Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3 4 5 (5 total)
09:38 PM on 08/17/2009
BS plain and simple. Obama doesn't give a flying saucer about gay rights. It's not like we want "special" rights. We just want the ones guaranteed us by the Constitution, one of which is the right to marry who we want. I don't understand why the people who can help us don't care about us. I have lost faith in this administration. He can't even stick to his guns on healthcare. God knows he'll NEVER get anywhere with our rights the way he's acting. I don't understand why no one seems to understand what the Constitution is.
08:38 AM on 08/18/2009
no my brhter your right to marry another man is not guaranteed in the constitution.
09:29 PM on 08/17/2009
Whether or not they even use that argument for the "rational basis" test, it's BS that they are even using that standard to begin with -- the courts almost always find some "rational basis" for every law under that standard. If we're talking about equal protection, sexual orientation should be considered a suspect class and the court should use strict scrutiny.

Also - - I cringe at the "rational basis" they will uphold -- the right for religious freaks to get discriminatory laws on the ballot? The use of "rational" to describe any of this is absurd!
photo
Yeah-Me
Well... Just who else would I be? Palin?
09:29 PM on 08/17/2009
Agreed.. this is disheartening to read.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
10:48 PM on 08/17/2009
agreed
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
BarryS
09:05 PM on 08/17/2009
DOMA, DADT, Iraq, Afganistan, Gitmo. It's all a Bush redux.
08:45 AM on 08/18/2009
I dont support gay marriage for religious reasons. But I do agree that DADT is discrimination and shld be against the law. The military is a job and what if other places of employment used the same rational that they did? I agree that Obama has sold you out on DADT but he sells out everyone so at least when comes to selling out his supporters he is consistent.
10:38 AM on 08/19/2009
I like how you put "for religious reasons" as your excuse for bigotry. It does not make your bigotry excusable.

You should write, "I don't support gay marriage because I believe in this silly mythology created by people thousands of years ago as a means of thought control and keeping the masses in line to preserve autocratic rule. And because I believe in this silly mythology it defers the responsibility of my bigotry onto the cult I belong to and I can therefore claim to be a good person."
08:33 PM on 08/17/2009
This is disheartening, but I'm not surprised in the least. The Obama administration has made it very clear that it will actively work against the interests of LGBT people in order to pander to voters that it perceives as unfriendly to these issues. This is cowardly and dishonest. Did you really expect more? This administration is one long bad joke, and we're the punch line.
02:15 AM on 08/18/2009
How is this pandering?

Homosexual relationships don't result in the proliferation of the species.

Heterosexual relationships do.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
aftershock
10:31 AM on 08/18/2009
"Heterosexual relationships do."

Oh really. Than why do I see childless families?
12:12 PM on 08/18/2009
Well, it's either pandering now or outright lying in the past, so I guess you can choose your own adventure here. The ending's the same, though.

And, SOL, considering that you obviously spend a lot of time reading and thinking about these issues, I'm surprised that it hasn't occurred to you that gay couples raise children all the time. As do straight couples who, for whatever reason, can't conceive.

And what on earth does "proliferation of the species" have to do with marriage? Is there some procreation requirement I don't know about? Because in 75% of the married couples I'm personally friends with, one of the partners has voluntarily sterilized him/her self. The others use birth control. Only one's had a child any time within the last decade, of the ones which have chosen to have children. You're not seriously suggesting those people should lose their marriage rights, are you?