Bush’s DOMA? It was Bill Clinton who signed it into law. Only 14 Senators opposed it, and only 67 Representatives. While I’m willing to bet that all 81 of them were Dems, that’s still a substantial minority of Democrats serving in Congress at the time.
And it may have been a “long time ago,” but what have they done since then to change things around? If the Respect for Marriage act passes, then we can talk about how the Democratic party has changed. In the meantime, I’ll be over here, not holding my breath.
Her “Fake Uncle” Pat’s last appearance about Justice Sotomayor might have wrecked their friendship. I really got the impression that she liked and respected Pat even though they were political opposites, that they could have a civil discussion about topics on which their disagreed.
In all fairness, DADT was a compromise that was a step in the right direction from where the military was before. It has also allowed the exposure of how damaging the military’s policies against gays can be (case in oint Arab interpreters). Baby steps, maybe, but in the right direction. Can you say the same for Republican initiatives?
The Republican National Convention has had blatantly anti-gay placards visible on the floor not once but several times. They several times refuses to allow the Log Cabin Republicans participate, and when they did allow (gay Republican and regional LCR president) Stephen Fong to address their '96 convention it was under the condition that he never be identified as gay.
Then there’s the LCR mission statement:
I’ll grant we have strong national defense, but we had that under Clinton as well. Limited government, individual liberty and personal responsibility… these are Republican values as evinced by… who exactly? Free markets… well, McCain and Obama voted exactly the same on the bailout. Responsible spending and limited government: Under Reagan/Bush the national debt quadrupled; under Clinton it rose 25%; under Bush 2 it doubled again (due largely to an unnecessary war [and that’s another thing…]).
So fuck 'em. Both fumble the ball so I’ll go with the ones who don’t call me a faggot.
So they’re only advocating that we queer types be a little less equal, so it’s not so bad?
Not to mention that it’s bullshit. Limited government, unless it’s interfering in our personal relationships (or the relationship between a woman and her doctor), individual liberty except the liberty to comprise our families as we see fit. personal responsibility but if our taxes are higher or we can’t buy insurance for our partners or children (or pay taxes on the money to cover them before it’s deducted from our paychecks) oh well. This is what the LCRs are supporting if they’re supporting the Republican Party today. Maybe it’s not their ideal GOP, but that’s what they’re voting for now. They’re doing themselves and and the rest of us harm by continuing to lend their support to politicians who want to make sure that limited government, individual liberty and freedom to take personal responsibility never apply to us.
So Mary Cheney, second-class citizen lesbian with a second-class citizen pseudofamily with no legal protections just gave money to someone who wants to ensure that she and her family stay exactly where they are, and who wants to continue my oppression in our nation. That’s not just self loathing, that’s outright aggression against the entire LGBT community.
True; it doesn’t make a difference in practical terms. (In moral terms, it makes them worse; they project their evil onto an imaginary friend in the sky because they’re too chickenshit to own up to it personally.)
Here, we have a basic difference between the Democratic version of Big Government (i.e. tax-and-spend policies) and the Republican version of Big Government (i.e. coercive social engineering). The former is ultimately driven by a desire to grab and redistribute spoils – not exactly morally uplifting, but at least rational and “just business”. The latter is ultimately driven by – I decline to mince words – malice and hatred.
The Democrats are the robber barons; the Republicans are the moral busybodies.
To me the biggest difference is that “God hates fags” is the stock in trade of the Phelps clan who are a bunch of nutcases with no political power (or affiliation) whatever. Republican politicians who are a lot more “moderate” in their views of gays are a helluva lot more dangerous in their ability to make discrimination legal.
Actually it is. In fact it’s the polar opposite. As those people would be of the opinion that God loves everyone, gays and straights alike. It’s the act he disapproves of.
Bullshit. “The act” is an integral part of who and what I am. If you condemn what I do, you are condemning me. If you condemn the love I have for my partner . . . and the ways I express that love . . . you are condemning the very core of my life. If you believe that “homosexuality is a sin,” then yes, you “hate fags.”
No, it’s not bullshit. I’m not one of the people I’m describing, but a Christian would believe that Christ would love the person, but not necessarily the act. And that that is what Christ would want them to believe. So, the **DLuxN8R-13’**s claim is simply wrong. Have you not heard “love the sinner, hate the sin”?
Or what you view as treating you like shit. But let’s not get into this again. I don’t have the time. Yes, there are people out there that call themselves Christians who do not follow the teachings off Christ. Some of these people are trying, some of them are just full of shit. But the fact remains that Christianity does not allow for hatred of fags, or anyone else they might view as wayward. (I think you might recall I practice no religion, so this is just a philosophical discussion for me. I know it is different for you.)