Barack Obama is coming from increased pressure from “Gay Rights” activists. They feel he is being too slow in enacting their agenda. They want Hate Crimes Bill and host of other “rights”.
Obama pressed to engage on gay issues
President Obama was noticeably silent last month when the Iowa Supreme Court overturned the state’s ban on same-sex marriage.
But now Mr. Obama — who has said he opposes same-sex marriage as a Christian but describes himself as a “fierce advocate of equality” for gay men and lesbians — is under pressure to engage on a variety of gay issues that are coming to the fore amid a dizzying pace of social, political, legal and legislative change.
If Gays are American citizens then they have the same constitutional rights we do. This is just another way for the Left to continue its assault on our Traditional Judeo-Christian/Greco-Roman Culture. The Militant Gay groups wants to be treated as special and have extra rights than us. they are only 3-5% of the population yet want to impose their way on us. This explains their alliance with the Islamo-Fascists, they have a common enemy.
My take on the Gay issue is this, I don’t support the Gay lifestyle. However, if they do not break any laws I believe in leaving them alone. I am against Gay Marriage, but open to Civil Unions for benefits and legal matters between a couple. However I am against Hate Crimes bill because then it is creating new laws for a group of people. This is unconstitutional for me. We all should be treated equal, not some more than others.
Tags: gay marriage, Leftists, Militant Gay Agenda
Cabinet Meeting ?
Sodomites don’t reproduced so they must recruit.
That’s the whole deal.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts budgets for hundreds of thousands of dollars in its school system to be devoted to propagandizing homosexuality. Children, even in kindergarten, are being initiated into a perverted concept of their own sexuality. This does have real and disastrous consequences for our society and nation.
As to ‘hate laws’: I agree they’re unconstitutional but with our liberal courts, it is not a foregone conclusion that they would be ajudged so. Also, ‘hate laws’, by setting certain groups as above others in protection of the law, are a perfect lead-in to Sharia Law which is predicated upon Islam’s basic inequality between Moslem and non-Moslem, man and woman, and free man and slave (the latter is a modern-day reality in many islamic countries). Allowing hate laws on the books will put us on course for eventual Islamization.
A lot of gay people do reproduce. Just not with other gay people.
Unless they do it in a lab.
Or after a few drinks.
My issue with Gay marriage, and “gay legal right” (talk about a term that needs further definition) has always been about: where does it end?
I understand that as a Jew, and as a immigrant, etc., I really shouldn’t have this trepedation, nor state that once I am in, I am now going to close the door, as many have accused me of, but my question still remains: where does it end.
2 generations ago they would have laughed as ridiculous the claim that one day two men, or two women would be requesting the right to marry. Anyone that brought up this potential as something to think about, would have been told that they were scaremongering, and just plain insane. Yet, here we are where the act of homosexuality is “accepted”, and those who practice it are requesting same or “special” rights because of it.
So where does it end? Right to marry dogs? Pedophilia Pride marches? Drug Abusers Rights Symposiums? Bestiality Community Rights? Polygamy Rights?
Think i’m crazy? How about “Mad” Pride.
6. WrathofG-d,
After gay Marriage the next step is Polygamy. We all know who would support that one! Hint Hint, the followers of Uncle Mo!
7. Rodan
Read that article above. It is about psychiatric patients that wish to just be accepted for their disease.
I thought that article and this thread went together because Homosexuality used to be considered a mental disorder that could be treated.
Are we to accept everything, and anything?
WrathofG-d, issues like this always raise the question on what is the boundary between acceptable & unacceptable.
And once that boundary starts changing it’s anyone’s guess where it ends-up.
9. Buddy G
So…are we just to reclassify all things that are now unsocial into social and let er rip? Choas as standard?
10. WrathofG-d
Gay Marriage is a Pandora’s Box.
Chaos is bad for everybody.
11 BuddyG and 10 WrathofG-d:
Chaos as standard and chaos is bad for everybody?
Nope: the chaos part is an intermediary stage for the Left and they see it, therefore, as good for them. In order to assert The State as the one and only source of power and authority, it’s necessary for the Left to tear down all parameters of people’s loyalties (to their families, their nation, their military, their education…). Once that’s done, and even the very essence of someone’s nature (sexuality, sense of morals) is turned upside down or denigrated, then the Left moves in to take control of the ‘chaotic’ condition which it has deliberately created. And the Left does it principally by using our best instincts and moral standards (tolerance, equality, etc) against us.
13. Kinvara & BuddyG
This isn’t necessarily abut Gay Marriage for me. Which is why I posted that link to the article about “Mad” Pride – a movement to equalize, and cause acceptance of people with psychotic mental disorders (schizophrenia, mania, etc). They wish to equal protection that the Non-Mad Americans get, and they don’t want to be treated for what we now consider their mental disorders – they call them life choice behaviors- you know, like homosexuality, or Religion.
Mad Marriage ?
kinda goes without sayin’
I’ve never understood the whole gay marriage thing and suspect it boils down to simple semantics. Civil unions do just as much to protect an individuals rights when it comes to medical care, inheritance or taxation as a “marriage” certificate would and comes without the cultural baggage that the word “marriage” carries. Legislating binding civil agreements between people (regardless of gender) allows each of us to act according to our conscience.
Hate crime laws are a little more complex. The reasoning is that the harm to society is greater when an act of violence is motivated by hatred for a particular group. Needless to say: this position is not without it’s critics.
However, in a legal sense, all hate crime laws do is allow motive to be a consideration at sentencing which doesn’t strike me as being inherently unfair or in violation of the Constitution.
13 WrathofG-d: Nor was my comment about sexual perversion, it’s far more extensive than issues of sexual behavior and perceptions: it’s about every perception we have which would, of course, include what you have mentioned because behind the ‘mad movement’, and all the rest, lies the contention that nothing can be judgeable and that, therefore, there is no moral framework to our being. There must, therefore, to the Left, be something else as the foundation of our existence and that is intended to be the all-encompassing State which would be the only arbiter of ‘morality’.
Obama has a problem: he received something like 95% of the Black vote, and Blacks don’t like gay marriage.
16: fultonchain: I’ve no legal background but motive is already a factor taken into consideration when first charging a person with a crime so it would seem illogical to use it as part of the sentencing which represents the completion of the legal case.
I’ve just seen two issues which seem linked. I’ve no legal background so I could be entirely wrong but:
The proposed bill, HR-1913, passed by the House, (aka ‘hate crimes’ bill) would effectively give federal protection, if passed, to 30 sexual orientations as listed by the American Psychiatric Association because the proposed Bill does not actually define ’sexual orientation’. APA’s list of 30 sexual orientations does include both homosexuality and heterosexuality and it also includes in its list of sexual orientations, Paedophilia and defines it, in part, as sexual intercourse with a pre-pubescent child.
At the same time, the proposed Lisbon Treaty for the European countries presently in the EU (with the issue of Turkey’s entry still under debate) also has, according to its own Information Officer, no protocol on Paedophilia. All previous treaties and agreements between participating EU nations did have such a protocol. Without such a protocol, Article 21 of the Lisbon Treaty can be interpreted to legalize, or afford protection to, paedophilia in line with other protected sexual orientations. (The EU also, significantly, regards ‘islamophobia’ as a crime)
I don’t think these two bits of proposed legislation, one in the US and the other in Europe, entirely ‘coincidental’ since both have been proposed by overwhelmingly leftist, socialist-driven governments.
Kinvara, did you read the bill?
It is readily available online at: and is very limited in scope.
More to the point, the APA actually defines three sexual orientations: ” homosexual, attraction to individuals of one’s own gender; heterosexual, attraction to individuals of the other gender; bisexual, attractions to members of either gender.” I think you may have “sexual behavior” confused with “sexual orientation”.
As far as your overwhelmingly leftist socialist-driven government stuff goes, the federal hate crimes law (18 U.S.C. Section 245) was passed in 1969 under Nixon.
Shoot, the thing at my link.
The proposed law can be found here.
Without such a protocol, Article 21 of the Lisbon Treaty can be interpreted to legalize, or afford protection to, paedophilia in line with other protected sexual orientations.
The Islamic custom of marrying pre-pubescent girls would be illegal otherwise. Also, sexual molestation of boys by their fathers and older boys is rampant in Islamic countries. With the potential entrance of a real Islamic country into the EU (Turkey), this cannot be a coincidence.
fultonchain: Your link didn’t work, but this one seems to (fingers crossed while typing):
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h1913/text
“sexual orientation” is mentioned throughout the wording of the bill, but is not defined, unlike other terms which are defined. My point was that, by not so defining “sexual orientation”, the issue is cloudy and paedophilia can be given a pass, especially since Islam (within the Koran) actually acknowledges paedophilia because it stipulates, when discussing a Moslem man divorcing his wife(wives), it speaks of a waiting period of several months even for those wives who have not yet begun to menstruate (pre-pubescent females) and also because there are 13 aHadith (part of the ‘holy’ texts of Islam) all of which relate that Muhammad wrote the marriage contract with Aisha when she was 6 and ‘consummated’ the marriage when she was 9 and he was 54. This is the basis for child marriages throughout the Islamic world. With polygamy among Moslems now accepted in Britain (the British govt pays for all 4 wives permitted to a Moslem man out of British taxpayers monies), and the EU’s Lisbon Treaty leaving the door open for paedophilia (to be accepted as part of ‘respect’ for another ‘religion’ and stipulations against ‘islamophobia’), I find the House Bill 1913 dubious. You don’t need a specifically leftist, socialist-agenda driven administration to pass ‘hate laws’: this is an indirect by-product of the laws to do with racial equality. This is how homosexuality, and possibly, paedophilia, will slip in under the wire. It has serious civilizational consequences.
If I’m wrong, I’d be relieved to be shown where.
My point was that, by not so defining “sexual orientation”, the issue is cloudy and paedophilia can be given a pass, especially since Islam…
The problem is that sexual orientation, as defined by the APA, is straight, gay and bisexual. Only three and solely related to gender.
We’re not all that far apart except that I believe you are conflating sexual behavior with the clinical definition of “orientation”. By no means does this absolve the depraved of responsibility for their perversions, but as far as criminality and hate crime legislation goes there are only three possible combinations between the two genders.