Also, they were elected in 2006 mainly because of the opposition of the Iraq War.

Disagree. They were elected in 2006 because of the American majority’s opposition to *failure* in the Iraq war… and their having no other way to register a protest to the Bush Administration. That’s why the Democrats failed to stop the Iraq War in 2007. The Democrats misread their own election victory, advocating policies of self-defeat that the American people didn’t want and hadn’t voted for.

Excellent point, Rocket. The Democrats have indeed dropped the ball on that. Also, they were elected in 2006 mainly because of the opposition of the Iraq War. Did nothing about that either.

You have a right to self defence. You don’t have a right to not be offended.

(Or maybe you’re arguing that the victim was offending the man with his presence? That his dress, mannerisms and the like were offending the thug? Free speech/Expression works both ways. Insulting the victim is free (if tasteless) speech. Kind of like calling for the euthenasia of children with Downs.)

The Denver police refused to press charges because the man was gay.

And the mayor of Denver is…….(drumroll)….

a LIBERAL.

In addition, if Comrade Obama were truly against DOMA and DADT, why hasn’t he lifted a Marxist finger to put forth repealing them? Where’s Hillary on that one, while we’re at it? If they truly gave a crap, one would think they would have done something by now.

Or were they waiting to get cash first?

SCHIEFFER: Mr. President, let’s get back to economic issues. But let’s shift to some other questions here.

But I’m concerned that that will get overturned. And if it gets overturned, then we’ll end up with marriage being defined by courts, and I don’t think that’s in our nation’s interests.

Now, how come the Dumocrats who control Congress have not even held one hearing on DOMA and not passed it….and passed legislation to repeal DADT. In case you didn’t know, it will take Congressional legislation to repeal both DOMA and DADT..and where are the Democrats on these issues..where is that passed legislation? Bueller, Ferris? any one?

and where exactly is Nobama’s position on same sex marriage..opposed to it…and yet that is way ok as he lies to you right to your face in his position since he knows that the federal government given the provisions of DOMA do NOT permit any of the nearly 1400 federal statutory rights to same sex marriage unless you repeal DOMA and NOBama will continue to lie to you as he suckers you out of your money for campaign contributions.

I hope you continue to enjoy being thrown under the bus and run over it.

I for one believe our elected officials should follow what the Constitution provides which is that marriage issues are left to the states to decide such issues. Of course, Dick Cheney got that right in 2000 but leave it to liberals to distort the Constitution for their own needs..

Like the issue on Marriage, I so look forward to as other posters stated what will liberals do when it is determined that a woman can terminate a pregnancy based upon certain knowledge that their child will be Gay….

I will take a President that follows the Constitution over one that will decide what will get him votes and BS me on issues that just aren’t grounded in fact, reality and the law. Nick, you can keep your Marxist Nobama who claims he is a constitutional scholar and enjoy the next 4 yrs with Nobama out of the White House…

the rest of us will live in the real world with President McCain and Vice President Palin.

This is what you claimed before:

That’s all well and good but Sarah Palin tried to fire the librarian of Wassila because the librarian refused to remove a GAY friendly book from the library shelves.

This is what your CS Monitor citation says:

The Time story suggests that Palin may have threatened to fire the town librarian for saying that censorship would be unacceptable, but subsequent news stories (such as a recent posting by the Boston Herald) don’t seem to support this notion. According to the Herald, Palin did ask the librarian, Mary Ellen Emmons, questions about censorship and Emmons responded by saying that any form of censorship would be entirely inappropriate.

Nor does there seem to be any evidence that any books were actually banned from the Wasilla library.

Comment by ThatGayConservative”

http://news.bostonherald.com/news/2008/view.bg?articleid=1117009&srvc=2008campaign&position=15

http://features.csmonitor.com/books/2008/09/05/sarah-palin-and-libraries/
http://www.libraryjournal.com/blog/1010000101/post/1110032711.html

Anyway, like I said before, it’s amazing how when presented with facts your Soviet-like ability to dismiss the truth is there.

“Afraid of Palin”? Um, not at all. Disgusted and mortified that she could be elected vice-president? Hell yeah.

Again, you call gay Democrats borg but are unable to see your unfailing support of Palin or McCain.

As for comparing Obama’s position on marriage to Palin’s get real. Obama stated in his interview with the Advocate magazine he is for full equality of rights between civil unions and “marriage.” He further stated that he could get civil unions passed but not marriage and was following the path of the Civil Rights movement.

So, let’s be logical about this. Is that possible for you? One candidate is for state recognized domestic partnership and the other candidates (McCain and Palin) are against any state recognized partnership.

Hmm?? If you can’t tell the difference between the two, I strongly question your ability to read and analyze basic English.

Here’s Obama’s positions on LGBT issues: http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/lgbt.pdf

Where’s McCain’s? Oh, that’s right, McCain came out in support of the anti-marriage forces in California and Arizona. He also has no gay area on his website. The same web site where he devotes space for every other group under the sun. Hell, even “Race Fans for McCain” merit their own constituent page while gays get zero space.

What does that say? Why can’t you folks be intellectually honest? Again, gay liberals have been accused of being borg, mindless automatons. But the record shows otherwise. Gay liberals have delivered the smackdowns on the DNC. I know I criticized Bill Clinton on this site. I’ll also give a big f-ck you to the conservative, Blue Dog Democrats who side with Republican conservatives against gay rights. If you go to Americablog.com, a gay authored liberal site, the author repeatedly has chastised Democrats.

So, if you want to argue. Argue your case with facts. I’m all up for name calling. Reading this blog, I’ve found lots and lots of name calling.

Finally, John McCain is a liar. Karl Rove, no liberal by any means, certainly one of my choices of most evil men in America, admitted this Sunday that McCain had a problem with lying. Why can’t you folks deal with these facts? Instead, there’s this constant whining and crybaby attitude about being victimized by the mean press or gay liberals. In doing so, haven’t you become all that you accused the left of being?

This weekend a story broke about a gay man who was bashed in Denver for being gay. The thug called the man nice anti-gay epithets. The Denver police refused to press charges because the man was gay. Since gays aren’t recognized as a protected class, the man was not allowed to seek justice. Do you agree with this?

http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_10459273

While I don’t need government to affirm the value of my relationship–I think the past fifteen years with the same man have proven that time and again–I don’t think I should be penalized because the person I have devoted my life to happens to be male. It’s not a question of the government affirming anything, rather it’s a question of the government using gender as a consideration in tax laws, benefits, etc, that is unreasonable. There’s a lot of money coming out of my pocket because the government considers the gender of my mate as somehow relevant. It’s not. Yet I support him financially just as any husband would his wife, and cannot gain the same government tax breaks that my parents share. It’s not a question of affirmation. It’s a question of equity for each individual citizen, regardless of gender.

I’m a propagandist? Get real. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/13/author-of-book-palin-targ_n_126236.html

So your evidence is an advertisement for a book? You’re worse than a propagandist. You’re a gullible idiot.

Or maybe, “Charlie, you know those gays back in Pennsylvania, clinging to their techno dance CDs and PrideParade banners because they’re bitter America doesn’t adore them”.

Or maybe, “Charlie, that question is like trying to put lipstick on a drama queen who’s only interested in blending peach and violet eye shadow at the moment”.

Unfortunately for gayDemocrats looking for a way to divert attention from BarryO’s anti-gay marriage position, they didn’t get any help from Sarah Palin.

But that doesn’t matter.

“Look, look, over here… McCain wants to invade Iran!!”

A homosexual mariage is biologicaly impossible of doing the first, and thereby unlike to accomplish the second.

Wickedpinto, I agree with much of what you say, but disagree with above. While it is biologically impossible for same sex couples to procreate, many same sex couples do rear children. Further, for many heterosexual couples, it is biologically impossible for them to procreate or simply choose to not procreate. Sure, these could be considered exceptions, and I have no desire to change laws prohibiting these persons from getting married, whether or not gay persons can marry. But instead of saying how these nonprocreating couples shouldn’t marry and leave it only to those who can and will procreate, we still enourage such couples to marry and wish them well. That’s the exact same thing I want for same sex couples.

Dan, I don’t need the government to affirm my sexuality as well, but I also don’t want government to hinder it either. For the most part, I can say that I have not been hindered by government, because I’ve been lucky. Even though growing up, being gay was definitely a put down by peers, as an adult there’s been much more acceptance. But many others haven’t been so lucky. Many have had to put up with family members intolerance, continuing into adulthood. And many live in states or localities in which gays do not have rights that others take for granted. So when gays say they want their sexuality affirmed, it seems to me that that is what they are really saying. Or they could be saying that they want their sexuality affirmed the same way that it is affirmed for heterosexuals like it is for Obama, McCain, Palin, and Biden.

Of course, it’s not government’s job to make people like and accept homosexuality. But I do want candidates who know better and be leaders and not pander to those who want to continue their intolerance. But we’re not there either. Both parties pander, and only promise gay rights as far as they think that will get them elected.

As for Gibson’s question, it was a dud. The question should have been whether or not homosexuality (the orientation, not acting on it) is a choice. Palin’s answer was kind of mediocre. I was hoping with her knowledge and leadership, that she could have first answered that she didn’t know the answer the way it was framed by Gibson, but then to come out to say that it is indeed not a choice. But instead, she was more concerned about whether other people should be judged for their beliefs about homosexuality.