Rev. Lowery writes:
I have walked this earth now for many a mile and many a year, and there are times when it seems like every step of the way, I’ve been told to wait.
I walked from Selma to Montgomery and beyond with Martin Luther King, Jr…and even the sincerest of people often greeted our struggle for civil rights with a plea of patience.
“You’re right,” they’d say, “but the timing isn’t. Couldn’t you wait just a bit?”
I know exactly how he felt. We LGBT people are constantly being told that the upcoming political race (pick one randomly – the excuse is used for them all) is too important to risk standing up for our civil rights. So why is Lowery supporting Obama, a man who has taken the old pro-slavery states rights approach to civil marriage equality? Put yourself in these gay shoes, and you’ll burst out laughing (or with epithets) at the dirty irony of Rev. Lowery’s plea.
Next I read the letter written by Obama, which states:
[Rev. Lowery] stood alongside Dr. King from the earliest days of the civil rights struggle. From the pulpit to the streets, he challenged Americans to live up to our nation’s promise of equality and justice for all…
We are ready now to bring fundamental change to this country.
“Now“, Mr. Obama? When does “now” happen? He had a perfect “now” opportunity the other day, in an ABC interview, when he was asked about the commencement of marriage equality in California. Did he congratulate the happy couples on securing the same civil rights his parents were denied during their marriage and wish them well? No. He merely reiterated his belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, but that civil unions should be tossed under the table to the gays that he thinks are snuffling at his feet.
He wraps up the letter by mentioning that he’s a civil rights lawyer. The irony never ceases.
Change I can believe in? No.
Disclosure: I was a Clinton supporter, but she was no better on civil rights issues than Obama and I’ve said so many times. So don’t go trying to dismiss this diary as sour grapes from a bitter loser. It’s sour grapes from a bitter lesbian American who is being told to stay in her place.
<
p>There will always be another election. That’s no excuse.
Maybe they were saying the same sorts of things Obama is saying now, and thus were able to get elected, whereas if they had said “now” about civil rights in 1960, they might have lost? <-(genuine question mark)
and he famously got a large african-american following by helping arrange the early release of MLK jr from jail.
…when he got into office dragged his feet on civil rights because he was concerned about the 1964 election. The civil rights movement was fortunate that LBJ, who was far from perfect, came along when he did and fast-tracked the legislation to which Kennedy may (or may not?) have only paid lip service had he served his full presidency.
<
p>This is not to deny what Kennedy did do in the service of civil rights. And I agree with with you here and echo the quote sabutai pulled from King re: “the fierce urgency of now”. But I wonder if they/John Howard has a point in the sense that perhaps it is possible to persuade President Obama to see the light on SSM where candidate Obama does not? I don’t know. I do think pro-gay rights people should keep hammering Obama on this issue and not wait, regardless of how gay-friendly other aspects of his record and agenda is.
is it really can hurt our ongoing efforts in CA, FL etc. to kill anti-equality amendments that are on the ballot in november. i don’t for a minute beleive that all obama supporters are steadfast supporters of lgbt civil rights. he just gave them permission to vote for him and against my civil rights. thanks, barack! you didn’t have to use the hater’s pet phrase, you know!
I understand the analogy you make, but unfortunately this issue would ultimately be worse off if he did as you wanted. If Obama were to come out for full marriage equality we could skip the campaign and declare McCain the next President right now. Obama’s 50-state strategy would be toast and we would probably be reduced to winning the Dukakis states. As much as John Kerry insisted that he too believed marriage was between a man and a woman, the GOP insinuated otherwise because he was from Massachusetts. I believe the Obama is ultimately convertable and much more likely to pleasantly surprise you after he is elected than McCain is. California is more of a trend-setter than Massachusetts, so with marriage equality in place there we could see a lot of movement on this issue in the next four years.
see my response to tblade above. keeping marriage legal in california is in no way certain. by using hater rhetoric gratuitously, obama is really undermining our efforts. so don’t count on cali marriage being there to help bring obama around. his words are helping diminish that possibility.
What did I miss? I see nothing hateful in what Obama has said on this issue. To say marriage is between a man and a woman is a debatable point, but not hateful. Hate is a strong word and I would prefer to save it for the Fred Phelps of the world. When Obama starts saying homosexuality is an abomination and gay people are headed for Hell, then we can talk about hateful.
espouses separate but equal, it is hateful. when he undermines the fight against nasty anti-gay amendments in CA and FL by using the language of the bigots, it is hateful. what about espousing bigotry do you find not hateful? “one man one women” is a dog whistle to the dominionist religious right.
<
p>just a debating point? i fight like hell to secure the same rights under the law that most heterosexuals take completely for granted. it’s not a detached debating point, it is my rights as a citizen and my quality of life.
At least to me the term “bigot” implies fire-breather who in the context of this issue wouldn’t even consider civil unions or domestic partnership of any kind. An example of a bigot would be Marylin Musgrave, US Rep. from CO who authored the proposed anti-marriage amendment to the federal constitution. Not only did this proposal say that the federal government would not recognize same-sex marriage, but would prohibit states from recognizing such marriages OR even the “legal incidents thereof”, in other words similar rights under a different name. This is still a very new concept to many Americans. Nobody favors marriage equality more than I do, but throwing a tantrum about it could backfire politically. I am confident that it is now only a matter of time, and I believe the more time passes, the more quickly that day will come.
not the language of the bigots? what do you call these people, then?
Need I go on?
<
p>As for your statement “I am confident that it is now only a matter of time, and I believe the more time passes, the more quickly that day will come.”, all I can say is you apparently don’t see the irony in your using the same ironic verbiage that Obama did in his fund raising appeal. A guy Obama is fond of referencing once said that Justice delayed is justice denied. oops, how inconvenient to be caught riding MLK’s coattails while working against MLK’s vision.
I would argue that many of your examples are not the language of bigots, but rather bigots cloaking their true feelings in more reasonable sounding language. Come on – John Kerry, John Edwards, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, etc. are nowhere close to the likes of the Family Research Council and their ilk!
<
p>I must say this discussion has been absolutely amazing. I generally tell people that I am a left-leaning centrist, with just how far left very much dependent on the issue. I use same-sex marriage as an example of an issue for which I am an unapologetic liberal. I believe in full marriage equality and that anything less is immoral and unconstitutional. This includes a preference for actually calling them marriages rather than civil unions. I never dreamed that I could be attacked from the left on this issue!
well, i guess that i’m saying that it’s not enough to be in verbal support of full justice if you don’t make sure justice actually happens sooner rather than later. so i suppose unless or until you agree with that sentiment, you or others sharing your position will feel pressure from this side.
<
p>i appreciate your support for equality, but you must appreciate that this isn’t a semantic exercise for a fair slice of your fellow americans. we are actually being attacked, but it isn’t often recognized as such since it happens with laws more often than with clubs. but the result is devastating to our lives. try having the vast majority of your elected officials or fellow citizens working to excise you from your state or federal constitution, then get back to me on how long you’re happy to sit and wait and watch it happen. can you even imagine yourself in that scenario? if not, i deserve the benefit of the doubt that i know what i’m talking about.
“Try having the vast majority of your elected officials or fellow citizens working to excise you from your state or federal constitution.”
<
p>Problem is, I don’t think that’s what we are talking about. Anybody would be upset if this is what were happening, but we are talking about Barack Obama. I’m pretty sure he is not supporting a federal amendment to write discrimination into the Constitution. Here in MA, the vast majority of legislators voted to keep a discriminatory amendment off the ballot and thus nowhere near the Constitution. I just really wish we could distinguish between Barack Obama and Marylin Musgrave; it’s night and day!
an anti-equality amendment passed in my old home state by something like 70%, as it has in 24 others. that’s more than a super majority of the electorate voting in half the states saying that you’re something less than they are. if you gave a damn about equality, you’d feel the oppression. i understand why you would want to keep your head in the sand – it’s ugly out here. but this is a reality-based blog. better get used to it.
I continue to be confident that the sustained trend is in the direction we favor. Those 24 provisions can’t withstand equal protection in the 14th amendment and the federal constitution will never be amended a la Musgrave. Your most recent comments have gotten personal, which isn’t necessary.
but i don’t. as the ussc’s own history and recent decisions by state supreme courts (NY and WA are good examples) have shown, the courts don’t always rule according to the constitutional principles they’re supposed to use as guidelines. and even if the ussc rises to the occasion and strikes down the state constitutional amendments, tell me when is that going to happen? it won’t be any time soon. and in the mean time, obama is giving tacit permission for even more states to write discrimination into their constitutions. people in even more states will have to live under the same oppression i live under. thank you mr. obama.
<
p>as for getting personal, well, this is personal. not sure why you can’t or won’t understand that. these laws affect me directly.
…for bringing the level of discourse back up with this comment. I have no doubt that the issue is personal, but I was talking about comments directed at someone who after all, supports your position on the merits. I was almost ready to declare this discussion over.
<
p>The courts are iffy which is why we need to keep fighting at all levels as I have mentioned. Do I get the correct idea that you are from Washington State? If so, I applaud your efforts to fight for equality there and also suspect that you will have an easier time of it than certain other states.
<
p>Do I wish Barack Obama believed in full marriage equality and said so? – yes!
<
p>Do I believe that we should do everything possible to smooth the bumps in the road to that goal? – absolutely!
<
p>Antonin Scalia “warned” in his dissent in Lawrence v. Texas that the majority decision in that case would start a slippery slope toward same sex marriage. Rather than a warning, I prefer to take those words as a phophetic voice.
i meant to respond to your statement that obama et al. are not like the FRC, etc. i think you’re right about that. in a way, they’re worse.
<
p>the FRC and such organizations make little to no effort to hide their bigotry and agenda. in that way they are honest (although the “facts” they manufacture to make the argument usually aren’t). people like bill clinton and obama are not honest. they lead you down the rosy path, then toss you to the lions at the first sign of inconvenience. i see these people as akin to war collaborators or profiteers. they didn’t start the war, but by god they’ll do for the aggressor whatever it takes to save their own skins or turn a profit. for them, there is no right and wrong. the only imperative is personal gain. obama’s imperative is the white house. he apparently thinks a great way to get there is talk up hope and change, then nuzzle the fundies and shit on gay people.
Those who in every other aspect endorse gay rights, many even supporting civil unions, but won’t get over that last hurdle, are somehow worse than those who want gays all back in the closet or “cured”?
<
p>BTW, I am not advocating that you not fight for this issue. I am suggesting that you take the fight to all levels of government. My objection is not to the passion you and others feel about this, as I feel it too. What needs to happen is that you contact our Congressional delegation and have friends in other states contact theirs. My complaint is that you are putting all your hopes on a single person who happens to be our presumptive nominee and then have a fit when he turns out not to be “perfect”. He certainly isn’t “nuzzling the fundies”; you don’t really expect them to support him do you? So let his imperative be the White House; we’ll all be better off in the end.
but you have no idea who i’m contacting and how many people i’m putting my hopes on. but thanks for assuming i’m an idiot. it goes a long way in explaining your comments. go be arrogant with other minorities now, k?
That’s how you weigh whether or not Obama’s comments were hateful or hurtful? That’s a very easy metric you’re using there.
<
p>As my civil rights prof used to say, ‘there’s two kinds of racists: those who are overt and those who are your neighbors and may even be kind to you. It’s the ones who aren’t overt that are the far more dangerous.’
<
p>We want civil rights progress. If Obama thinks his position represents change, he doesn’t. As others have pointed out on this thread, he isn’t even willing to admit that marriage equality exists in some states of this country already.
<
p>
<
p>Careful, you sound a lot like Joe Lieberman saying ‘no one wants to get out of Iraq more than I do.’ We aren’t getting dime in terms of civil rights progress unless we’re vocal about it. Obama has to learn that what he’s saying is a) OFFENSIVE and b) not enough!
marriage is not limited to being “between a man and a woman” in this country and in many others.
<
p>It’s weird (among other things) when people assert otherwise. In a “La la La, my fingers are in my ears, I can’t hear you,” kind of way.
<
p>(Notice he did not say, “I think marriage should be between etc.”)
<
p>If someone were to say, today, The troops are all home from Iraq, or, Gasoline sells for $2 per gallon, how would you describe that person?
That Obama felt that the first, most important, thing to do was reiterate his CU position when asked about California’s marriages. He could have simply stated he was happy equality is moving in the right direction, then said something about CU s or state rights, and it would have been a position I’d disagree with… but wouldn’t be utterly offended by.
<
p>I’m sorry to say this, but you just aren’t an authority to decide what is and what isn’t offensive. This effects me every day of my life. You think I want to work hard to elect a candidate who goes out of his way to put people like me down, afraid of political ramifications, just because he’s better than McCain on other issues?
<
p>Between this and FISA, I’m damn near ready to say I don’t give a damn. Obama has my vote, but if he keeps this up, I’m not going to volunteer for his campaign. Period.
…Obama says he abhors discrimination. He apologized this week to the Muslim woman with the head scarf that his campaign would not allow to be photographed sitting behind him at a campaign rally:
<
p>
<
p>Apparently, gays and lesbians are in a different category, as far as he is concerned. This from gay.com:
<
p>
<
p>So much for change we can believe in. Obama’s still going to get my vote, since I can’t vote to continue the Republican regime, but he does disappoint. A lot.
Sad fact, but it’s true. If we were talking about denying a civil right to any other minority, it would be a no-brainer. The candidate would express his outrage over the discrimination, and all but the most die-hard bigots would agree. I can appreciate Obama’s dilemma here. I assume that he is actually pro-SSM and that he’s just waiting to be elected to make that known. Then he’ll be in a position to effect some change. So I think I’ll wait and see on this one. To push the issue now would probably buy us another Republican president.
First, I wouldn’t assume anything. Generally, I really think that what you see in politics is what you get. There’s a reason why low information voters are generally as prepared to make a voting decision as high information voters, according to numerous studies (don’t make me bust out my old Electoral Politics books).
<
p>Obama is not going to push the envelope on marriage equality, now or ever. Even if he somehow had different internal feelings that he won’t allow himself to express publicly, there’s always another election around the corner, as the saying goes. The best we could reasonably hope for, IMO, is a sea change in the party, allowing us to axe DOMA and challenge these homophobic amendments and laws in the courts. But that doesn’t change the fact that there’s always another election around the corner – so will the people of our party be prepared for when our politicians whine a year from now that while they’d like to get rid of DOMA, they’e too afraid because of the elections in another year? At what point does this become unreasonable and pathetic? At what point do we tell them to shut up and do the right thing?
<
p>Second, his position isn’t what offends me. While I like bold change, I’ll take change of the incremental variety. So the fact that he supports Civil Unions would be a huge boon, if I really bought the fact that he’d do anything to accomplish that. He won’t. As Laurel has already said, no where does he say that he supports a national civil unions plan. So that means he supports civil unions at the state level, if states actually want civil unions. How does that differ from anything that’s happened in the past 8 years? (Answer: it doesn’t). Honestly, as Laurel also points it, it’s actually a step in the wrong direction, seeing as how now more than 10% of the entire US population has access to marriage equality… and we have a potential US President saying marriage only exists between a male and a woman. What, does he think Mass and Cali marriages are some kind of bogeyman? Or mythical? Or what?
<
p>Third, I’d even be fine with THAT position, compared to McCain’s (who actually campaigned to ban anything resembling SSM in his state), if Obama didn’t feel as though he had to go out of his way to dehumanize glbt people every time someone asked him a marriage equality question. Instead of taking the right-wing track and demonizing us, couldn’t he use positive rhetoric? Is there anything wrong with using this kind of track:
<
p>Q. What do you think of California legalizing marriage equality?
<
p>A. Obama: “I’m very happy to see that more and more states are moving in the direction of equal rights for all. I don’t think that every state needs to have same-sex marriage to accomplish that, but ultimately I do hope they’ll all make efforts to increase equality for all the people who live in their state, making sure that same-sex couples have equal access to health insurance, raising their families, protecting their partners without need for costly legal documents few can truly afford, visitation rights at the hospital, etc. There are numerous ways to accomplish all of that, and I hope each state can find their own way to guarantee basic human rights to all.”
<
p>Obama’s failed all three of those basic, basic measures. Therefore, I don’t think you should “wait and see.” I think you should instead demand more of him – send his campaign or Senate office emails, call them up, etc.
<
p>I’m hoping you’re wrong about that. I think you’re right to demand more of him, but after he’s elected, not before. I really do think that if he took a “controversial” stand on this right now, it might cost him the election. Then we have NO chance.
Elect Obama, but continue to hammer him and persuade him to get on the correct side of this issue. I don’t have a crystal ball, but I think there is a realistic shot that over the course of an 8-year presidency, activists can win Obama on this issue. Like Laurel said, it should not be taken for granted, but I don’t see Obama as a rigid dogmatist on this. I take his desire to repeal DOMA as a sign that much can be accomplished for LGBT rights under President Obama.
<
p>I’d also remind people who are telling the “outspoken” Laurels and Ryans to “slow down, be pragmatic” that one reason they may be more passionate about the speed in which this is to occur is that they have a much bigger personal stake in this fight then the average straight person. In practical terms, my life has not changed one bit since the Goodrich decision or when the referendum was voted down in the MA legislature, but those decisions impacted greatly the future happiness of gay people in MA and the country. If that ruling happened in 1993, 2003, or 2013, very little in my life would have changed. I can afford to say “wait for the right time”. The thing is, there is never a “right time” and if you wait you’ll spend your life waiting for a moment that will never come.
<
p>We don’t know what the President and the Congress will look like 8 years from now (or 4). If Obama wins and the the Dems win big like they should, the opportunity must be seized to demand as much progress in LGBT rights, including marriage, as possible before the clock runs out and the country swings back to the conservatives.
100 6’s.
You know, Obama could have simply said “I’m very happy for all these couples in California being able to enjoy the same rights and privileges of every other American.”
<
p>He didn’t have to go out of his way to piss on us, Chris, and that’s EXACTLY what he did. He could have even supported civil unions and been honest about that, but also said he applauds California for moving boldly toward equality. There were a LOT of ways Obama could have taken that track, he didn’t have to go out of his way to be so freaking offensive.
I do not think it was Kerry’s stance on gay marriage that lost him the election. In my estimation it played a very small part in his loss.
despite two decades in Congress. This, according to a very good friend of mine who worked in the office of one of Kerry’s senate colleagues. You can’t just be a war veteran.
and threw it in the recycling bin with the rest of the junk mail.
<
p>There is no change that we can believe in…in a short few weeks, the nominee has morphed into the real Obama, instead of the “change you can believe in’ candidate, fresh off of the hope and unity bus.
<
p>Ain’t nothing new under the sun, Laurel. I wish he was better than this, but he’s just like the rest.
A lot of gays supported Ralph Nader in 2000 since he was pro-equality and Gore had a tepid opinion on the issue. Not to mention Gores boss Clinton had signed DADT and DOMA into law. And what did it get us? We went from an administration that was tepidly pro gay to an administration that was vocally anti-gay.
<
p>McCains only plus is that he opposes a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. But he will certainly support states, including his own, efforts to ban it. He will appoint lifers to the SCOTUS that will be opposed to it, etc. Just a bad deal.
<
p>Furthermore this is not the lesser of two evils, times have changed drastically since 2000 in favor of equality and acceptance in a way that was far faster than the civil rights movement. Obama has come out in favor of federal civil unions that would essentially ensure marriage rights to all gay citizens in practice but not in name (I understand its not full equality until it gets the name marriage-but this is a solid foundation. Gays in most states dont even enjoy those basic rights).
<
p>Also the historical model is that politicians are tepid. Lincoln ran on a platform that was against slavery’s expansion but not anywhere near in favor of its abolition. FDR ran on a strong civil rights platform and than shirked from passing meaningful anti-lynching legislation and created discriminatory laws into the New Deal programs to get southern support. Truman desegregated the military and ran on the first strong civil rights plank. Then Kennedy and Nixon both ran strongly on civil rights though JFK took a more active role in courting the black vote while Nixon took it for granted. But even Kennedy opposed the march on Washington and doing action in favor of the civil rights favoring moderation-and he was attacked by MLK for doing so.
<
p>This type of social change requires changing hearts and minds of many Americans who, and we may not realize this in our blue state bubble, really despise gay people-vehemently so. Forcing gay marriage down their throats just like forcing integration down white peoples throats will only exacerbate the problems and increase tensions. Incrementalism for all its faults is the most pragmatic step forward especially when conservatives could retake power and strip us of all this progress including gay marriage in MA.
he says emphatically that marriage should be decided by the states. he also says he supports civil unions, which based on the previous sentence means that he supports the choice of some states to institute civil unions. he has never, ever suggested instituting federal-level partnership recognition for lgb couples.
<
p>as for social change, do you really think that obama adopting the anti-equality rhetoric will “win hearts and minds” over to the side of equality? does not compute. more like it’ll embolden the haters and weaken the resolve of fence-sitters. on this issue, obama is no deval patrick, that’s for sure.
“A lot of gays.”
<
p>Feel free to link the percent of gays who voted Nader over Gore in Florida, if you think it made an appreciable difference. If it was such a huge aspect of the campaign, I’d have known about it… so good luck finding that!
<
p>Also, I don’t know anyone who’s gay and is saying they’ll vote for McCain or another candidate. So I don’t even see what your point is.
<
p>
<
p>Says who? You? The MFI?
<
p>I think Massachusetts has done pretty well with marriage equality being forced “down their throats.” Not a single marriage-equality supporter has lost their seat in the state legislature!
<
p>The only way to change the hearts and minds of people in this matter is to legalize marriage equality. Then people don’t realize it’s a big deal. But until it exists, there’s always going to be a bigger resistance to it compared to after it exists, when people realize the sky isn’t going to come falling. Incrementalism is not always the best way forward, because sometimes the progress goes so slow that it can actually move backwards or not at all for decades. Sometimes, you have to grab the bull by its horn. We saw that with the Civil Rights Act and we’ve seen it with Massachusetts marriages.
As long as SSM marriage is “outlawed” it will be considered scary and threatening. We all know it won’t end anti-gay bigotry, some people still have feelings against inter-racial marriage, but there are far fewer people of the younger generations who see inter-racial dating/marriage as a big deal then in older generations. Once it’s legal, the right will move on to some other manufactured wedge issue and no one will give a spit about SSM.
From his recent meeting with a mixture of moderate and conservative Evangelical Christian activists that included John Hagee’s publisher, and a man who advocates for “therapy” for LGBT:
<
p>
<
p>I was coming around to Obama lately, and this just puts me off my lunch.
Something I wonder whether Obama has figured into his calculations is not just the LGBT support he is losing, but the support of our friends and allies. What happens, for example, in a star-struck culture when one of its most beloved stars is severely disrespected by the candidate? Pick your star, but I’m thinking of Ellen DeGeneres. Ellen just received another Emmy the other day, and her show draws 3 million views per day. And I’m guessing they vote. And Ellen is not silent on the issues. How blind can Obama be?
This is adorable. Ellen and Portia are lovable people. People don’t like seeing those they admire hurt. Obama is hurting their happiness. Obama will lose the support of LGBT allies and star-struck fans.
Watching this country get taken down piece by piece and no hope of resolution or improvement in anything.
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
Things certainly are not what they seem.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v…
Maybe they should just bring on WWIII by bombing Iran and be done with western civilization altogether.
I could be just as ignorant as Lasthorseman and say that the following article is a result of gay marriage in Massachusetts……
<
p>http://www.capecodonline.com/a…
<
p>or that the state has actively promoted tourism to gays around the country
<
p>or other things…..
<
p>but that’s hateful speech and bigoted.
<
p>Just like Obama – the Bigot
by the lasthorseman. If you look through is comments you’ll find that he throws nonsense like the above around everywhere regardless of the topic. I do not think his remark was intended as offense toward anybody.
<
p>Having said that your statement is factually inaccurate. MA is indeed advertising to the gay market, a very good move I might add.
Do you think that advertising and the national exposure of Massachusetts being the first in the country to accept gay marriage has anything to do with the tripling of citations for indecent behavior by gay men in the dunes of Truro and Provincetown in the last 3 to 4 years?
No, I do not think the state advertising to gay markets has anything to do with “the tripling of citations for indecent behavior by gay men”.
<
p>I am also now, after reading some of your other posts, realizing that you and lasthorseman are wonderful for each other.
Do you think the Cape Cod Police are conspiring with the Federal government to blow up the Wood End Lighthouse and start a sex war?
Why do I not think that gay marriage or advertising to gay markets has caused resulted in people doing illegal activities? Because all sorts of people do illegal things, gay and straight. White people, black people, gay people, fat people, thin people, short people, etc.
90% of the citations were to gay men. The Cape Cod National Seashore has become a magnet for orgies. P-Town and Truro are advertised as such. Do you think its right to have public orgies gay straight black white short fat in public?
<
p>Its funny how some people stick thier heads in the sand (no pun intended)
heterosexuals are so pure!
<
p>don’t forget who invented divorce. 🙂
Oh and do you know who was in the audience watching the little children? Does the story give the makeup of who was there? I’m sure it was all heterosexual couples holding bibles who signed marriage petitions. No it was a SWINGERS club. Let’s see – what do swingers do? Have sex with multiple partners of both sexes. ok
<
p>Also, this is an aberration, an isolated incident.
<
p>What is happening on Cape Cod is a RECURRING incident over the past 5-10 YEARS involving HUNDREDS of GAY MEN abusing public spaces.
<
p>So tell me Laurel – this must be a Gestapo action by the Police down the Cape no?
<
p>Why no protests? Why no post screaming discrimination? Why no protest of the Cape Cod or Park Police for their hatred and bigotry, as you like to call it?
Let’s just cut to the chase and make sex illegal. We all know that is the biggest problem facing America today.
<
p>We need not worry about homelessness, the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, fuel prices, our reliance on foreign oil, the White House taking away our civil liberties, the economic crisis or anything else. For that matter we do not need to concern ourselves with straight people who commit murder, rape, burglaries, white collar crimes, burglaries or anything else.
<
p>As long as we can stop people from having sex the country will be a better place.
how do you feel about John McCain not only being an inveterate adulterer, but by biblical standards making his wife one also by marrying her after his divorce? Do you think he would have been better off going the Giuliani route, marrying then divorcing his sex partners in succession, or was it better for him to cheat multiple times on just one wife? Please advise.
<
p>I think we can agree that marriage is frequently cheapened and debased by the raunchy behavior of heterosexuals. Just check out the personal ads in any newspaper.
Thank you for the confirmation of your hypocrisy
<
p>Both of you are hiding from the truth and impact of this story –
<
p>PUBLIC ORGIES IN PUBLIC PLACES ARE OFFENSIVE to EVERYONE
<
p>ARE THEY NOT??????
<
p>Answer the question
was far less hung up on sexuality that the Puritan ethics you find here. I actually have no problem with people having the same rights other people have but here media has to elevate the issue to the extreme extent therefore shoving it blatantly into the face of those who are not ready to embrace it and therefore creating conflict for political party gains.
<
p>The gun freaks are alarmed because one can not “piss” in the woods without ultimately having to become a registered sex offender.
<
p>We are or rather have been conditioned to become a nation of control freaks “in this post 911 world”, a phrase that makes me want to vomit. For your perception of an attack by me upon issues I usually avoid because it is a no win situation, well I should have just clicked off of it and shut up.