Obama Announces Support For Eliminating BSA Ban On LGBT Participation

Aug 9, 2012 | Posted by: Sei | Full story: lezgetreal.com

Both President Barack Obama and former Governor Mitt Romney support the removal of the Boy Scouts of America's policy regarding banning LGBT scout and scout leaders.

Comments
621 - 640 of 2,410 Comments Last updated Sep 24, 2012

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#651 Aug 20, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The DOMA cases weren't asking for the right to marry, because THEY WERE ALREADY MARRIED.
Yes, winning federal recognition of our legal marriages is indeed a victory.
As for the current state bans, you act like they are set in stone and can never be challenged ever again. Whether it's legislative or judicial or through the ballot box, eventually every state ban will be overturned.
70% of those under age 30 support marriage equality.
70% of those over age 65 oppose marriage equality.
It's only a matter of time, even in states like Alabama & Kentucky & other notoriously bigoted states.
95% of those under age 30 can't tell you who their current congressmen/women are, let alone where to go to vote....good luck with them...where are you getting that number anyway????
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#652 Aug 20, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The DOMA cases weren't asking for the right to marry, because THEY WERE ALREADY MARRIED.
Yes, winning federal recognition of our legal marriages is indeed a victory.
we can go back and forth, but the fact is the courts DID address whether gays have a right to marry....(BTW, why wouldn't they considering the law was a BAN)

don't you get that the STATES define marriage..like 31 have to ban ssm marriage?
If DOMA defined marriage to include ssm, it would still be unconstitutional!

I don't see how you see these cases as a victory when they are shooting down EVERYHING you argue...
Jane Dough

Montpelier, VT

#653 Aug 20, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually you're wrong once again. While some polls use the language you claim, many other polls simple ask if they support allowing same-sex couple the right to marry. And most of those polls show around 50% support.
Does that mean 50% of all voters in every state will now vote in favor of marriage equality for same-sex couples? Of course not, because every state is different and not everyone who answers a poll votes, and the main reason is that the anti-gays are more motivated to ban gays from marrying than non-gay supporters of equality
lots of words that boil down to what I said you said...
you claim to have majority approval, just not majority support...
now you get it right?

you must, you are making all kinds of excuses about why you have so many approvals and not enough support...
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#654 Aug 20, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
1. You do realize that not everyone who is polled actually votes, therefore there can be a different result at the ballot box than what the majority in the country actually believe.
2. And of course some areas of the country are naturally more bigoted than other; notably any of the confederate states below the Manson-Nixon line.
So when marriage equality finally does win at the ballot box- as is likely to happen in Washington & Maine this November- what will be your excuse then?
3. We'll be looking for to your denial of the facts, and your future excuses.
How's this for an November excuse:
1. You do realize that not everyone who is against gay marriage votes, therefore there can be a different result at the ballot box than what the majority in the country actually believe.
2. Your hate and intolerance are showing.
3. If the people of a state vote for gay marriage then they have spoken. They deserve what they've voted for. No excuses.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#655 Aug 20, 2012
WeTheSheeple wrote:
That doesn't mean a majority in the country don't support marriage equality
That's exactly what it means. Look at the support Dan Cathy of Chick-fil-a got. It was followed by a retaliatory demonstration two days later that was the biggest failure in recent memory.
If blocking out all reality makes you feel better I guess you should do it, after all you are a man who believes he's married to a man in Michigan.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#656 Aug 20, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
That's exactly what it means. Look at the support Dan Cathy of Chick-fil-a got. It was followed by a retaliatory demonstration two days later that was the biggest failure in recent memory.
If blocking out all reality makes you feel better I guess you should do it, after all you are a man who believes he's married to a man in Michigan.
That's true. Did the news even cover the 'kiss in (or out)'?????
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#657 Aug 20, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
That's true. Did the news even cover the 'kiss in (or out)'?????
Yes, they tried. They found two kissing guys holding up a chick-fil-hate sign. In another incident, a few homosexuals defaced one of the restaurants, don't know if they were caught.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#658 Aug 20, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they tried. They found two kissing guys holding up a chick-fil-hate sign. In another incident, a few homosexuals defaced one of the restaurants, don't know if they were caught.
I found this....

Kiss Off: Networks Spike Coverage of Chick-fil-A Kiss-in After Poor Turnout
By Paul Wilson | August 07, 2012 | 09:16

The broadcast networks promoted gay activists’ protest of the fast food company Chick-fil-A, but when that protest fizzled, they did little to cover the failure.

ABC’s Steve Osunsami hyped the protests ahead of time, saying “nearly 100,000 friends and family have been invited online.” After the apparent lack of turnout at the kiss-in, however, the networks stopped reporting on the protest. Only ABC briefly mentioned the results of the kiss-in, after all three networks talked about the protests on the morning of Aug. 3.

Gay activists scheduled their National Same Sex Kiss-in Day that day as a protest against the pro-traditional marriage views of the firm’s founder and Chick-fil-A’s contributions to pro-family groups.

The only attention ABC gave to the kiss-in was a brief on the Aug. 4 edition of “Good Morning America.” Ron Claiborne reported:“And hundreds of people across the country turned out for the latest round in the culture war sparked by the Chick-fil-A restaurant chain. Gay rights advocates staged a kiss-in on Friday, snapping photos of themselves kissing in front of the restaurant. This came a couple of days after people packed the fast-food chain showing support for the company's president's anti-gay marriage stance.”

After talking up the protests, the other two networks completely ignored the sparse attendance. CBS reported on Aug. 3:“At Chick-fil-A restaurants across the country, today gay rights supporters are calling for a national same-sex kiss day,” but skipped reporting the Chick-fil-A kiss-in altogether in its evening coverage and over the weekend.

There are two obvious reasons for this discrepancy. The lack of coverage may be because the kiss-in was sparsely attended. Or it may be because gay activists did not exhibit the tolerance they demand from others at several of the protests. Or it may be because some Chick-fil-A outlets evenprovided water and sweet tea to protestors, free of charge.

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-wilson/2012...

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#659 Aug 20, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
but NEVER when the people themselves voted, RIGHT?
<quoted text>
wow...I guess a spoonful of sugar...
<quoted text>
I guess I will just suggest that the anti-traditional marriage bigots got more people to the polls than in previous elections?
<quoted text>
don't get me wrong, i think gay has become widely accepted as it should be...
but the "marriage" thing is a sticking point...
why can't you accept CU's and MAKE them equal like you are trying to do with the gay marriages?
its rational to distinguish gays on the basis of them being same sex...
Let me just ask you this, you believe that gay marriage is wrong because it goes against traditional marriage, right?
Well then, why only attack gays? Why not attack rape victims and tell them they need to marry their rapists? That's one of the traditional marriages, for there's not only one. It says so in the bible in Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
Also, as a woman (judging by your username) you shouldn't even be ATTEMPTING to change the minds of men, you have no say whatsoever in any matters.(Timothy 2:12)

If you're going to complain about the traditional marriage being trod upon, learn what the traditional marriages are first.
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#660 Aug 20, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me just ask you this, you believe that gay marriage is wrong because it goes against traditional marriage, right?
Well then, why only attack gays? Why not attack rape victims and tell them they need to marry their rapists? That's one of the traditional marriages, for there's not only one. It says so in the bible in Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
Also, as a woman (judging by your username) you shouldn't even be ATTEMPTING to change the minds of men, you have no say whatsoever in any matters.(Timothy 2:12)
If you're going to complain about the traditional marriage being trod upon, learn what the traditional marriages are first.
Are drugs that are illegal here in the US freely available in Canada?

Here's my take. Anyone who believes that civil unions are acceptable for homosexuals and believes that those gays in a legal state civil union should get all of the benefits that straight couples in traditional marriages get doesn't believe that gay unions are wrong or right. They believe that they're not the same. So, go and get yourself a civil union, be happy, enjoy the benefits and your life with your new partner but call it a civil union and not a marriage.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#661 Aug 20, 2012
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Let me just ask you this, you believe that gay marriage is wrong because it goes against traditional marriage, right?
Well then, why only attack gays? Why not attack rape victims and tell them they need to marry their rapists? That's one of the traditional marriages, for there's not only one. It says so in the bible in Deuteronomy 22:28-29.
Also, as a woman (judging by your username) you shouldn't even be ATTEMPTING to change the minds of men, you have no say whatsoever in any matters.(Timothy 2:12)
If you're going to complain about the traditional marriage being trod upon, learn what the traditional marriages are first.
This post was just dum-b.

“Engaged to the love of my life”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#662 Aug 20, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
Are drugs that are illegal here in the US freely available in Canada?
Here's my take. Anyone who believes that civil unions are acceptable for homosexuals and believes that those gays in a legal state civil union should get all of the benefits that straight couples in traditional marriages get doesn't believe that gay unions are wrong or right. They believe that they're not the same. So, go and get yourself a civil union, be happy, enjoy the benefits and your life with your new partner but call it a civil union and not a marriage.
That is a step forward, but then again, you still think you can tell everyone what they can or can't do. People like you think they have the authority to tell others what they can or can't do. The point is, you don't, and that illusion will be shown to you when gay marriage is legal. Gays are allowed to call their marriage whatever they like. You can call it a civil union, but gays will call it a marriage if they want to.
You can't shove your beliefs on others. That is immoral.

“You Get My Truth Here!”

Since: May 09

Nonya!

#663 Aug 20, 2012
...and the slippery slope gets even more slippery....

Gay Marriage Has Islamists Eyeing Polygamy
by David J. Rusin
National Review
April 16, 2012

Muslims have started seeking their own redefinition of marriage

Islam sanctions polygamy — more specifically, polygyny — allowing Muslim men to keep up to four wives at once. Though marrying a second woman while remaining married to the first is prohibited across the Western world, including all 50 U.S. states, a Muslim can circumvent the law by wedding one woman in a government-recognized marriage and joining with others in unlicensed religious unions devoid of legal standing.

The increasingly prominent profile of Islamic polygamy in the West has inspired a range of accommodations. Several governments now recognize plural marriages contracted lawfully in immigrants' countries of origin. In the United Kingdom, these polygamous men are eligible to receive extra welfare benefits — an arrangement that some government ministers hope to kill — and a Scottish court once permitted a Muslim who had been cited for speeding to retain his driver's license because he had to commute between his wives.

The ultimate accommodation would involve placing polygamous and monogamous marriages on the same legal footing, but Islamists have been relatively quiet on this front, a silence that some attribute to satisfaction with the status quo or a desire to avoid drawing negative publicity. There have, of course, been exceptions..........

With the legal definition of marriage expanding in various U.S. states, as it has in other nations, should we anticipate rising demands that we recognize polygamous marriages?

........consider a tweet by Moein Khawaja, executive director of the Philadelphia branch of the radical Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). After New York legalized same-sex marriage last June, Khawaja expressed what many Islamists must have been thinking: "Easy to support gay marriage today bc it's mainstream. Lets see same people go to bat for polygamy, its the same argument.*crickets*"

The "same argument" theme is fleshed out in an October 2011 piece titled "Polygamy: Tis the Season?" in the Muslim Link, a newspaper serving the Washington and Baltimore areas. "There are murmurs among the polygamist community as the country moves toward the legalization of gay marriage," it explains. "As citizens of the United States, they argue, they should have the right to legally marry whoever they please, or however many they please." The story quotes several Muslim advocates of polygamy. "As far as legalization, I think they should," says Hassan Amin, a Baltimore imam who performs polygamous religious unions. "We should strive to have it legalized because Allah has already legalized it."

I think I'll forward this article to the supreme court justices....they need to be aware of who is watching this mess.....
Wondering

Tyngsboro, MA

#664 Aug 20, 2012
Lacez wrote:
1. People like you think they have the authority to tell others what they can or can't do.
2. You can't shove your beliefs on others. That is immoral.
1. People like me know that we can express our opinions. I'm not an activist judge or legislator and realize that I can't legally make anyone do anything they don't want to.
2. Then why do gays attempt to do it in our elementary schools? I agree, it is immoral.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#665 Aug 20, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>

but the "marriage" thing is a sticking point...
why can't you accept CU's and MAKE them equal like you are trying to do with the gay marriages?
its rational to distinguish gays on the basis of them being same sex...
Actually it's NOT rational, which is why the First Circuit ruled in a UNANIMOUS decision that the federal DOMA doesn't even meet the rational basis test.

And we TRIED to go with civil unions, but you & your fellow anti-gays fought it at every step.

The ONLY reason some anti-gays now want us to settle for civil unions is because they know we're going to eventually get full marriage equality.

Why don't YOU accept a civil union and try to make them equal to straight marriage?

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#666 Aug 20, 2012
Get That Fool wrote:
<quoted text>
95% of those under age 30 can't tell you who their current congressmen/women are, let alone where to go to vote....good luck with them...where are you getting that number anyway????
Within a decade those same people will be the 40 y/o voters and another entire generation of old anti-gay geezers will be dead.

It's only a matter of time.

Oh, pretty much every survey done on gay rights shows the same breakdown.

The baby boomers & older are opposed to marriage equality, all those younger than the boomers support marriage equality.

Within 20 years most boomers will be dead and any chance of winning a gay ban dies with them.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#667 Aug 20, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
we can go back and forth, but the fact is the courts DID address whether gays have a right to marry....(BTW, why wouldn't they considering the law was a BAN)
don't you get that the STATES define marriage..like 31 have to ban ssm marriage?
If DOMA defined marriage to include ssm, it would still be unconstitutional!
I don't see how you see these cases as a victory when they are shooting down EVERYHING you argue...
Actually DOMA was NOT a ban on same-sex couples marrying, but rather a ban on the federal govt from RECOGNIZING for the purpose of determining eligibility for any federal programs any marriage other than a man-woman marriage.

Yes 32 states currently ban gays from marrying; but one way or another those bans will eventually be overturned.

They are a victory because we argued that the federal govt can't deny recognition of legally married same-sex couples for federal benefits, and that is exactly what we'll have once DOMA is overturned.

Then we will work on the state bans, state by state through the courts, legislatures, or the ballot box.(see Prop 8, Washington Ref 74, Maine Question 1)

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#668 Aug 20, 2012
Jane Dough wrote:
<quoted text>
lots of words that boil down to what I said you said...
you claim to have majority approval, just not majority support...
now you get it right?
you must, you are making all kinds of excuses about why you have so many approvals and not enough support...
Approval, support, whatever. Quibble over the words all you want.

Obviously the majority who say they support/approve/whatever of marriage for same-sex couples haven't shown up at the voting booth in the same number as those who say they oppose.

We'll just have to wait and see what happens in Maine, Washington, Maryland, & Minnesota this November.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#669 Aug 20, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
How's this for an November excuse:
1. You do realize that not everyone who is against gay marriage votes, therefore there can be a different result at the ballot box than what the majority in the country actually believe.
2. Your hate and intolerance are showing.
3. If the people of a state vote for gay marriage then they have spoken. They deserve what they've voted for. No excuses.
Actually the anit-gays are EXTREMELY motivated to vote because they think gays marrying will personally affect them and lead to the end of the world, so nearly 100% of anti-gays turn out to vote.

On the other hand, those who support marriage equality but aren't themselve gay or lesbian, aren't nearly as motivated to go out and vote just for that issue alone. They agree in principle, but unless they have a close friend or family member who is gay, it's not a top priority for them. A bit selfish, but understandable.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#670 Aug 20, 2012
Wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
That's exactly what it means. Look at the support Dan Cathy of Chick-fil-a got. It was followed by a retaliatory demonstration two days later that was the biggest failure in recent memory.
If blocking out all reality makes you feel better I guess you should do it, after all you are a man who believes he's married to a man in Michigan.
You're really hung up on that aren't you.

You just can't understand how a couple can be married in one state but another state doesn't recognize it?

I guess there's no cure for stupidity.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Massachusetts Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Gingrich: Mitt Romney is a liar (Jan '12) 7 hr Swedenforever 54
Cape Wind Upgrades To Larger 4.0 Megawatt Turbines Sun Jack Kelly 1
Romney's Mass. Health Plan has $50 Co-pay for A... (Nov '07) Sun Swedenforever 3
The country's sinking climate debate Aug 26 SpaceBlues 2
Mass Politicians Freaking Out Over New Bedford ... Aug 26 Jack Kelly 2
Management of New Bedford Ocean Wind Port Raise... Aug 24 Bill Kelly 1
Suicide Prevention 'Ride of Your Life' is today Aug 24 jtn 2
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••

Massachusetts People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••