President Obama speaks tonight at a fundraising banquet for the gay-left Human Rights Campaign, the same group Ted Kennedy joked before last year about Jesse Helms being in Hell. The dinner will also feature entertainment by pop star Lady Gaga and the cast of the Fox prime-time show "Glee," made by infamously raunchy gay producer Ryan Murphy.
The dinner and Sunday's National Equality March on Washington have been barely mentioned by the national media, certainly the Washington Post. The Post only has a map buried in the Metro section on Saturday. It should get greater notice after Obama speaks -- and is even protested by unhappy gay "liberation" activists.
March organizers are touting a Thursday night segment (gay activists pressing Obama unanimously from the left) on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360. As expected, a cast of Hollywood liberals are official endorsers of the march for what they call "gay marriage":
Annette Bening, Dana Delany, Melissa Etheridge, Harvey Fierstein, Carrie Fisher, Joely Fisher, James Franco, Mariska Hargitay, Helen Hunt, Swoosie Kurtz, Judith Light, Chad Lowe, Camryn Manheim, Ian McKellen, Ewan McGregor, Kathy Najimy, David Hyde Pierce, Meg Ryan, Hilary Swank, Charlize Theron, Jennifer Tilly, Marisa Tomei.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Gays and other minorities
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 09:13 ET by gmaniac1Gays and other minorities are treated like Cindy Sheehan. Any time the liberals need them to promote their socialism then they are at the forefront. Otherwise they treat them like a dead dog in the road. Shoot, the dead dog may get more compassion from them.
wow!
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 09:44 ET by John WIWith a list of names like that......along with "Lady Gaga" supplying the entertainment......it looks like a real dignified night for our "President".
Can this become any more of an embarassment to our country?
I hope that Obama and his wife, are man and woman enough to take the kids to the party.
No kids!
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 10:47 ET by Tim GrahamI wonder if bisexual Lady Gaga will pull a Marilyn Monroe and suggest to the president "I want to take a ride on your disco stick!"
What's going on in Backwater Country?
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 10:08 ET by lareeWe are discussing the Clay Co., Ky., census takers death. The left was trying to make it into an angry ginned up Mob incident by Talk Radio and Fox News. I don't think so. Also The Hardin, Montana Prison situation. Odd goings on in backwater country.
The Other McCain (Robert Stacy McCain) went to Clay Co.,Ky., to investigate he has updates, it's odd the authorities can't decide what kind of death to list for Bill Sparkman.
The Other McCain, refers to Clay Co.,Ky., as Lower Glennbeckistan/SARC.
We are also looking forward to College Football this weekend. No Open Sports Thread?
Embrace diversity
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 10:12 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsSo will Obama be teabagging Perez Hilton to show his support for gays?
I'm just sayin'.
D
Write your Congress and Senate and tell them what YOU think!
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Gays rights v. Gay marriage
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 10:34 ET by KC MulvilleThe premise is that you can't be for gays while also being against gay marriage. I deny the premise.
Caveat emptor, my friends. If the presentations this week try to blur the distinction between gay rights and gay marriage, then you know they're trying to deceive you. It's rhetoric. They're going to play on your sympathies for gays who suffer inequality. They'll try to exploit that emotion to sway people to support gay marriage, as a penance to make it up to gay people. Caveat emptor, my friends.
If families are the bedrock
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 12:07 ET by mamabearIf families are the bedrock of our society, then you should be all for gay people marrying and adopting some of the thousands of unwanted kids in this country. More families is good, right?
If you don't think gay people are capable of raising children as well as, say, a single parent, then you lose any argument that this isn't about your feelings about homosexuality.
MamaTroll
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 12:11 ET by Free StinkerIf families are the bedrock of our society, then you should be all for
gay people marrying and adopting some of the thousands of unwanted kids
in this country.
Non sequitor
"President Obama is learning on the job and it shows." --Boris Epshteyn
You don't think that's
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 12:17 ET by mamabearYou don't think that's related to KC's argument that gay marriage is somehow not "family?"
If not, then I apologize for being off topic.
Quite the contrary
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 13:00 ET by KC MulvilleNo. That's a dodge.
Gay couples can't have children. Therefore, you can't argue that their marriage was intended to produce a family and children.
I don't argue that gay people can't raise children. Again, as I've said, watch the distinction between gay rights and gay marriage. The issue isn't whether gay people are "good" citizens. The question is whether we should separate marriage from family. You can't have gay marriage without inevitably separating marriage from family.
You can make a case that contemporary attitudes about marriage, heterosexuals included, also preclude children. Yes, I also oppose that. If you just want to live together, go ahead, no one's stopping you. Mine is an argument about marriage. If all you want to do is make a public statement about your love for someone, that's fine. Civil unions (yes, I favor them) are exactly what that means. But gay marriage advocates reject civil unions. They demand it be called marriage, on the spurious argument that it connotes social approval. The hypocrisy of that argument is that they want marriage to be considered a social approval, but they want to impose it through non-democratic means. (Oh the irony.)
Why are you ignoring the
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 14:50 ET by mamabearWhy are you ignoring the existence of adoption? Lots of gay couples out there want to adopt, and lots of children out there want to be adopted. Why not strengthen that potential family through the bonds, societal and legal, of marriage?
In my opinion, family isn't about producing children, it is about caring for children. By your definition, infertile couples can't have families, because they aren't producing children.
That's pretty harsh.
Are you in favor of calling childless marriages between straight people civil unions?
→ Well, of course
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 15:00 ET by Cool ArrowAre you saying marriage isn't already a civil union?
Sorry to bust your bubble, but my marriage is filed at a courthouse. That's a civil union.
Marriage
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 22:02 ET by KC Mulville"Are you in favor of calling childless marriages between straight people civil unions?" Actually, yes. Let me make a case.
I suggest you stop looking at this from the couple's point of view. Stop. Think of this from state's point of view. For a moment, imagine that you're the State.
If marriage is only about a relationship between two people, there's no reason to get the state involved. The state doesn't care (and shouldn't care) about relationships. Marriage isn't just a statement of love for one another, because if that's all it is, there's no reason for the state to get involved. (Seriously, do you really want the government to hold authority over your personal relationships?)
Except ... if children are involved. That changes everything. Children aren't assets. Children can't be divided up as community property. The state gets involved in marriage because there are children, and the state has a responsibility to make sure they're cared for properly. That's where the state's authority comes from. If all you want to do is live together, gay or not, why bother? And why should the state care? You want to live together, fine, go ahead. Nobody's stopping you. The only reason the state gets involved is if there are children. That's when the state starts to care.
That's the difference between marriage and civil unions. Marriage is a relationship in which the state has a stake (which is why you need a license), but the only reason the state has a stake is because you intend to have children. If you don't intend children, the state has no reason to get involved.
I still think you are using
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 23:29 ET by mamabearI still think you are using as your argument something that isn't practical or feasible.
We aren't about to change our laws and regulations so that people only have to get a license when they have kids and so that a relationship without kids has no legal standing.
Right now spouses have legal rights, visitation, inheritance, that exist whether or not they have kids. So while it's nice that you think everything would be fair if it worked by your rules, it doesn't, and it isn't.
Not my rules
Sun, 10/11/2009 - 03:45 ET by KC MulvilleI'm not saying they're my rules. I'm appealing to your rationality. I'm asking you to consider my assertion that marriage is, and has always been, about children. I argue that it if it was just about relationships, marriage wouldn't be worth the fuss. But once it includes children, it makes perfect sense.
As it is, marriage has always been about children and family, and that belief comes from anthropology. History shows that marriage started as a way to make sure that males stayed around to take care of the mother and child. Unlike the animals, human babies take years of care. Mothers can't provide for themelves while caring for the baby. Marriage was the way human society ensured that the father would stick around and live up to his responsibilities. That's why marriage started. That's how marriage was understood, for the whole of human history, until just a few years ago ... when people forgot all that. Suddenly, marriage was just a piece of paper. Society began thinking that marriage was just a nice ceremony or a statement of love.
As a culture, we've completely forgotten where marriage came from. Instead, we've adopted cultural assumptions that spring from our historical ignorance. You can only think marriage has nothing to do with children if you miss the whole of human history. Every culture, throughout the vast majority of history, has considered children to be essential to the meaning of marriage. Suddenly, now, some very intelligent Americans (a group that includes you, mamabear) are incredulous that I'm dragging children into it. That's astonishing to me.
I'm not asking to install new rules. I'm appealing to you to see that these were the rules, from the dawn of human history until just a relatively few years ago. And, that marriage doesn't (and cannot) make sense without them. That's what I'm asking you to consider.
Right then. I fully
Mon, 10/12/2009 - 10:36 ET by mamabearRight then.
I fully support going back to the old rules:
Government has no involvement in marriage until the point at which children come into the picture.
So when gay couple adopt will they get a marriage license?
Still not getting it
Mon, 10/12/2009 - 11:17 ET by KC Mulville"Government has no involvement in marriage until the point at which children come into the picture." That isn't what I said, and you know it.
Gay people are demanding that government certify their relationships as marriage. The majority refuses. Not only is the majority following the "old rule" ... that's the existing rule. It's the law right now. Trying to rephrase what I said, to be clever, is hardly a productive argument.
Here's what you
Tue, 10/13/2009 - 21:29 ET by mamabearHere's what you said:
"Are you in favor of calling childless marriages between straight people civil unions?" Actually, yes. Let me make a case.
If marriage is only about a relationship between two people, there's no reason to get the state involved.
That's the difference between marriage and civil unions. Marriage is a
relationship in which the state has a stake (which is why you need a
license), but the only reason the state has a stake is because you
intend to have children. If you don't intend children, the state has no
reason to get involved.
So I apologize if I'm not getting it, but it sounds like you think childless relationships should be civil unions and marriages should be relationships that involve children.
That sounds fine to me, but there is no reason based on that logic to distinguish between gay and straight couples. Both, for instance, may be unable to have children for a variety of reasons and instead choose to adopt.
So by your logic, a gay couple intending to adopt a child should get a marriage license.
So far I don't see anything in your argument that says otherwise.
Where to start?
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 22:34 ET by UpNorthDo you seriously believe that a child is not damaged by telling her/his classmates/friends that she/he has 2 mommies or 2 daddys? Or growing up with two female or two male role models at home but none of the other sex? Really?
"and lots of children out there want to be adopted". So, because they "want" to be adopted, they should just be pushed out the door to the first two, or one, walking, breathing human who shows up to pick up a kid?
Would two adults, one male and one female, who engage in risky sexual behavior, or who have engaged in said behavior in the past, be allowed to adopt? If not, then why should two adults, both male, or both female, who engage or have engaged in said behavior, be allowed to adopt?
That's a circular
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 23:34 ET by mamabearThat's a circular argument-- we don't accept gay people as parents because gay people aren't accepted as parents.
Let's solve the problem for those kids by erasing the social stigma attached to being gay, what do you say? Then they could be socially acceptable AND have a family.
Think of the children!
Puh-Leeze
Sun, 10/11/2009 - 00:22 ET by UpNorthWhat are you going to do, have the federal government pass a law, mandating that no social stigma shall attach to man-man or woman-woman marriage? And no they can't have a family, in the classic sense of the word. Note that I said in the "classic" sense, not the biblical sense.
And what about those states that have amended their constitutions because their citizens wanted marriage defined as one man-one woman? Are they wrong? Evil? Wrong-headed? Stigmatizing?
And while you're here, could you answer the question I posed in my last paragraph, in my post above? I'm curious as to your answer. Also, I'm curious about your feelings about the child growing up in a home with two moms or two dads, as far as effective role models. Are they better off without a mother, or without a father?
That's what the government
Mon, 10/12/2009 - 10:42 ET by mamabearThat's what the government did for interracial marriage.
Did you know that 1991 was the first year in which a majority of Americans thought interracial marriage was okay? That's mind boggling to me! But part of the reason, in my opinion, that the cultural change happened is because government went ahead and protected it BEFORE people were ready, and then they saw that society in fact didn't collapse when black and white people married.
I think that a family that involves two parents of the same gender is imperfect, as are all families. Adopting a child is hard, as it should be. There are lots of stringent requirements for stability, financial health, etc that society couldn't care less about for couples having their own children. So I would bet that in balance, the lack of one particular role model in the parental unit is probably no worse than the myriad other dysfunctions that children suffer from their biological parents.
If you are going to argue that children need good role models of both sexes, then let's start disallowing people who aren't good role models for other reasons from having kids. What do you say?
Miscegenation and same sex marriage
Mon, 10/12/2009 - 15:08 ET by QueenMumI don't think you can compare the two. The difference being that miscegenation laws forbade marriage between a man and a woman of different races. The idea that some races were more human or superior to others was an error. Same sex marriage advocates seek to change the definition of marriage itself and deny the laws of nature. Human beings primarily create families by means of natural reproduction - that is, the joining of ova and sperm. Is this basic fact of biology an error?
Edited to add: To be factually accurate, the miscegenation laws that still existed in the U.S. were struck down in 1967. What any particular person or persons chose to believe about interracial marriage was and is a matter of personal opinion.
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
- P.J. O'Rourke
You are arguing that some
Tue, 10/13/2009 - 21:36 ET by mamabearYou are arguing that some relationships are superior or more human than others because they are capable of producing children. How do you think infertile straight couples feel about that?
If marriage is just about producing children, then go to straight couples without kids and do what Ken Star tried to do to my friends in California. Tear up their marriage licenses and tell them they can live their sordid private sinful lives all they like, but they'd better not call it a REAL marriage.
Attention Sodomite Apologist
Tue, 10/13/2009 - 21:48 ET by Sergeant ROCKIt matters not that in some circumstances a normal couple may not be able to procreate as a result of a medical condition. In the case of a homosexual couple, under no circumstances can they procreate. One is a normal paring, the other is not.
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
I wish you'd post
Wed, 10/14/2009 - 15:37 ET by UpNorthspew alerts, but then, most of your posts require one. As for adoption being " hard, as it should be.", it can't be that hard. Rosie O'Donnell adopted. And, you seemed to disqualify her, when you mentioned stability.
And, I'm not necessarily arguing that we disallow people who don't happen to be good role models. I'm saying that, with all of the issues that adopted children face anyway, why is it ok to saddle them with another issue?
And, the red herring of "interracial marriage" has been addressed quite well, already.
Good evening mamabear
Sun, 10/11/2009 - 00:36 ET by cocodrieAnyone who cares about children should be opposed ti homosexual marriage. If we are going to redefine marriage after thousands of years we should redefine other things also.
Apes should be considered human since they walk on all twos.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
I doubt you will see much
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 10:36 ET by BDI doubt you will see much coverage of this event, and that which is covered will by highly edited. No nudity, and I doubt those wackjob "Nuns" that periodically invade Catholic Churches in San Francisco will be seen on screen.
What you will see is same sex couples wearing the equivalent of business clothing holding milqtoast signs.
And if past history is followed, some really wild innappropriate S--t going on.... Sort of like San Francisco's Gay rights parade come to DC. But we will not see that.
and this
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 10:49 ET by Tim GrahamThe "Rainbow Sash" people plan to invade the Catholic cathedral on DC on Sunday and demand communion from the Archbishop...
I'd love to be the usher
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 22:13 ET by KC MulvilleAs you know, you can't demand communion; no sacrament can be demanded. If these clowns try to justify their behavior, we need to refute their excuses with the truth.
Most important, you don't "use" a sacrament to make a point. Sacraments are sacred, which means you don't use them for any other purpose.
Remember when people wanted to withhold communion from politicians to make a political point? This is the other side of that same coin. I objected to it then, and I object to this now. Sacraments aren't pawns in other games. Leave sacraments out of this.
There will probably be a
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 10:36 ET by GregEThere will probably be a million people at this.
Just scanning through the
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 10:41 ET by MazziJust scanning through the names, have ANY of those people been married to a person of the opposite sex without at least one divorce? The few names I am familiar with certainly wouldn't fall into that group. And I am betting that few, if any, do.
Typical Hollywood hypocrisy - they want to be our guiding light on right and wrong, because it somehow makes their own neuroses seem less important if everyone else agrees that their behavior is OK.
What is marriage anyway? Just a piece of paper and and an expensive ring to show off.
"I would rather be historically accurate than politically correct" ~ My husband's T-Shirt
Just some Observations
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 11:00 ET by Chattychito1) Gay and lesbians are not a minority by nature but by their choice
2) Many gay and lesbians hold some pretty high paying jobs and are very seldom discriminated against.
3) The hoax of a gay jean in the DNA is unfounded.
MHO is as far as science can tell there are no obvious jeans that show personality only physical traits. personality is partially due to the persons environment i.e. people that surround them in the years they are developing individuality which is completed at about 2 years of age. the rest of the years until adulthood they are only fine tuning or changing some personality traits and even after adulthood a person can still have changes in their personality.
So what really gives on this issue. Unlike black people gays are not born gay. They have good paying jobs and positions and very seldom are they discriminated against.
the only time that I seen gay men get beaten up for being gay is when they come on to the wrong guy or they are forcing their gayness on others. a lot of times they bring it on themselves because they are forcing people to give them respect for being gay. as if it is their right to have everyone respect them for being gay. Lesbian are a little less forceful than the guys but it would have to be a women who would have to remark on Lesbians as far as how they treat women.
Here's a fact that's worth the knowing, So treasure and mark it well. When the mind is through with growing, the the head begins to swell. Sir Nosmo King
Gay Genes
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 15:11 ET by QueenMumMore recent research
Hoax or science?
Edited to add: Please expand on this, Chatty:
"the only time that I seen gay men get beaten up for being gay is when
they come on to the wrong guy or they are forcing their gayness on
others."
"...a lot of times they bring it on themselves"
Would you excuse someone from beating up a fellow human-being based on a perception that the person was "coming on to them" or "forcing their gayness on others"? Would it be okay for a heterosexual male to beat up a female for "coming on to them"? Or vice versa? For that matter, other than rape, how does one "force their gayness on others"?
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
- P.J. O'Rourke
see post above
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 19:47 ET by Chattychitospecial rights for Homosexuals.
I am not saying all gay men or lesbians force themselves on others but there are those that do. this is my opinion and observation over the years working and living in the same area with the Gay activist community.
Today they have open door to teach your kids against the wishes of their parents in public shcools. This is just one form of forcing gayness on others. In the 70's through the 90's I witnessed some of these guys and they would flaunt it right in a straight persons face saying things like, "you know you would like it" or "don't knock it until you try it" that's forcing gayness on people.
I wont go into sordid details of how some gays act but it wasn't good. But when a gay male grabs hold of a straight male in a bar because he thought the guy might like it and it turned out he didn't and he got his A$$ kicked for it.
I know of ladies who have decked a man for the same type of unwanted physical contact. Gays are more brazen with unwanted contact towards other men straight or gay, than men are with women or women with men. Most straight men wont mind a women grabbing them in the same way. Some gay men don't mind it when a gay grabs them that way but their partners might. My uncle is a cop and he has been called to make reports of these things and called to break up many fights in gay bars over the fact that someone came on to another mans B*tch.
then they are the first to scream hate crime when someone doesn't take to their advances. often Belittling those men because they didn't care for their advances.
The instance I am talking about I witnessed and the Gay man told the police after they arrived that the guy just beat him up because he was gay. It was an outright lie many people saw him grab the man's crotch and the man reacted violently to that.
I know your not so ignorant to this so why you are asking is beyond me. Oh unless you are gay? and your just asking to argue about it. If you are a male I would conclude by your user name you are gay. and I am sure if you are gay you have done the very things I spoke of.
Here's a fact that's worth the knowing, So treasure and mark it well. When the mind is through with growing, the the head begins to swell. Sir Nosmo King
Gays gone wild
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 21:20 ET by QueenMum"I know your not so ignorant to this so why you are asking is beyond
me. Oh unless you are gay? and your just asking to argue about it. If
you are a male I would conclude by your user name you are gay. and I am
sure if you are gay you have done the very things I spoke of."
1. I asked because you made statements that were a bit vague.
2. If I'm male, you would conclude by my username that I'm gay? Why? Forgive my saying so, but that's just plain ignorant.
3. Why would you suggest that perhaps the reason I would question you is because I'm gay?
4. Bar fights break out in bars of all sorts for all sorts of reasons. It's a bit of a leap to make the general assumption that because a fight breaks out in a gay bar or a gay is involved, it's because gays are more likely to be aggressive, or as you put it "bring it upon themselves". I'm sure your uncle has also been called out to bar fights between all varieties of people.
"The instance I am talking about I witnessed and the Gay man told the
police after they arrived that the guy just beat him up because he was
gay"
I haven't been to any bar fights lately. In fact, I haven't been to any bars for quite a while. What were you doing there?
5. In regard to:"I am
sure if you are gay you have done the very things I spoke of." Can you explain why you would make such an assumption? Are you saying that this aggressive behavior you speak about is inherent in all gays? The gays that I know are quite nice people. Otherwise, I wouldn't associate with them. Not every gay person is a radical activist.
Thank you for taking the time to flesh out your comments.
BTW, do you recall this story? Matthew Shephard Sort of flies in the face of your contention that gays who get themselves beaten up have it coming.
P.S. Would you care to comment on the article I linked? In case you missed it: Gay Genes
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
- P.J. O'Rourke
Well...
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 12:37 ET by misterbee241Well, if Jesse Helms is in Hell, I'm sure he'd be the first to shake Teddy's hand and welcome him home. Just my humble opinion.
"I dont need to read a newspaper to know the world's been shaved by a drunken barber."
Walter Brennan, The Colonel, Meet John Doe, 1941
MrB - just wanted you to know I share your 'humble opinion'
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 21:36 ET by Cape ConservativeWhat a circus it has been here in Massachusetts ever since the senator who has caused more harm to our country - all in the name of 'his' liberal thoughts of justice - passed. My husband and I are supporting the Republican state senator, Scott Brown, who is running in the special election. Now wouldn't that be a great fare-thee-well to the 'senior lyin' to have his seat filled with a Republican!
This comment comes from a proud Tea Party attendee, otherwise designated by Homeland Security as a Domestic Right Wing Terrorist! And now by our president as a 'swiftboater' - both titles I'll wear proudly! It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue ~ Sam Adams
202.224.3121 LET CONGRESS HEAR THE ROAR OF THE SILENT MAJORITY!
202.456.1111 WHITE HOUSE COMMENT LINE
Special rights for homosexuals
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 12:45 ET by LibertydudeAre we allowed to discuss this...isn't this hate speech...isn't it against the law...
Meanwhile back at the school house...they are teaching 7yr olds that this disgusting, abberant behavior is the NEW family. and it's against the parents wishes. Makes ya wonder about the banana and condom thing. Isn't wonderfull the new safe schools czar is a flaming homo who wants to force our kids to be a homo.
And the NAMBLA founder was his inspiration
Go be a homosexual, but leave me and my children alone.
You vile creeps
So...the prez can SPEAK before this group, but he knew NOTHING!
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 21:27 ET by Cape Conservativeabout the hundreds of thousands gathering on the mall for the 912 project...hmmmmmmmmmm Sounds about right to me...just more of the same! No national prayer day but okay for islam day.
NO recognition WHATSOEVER of the millions of Americans attending tea parties or 912 projects or town hall meetings, but, oh yes, gotta talk to those homosexuals!!
This comment comes from a proud Tea Party attendee, otherwise designated by Homeland Security as a Domestic Right Wing Terrorist! And now by our president as a 'swiftboater' - both titles I'll wear proudly! It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue ~ Sam Adams
202.224.3121 LET CONGRESS HEAR THE ROAR OF THE SILENT MAJORITY!
202.456.1111 WHITE HOUSE COMMENT LINE
And everything
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 22:44 ET by UpNorththat's wrong in this world, and all the meaness in the world will be done away with, if only we do away with DADT. Pres. 0 just said so, peace be unto him. I still haven't figured out how it will make the world a better place and this a better country, if only we let gays serve openly? It's not about serving, it's all about serving openly!!!
And he shows up for their dinner, but he has to run to Minnesota to avoid a couple hundred thousand of his citizens on 9-12?
Just another way to create a little more chaos - you know
Sun, 10/11/2009 - 19:51 ET by Cape ConservativeANYTHING to get people looking at the right hand while he tries to use that left hand to sign the healthcare bill! This man will not rest until he has destroyed all of America that we cherish and hold dear!
This comment comes from a proud Tea Party attendee, otherwise designated by Homeland Security as a Domestic Right Wing Terrorist! And now by our president as a 'swiftboater' - both titles I'll wear proudly! It is no dishonor to be in a minority in the cause of liberty and virtue ~ Sam Adams
202.224.3121 LET CONGRESS HEAR THE ROAR OF THE SILENT MAJORITY!
202.456.1111 WHITE HOUSE COMMENT LINE
Tim
Sat, 10/10/2009 - 23:07 ET by shawn228I see nothing wrong with Obama speaking at this event. My understanding is he did not even really address gay marriage, but was supporting ending don't ask don't tell.
"I have a Bush man-crush, you need to understand."-Mr. Shy
Obama on Defense of Marriage Act
Sun, 10/11/2009 - 11:22 ET by QueenMumshawn228: I believe he did address the gay marriage issue.
Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys.
- P.J. O'Rourke