« EPA Buries Truth About Global Warming Hoax | Main | Moonbat Messiah Malocchio »

barack Obama is a liberal demacratic pervert and a radical freak he certianly isnt a president he isa TYRANT

Shouldn't tha have read cock-n-tail and riming-appetizer reception?

Were "Barney Franks" one of the appetizers?

Feeling a stronger touch of homophobia today Helsing? Sanctimony of marriage...gimme a break. So, are politicians destroying their marriages before gay marriage does?
"has called for allowing open homosexuality in the military"
Are you suggesting these soldiers be treated with less honor and dignity than other soldiers? Lt. Dan Choi who has served in Iraq, and has been in the military for 10 years faced trial yesterday. It is about time we have a President and House with the intent of ending the discriminatory "don't ask, don't tell".

"Sanctity of marriage," idiot, it's "sanctity."

Whoops! Thats what I get with two words in my head. Busted by a grammar cop.

You know wellstoned is right. Who gives a shit about an inststution that's been between a man and a woman for thousands of years. And to hell with those damn soldiers and their maorale and their ability to function as a combat unit. Yeah you're right so-stoned to hell with two of the cornerstones of this country. (Sarcasm off). So-stoned go back to work for the Census.

You are right about that Farmer Ted. The idea that it's "fair" to force straight guys to live in close proximity with homosexual guys who are going to be lusting after them is more than a little warped. And lest I be accused of having a double standard, I don't believe in mixed sex heterosexual troops, either.

Ted, wasn't Barry Goldwater who said "you don't have to be straight, you just have to shoot straight"? For the last handful of years the right-wing waxed on and on about "support the troops", little did we know you only meant the straight ones. Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with cherishing marriage between a man and a woman, but that does not give you the blessing to deny that same right to others. Conservatives claim it threatens traditional marriage? If you guys believe that than you have bigger problems in your own marriage.

So-stoned you are supposed to read my post not come up with some regurgetated liberal bullshit. Now go back to work for the Census.

Ghost of Wellstone, stop asking to be part of our Friday Night poker game. You are are NOT welcome.

Goatse of Wellstone- The militant queer demanding a queer military. Surprise, surprise. You know nothing about the the subject (the military, that is. Your familiarity with buggery is acknowledged). However, you aren't ignorant. You're malevolent.

Lt. Dan just had to keep his mouth shut (lol) but alas like many queers, he evidently couldn't and paid the price. I'm sure everyone who took a shower around that freak feels much safer.

"Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with cherishing marriage between a man and a woman, but that does not give you the blessing to deny that same right to others."

I know it's probably pointless to say this... but it's not the SAME right, it's a different right. Because "gay" marriage always needs that qualifier in front of it. But words mean nothing to progressives, they are only there to be redefined as needed to advance the agenda of the day.

Liberals secretly don't give a S**T about gays or anyone else, they can only think of people in POLITICAL terms and how they can be USED in their cause.

Posted by: KHarn at July 1, 2009 10:19 AM

Bingo.

Wellstoned stupid prick.

For the last handful of years the right-wing waxed on and on about "support the troops", little did we know you only meant the straight ones.

I'll bet you can't name ONE conservitive who has ever made a distinction between the two. WE support ALL of our troops, PERIOD! Conservitives though are able to see the problems that idiotic liberal position cause before hand so WE try to avoid them to keep morale and efectiveness as high as possible. It's kind like why we girls aren't allowed in combat, and there is a really good reason for it.

Furthermore, there is nothing wrong with cherishing marriage between a man and a woman, but that does not give you the blessing to deny that same right to others.

BUT you have the "right" to tell us our belief is wrong, bigoted, hateful, mean, cruel, uniclusive, unellightened, dishonest, warped, and on and on RIGHT?

Oh and Marrage is NOT a right you idiot! It's a religious covenant which has been hijacked by politicians and the clueless like you.

Conservatives claim it threatens traditional marriage? If you guys believe that than you have bigger problems in your own marriage.

I'll be happy to let gay's have the word "marrage" so long as the are willing to accept a few other words like:

Child support
Alimony
Palamony
Property disolution
Divorce
Restraing order
Asset division
Cort ordered visitation
CPS supervision

Until I hear Perez Hilton and the rest of the cruel imbiciles like him come out gleefully in favor of paying Alimony and child support etc. We'll just hang on to OUR word "marrage"!!

Michelle, a religious covenant? Ok, some marry in a church, but divorce in a courtroom, sorry I get it now...jeesh. You can have whatever beliefs you choose, but you don't have the right to deny someone their rights for being who they are, and loving who they wish. Further, if you believe that a soldier in the midst of battle is going to give a Goddamn about whether or not the guy next to him is gay, you are wrong.Far too many Democrats and Republicans are fully prepared to put our troops in harms way, but are willing to strip their benefits after they have gone to war for being gay? Gimme a break. Gay couples I am friends with would be happy to accept those words Michelle.

I don't wanna get drafted. I don't wanna go.
I don't want nobody to plook me in the foxhole.
AIEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

Its a good job "Ghost Of Wellstone" is here to talk for all how soldiers feel. Are you their national spokesman Wellstone? or do you like most liberal dipshits just make shit up based on your "feelings"

Being an infantry soldier with combat experience and time in Iraq under my belt, open homosexuality in the military can't really work. While we recieve HIV screening in the military, it isn't nearly often enough to ensure that the person you went in to a deployment with wont have HIV by mid tour -- You know, the guy who will be bleeding his guts and HIV positive blood all over you while you try to drag him to safety. Granted the same risk does exist with heterosexual promiscuity, but it isn't nearly as likely. A combat zone is primarily men, and a much smaller percentage of women, so the likelyhood of mass scale contraction of STD's would be proportionately smaller, while open homosexuality would encourage male/male pairings in a combat zone, which would simply compound problems that already exist when you put a large group of people thousands of miles from home for long periods of time without the comforts of normal life (I.E. alcohol, relationships, sex, etc). If anything, homosexuals are MUCH more safe staying anonymous in the military. While I myself am not homophobic, although I don't approve of the lifestyle, I am mature enough to let people make their own decisions and keep my nose out of their business (unless they are throwing it in my face). There are plenty of people in the armed forces however, good soldiers as they may be, who are ignorant enough to resort to undesirable acts towards homosexuals, including physical violence, especially if a pass is made at one of the non gay service members.

I agree, large safety issue, and large morale issue. These people recieve all the same honor and recognition as every other soldier -- You are gay, good for you, have a cookie, but it doesn't need to be worn like a badge of honor, as heterosexuals do not wear their sexual preference as a badge of honor -- people will be who they are, a soldier is a soldier, and they will recieve their deserved honors. Leave it at that -- I don't understand the need of people to advertise their personal lives. Last I checked I don't see people driving around with bumper stickers on their cars, or t-shirts on that say "Proud to be Heterosexual", although now that I think about it that's kind of a good idea :P

My two cents. Take it or leave it.

Well said Damage. Problem is that kooks with the mindset of Wellstoned want to rub deviant ways in the faces of normal folks and destroy any form of morality through subversion of trying to argue moral equivalency between heterosexual marriage and sexual perversions. I won't waste further time going into the Biblical proscriptions against the latter, since it has been well covered and documented in previous posts. They are not satisfied with a "don't ask, don't tell" policy but wish to turn the military into a social experiment the likes of a garden variety SF gay pride parade with flaming queers flaunting their perversion and destroying the military's morale. That is what the Obama's pandering is all about -- he'd like to see our military replaced by civillian corps thugs like ACORN and Black Panthers more in allegiance with his mindset. Despite what they say -- and I do agree with other posters they could honestly give a rat's ass about queers, unless they can be used as tools in furtherance of their political quest for more power -- they want to destroy the morale of our vaunted military, for which they have no use, since most in the military are conservative, vote Republican, and can't stand Democrats anyway. PS, I wouldn't worry about being labelled homophobic, a ridiculous term coined by idiots on the left, since people with moral decency who object to homosexual behavior don't actually fear homosexuals, we just pity them for their acceptance and advocation of a lifestyle condemned in the Bible because of its sinful depravity and their lack of true repentance for their sins.

Remember how they had to DISINFECT the Whitehouse after Clinton left imagine the strength of the chemical they had to use after that party!!

All this talk about marriage as a "right" has it exactly backward.

In the institution of marriage, a man and woman formalize their relationship and willfully make a commitment in the eyes of the community, the Church and the government. It's now a binding contract with lots of consequences, legal and otherwise.

It has never just been between a man and a woman.....it's between a man, a woman, God, church and government. A lot of the reasons for it had to do with the offspring that typically result.

So, it's not a right at all - in fact, you cede a certain degree of control over to others, not the least of which is the State.

Michelle, a religious covenant? Ok, some marry in a church, but divorce in a courtroom, sorry I get it now...jeesh.

And the reason for "the courtroom is??? Oh YES the law, the state, the fed, all of which have thrust themselves into a formerly religious issue. I'm so glad you finally understand the concept of law.

You can have whatever beliefs you choose, but you don't have the right to deny someone their rights for being who they are, and loving who they wish.

Gee thank's Welstone for giving me permission to have my own thoughts about something. Do I need to fill out any special forms or get another licence to keep my beliefs or can you just wave the magic liberal wand and bequeth permission to me?

Further, if you believe that a soldier in the midst of battle is going to give a Goddamn about whether or not the guy next to him is gay, you are wrong.

Really? You KNOW I'm "wrong" why? Oh that's right; I disagree with a liberal so I'm AUTOMATICALLY wrong... Sorry I forgot the rules.

Far too many Democrats and Republicans are fully prepared to put our troops in harms way, but are willing to strip their benefits after they have gone to war for being gay? Gimme a break.

So which D.O.D. Policy states that once someone has served in the military honorably their veteran status is automatically revoked if they are "gay"? Feel free to enlighten us poor rubes who don't have near the military knowledge or experiance you obviously do..

Gay couples I am friends with would be happy to accept those words Michelle.

Oddly enough most of my gay friends agree with my positions and are conservatives. Unfortunately they fear the wrath of liberals so they don't speak out very much. Fortunatly NONE of them are as uneducated as you are.

Goatse of Wellstone at July 1, 2009 1:44 PM- "You can have whatever beliefs you choose"

And you've chosen the Religion of Poop.

Goatse of Wellstone- "but you don't have the right to deny someone their rights for being who they are, and loving who they wish."

You're confusing "loving", with "fisting".

Goatse of Wellstone- "Further, if you believe that a soldier in the midst of battle is going to give a Goddamn about whether or not the guy next to him is gay, you are wrong."

Like you'd know. Your New Model Army, politically correct, comrade frontovik might consider it ideologically unsound to "give a damn"- but since he is in an outfit that is FUBAR, the outcome of the battle has already been decided. But, you know this. This isn't about individual "rights". It's about remaking the forces for political objectives.

Goatse of Wellstone- "Gay couples I am friends with..."

Sure. "Friends" with.

That obama logo would make a interesting target for shooting at with a 30-06

Now Flu-Bird, let's not give the libtards the false impression that anyone here is condoning any violence against Obama, even symbolically towards his propaganda, because we certainly are not. While he is the president, it's just that we all would be better off if he were president of some African country in the land whence he was birthed, rather than being put in an ackward position for him to lead the greatest country in the history of civilization and the last hope in this world for freedom loving peoples.

"You can have whatever beliefs you choose, but you don't have the right to deny someone their rights for being who they are, and loving who they wish."

And you wonder why normal folks say that homosexual marriage is just the first step in redefining the institution of marriage to mean everything and, therefore, nothing. If we don't have the right to say homosexuals can't marry because that's "who they are," how can we tell a pedophile he can't marry a child, or a person who is into bestiality he can't marry a sheep, or a person in love with objects she can't marry the Brookly Bridge, or he can't marry a park bench? After all, that's "who they are."

Judith, Justice Scalia foretold everything that is coming to pass on this front 6 years ago, when over his, Justice Rhenquit's and Thomas's dissent SCOTUS in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) overturned 6-3, Texas’ anti-sodomy law"

"I turn now to the ground on which the Court squarely rests its holding: the contention that there is no rational basis for the law here under attack. This proposition is so out of accord with our jurisprudence—indeed, with the jurisprudence of any society we know—that it requires little discussion.

102
The Texas statute undeniably seeks to further the belief of its citizens that certain forms of sexual behavior are "immoral and unacceptable," Bowers, supra, at 196—the same interest furthered by criminal laws against fornication, bigamy, adultery, adult incest, bestiality, and obscenity. Bowers held that this was a legitimate state interest. The Court today reaches the opposite conclusion. The Texas statute, it says, "furthers no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual," ante, at 578 (emphasis added). The Court embraces instead Justice Stevens' declaration in his Bowers dissent, that "`the fact that the governing majority in a State has traditionally viewed a particular practice as immoral is not a sufficient reason for upholding a law prohibiting the practice,'" ante, at 577. This effectively decrees the end of all morals legislation. If, as the Court asserts, the promotion of majoritarian sexual morality is not even a legitimate state interest, none of the above-mentioned laws can survive rational-basis review."
***
"Today's opinion is the product of a Court, which is the product of a law-profession culture, that has largely signed on to the so-called homosexual agenda, by which I mean the agenda promoted by some homosexual activists directed at eliminating the moral opprobrium that has traditionally attached to homosexual conduct. I noted in an earlier opinion the fact that the American Association of Law Schools (to which any reputable law school must seek to belong) excludes from membership any school that refuses to ban from its job-interview facilities a law firm (no matter how small) that does not wish to hire as a prospective partner a person who openly engages in homosexual conduct. See Romer, supra, at 653.
112
One of the most revealing statements in today's opinion is the Court's grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is "an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres." Ante, at 575. It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed. Many Americans do not want persons who openly engage in homosexual conduct as partners in their business, as scoutmasters for their children, as teachers in their children's schools, or as boarders in their home. They view this as protecting themselves and their families from a lifestyle that they believe to be immoral and destructive. The Court views it as "discrimination" which it is the function of our judgments to deter. So imbued is the Court with the law profession's anti-anti-homosexual culture, that it is seemingly unaware that the attitudes of that culture are not obviously "mainstream"; that in most States what the Court calls "discrimination" against those who engage in homosexual acts is perfectly legal; that proposals to ban such "discrimination" under Title VII have repeatedly been rejected by Congress, see Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 1994, S. 2238, 103d Cong., 2d Sess. (1994); Civil Rights Amendments, H. R. 5452, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975); that in some cases such "discrimination" is mandated by federal statute, see 10 U. S. C. § 654(b)(1) (mandating discharge from the Armed Forces of any service member who engages in or intends to engage in homosexual acts); and that in some cases such "discrimination" is a constitutional right, see Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U. S. 640 (2000).
113
Let me be clear that I have nothing against homosexuals, or any other group, promoting their agenda through normal democratic means. Social perceptions of sexual and other morality change over time, and every group has the right to persuade its fellow citizens that its view of such matters is the best. That homosexuals have achieved some success in that enterprise is attested to by the fact that Texas is one of the few remaining States that criminalize private, consensual homosexual acts. But persuading one's fellow citizens is one thing, and imposing one's views in absence of democratic majority will is something else. I would no more require a State to criminalize homosexual acts—or, for that matter, display any moral disapprobation of them—than I would forbid it to do so. What Texas has chosen to do is well within the range of traditional democratic action, and its hand should not be stayed through the invention of a brand-new "constitutional right" by a Court that is impatient of democratic change. It is indeed true that "later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress," ante, at 579; and when that happens, later generations can repeal those laws. But it is the premise of our system that those judgments are to be made by the people, and not imposed by a governing caste that knows best.
114
One of the benefits of leaving regulation of this matter to the people rather than to the courts is that the people, unlike judges, need not carry things to their logical conclusion. The people may feel that their disapprobation of homosexual conduct is strong enough to disallow homosexual marriage, but not strong enough to criminalize private homosexual acts—and may legislate accordingly. The Court today pretends that it possesses a similar freedom of action, so that we need not fear judicial imposition of homosexual marriage, as has recently occurred in Canada (in a decision that the Canadian Government has chosen not to appeal). See Halpern v. Toronto, 2003 WL 34950 (Ontario Ct. App.); Cohen, Dozens in Canada Follow Gay Couple's Lead, Washington Post, June 12, 2003, p. A25. At the end of its opinion—after having laid waste the foundations of our rational-basis jurisprudence —the Court says that the present case "does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter." Ante, at 578. Do not believe it. More illuminating than this bald, unreasoned disclaimer is the progression of thought displayed by an earlier passage in the Court's opinion, which notes the constitutional protections afforded to "personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education," and then declares that "[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do." Ante, at 574 (emphasis added). Today's opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is "no legitimate state interest" for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 578; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), "[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring," ante, at 567; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising "[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution," ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case "does not involve" the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so.
115
The matters appropriate for this Court's resolution are only three: Texas's prohibition of sodomy neither infringes a "fundamental right" (which the Court does not dispute), nor is unsupported by a rational relation to what the Constitution considers a legitimate state interest, nor denies the equal protection of the laws. I dissent."

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/539/539.US.558.02-102.html

Gays will demand the right to be in the military until the Draft is reinstituted. The same is true of women.

I think Wellstoned is gay himself.

Wow. I try to read these types of postings to remind myself of the reality that there are those out there, today, in this country, who still don't know how to respect others... despite all this country stands for. I'm in the military and find it scary that there are fellow Soldiers who can't find it in themselves to respect the Soldier next to them... regardless of the reason. If you aren't gay, then what is the issue to you? The issue doesn't change your life, or your marriage, so why are you so against this? Let the gays serve and give them a chance to be happy. Do don't have to understand it or support it. Just let it be. The gays aren't taking anything away from you, yet you try to keep freedoms away from them.