get over his theological position," the Rev. Delman Coates, a Maryland pastor who was on the call, told the Times.
The conference call was part of a quiet effort by the president to control potential political damage caused by his support of same-sex marriage.
According to the Times, Obama phoned "at least one [the Rev. Joel C. Hunter] of the five spiritual leaders he calls regularly for religious guidance, and his aides contacted other religious figures who have been supportive in the past."
Hunter, the pastor of a conservative megachurch, said he wasn't surprised Obama didn't ask him advice before the ABC interview because "I would have tried to talk him out of it."
At services on Sunday, black churches were conflicted about President Obama's support of gay marriage, according to the USA Today:
Some churches were silent on the issue. At others, pastors spoke against the president's decision Wednesday--but kindly of the man himself. A few blasted the president and his decision. A minority spoke in favor of the decision and expressed understanding of the president's change of heart.
Bishop Timothy Clark, head of the First Church of God, a large African-American church with a television ministry in Columbus, Ohio, was perhaps most typical. He felt compelled to address the president's comments at a Wednesday evening service and again Sunday morning. He was responding to an outpouring of calls, e-mails and text messages from members of his congregation after the president's remarks.
What did he hear from churchgoers? "No church or group is monolithic. Some were powerfully agitated and disappointed. Others were curious. 'Why now? To what end?' Others were hurt. And others, to be honest, told me it's not an issue and they don't have a problem with it."
What did the bishop tell his congregation? He opposes gay marriage. It is not just a social issue, he said, but a religious one for those who follow the Bible. "The spiritual issue is ground in the word of God." That said, "I believe the statement the president made and his decision was made in good faith. I am sure because the president is a good man. I know his decision was made after much thought and consideration and, I'm sure, even prayer."
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-calls-pa...151738220.html
comments
I wonder how Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would react of Obama's statement?
..
Why only black pastors? I wonder how the white, hispanic and asian pastors feel about that.
..
If Bush was holding conference calls with groups of pastors to discuss policy positions, the ACLU and liberals would be crying to high heaven (pun intended) about separation of church and state.
..
1st he tells the Catholics to change thier views ,now he wants to micro manage the black church, LOL.
..
How come he did not call any "white " pastors, "Hispanic" pastors, Catholic priests, rabbis, Mormon priests,etc.? Isn't he supposed to be concerned and represent ALL AMERICANS? I would love to see the outrage if a republican president of any color called only "Whie evangelical" pastors!
..
It is not up to the state to tell the church how it feels about what should remain a private matter.
Obama likes to change the bible to suit himself. Why should these pastors be surprised. He's done it before and he will do it again.
We're Not as Stupid as Barack Obama Thinks
By Ross Kaminsky on 5.15.12 @ 10:39AM
A CBS News/New York Times poll shows that two thirds of Americans believe that President Obama's recent "evolution" on gay marriage was a political stunt while one quarter thinks his change was “mostly because he thinks it is right.” http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/us...tics.html?_r=1
Amusingly, an Obama campaign official claimed that the poll used a "biased sample." Surely she recognizes that this poll was done by two of the most pro-Obama organizations in America. http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...-biased/543191
Perhaps what we are witnessing, pace Andrew Sullivan, is America's First Gay Ex-President. http://www.nypost.com/p/news/nationa...74V4tdj3IgMHVP
http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/C...0511062516.jpg
Political bettors also don't think Obama's flip-flop-flip (he was for gay marriage before he was against it before he was for it) is a winner, with Obama's betting odds (to be elected president) slightly lower than they were prior to his May 9th position change. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhaThnPWB0A Still, Obama leads Mitt Romney in current betting by about 20 points, roughly 59 percent to 39 percent. (I've been buying Romney and selling Obama just a few points from these levels.)
Despite the issue not working so far, Democrats are doubling down, with 17 Senate Democrats (actually 16 Democrats plus socialist Bernie Sanders) asking the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to stop refusing green cards to foreign gay "spouses" of Americans.
It is true that Americans are steadily becoming more comfortable with homosexual relationships, and even with gay marriage, but we're not comfortable with radicals shoving their views down our throats, even to the point of the President refusing to defend the duly-passed Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court.
Voters recognize the tyranny of (so-called) good intentions when we see it, and that's why the Democrats' full-court pander on "gay rights" and gay marriage will not work except among college students and as a short-term fund-raising ploy -- which is probably more than enough for an Obama campaign which has struggled to raise money outside of Hollywood and Manhattan. Of course, this only helps them raise money in Hollywood and Manhattan, but those are very fat arteries for the leeches that are Obama bundlers (of whom a reported one in six is gay) to bite into.
It is also worth noting that the "gay rights" activists are hearing what they want to hear, rather than what Obama is really saying: this president, who never found an issue that he didn't want the federal government to dominate, says that individual states should decide on the permissibility of gay marriage. This following last Tuesday's vote in North Carolina which by a stunning 61 percent to 39 percent margin became the 30th state to ban gay marriage. In fact, gay marriage has never passed a statewide vote of the people in any state in our republic. If "gay rights" are the moral equivalent of civil rights for blacks or voting rights for women, as Obama claims, how can he justify leaving the issue to the states -- something few people (other than true racists) would have said about key 1960s civil rights legislation.
Obama was trying to have it both ways on the issue of gay marriage until Joe Biden pushed him off the fence. He's still trying to have it both ways, but it's not working. Conservatives, and some independents, are being pushed toward Romney while Obama shores up part, but not the African-American part, of his voting base. If his gleeful gay bundlers were paying attention to Obama's actual policy prescription, they would be a lot less happy than Ricky Martin seems to be. http://content.usatoday.com/communit...s#.T7JpAMVNt8E But when you have the "first gay president," facts be damned! How can you not just write a check?
Again, despite all the media frenzy and Hollywood hosannas, in the real world Americans are not fooled by Barack Obama's transparently political ploy.
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/05/15...id-as-barack-o
Seems the problem with Washington is, they don't know whats out in the REAL WORLD, just whats happening, or think is happening in Washington DC and California.
There's a bill that will make it impossible for an employer to terminate a gay person, tranvestite *sp, or any non-biblic term of husband and wife, norm of the 1950s.
Just vote your incumbant out of office.
Obama's Marriage Masquerade
By Joshua Foxworth May 11, 2012
This issue of marriage is not as simple as it seems on the surface. It is not simply about allowing two people to have the same rights with respect to hospital visitation or property rights. Marriage involves the role of the federal government and the states, the classification of rights with the U.S., and the rights of Americans to hold their own viewpoints.
President Obama's views on marriage do not merely affect what he calls two people of the same sex who chose to remain in a committed relationship. His views show a marked change in legal and constitutional theory that has tremendous implications.
Prior to becoming president, Barack Obama repeatedly asserted that marriage was not a "civil right." This goes back to his debate with Alan Keyes in 2004, in which he clearly and repeatedly asserted that marriage was not a civil right, but that property matters and hospital visitation were. After becoming president, Obama compared the struggle for marriage to that of the civil rights struggles of African-Americans. Since Obama's endorsement of gay marriage, the White House website now clearly classifies marriage under the civil rights tab. Thus, marriage was not a civil rights issue before Obama was president, and now it is.
In multiple interviews and debates, Senator Obama asserted that the issue of marriage was one to be decided by the states. He noted that the federal government simply did not have a constitutional role in marriage. However, not long after assuming office, the president endorsed the Respect for Marriage Act. While the White House website asserts that this legislation is intended to prevent the federal government from denying rights to same-sex couples, simply reading the summary of the bill shows that this is not the case. The legislation clearly states that it would repeal the parts of DOMA that allow a state to decide for itself how to define marriage, and force a marriage carried out in one state to be recognized in all states. Thus, marriage was a states' rights issue prior to the Obama presidency, and now it is not.
Finally, there is the issue of faith. In 2004, State Senator Obama clearly and articulately denoted his view that his faith dictated the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. In his interview to endorse gay marriage, the president asserted that his faith dictated that we should treat others as we would like to be treated. Without addressing the problems with this assertion and the questions it raises about the president's knowledge of his faith, consider this: as little as three years ago, the president's faith told him that marriage was between one man and one woman, and now it tells him the opposite.
So within the timespan of three years, President Obama has changed his views on where marriage falls within the realm of rights, changed his views on state and federal jurisdiction on marriage, and changed his religious and moral views to go from defining marriage as one man and one woman to maintaining that it is something else.
Now that the scope of the president's evolving views has been established, the question remains as to whether the president has always supported gay marriage -- or have his views legitimately changed? Neither of those possibilities is good from a political standpoint.
First, if the American people believe that the president lied to them about his views, then the 2012 election is all but over. Consider the president's actions after taking office: he pushed for the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell; he issued two memorandums, one for establishing the same rights for same-sex couples where one was a federal employee and the other for preventing hospitals that take Medicare and Medicaid from preventing visitations to same-sex partners; he supported the Respect for Marriage Act; he spoke often to the LGBT community about "the goal" and his desire to see it reached; and he has now classified the matter as a civil right. Most of these things were done before the president's supposed change of heart, and there seems to be no defining issue or moment by which the president can state he was prompted to have this evolution in his view.
Additionally, the entire roll-out of this new view point is contrived. First, the education secretary admits to supporting gay marriage, and then the vice president lets it be known that he supports it, and finally the president admits that his views have changed. This series of events was not accidental. Arne Duncan was used as a tool to introduce the issue, and he and Vice President Biden were used as softeners to ready the American people for the idea of a pro-gay marriage president. They were buffers to get the American people talking about the issue and an excuse to raise it with the president. By doing this, the president is not questioned as to what prompted the change or when it happened. He can simply point to the people around him and assert that his views have "evolved" just like everyone else's.
If the Republican Party can cement the belief that President Obama lied about his view to get elected and has been pursuing a pro-gay marriage agenda since he came to office, then the idea that he is lying about other facets of his ideology will be an easy sell.
The second option is that the president had a legitimate change of heart. The obvious problem this raises is that if he can change his mind on this issue from both a moral and legal point of view, he can surely change it on other issues. Thus, nothing the president says in his campaign speeches or literature can be believed. However, if you are shocked that the president can change his mind on matters, I have hours of health care debates on CSPAN for you to watch before you go to your "shovel-ready" job that cuts the deficit in half.
No matter which of these theories you believe, the next question to ask is the same. It is also the most important question, and the one that no one is asking. During the 2008 election, Senator Obama stated that it was up to churches to decide what they recognized as marriage. Since assuming office, the Obama administration has been very vocal in its support for the "It Gets Better" program. President Obama and numerous members of his administration have made videos for the program. Recently, the founder of this program gave a hate-filled rant against Christians for their bullying of the LGBT community. So the question that remains is this: "Will the president's views evolve to a point where it is no longer a matter of choice for churches and synagogues to recognize only the marriages they see fit?"
Before you answer that question, remember the new viewpoint expressed by President Obama: marriage is now a civil right, and states should not be able to "deny" marriage rights to a couple. No one can deny a person a civil right, and no state law can take that right away. Thus, no one can deny a same-sex couple their civil right to hold a ceremony in the same place where traditional marriage couples hold their ceremonies.
The implementation of these policies will not be immediate or obvious. Given the president's citation of troops in his statement supporting gay marriage, the likely path to the establishment of national gay marriage will be a military couple married in one state and stationed in another by the military. This situation will be cited as "no fault of their own," and the president will assert that one state cannot deny rights to a couple whose only desire is to serve their country. The next obvious step will be a national definition of marriage to prevent a patchwork of laws in 50 states from causing someone to lose his or her civil rights. Once this is established, the ability to deny someone the same use of a facility as any other couple will be an easy sell.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/...#ixzz1xzA6BGEy
What a good looking man... it's easy to overlook the balance of contradictions. A perfect spokesperson for the contently confused middle.
https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphot...41868173_n.png
I ALWAYS KNEW IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH RIGHTS, BECAUSE YOU CAN PETITION AND ACHIEVE FOR THE SAME RIGHTS AS JUST A SAME SEX UNION WITHOUT GOING AFTER MARRIAGE.
A 2012 speech by Masha Gessen, an author and outspoken activist for the LGBT community, is just now going viral and it includes a theory that many supporters of traditional marriage have speculated about for years: The push for gay marriage has less to do with the right to marry – it is about diminishing and eventually destroying the institution of marriage and redefining the “traditional family.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013...troy-marriage/
Guest Post: My Ever Devolving Stance on Gay Marriage
Posted by Bruce Carroll - @GayPatriot at 5:23 pm - May 1, 2013.
There is a book I recommend any young gay man read entitled Androphilia by Jack Donovan. I found it in 2008 and was confused, perplexed and challenged by it. I found it in 2008 and was confused, perplexed and challenged by it. It shattered everything I thought I knew about gay-ness and the gay identity. Donovan explained how gays needed to reject the gay community and reclaim the mantle of masculinity, as androphiles.
I’ve always been very interested in what it means to be a man (as I am one) and have found that as I get older — I get more and more in touch with my masculine side. Donovan has become a very prolific writer for me and has inspired many writings, creative and political, over the past couple of years. As someone who has always beat to my own drum, I find that I toe the line very smoothly between the gay and straight world. I never quite fit in with any one “community” or group of people. I’m an individual, believe in rugged individualism as an American ideal, am very patriotic — and have worked through and accepted many conservative view points. I could talk at length at how masculine I am or am not perceived to be, but I know that deep down, who I am, is unabashedly male.
The short end of the stick was being raised primarily by my mother with an ineffective father, who was taught from a young age to acquiesce to all the women in his life. Being raised and surrounded by, I grew up speaking the language of women. I was rejected by the boys on the playground as I was “too sensitive” and didn’t learn, til much later in life, how to man up and be part of the tribe.
As Donovan did, I found the gay community as some shelter from the storm of a world I thought didn’t understand me. But now, as I edge closer to 30 — I have begun to awaken the warrior within me. Men are violent, we are assertive, we are aggressive — but we are also noble, loyal, passionate and courageous. That is the man I am and aspire to be.
Now all this talk of gay marriage? I’m borrowing from Donovan’s thoughts on it — but I agree with him.
Marriage has historically, religiously and culturally been about men and women. It has historically been about the woman leaving her family, marrying a man, who protects and provides for her — and she in return, takes care of him as well.
The customs and traditions (white wedding dress, walking down the aisle, father giving the daughter away, it being “her special day”) have all revolved around the timeless unity that is man and wife. The union helps continue survival of the species. Of course not all couples get married for that reason today and don’t have to. And many partnerships today shun gender roles completely, but they still call it marriage.
I also could get married if I wanted. To be considered a marriage, as a man, I’d have to take a wife. I don’t want one… so therefore, I can’t get married.
I’m not going to speak for lesbians here, because I’m not one and don’t have any experience being a woman.
As someone who is same sex attracted, I fall in love with and primarily admire other men. Honestly, I love everything about men.
And what goes unsaid, is that there have been time tested rituals, oaths and sacrifices made — as described in Blood Brotherhood (another book, also by Donovan) — of the special relationship men have taken (albeit for the most part non-sexually) with each other. The idea being you lay down your life and are willing to take a bullet for your “blood brother.” In some circles and societies these relationships were more respected and of higher clout than a traditional marriage.
What Donovan, and I to an extent, are asking is why aren’t we creating and appropriating some sort of bond or union that reflects our unique relationship to one another, as two men? With of course, legal hospital visitation rights, property taxes, joint income tax relief — etc etc — that is undertaken by anyone who chooses to commit their life to one another.
Why do we have to take a tradition that’s not ours and try to appropriate it? Why not make our own? Something inspired and honored by the unique Mars/Mars combination that make up an intimate same-sex relationship. There is no woman in my relationship — yes opposites always attract — but that doesn’t make one of us the “girl.” I am a man. We are men — there is no bride. There is no wedding dress. My dad sure as hell isn’t giving me away to anyone. I choose to give my life for someone else.
Why not create something honorable, unique to our relationships with each other, that are – separate from marriages – but equal in the legal context. The problem with this whole ‘equality’ argument — is that it essentially gay sounds like spoiled brats who want something just because they can’t have it. I am gay, it is a behavioral trait — I do not choose to feel desire for men — but I do choose to act on it. And I’m good with that. I take responsibility for it. No one owes me anything. I’m not a victim. I’m not oppressed. I’m not embarrassed. I’m not “proud” because I didn’t pass any test to be into dudes. I just am.
I’m a man who loves other men.
One day, I will meet a dude that I will want to lay down my life for. And him for me.
I’d love to have some sort of ceremony that honors that — perhaps without a minister or someone ordaining it — perhaps just between us. Perhaps no one will else will be around for that — where we will make a sacred, spiritual vow to defend each others honor, protect and care for each other, for the rest of our lives. I don’t need a priest or the state to bless my vow. It is my choice to align my life with another man.
And then we can go down to city hall, file some domestic partnership paperwork and be done with it. Or even get a lawyer to work out some finer details.
I don’t need the state or the government to approve of my life or my choices. All I’d like is to be able to be entitled to the same tax breaks as anyone else slugging it out in a partnership. But marriage? No, that wouldn’t be it was — it would feel weird and inorganic for me. I don’t want to be “married” to a dude — I want to, like Jonathan and David from the Bible, bind my soul to another. It’s for me and him to decide what that means and how it works.
I sincerely hope the Supreme Court doesn’t redefine ‘marriage’. And I say this as a gay men who isn’t ashamed of his sexuality. But it’s not all I am and all I want to be. There is so much more to me than that. I’m more a man than I am a ‘gay man.’
In fact, perhaps I will stop identifying as gay altogether.
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2013/05/01...-gay-marriage/Quote:
GP Ed. Note: This is a guest post by GayPatriot reader LJ Regine.
LJ Regine is a blogger, writer and political junkie living in New York City. You can check out more of his work as a contributing writer for Conservatives4Palin.com and his blog Whisky Dreams.
comments
2.Your last line is what I find most interesting. I know you’re on Twitter and have a lot of followers, and despite that I know you are conservative, the fact that you identify yourself first and foremost as gay is why I haven’t followed you. Do heterosexuals overwhelmingly declare their sexual preference before anything else? What would be the point of declaring myself as straightsurfcitysocal unless I wanted my sexual preference to be the primary element by which I wanted people to identify me? The point is, it isn’t. And I don’t think it’s yours either.
...
4.I have these relationships with men. I was fortunate enough to be able to serve as a marine, and have brothers who I would lay down my life for and they for me. These are stronger and more profound than the relationships I have with the women in my life. I was married and have children, but I prefer the company of men. I prefer to lay with women. As he says these are behavioral, not definitive traits. Men should behave as men.
...
6.LJ Regine – you piqued my interest so I checked out & saw the author responded to a review and I just had to comment:
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1AAVXN...wasThisHelpful
THEN I read your guest post. I didn’t understand why gays wanted to appropriate marriage until it dawned on me – acceptance. I agree with you – be yourself and those worth your time will accept you, and you them. It’s life. Nobody should {or really, should even want} people ordered to “like” you!
Obama says David Axelrod’s is 'mixing up' his position on gay marriage
Axelrod writes in his new book that Obama modified his public position to say he supported civil unions, but not gay marriage.
BY Leslie Larson / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS / Wednesday, February 11, 2015, 10:29 AM
President Obama says his former strategist, David Axelrod, is "mixing up" the President's stance on gay marriage.
Axelrod writes in his new book that Obama modified his public position to say he supported civil unions, but not gay marriage. Axelrod says that was because his political advisers told him supporting gay marriages could hurt him politically.
But Obama says Axelrod doesn't have his facts straight. "I think David is mixing up my personal feelings with my position on the issue," Obama told BuzzFeed in an interview on Tuesday.
"I always felt that same-sex couples should be able to enjoy the same rights, legally, as anybody else, and so it was frustrating to me not to, I think, be able to square that with what were a whole bunch of religious sensitivities out there ... Where my evolution took place was not in my attitude toward same-sex couples, it was in understanding the pain and the sense of stigma that was being placed on same-sex couples who are friends of mine, where they’d say, 'You know what, if you’re not calling it marriage, it doesn’t feel like the same thing. Even if you gave me the same rights, the fact that I’m being treated differently or the love that we feel is somehow segmented off, that hurts.'
"It was because of those conversations that I ended up shifting positions, that civil unions, in fact, were not sufficient rather than marriage. But I think the notion that somehow I was always in favor of marriage, per se, isn’t quite accurate," he added.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/poli...icle-1.2110826
No Icing on the Cake for Christian Business Owners Who Refused to Bake for Lesbian Couple
By Dave Jorgenson - 23 hours ago
http://www.ijreview.com/2015/02/2482...e-gay-wedding/