May 10, 2012, - 12:47 pm

Obama Gay Marriage a Desperate Move By a Cowardly Prez Craving Re-Election

By Debbie Schlussel

Despite all the Obamessiah worship by the Ellen/Liberace/George Michaels crowd (though “Libby” had the class to keep his lifestyle private) and their allies in the liberal media, Barack Obama’s silly statement, yesterday, coming out in favor of gay marriage is a desperate move by a desperate President, who knows his days may be numbered if he doesn’t do something splashy. He knows he’s lost the 50% (or more) of the country that knows marriage is between a man and a woman, not between a man and a man, a man and a dog, a man and a child, or any other alleged sexual “predisposition” to love someone other than an adult human of the opposite sex. And despite what he says, unless he issues an executive order–which he’ll never have the guts to do–The Village People and the ghost of Yasser Arafat still can’t legally marry the true objects of their affection.



Not Marriage, No Matter What a Desperate President Says

So, he has nothing to lose by favoring gay marriage . . . except the votes of every single person who has voted against gay marriage in California, North Carolina, etc. And he lost them long ago.

But it’s an obvious flip-flop designed to fundraise and energize the gay-friendly troops, most of whom were, to date, less motivated to vote for him than they were at this point four years ago. The bloom of the “first Black President” is gone. Now, he has to re-invent himself into other identity politics, including the “first gay-friendly President” (who may or may not be on the “down low,” himself, according to rumors and accusations). And it’s a conceit–it’s all about Obama. Me, me, me, me. I, Barack Obama, support gay marriage, therefore it is valid.

But it isn’t, and it won’t be enough. Obama will have to cause similar ecstasy among other groups beyond the Fruity Pebbles/Yasser Arafat/Village People crowd. It’s just not enough to get him re-elected. Many of the others have woken up from the mesmerizing sound of the dog whistle those of us with brains never did hear. And the WNBA season ticket holders and Dinah Shore Classic attendees–even if all of them vote–aren’t enough to push this desperado over the top.

Obama is going to have to come out in favor of other things. He’ll have to grant amnesty to illegal aliens (which–don’t kid yourself–Romney will likely do if and when he’s elected). He’ll have to create free meal plans and safari vacations for all vegans and lacto ovo bisexual Hezbollah supporters seeking guaranteed equal wages for hookers (Secret Service or otherwise) and Wall Street executives. And even if he did these things and created even more of a welfare state, it still won’t be enough.

And, so, this gay marriage endorsement may be good for a week of news stories–and Clay Aiken appearances on Piers Morgan (doubling the viewership temporarily, to include Aiken’s current boyfriend)–but after that, it’ll be back to Obama losing in the polls or just pulling even–neck-and-neck. The cowardice won’t pay off.

And just remember: no Al-Qaeda leaders, no Hezbollah or HAMAS personnel, no Middle East heads of state, are coming out in favor of these absurd new, revisionist definitions of marriage. It’s part of why they’re winning . . . and we’re not. Masculine societies last. Effeminate ones die.

But Obama’s statements are a bonanza in Al-Qaeda recruitment and anti-West hatred for our decadence, a decadence that has gone off the deep end.

The gay marriage pronouncement won’t create any new jobs. It won’t save the economy. And as the Clintonistas used to say back in 1988: it’s the economy, stupid.

It certainly ain’t redefining traditional marriage as “Frankie Goes to Hollywood.” Only a bumbling coward does that.


For the record, I’m a libertarian on certain things and have had gay friends and clients. It’s not a problem for me. What you do in the privacy of your own bedroom is your business (unless it’s with an underaged person or non-human, etc.). And I believe that gays should be able to live and exist like everyone else with the same rights, but NOT enhanced ones or re-definitions of terms. We are not like the Nazis and the Muslims who persecute people for what is none of our business. We are infinitely better than that.

But there is no reason why the rest of us must sanction your lifestyle and give it a legal, de facto approval. You aren’t entitled to re-define words and terms that don’t have a scintilla of what you want them to mean.

And you need to make up your mind: first, you wanted a “right to privacy” that doesn’t exist in the Constitution. But, now, you want to force us to publicly give sanction to your relationship. It simply doesn’t make sense.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Tags: , , , , ,

95 Responses

Oh yeah, he was hoping to save this until AFTER his last election when – as he told the Russian president – he’d have more flexibility. But you can bet the Muslims approve of this in one respect: it’s the foot in the door to allow them to push for legalized polygamy which they’re already doing under the radar.

Sean M on May 10, 2012 at 12:52 pm

    Correct Sean! 🙂 Those people are already waiting in the wings, namely polygamists.

    This represents knocking down a significant social pillar for te sake of roughly 4% of the population, and in fact a fraction of that are really interested in marriage. As Debbie has said, who cares what consenting adults do in their private lives? However, when legal recognition comes for such relationships comes, more substantial benefits follow. I suspect that we will see protected class status conferred on gays in the not too distant future, even though this group as a whole is not poor or underprivileged. Your favored sexual activity will now define you personal identity.

    These arguments can and will be used by polygamists in support of their perceived “right” to plural marriage. We have already been subjected to “Big Love” or Sister Wives, which were and are nothing more than repellant attempts at reviving an archaic social practice. Polygamy reduced the status of women to property and breeders. Typically, in societies where polygamy is legal, the male husband can dismiss(divorce)the no longer desired wife for just about any reason in a very perfunctory way. Quite often this was done simply to make room for a new and younger replacement wife. Monogamous marriage, as it gradually became more common, represented a great advance for women. The scales were obviously unequal, but a woman did have at least some rights over the household, her children, and herself as a monomagous wife. In short, her status was elevated above that of livetock. Polygamy is all about male domination and control, and was historically the cause of much jealousy, distress, shame, and greif in past societies. Any country, group, or individual that supports polygamy is socially regressive.

    Marriage as we have known it is dying, and is in fact virtually dead. It is being replaced by companionship for gays and indentured servitude(until hubby dumps you)in the form of polygamy. I am not into these changes, and I find no hope in them.

    Worry01 on May 10, 2012 at 4:02 pm

    In the world of the future as we get ever deeper into the age of the new poverty, polygamy and polygyny will become acceptable as people must find ways to survive with some semblance of former middle class dignity. It is currently the way of the poverty class. A few different females, a few different baby mommas. Our formerly middle class society is in for radical changes.

    bikerrich on May 11, 2012 at 12:47 pm

      Regarding polygamy, please see my comment today near the end of these comments.

      skzion on May 12, 2012 at 6:36 pm

He is now telling the truth about what he actually believed 4 years ago. And he spoke with his 2 daughters about this. Wow! I wonder if he spoke with them about the Keystone pipeline, etc? This man would lie about the weather to get himself elected. And he is no Christian (although he thinks himself a messiah). Go google “The Dude Abides” and find his interview from 2004 where he talks about his “faith.” Debbie is exactly right – he is desperate because he has to know that he is pushing away independents and many socially conservative and Catholic Democrat voters. And his statement that he will protect the rights of churches about refusing to recognize gay marriage is as credible as his assurances that his health care bill would not result in the government forcing churches and people to fund abortion, sterilization, contraception, etc.

Concerned Citizen on May 10, 2012 at 12:59 pm


kirche on May 10, 2012 at 12:59 pm

    damn it… third : (

    kirche on May 10, 2012 at 1:00 pm

Bravo! Thank goodness I know this site. Telling it like it is!

It is disgusting to me to see some gays embarrass themselves over this tiny crumb and act as if they won the damn lottery. The misinformation behind their celebration is also mind-boggling. They are a desperate lot who need lots of people to tell them their lifestyle is ok and will not be judged. That is why I don’t embrace them so much anymore.

On my Twitters last evo one of the misinformed gave kudos to Obama-Putin and then went on to allude that Polygamist Romney and his ancestors never would do what Obama-Putin did. I had to remind the fella that Obama-Putin has done a 360…he came out in the 90’s saying he SUPPORTED gay-marriage and only flip flopped during his quest for the state and US Senator races. Then I had to remind the fey fella that Barack Obama SENIOR was a true polygamist NOT Romney or his dad or old Granddad! Oops!

Besides, anyone who understands politics know that Marxists don’t have a problem with gay marriage. Duh!!!!!

And that filth-pig Andrew Sullivan had to put his celebration in an article. Isn’t he the same dirt-bag skeeze who put ads in the Village Voice looking for three-somes? Correct me if I am wrong on this.

Obama-Putin is desperate, desperate, desperate.

And I hope all the fine regulars here can see how very orchestrated this little distraction is. It’s fun to see the machinations of the Obama-Putin regime play out in such abject obviousness they are hideous in their transparency.

Don’t fall for the shiny object distraction!

Skunky on May 10, 2012 at 1:07 pm

    Skunky, here is another bit of courage for you:

    It is another act of collective bravery on the part of the Democratic Party.

    Worry01 on May 10, 2012 at 4:32 pm

      Thanks for that link, Worry! NC will indeed work against the Dems and I hope they keep the venue. There is nothing better than a well-deserved fiasco gaining more downward momentum!

      Your post about @4:02 is EXCELLENT and I hope all eyes on this thread read it! Bravo!

      Skunky on May 10, 2012 at 7:05 pm

” And the WNBA season ticket holders and Dinah Shore Classic attendees–even if all of them vote–aren’t enough to push this desperado over the top.”

Debbie is so-o-o-o baddddd!!! And, so funny.

Jeff_W on May 10, 2012 at 1:13 pm

Yeah Debbie, my Pastor spoke on this at Wednesday night service last night, and he was NOT happy. And Black folks in North Carolina voted 2 to 1 for the Same-sex Marriage ban. I can already see that there is going to be some serious rifts between Pres. Obama and the Black “evangelical” church goers.

Now, will 97% of Black folks who vote still vote for Obama? Probably. But the key is Blacks “who vote”. Black church-going folks don’t show their dissatisfaction with a Democrat by voting Republican…they show their dissatisfaction by staying home and not voting at all. And this is what Pres. Obama has to fear the most as a result of his support of gay marriage…

D. O'Nay on May 10, 2012 at 1:13 pm

Most American voters approve of marriage between a man and a woman.

What’s homophobic about heterosexuality? Only morons would think there is something wrong with the social institution that has served us well for thousands of years.

And whatever our liberal cultural and political elites think, our enemies aren’t into that kind of decadence, though in their barbarism they sink much lower.

Thank G-d we aren’t like them and will never be.

NormanF on May 10, 2012 at 1:22 pm

    Norman, unlike legitimate civil right movements in the past, you are not dealing with a group that is on the whole poor, disadvantaged, or even seriously discriminated against(unless they are making a spectacle of themselves). That makes it harder for them to claim victimhood status. So, what you get is coordinated intimidation and harassment. The ideal of tolerance that was the mantra for the gay community in the 80’s and early 90’s is long. It has been replaced with a strategy of intimidation, harassment, and villification. It is not a matter of simply tolerating and live and let live for the activist gay community at this point. You must legally acknowledge and publicly celebrate their relationships, while they are free to disparage, mock, and publicly despise heterosexual ones as being illegitimate. It is a strange civil rights movement that believes that it has special privileges that no one dare question or remark upon under threat of up to and including physical violence. I am sure that Ernst Rohm, a gay from another era, would have fully appreciated and approved of such tactics.

    Worry01 on May 10, 2012 at 4:51 pm

      Worry, you say:

      “unlike legitimate civil right movements in the past, you are not dealing with a group that is on the whole poor, disadvantaged, or even seriously discriminated against(unless they are making a spectacle of themselves).”

      I think one could have said the same thing regarding Jews in America in the past (and in the present in Europe).

      As for “spectacle,” I direct you to the spectacle of hetero public behavior, which includes walking hand in hand in public. I suggest you find a straight male buddy and try the same thing in public for a day. It would be a most informative natural experiment.

      More generally, I simply don’t believe that most people base decisions on the benefits to society as a whole. Rather, I think that people are motivated to maximize their inclusive fitness and merely dress this up as public mindedness.

      With that in mind, I cannot tell you how exasperated I have become at the cost to me from hetero hijinks and demands. Most of the economic and social problems we deal with are directly related to them. I mean who thinks that widespread bastardy comes from gay people? What of the vast monies supporting home ownership, including mortgage deductions? How about the property taxes funding schools, horrible as most of them are? I could go on. If gay people’s interests are to be implicitly excluded from calculations involving “society,” at minimum we should be excluded from the extraordinary costs associated with such “society.”

      Alternately, we can drop this whole “society” business and focus on concrete issues that actually impact on our fitness and that of our families (“kin”). For me, this it’s why I have no problem supporting gay marriage while utterly opposing Islam.

      skzion on May 12, 2012 at 7:26 pm

    Norman, I have never been impressed when Debbie trots out Islam as a reason to oppose something gay related. Sometimes she claims that this makes terrorist recruitment easier, as if Islam lacked a doctrinal basis for recruitment and jihad against non-Islamic cultures regardless of what we do about gay marriage!

    skzion on May 12, 2012 at 6:48 pm

I agree that this is a move for political expediency, but I think there’s more to it than that.

Communists have always considered the traditional family to be the backbone of capitalist society. A privately-organized unit that takes care of child-rearing, and many other socio-economic functions needed in society, such as providing for education. If the responsibilities and functions of the traditional family can be weakened, the Government will be able to take them over. It is already doing this with some aspects of child-rearing, especially to the extent that “non-traditional” families are unable, for primarily pathological reasons, to raise children effectively.

So while this is certainly a near-term politically expedient move, I think that the impetus for gay marriage, in its most fundamental sense, is much more (or much less, if values are placed on it), and the President, with friends like Bill Ayers, and the other academic lefties he and his wife are friends with, can be assumed to be aware of the long-term implications of this.

Little Al on May 10, 2012 at 1:29 pm

    But there is also a schizophrenia, given that Obama has also ushered in Islamist regimes in countries such as Egypt which are on the verge of being ruled under Sharia law (if they’re not already) where homosexuality is a crime and being gay is an automatic death sentence. But given his associations on all ends – not just the Ayers / Jones / Wright etc., cabal but also HAMAS/CAIR, La Raza et al. – there is indeed a master plan to destroy this country on all levels.

    ConcernedPatriot on May 10, 2012 at 6:08 pm

The amount of ignorance from the author and the commenters is alarming and astounding but not surprising.

While you all cluster together in your self-appointed superiority, know that you are the same as the slave owners who defended freedom to the very end. Your place in history is assured. And it will be mocked, just as they are now.

Same sex marriage will be legalized, there is nothing you can do but postpone the inevitable, but the country will move forward despite the proud stupidity shown here.

Thomas Music on May 10, 2012 at 1:32 pm

    Tommy Music, you are WRONG. It will NEVER be seen as legitimate because it is NOT legitimate.

    Plus gays have the power to marry a man or woman of their choice as things stand (I don’t promote this thou’). They just want “special’ rules.

    IF it creeps into American life it is done illegitimately by fiat judges. Whenever a referendum vote has been placed by STATES to legitimize gay marriage it has NEVER WON. NEVER.

    This is such a farce too. 20 years ago NO ONE even thought of gay marriage. I know because I was for it 20 years ago. I remember almost going to a publicized “gay marriage” at a church 20 years ago. It was a stunt but at the time I thought it was so ironic I HAD to go.

    Since then the gay agenda ITSELF has soured me on the political sorts. Also, I am not a silly teen anymore!

    Skunky on May 10, 2012 at 1:48 pm

    Thomas Music, Wwat ignorance are you referring to? Rather than just using a pejorative, why not actually explain

    “Same sex marriage will be legalized, there is nothing you can do but postpone the inevitable, but the country will move forward despite the proud stupidity shown here.”

    My, are we not being a bit superior Tommy. Also, you disparage and minimize the actual horror of slavery by claiming that not having gay marriage is something even comparable to being owned, beaten, and left to die when you became sick or too old to work. Tommy, you are a narcissistic individual who thinks that what you dislike is comparable to slavery, or some other horror like the Holocaust. It is an absurd comparison that reveals more about you and your self-absorption than anything else. If you are holding yourself out as an example of what is gay, it is not very flattering to them. The ones I have known would be walking away from you pretty quickly after the performance you have given.

    Worry01 on May 10, 2012 at 4:22 pm

    @ TM
    30+ states have already accomplished what NC just did. That is America letting people like you know, unlike the POTUS, we stand by DOMA. So keep buying into all of the polls the left-leaning media puts out there but when its left up to the voters, we know what happens. It is kinda funny how your group consistently attacks conservatives for reasons you seem to make up. If you want to further your cause, go after muslims. They are the ones that stone gays, banned gays from the world cup, and took gays off of the UN hate crime list.

    jdiz on May 10, 2012 at 5:58 pm

    Thomas:”Same sex marriage will be legalized …”

    I’m sure it will Thomas because we live in times when Falsity rules the thinking of those elected to government, as in the stupidity of Bush Jnr declaring Islam to be a religion of peace instead of an ideology of domination. Government cannot but help exhibit this Falsity for all to see by pressing on to create a legal fiction.

    For this is what ‘same sex marriage’ is. It is an illusion – there can be same sex wedding ceremonies but there will never be same sex marriage.

    Marriage is about two people becoming one physically, biologically, psychologically and spiritually and two men or two women can never become one. A married couple are like a nut and a bolt where the nut fastens onto the bolt and is wound down, drawing ever closer together and fasten the material in between them into one unit. This is how it is in coitus, and with a sperm burrowing into an egg, it is how marriage works psychologically, and spiritually too.

    Same sex wedding ceremonies will be akin to getting two bolts side by side and wrapping some duct tape around them to stick them together. They will always remain two bolts side by side as separate entities no matter how often they might sodomise one another.

    As Debbie hinted sodomy was decriminalised on grounds put forward by the gay lobby that society at large vis the government had no place in what went on it private in peoples’ bedrooms. Yet now the gay lobby is insisting government should be so involved. There are a couple of aspects of this aboutface worth exploring. Firstly the gay lobby’s original position was reasonably on the mark which raises the question why the government on behalf of society is involved in what goes on it heterosexual’s bedrooms. The gay lobby sees this as discrimination. Well yes it is but discrimination is just another word for telling the difference beween and the difference is that what goes on in the bedrooms of heterosexual couples is of profound public consequence – for good or ill with the difference attributable on the macro scale of society at large to the extent to which the heterosexual couple is married or not. Low marriage rates equates to dysfunctional society with offspring growing up fatherless and the mothers having to be supported by other segments of society and as the children grow to adulthood the males tend to criminal gang culture. Eventually this segment of society comes to dominate the dwindling others and society implodes. A high degree of marriage in society menas men are standing by the children they father and support their mother. This enables society to have a future as a functional society rather than imploding.

    So marriage also has a public dimension and its raison d’etre is to benefit society, the means being the production of children in family units. This public aspect of marriage justifies the social taboos against sexual relations between men and women outside of marriage on the one hand and a recognition by society of the value of heterosexual relations within marriage. This aspect justifies and makes it imperative for society to be concerned and interfer with sexual relations bewteen adult men and women.

    However there is no reason why government should get involved in private homosexual activity, just as the gay lobby argued not so long ago.

    To return to Debbie’s closing query: For a long time people who engaged in homoesexual activity felt they had to pretend they did not, or like Liberace, were discreet about such activity, so as to blend in. Then for a couple of decades there was the ‘coming out’ period where there was brazen honesty in its place. Now the gay lobby is seeking a return to the former state whereby people who partake in homosexual activity seek to blend in again. However this time they are manipulating society into doing the pretending, so that they do not have to.

    Government’s primary role is to protect and defend the Common Good, represented by the Constitution in the United States. By clocking marriage with a legal falsity government is attacking the Common Good, of Truth. Such societies are already falling. The legal fiction of ‘gay marriage’ is both an effect of this decline and will exacerbate it and as society looses the ability to discriminate between Truth and Falsity it will degenerate into one which cannot separate Good from Evil.

    Bronson on May 11, 2012 at 10:28 am


      “So marriage also has a public dimension and its raison d’etre is to benefit society, the means being the production of children in family units.”

      I find myself at home with my trusty Droid RAZR, do I hope you will excuse the brevity of my response.

      I have already taken on Occam’s psychiatric explanation of the purpose of marriage. At least it has flair. You, however, make these pronouncements, as if from a pulpit, without any recourse to empirical data. In addition there is a troubling authoritarianism that is implied if one takes “benefiting society” as the basis of good public policy.

      I don’t believe for a minute that very many people, let alone politicians, are motivated, or would want to be motivated, by the good of society. I have already written of my take on the possible purpose of marriage. The advantage of my approach is that it is rooted in empirical sociology and sociobiology.

      Marriage occurs because it has advantages. These advantages do not go away if gay people can marry. Your philosophizing does not address this simple reality.

      skzion on May 12, 2012 at 10:08 pm

      “Government’s primary role is to protect and defend the Common Good, represented by the Constitution in the United States. By clocking marriage with a legal falsity government is attacking the Common Good, of Truth.”


      Bronson, I gather you have no graduate training or the equivalent in political science. One can easily argue about what the function of government is or should be, but I am bewildered how anyone could think that government and Truth with a capital “T” can be equated.

      Truth is not to be determined by the limited government created by the Constitution.

      The Constitution is mainly a document to delimit central authority. It was not intended to give vast grants of power to Washington to pursue some dreamlike purpose. While the founders did think America had a great purpose, that did not mean that the US government was to be elevated for a grand search for truth.

      Pick up a copy of the Federalist. Review Jefferson’s political writings.

      skzion on May 12, 2012 at 10:26 pm

    Oh bug off, Music. Not everyone here marches in lockstep with Debbie, but the regulars do agree that unthinking blather from the likes of you is annoying.

    skzion on May 12, 2012 at 7:31 pm

TM, how can something be astounding but not surprising? You need to brush up on your rhetoric.

Little Al on May 10, 2012 at 1:48 pm

Civil Unions are just fine, allowing for long term partners the same ability to make wills, be next of kin, make decisions in medical and financial matters for incapacitated loved ones, etc.

But the purpose of MARRIAGE is to bind one generation to another; specifically, to sublimate a man’s aggressive sexual urges into more constructive channels such as career, family, and the preservation of civil society. It is NOT something to be messed around with easily, and Debbie is right to note that this is a mistake. Marriage should NOT be trivialized—it exists to help men and women raise children as its primary aim. Failure to realize this has catastrophic implications.

The more we marginalize the role of males and breadwinners, the more pathology we will see in young males. Conservatives conserve the best in societies; that is our purpose. There is a reason “Titanic” behavior in catastrophes is no longer the norm—rich men went down and gave their positions to lower class ladies in reality, not as presented in Cameron’s idiotic film. If you remember the start of “Downton Abbey,” the rich heir is killed on the Titanic—this is a reflection of the reality of the time.

100% of the children of the second class were saved; a higher percentage (46%) of women of the third class than men of the first class were saved,97% of the 1st class women but only 33% of the 1st class men were saved. Observe the craven behavior of men on the last cruise liner that needed saving, the Italian one.

Go ahead, keep on marginalizing men and their roles, Liberals. Keep on denigrating them when they show normal decent behaviors and monogamy. Keep on cutting them out of children’s lives, and watch the pathology. The destruction of the Black family in poor areas and the horrific death rate of young Black males is a direct result of Liberal measures and the pooh-poohing of Debbie.

Thomas Music, what you know of the causes of social pathology is less than my cat. My expertise: I am a board certified psychiatrist, UCLA trained, who works with 3 native American reservations and has worked with the Maori in Rotorua, in New Zealand. I know the pathology of indigenous peoples very well. What you plan will kill them.

Occam's Tool on May 10, 2012 at 2:00 pm

    You are living up to your razor monicker. It is one thing to advocate for the right to a legally recognized companionship or union status, and quite another to claim that such a legitimate desire or need can only be satisfied through marriage. As you noted in your remarks, such definitional shifts do have have real world conseqences. Heterosexual marriage has already been diluted by no fault divorce, social acceptance of couples living together and having children outside of it, and some feminists deeming it to be legalized rape. Would allowing same-sex marriages not simply be giving such an instition its last rites as it gave up the ghost?

    Worry01 on May 10, 2012 at 5:21 pm

    Occam, as a maverick libertarian American,I support the right of 2 consenting adults to marry – regardless of sexual orientation or anything else. And to some of the posters on this blog, that does not include marrying kids or animals or pet rocks.

    A case can be made that gov’t shouldn’t be involved in the whole marriage process at all.

    Your claimed “purposes” of marriage including “sublimating sexual urges” aside, marriages are, and have always been only as solid as the commitment of the 2 people in the marriage. A real marriage can’t be “trivialized” by anyone else’s marriage or lack thereof.

    If you’re committed to your spouse, then a gay couple across the street or a sham marriage next door will have no impact on your marriage.

    Exactly who is denigrating male monogamy?

    I’m a believer in personal responsibility, so I don’t buy into the popular conservative(and often libertarian)cliche about “liberal” aka welfare programs destroying the black family. There are some serious problems with our welfare system, but bad choices that break up families are made by the people in those families and no one else.

    If people are truly in need I support a safety net.

    Why don’t you quit working and flop onto welfare? Why don’t I? Why don’t most Americans? Because most of us have values including a work ethic and don’t want handouts.

    The elephant in the room that conservatives including black conservatives don’t like to acknowledge is that their theory suggests that blacks are more susceptible to sloth than whites, because blacks are much more likely than whites to be on welfare.

    Bad personal choices and sometimes just plain evil people lead to crime as well.

    Scott on May 11, 2012 at 12:36 am

    “There is a reason “Titanic” behavior in catastrophes is no longer the norm—rich men went down and gave their positions to lower class ladies.”

    Apologizies for having missed it, but did you say what the reason was that Titanic behavior in catastrophes is no longer the norm? I think I do grasp your main point on the impact of marginalizing male roles; just need help understanding if these two are related.

    Appreciate the enlightening stats on Titanic survival. What are your thoughts on the recent study analyzing 18 of the world’s most famous maritime disasters dating from 1852 through last year, which researchers summarized as “life and death situations are best described as ‘every man for himself’?”

    The study claims:

    * That 17.8% women survived versus 34.5% men.

    * In three wrecks, 100% of women died.

    * Titanic was an exception in female survival mainly because Captain Smith threatened to shoot men unless they yielded a lifeboat to women.

    * Order to prioritize women and children was given in 5 of 18 disasters, rather than as a rule.

    * That it’s NOT men being cruel animals by scrambling over women to survive; that it’s more likely seamen’s physical strength, water-travel experience and wearing pants instead of voluminous dresses that helps them survive in water.

    Curiouser on May 11, 2012 at 11:29 am

    “the purpose of MARRIAGE is to bind one generation to another; specifically, to sublimate a man’s aggressive sexual urges into more constructive channels such as career, family, and the preservation of civil society.”

    – Occam’s Tool

    I usually find your posts compelling. This time I’m not so sure. The whole concept of a “purpose” for a given social institution is problematic. Using the tools of psychiatry to clarify this purpose is even more problematic as such tools were not designed for this use.

    If we are looking for purpose, we might instead follow the “functionalists” and ask what marriage ceremonies DO. They facilitate long term economic arrangements via law, traditionally between extended families as well as the two partners. Traditionally, then, marriages have been alliances of houses. I don’t see any reason why such alliances REQUIRE children.

    From a sociobiological perspective, marriages enhance inclusive fitness. Note however that they can do so without any children being being born from the married couple. The married couple gain other benefits in a good marriage, as do the allied houses. The children born from relatives also benefit from a childless couple. Again, I do not see how gay marriage necessarily shreds the purpose of marriage.

    Finally, I cannot accept your implication that men need to be “civilized” by marriage. This seems to me to be anti-male, which is especially odd coming from someone who rightly objects to the denigration of men. Married or not married, men are, overwhelmingly, the source of the achievements we call a civilization.

    skzion on May 12, 2012 at 8:05 pm

    PS to Occam. Yes, I am aware that Freud made your same claim (at least I tkink so…it’s been a while since I read him). I think Freud was at his least compelling when he generalized psychological processes to cultural or social ones.

    skzion on May 12, 2012 at 8:11 pm

Well said Debbie, and I totally agree with you in one of you’re paragraphs in which you said that you’re a libertarian on specific issues, I’m also a “sexual-liberatarian” myself, and whatever you do in the privacy of you’re bedroom with you’re partner or partners is NONE of my business or anybody elses business, but if you exploit children, animals, etc. than that’s a problem. Also, I could careless if you even watch pornography (I watch adult films once in a while) and I also don’t care what type of sexual behavior you’re involved with either you’re partner(s) or even yourself, as you said, this is NOT the middle east and southeast asia where muslims persecute, kill or imprison those who engage in certain sexual behaviors or if you’re an LGBT individual!

As for you Thomas Music, you’re dead wrong buddy, first off did you READ the entire article word-for-word? “RIF, Reading is Fundamental”, didn’t you read in one of DS’s paragraphs where she said that whatever you do in the privacy of you’re bedroom is NONE of nobodies business, etc. You didn’t read that, so what did you do, you only read what you want to read and pass complete “prejudice” against us all, you “pre-judeged” us for no damn reason.

And NO same-sex marriage will NOT be passed in this country, you why, because the majority of us in this country knows that marriage between a man and woman is the norm, and if it weren’t for you’re mother and father who got married Thomas Music, you wouldn’t have exists physically today, so think about that. And you’re ignorance is alarming and pathetic Thomas Music!

“A nation is defined by its borders, language & culture!”

Sean R. on May 10, 2012 at 2:07 pm

Thomas Music you damn Yankee. The New England States were the original slave owning states and most of those states did not abolish slavery till the 1860’s. Read Thomas DiLorenzo, Dr. Walter Williams, and Lerone Bennett, Jr. You might accidently get an education.
You were fed all that Marxist trash in the public schools now get a real education.
By the way the New England states thought that they were too damn good for everybody else and wanted to secede in the early 1800’s.
In fact Tommy, take your happy ass to the Kremlin, they love your type.

Confederate South on May 10, 2012 at 2:18 pm

For the record, as someone who plays for the other team, I have never, EVER been to the Dinah Shore Classic, WNBA bores me to tears (I’d rather stick needles in my eyes than attend another game), I am not a fan of Melissa Etheridge or the Indigo girls, I do not own a Village People record (however, I am the world’s biggest ABBA fan but I’m a woman, not a gay man so that doesn’t count). Gay marriage is not the be-all, end-all to my existence. If it is to ever happen, I want it to be by a vote of the people and not by legislative or judicial activism because I do not want it crammed down people’s throats. The fact that it probably will not happen in my lifetime doesn’t bother me in the least and doesn’t affect how I live my life. There are much more important issues that affect my life and the lives of my family – taxes, the economy, national security – people who are 1-issue voters (like gay marriage or abortion) drive me insane. I am a true blue Reagan conservative (yes, there are gays who are REAL conservatives). This being said….Debbie, call me what you will, but please, I am not, repeat NOT a Fruity Pebble.

Janne on May 10, 2012 at 2:18 pm

    You and I think so much alike. Though, I consider myself politically moderate.

    Matthew on May 10, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    When I worked as a psychiatrist at a prison, I used to blare ABBA’s “Dancing Queen” at loud volumes as I would enter the facility. The guards loved it. I was NOT pro-inmate; I was pro-treating psychosis. I despised the ACLU then, and I do now.

    That’s my comment on ABBA.

    Marriage doesn’t need to die, and its purpose is to civilize and discipline men to behave properly towards women and children. The Muslim world has a butchery of the concept of marriage, as it has a butchery of the concept of G-d, charity, decent behavior, and tolerance towards others. Civil Unions to allow people to leave their money to their closest people, allow for appropriate care in hospitals, allow for appropriate insurance situations, all that I have no problems with. But marriage exists to civilize men. No civilized men, no civilization, period.

    Occam's Tool on May 10, 2012 at 4:50 pm

I’m not for gay marriage, unless there is a provision in the law that states that they will never be allowed to adopt children.

Jarhead on May 10, 2012 at 2:27 pm

Gay marriage is a contentious principally because gays insist on making sex a public matter.

I always thought a sexual relationship is no one else’s business. They shouldn’t need the approval of others to live together as they want. No one is taking away from gays their freedom of choice as to how live their lives.

What they want to do is to force others to approve not just tolerate their lifestyle choice over their religious and moral objections to it. That will never happen no matter what the law says.

NormanF on May 10, 2012 at 2:47 pm

Sing along: “Macho, macho man”/Obama wants to be…a macho man.”

Seek on May 10, 2012 at 3:01 pm

I only have one question at the moment. Do you Debbie and others that post here believe that gays and lesbians are born that way or that they choose this life style?

cg on May 10, 2012 at 3:21 pm

    Cg why do you ask such a stupid question???

    I think most are born that way…they can’t help it but they can help how they handle it. I have a great affinity for gay men but in aggregate, I have seen many very (inwardly) tortured and ultimately unhappy that they are gay (whether THEY know it or not). That is why mass acceptance is important to them.

    I don’t support the hyper sexualization either!

    I think most people would not WANT to be gay. Anyone who says so is either closeted (which is pathetic in 2012) or trying to be Liberal and make a gay person feel better.

    Skunky on May 10, 2012 at 3:37 pm

      If cg is sincerely asking, I don’t think it’s a stupid question. There are people who believe gay people choose to be gay and you cannot convince them otherwise. And there are those who believe they are born that way. I can’t speak for anyone but myself – born that way. Believe me, what I went through emotionally while going through puberty and high school, no one in their right mind would put themselves through that living hell by choice.

      Janne on May 10, 2012 at 4:25 pm

Democracy is great for the Middle East, the left tells us. Hamas was elected, proving Gaza’s “democracy.” Egypt now has a democracy, I guess. Libya–run by a different brand of thugs–now has a democracy, I guess. Sharia law, brought to you by “democracy.” Democracy for all!

However, the left objects when gay marriage is placed on the ballot. Democracy is no good.

The left has it both ways on “democracy,” depending on what they like. Jews and Christians in the Middle East–sharia law “democracy” is just fine for them. Nothing worth fighting for there.

Gaza and Egypt and Libya and Iran and the rest don’t appear to be getting gay marriage anytime soon, but how come no one notices that and declares that they’re on the wrong side of history?

Barry Popik on May 10, 2012 at 3:23 pm

Right on As usual

Ken b on May 10, 2012 at 3:54 pm

Article title of the day…
Gay for Pay
Washington Free Beacon, by Staff

lee, of the lower case "l" on May 10, 2012 at 4:11 pm

You aren’t entitled to re-define words and terms that don’t have a scintilla of what you want them to mean.

A good place to start would be not using the word ‘gay’ to mean homosexual, when it’s traditionally meant ‘happy’.

Infidel on May 10, 2012 at 5:17 pm

    Debbie makes the same claim about redefining words. The logical question is who exactly does have this right?

    How can intelligent people fail to ask themselves such basic questions?

    skzion on May 12, 2012 at 9:42 pm

I have no strong feelings one way or the other, except that there should be some legal protections for same sex partners. I am Libertarian in the area of private behavior. I also have lesbian friends, and they are more devoted to their partners than Bill Clinton or John Edwards.

Having said that, this issue is a SMOKESCREEN. Obama cannot win on the economy, for he is pandering to every special interest’s social issue. He is passing out government goodies like an Islamic Santa Claus.

And worse, Obama has NOTHING, NOTHING whatsoever to do with marriage, gay or straight. Marriage licenses are granted by the individual states, not by the Federal Government, unless Congress changes the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include discrimination against sexual orientation. With two lesbians on the Supreme Court, I think we know who will vote in support of such a change.

If states want to allow gays to marry, fine, but this is not a federal issue.

As to how blacks will vote after this, 95% will still vote for Obama. Not one black is going to abandon him over this issue.

As usual, Obama takes the easy path. Now, how about cutting government spending and reducing the real unemployment rate of over 13 percent?

Jonathan E. Grant on May 10, 2012 at 5:22 pm

Oh yeah, now every demoncrat has to own it when asked, or do the dance to avoid answering a direct question on the subject. Definitely obummer lost more than 50% of the vote. Side one is done and cooked. Turn him over now to get cooked thoroughly, well done I say.

jake49 on May 10, 2012 at 5:51 pm

I guess you are all on track to vote for fellow homphobe Romney, who admitted to bullying a gay guy in High School. Congrats!

Lee on May 10, 2012 at 5:52 pm

    LOL you can ALWAYS count on mega-dope Lee (with the capital L!) to chug voraciously and vomit up the Liberal talking points!

    Lee, you’re a joke and waaaaay too effing stupid for this conversation going on now. Go bother some elementary school with your silly 5th grade debating skills.

    Skunky on May 10, 2012 at 7:18 pm

This has already become quite normal in Europe:

As for it being a bourgeois institution, marriage predated Capitalism. Also, even socialist paradises support it. lol

Worry01 on May 10, 2012 at 5:55 pm

Obama still has better than average odds of winning. Besides the fact that most of the general population are morons fattened and stupefied by a steady diet of Hollywood, cable and network TV as their only source of political and social information, he only has to convince the majority of the electorate, of which I’m pretty sure he will be able to do.

DS_ROCKS! on May 10, 2012 at 5:56 pm

[Debbie – You aren’t entitled to re-define words and terms that don’t have a scintilla of what you want them to mean.]

Absolutely correct. That is why this whole subject of gay marriage is such a waste of time to even contemplate. No matter what anyone (including courts, legislatures or even Presidents) says or does there is no such thing, and by definition there can never be such a thing, as Gay marriage. PERIOD!

I_AM_ME on May 10, 2012 at 5:56 pm

Ladies & Gentleman, The new Democratic theme song!!!

Hollywood on May 10, 2012 at 6:05 pm

When Peyote was deemed legal by a supreme court decision every Hippy on earth was full-blooded Apache within minutes. Can you imagine what legalized recognition of gay marriage will do to our immigration situation?? This is politics and has little to do with Queers in general.

#1 Vato on May 10, 2012 at 6:07 pm

My personal opinion on this is that homosexuality is a private matter that should be discussed only among that person’s family or friends. I don’t think it should be thrown in everyone else’s face simply because it would make that group feel better about themselves.

Ghostwriter on May 10, 2012 at 6:49 pm

    Ghost, homosexuality is no more a private matter than heterosexuality. What people do in bed, however, is indeed private. It’s amazing that the same rhetoric used 50 years ago is still unthinkingly used by intelligent people here.

    skzion on May 12, 2012 at 9:35 pm

All you stupid, Liberal trolls better get a fricken’ clue! You like to throw around that “homophobe” word but it does not apply to how you use it!

You better wish all “homophobes” think like me. I have a looooong history of affinity for homosexuals so if I am the NEW homophobia, homophobia is dead!

The actions of some gays themselves have turned me off of them. That is hardly homophobia.

In America, equal rights are being judged like any other American. And gays should be judged by their character and behaviour like everyone else. NO special treatment!

Skunky on May 10, 2012 at 7:23 pm

A while back, someone did a great gallery of Obama’s S.E. grin, exactly the same in every photo. This is a created man, with a created life story, that keeps changing, and a created image. He is the Manchurian Candidate. That story will be told someday and we’ll all cringe as we look back on these depressing days.

JeffT on May 10, 2012 at 9:12 pm

    At JeffT: I’m cringing now. And should Obama be reelected (G-d forbid) I’ll be in real crisis mode. That is, the medication I need to bear the sight and/or sound of the great pretender will surely not last another four years in quantities sufficient to numb the pain.

    lee, of the lower case "l" on May 10, 2012 at 9:46 pm

If marriage is redefined to include same-sex couples, there is NO ARGUMENT to refute the slippery slope consequence:

IF advocates of same-sex marriage say, “How dare you limit marriage by gender?
1. Advocates of polygamy can also say, “How dare you limit marriage by number?
2. Advocates of incestuous marriage (and the dropping of the incest taboo) can also say, “How dare you limit marriage by
3. Advocates of interspecies marriage (and the dropping of the bestiality taboo) can also say, “How dare you limit marriage by species? If a human truly loves and is committed to a cherished animal ie. a dolphin or chimpanzee, who is to say they can’t marry?

4. Advocates of child marriage (and the dropping of the taboo of adults having sex with children) can also say, “How dare you limit marriage by age?

Once you move the line away from one man, one woman marriage, there is no justification for not moving the line all the way to include literally anything. Advocates for same-sex marriage, who don’t think about the consequences, had better be careful what they wish for.

I have no problem with same-sex “civil unions” and equal legal protections, ie. inheritance, visiting a sick partner in the hospital, etc. but the 5,000+ year old institution known as marriage should NOT be ‘redefined’. Another reason that every institution infected by the Left turns to shit. They’ve already destroyed the U.S. Gov’t, Academia, Religious institutions, Hollywood and civil society.

nailsagainsttheboard on May 10, 2012 at 9:42 pm

Named outspoken homophobes who have admitted to gay affairs:
Joe Arpaio-Controversial Arizona Sheriff
Ted Haggard-famous Protestant Minister
Eddie Long-fallen pastor of a Georgia Megachurch

Makes one wonder about those really against gay marriage!

Lee on May 10, 2012 at 10:33 pm

    Lee, trying being a bit more accurate. It was not Joe Arpaio, but Paul Babeu:

    As for the others, who cares? Are you one of those “everyone is gay, but won’t admit it” dudes? lol. I suspect that the only wonder is you Lee. Are you withdrawing from your drugs, or have you gone off your meds? Try a spell in detox, it might help if you have not fried too many neurons already.

    Have fun wonderboy.

    Worry on May 10, 2012 at 10:51 pm

    Lee, since you’re into this “homophobe” issue, why don’t you take you’re anger and frustrations at the muslims in the middle east and southeast asia, there the BIGGEST homophobes in the world! That’s a fact, NOT rhetoric and a so-called agenda coming from me.

    In muslim countries in the Middle East and SE Asia they execute and imprison people who are of the LGBT category and they also persecute them due to their sexual orientation. You’re going after the wrong people who won’t do anything terrible and evil to LGBT folks, as I said Lee, go after the islamists who does atrocious acts against LGBT people in their societies!

    “A nation is defined by its borders, language & culture!”

    Sean R. on May 10, 2012 at 11:14 pm

“…“first gay-friendly President” (who may or may not be on the “down low,” himself, according to rumors and accusations)…”

That picture of Obama gets used here quite often. For this article it seems very appropriate because those teeth are so prominent in it. I’m sure that those teeth are the whitest that some guys have ever come across.

CornCoLeo on May 10, 2012 at 11:12 pm

I saw Barney Frank has an engagement ring. Is it hard to figure out why he talks so funny? Anyone who has sucked as many d!*&s as he has is bound to talk funny.

CornCoLeo on May 10, 2012 at 11:30 pm

Sean R


Even though Muslims indulge in all sorts of lewd acts – like the bacha bazi in Afghanistan, Muslim men sexually going after each other in Saudi Arabia due to strict gender separation (there was one quote I once heard about a Saudi, who said ‘I’m not gay, I just sleep w/ other men’), they crack down on people if they get emotionally involved w/ one another.

In other words, if 2 men are attracted to each other and do everything together except have sexual relations, in order to just have a common inheritance, take care of each other, hospital visits and so on, in the West, even homophobes don’t have so much of a problem. In Muslim countries, such a couple would risk death by getting dropped from a high building, or in the absense of such a sharia compatible execution, get stoned by the usual Muslim mobs.

Infidel on May 11, 2012 at 12:00 am

I have had it with Presidents having their eyes opened by the comments of their children. Amy Carter educated Jimmy Carter about the fear of nuclear war. Now the Obama kids have schooled their dad that it’s okay to have parents of the same sex. At least the Bush twins had the good sense to limit their advice to dad to how much you can drink before the room begins to spin (oh wait, he knows that).

gmartinz on May 11, 2012 at 12:21 am

Occam’s Tool, you did a FIRST RATE job of explaining the civilizing effects of marriage for men. Thank You!
Of course, Obama did this to get money for his base. Here’s more reasons that are something you didn’t hear before:
1)It takes the topic of the huge win on Tuesday in NC to something the libs want to talk about—because of course they only want to talk about what they want to talk about, no way could they EVER INTELLIGENTLY discuss something if they are on the losing side without their sneering, snobbish, childish drug and sex addicted BRAT attitude.
2)It puts our dictator president on the path to ignore states rights again and put the FEDS out of their constitutional bounds again. There goes the right to vote. Be afraid.

andrea405 on May 11, 2012 at 1:45 am

Sorry it took me so long to post on this issue. College finals this week have been a killer. Even the great Ray Charles can see this for what it is. Political pandering at its most craven. Jar Jar Obinks can’t run on his record so he has to shore up his kook fringe base. This issue also serves as another distraction by the dumbocrats from the more important issues like the unemployment rate among blacks being around 17% and it being around 9% nationally. Now before you libdope trolls call me that stupid term “homophobe” let me tell you something. I have no problem (unlike dimlibs)with what you do in the privacy of your own home. As long as it is not illegal(pedophilia, beastiality, etc). It is when militant gays and ignorant liberals try to redefine and legitimize their behavior by calling it something that it isn’t. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Forget the Biblical reasons why this is so. Take into account the fact that children that have the misfortune of having two mommies or two daddies more often than not grow up to be unstable adults. Kids need parents of the opposite gender for a more normal development. The all about me liberal crowd gay or otherwise are to narrowminded to see this simple fact. This is one of the reasons why whenever these votes come up on the state ballots they get shot down. Just like in the state of North Carolina where the marrriage ammendment was voted for by almost a 30% margin. Now I hear that the gay groups are all in a tizzy over that and now are trying to get the DNC to move the democrap convention out of the state. I’ve got news for you libs Bank of Mexico-America will not let that happen. I can’t wait for the flying monkey circus to come to Charlotte. The disruption of liberal freaks alone will be worth the price of watching this train wreck unfold. It could’ve happen to a nicer town. Debbie did pose a very good question at the end of her post. Which one is it gays? First it was we don’t care what you “homophobes” think. Now it’s marriage or nothing. She is right. It doesn’t make any damn sense.

Ken b on May 11, 2012 at 7:48 am


David on May 11, 2012 at 8:53 am

Great article, Debbie! What nobama did was clearly a cynical, hypocritical and cowardly ploy, a desparate, despicable attempt to rile up his far left-wing base. But unfortunately for him, this will definitely backfire on him come November because the overwhelming majority of Americanssee through this, and do know when their being played…and lied to.

Dave on May 11, 2012 at 9:34 am

@Worry–>It was Arpaio—try getting your head out of your butt and using Google and Wikipedia once in a while!

Lee on May 11, 2012 at 10:44 am

There may be more to this than what Debbie has so well said.

Could it be that the Biden announcement and Obama’s public acceptance of Gay Marriage be a way for Obama & Co. to guarantee a Romney nomination for the Republican designated candidate?

I remember how Donna Brazile, a few months ago, said that the Democrats want Romney as the candidate because they (the Democrats) believe that Romney is the easiest to beat of the Republicans wanting, at that time, to be the candidate. Donna Brazile is, by the way, a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat and has some credibility in speaking for the Democrats.

Obama can make it look like Romney is more Biblical and Christian while he is a rascal that does not deserve Conservative/Christian/Republican votes. All the time, they think they have the election in the bag for Obama and the Democrats — as long as Romney is running against Obama.

They are sneaky, those Democrats. They are not a bunch of kids without a clue. We must watch them and their every move. Keep in mind that Rahm Emackerel was just the kind of guy that would try to pull off the Romney against gay marriage strategy but there are other Democrats on Obama’s team that are just as sneaky…

Why would they try to pull off such a trick? Could it be because they fear more someone else, possibly some other of the candidates in that group of aspirants for the candidacy? I suspect so. But, who could it be? Gingrich is the only one that had the experience, education, knowledge and hutzpah to go toe-to-toe with The Obamaroid. But, could there be someone else whose name could come up at the Republican Convention when/IF Romney does not come up with the magic number 1044 by that time??? There are others, such as Fmr. UN Amb. John Bolton, who are political geniuses compared to the best minds in the Obama Conglomerate.

Perhaps it is the unknown that the Left fears the most. Perhaps they are more comfortable fighting an enemy they know so they have “vetted” Romney and think he can be beat fairly or perhaps unfairly. And by causing those against Gay Marriage to adhere their sympathies to Romnay, the Obamaroids think they have the November election in the bag in this way, also.

NoCrud on May 11, 2012 at 12:30 pm

Barney Frank’s engagement ring: to be truly Gay, you have to be just like straight people.

It’s the Economy and Jobs; trillions borrowed and spent and where are the jobs. Hey, Gay people need jobs, too.

DS does it again. Not only insightful political and social analysis but the edgy humor devastates the opposition.

bobguzzardi on May 11, 2012 at 12:37 pm


You are really on a verbal roll in this post.

“Obama will have to cause similar ecstasy among other groups beyond the Fruity Pebbles/Yasser Arafat/Village People crowd.”

What a hoot!

Your reference to Barry being gay is interesting. If you can believe anything Larry Sinclair has stated. Also, the puss prez has another closet full of skeketons to add to his birth cerfictate, college records, etc. Now I read thanks to Sherrif Joe, Barrys selective service papers are out of order.


Keep up the good work.

Panhandle on May 11, 2012 at 12:52 pm

Perfectly said, DS. Worth repeating, and memorizing:
“For the record, I’m a libertarian on certain things and have had gay friends and clients. It’s not a problem for me. What you do in the privacy of your own bedroom is your business (unless it’s with an underaged person or non-human, etc.). And I believe that gays should be able to live and exist like everyone else with the same rights, but NOT enhanced ones or re-definitions of terms. We are not like the Nazis and the Muslims who persecute people for what is none of our business. We are infinitely better than that.

But there is no reason why the rest of us must sanction your lifestyle and give it a legal, de facto approval. You aren’t entitled to re-define words and terms that don’t have a scintilla of what you want them to mean.”
Well said.

Not Ovenready on May 11, 2012 at 1:06 pm

During the run-up to the 2008 elections, the Left were quick to label people against Obama as Racist. I now wonder if the true label should not have been that they were homophobic???

As an aside, when people try to say I am a racist if I am critical of Obama, which is merely used as a tool in an attempt to shut me up…, I merely tell them that I don’t like the White part, either. This causes them to blink and change the subject to, “What has Obama done to you?” Foolish question that in turn makes me wonder if they have any common sense or if they actually live in my world.

NoCrud on May 11, 2012 at 1:16 pm

It’s a political ploy and even I can see that and I’m homosexual. The President can say all he wants about supporting gay marriage but that doesn’t change the fact that he can’t change the laws in each state. People who are fantasizing about this gay friendly president probably think he has the power to rewrite the Constitution. Um… no he doesn’t. He’s Commander in Chief and one that is fighting for popularity in any sect he can.

Jeremy on May 11, 2012 at 1:57 pm

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field