The trouble with Palin is that she was picked BECAUSE of her gender, not for her ability to lead.

Madonna on Sarah Palin – good for a laugh when we all need one.

Just in case you don’t know what it says here you go:

The Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, is the short title of a federal law of the United States passed on September 21, 1996 as Public Law No. 104-199, 110 Stat. 2419. Its provisions are codified at 1 U.S.C. § 7 and 28 U.S.C. § 1738C. The law has two effects:
No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.

The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

I do think that many of the members of the church got a completely different view of the gay world by watching and knowing us. Our son even received a nice little “Baby Package” from the Women’s Group when the found out that he had become a father. Again, our little family showed that gay couples can raise heterosexual children just fine.

Sometimes when our family would go to a more liberal social gathering based around the school or the YMCA, we always got the feeling that people were being nice to us because they HAD to be. I guess hetero-guilt (kind of like white-guilt). I would much rather have someone let me know exactly where I stand rather then have people pretend to be nice to my face and then talk about me behind my back.

When our oldest son turned 14, he had his first friends birthday party (he came to us at 12 from a place that was horrific). His friends from school, from the Y and from church were invited. Most had accepted. Parents called and confirmed. Only the children from the church showed up. We found out later, the “nice” parents from school and the Y felt uncomfortable dropping their teen sons at our house for the party. By the time our oldest was a senior in high school and captain of the swim team, the parents saw that we were as “normal” as everyone else. There were several swim team sleepovers with 10-15 high schoolers sleeping on the living room floor.

Unfortunately, my partner and I live in a so-called liberal state. At this time of year, we have to decline invitations for social gatherings with our liberal friends. Once we pull up in our pickup truck with conservative stickers, we are targets for “bashings”. Feels like we are in high school all over again.

Not quite.

As I recall, Bush said that if a state enacted civil unions, he didn’t have a problem with it. But I wouldn’t call that support. And that certainly doesn’t make up for using the gay marriage issue to gin up the base. If they really cared about treating same-sex couples fairly while “protecting marriage,” why not offer some sort of compromise, such as federal recognition of state civil unions (i.e. a partial repeal of DOMA) in exchange for the FMA? Not gonna happen, of course, because “the Base” would go nuts.

As to your comments about Obama, Kerry and Clinton, I believe Obama is in favor of the wholesale repeal of DOMA, so I don’t know where you are getting the idea that he wants to leave the “incidents of marriage” part in place. Could you provide a link? Everything I have seen suggests that he is strongly in favor of according federal recognition to civil union/domestic partner-type relationships, as is Biden (unlike either McCain or Palin). As for Kerry, again, my recollection of 2004 is that he REFUSED to endorse the state initiatives that banned SSM AND civil unions, even after Bill Clinton told him he ought to. Kerry’s stand on gay marriage was indeed cowardly (given that we all know his true beliefs), but still preferable to Bush’s tub-thumping backlash populism. As for Bill Clinton himself- I agree that he’s a liar and a jerk. Never have liked him, never will. The LGBT community is just one of a rather long list that he has screwed over.

Lastly, I know full well that DOMA and DADT were enacted by a Democratic Congress, but the simple fact is that it is now the Democrats who are pushing to abolish or at least moderate both pieces of legislation, with little or no Republican support outside that of a couple Northeastern moderates like Chris Shays and Arlen Specter, who frankly are not the folks who call the shots in today’s Republican Party. And I know of no Democratic state party today that is actively pushing a state-DOMA (to say nothing of even more noxious pieces of legislation, like Arkansas’s proposed ban on gay adoption).

Look, as I said before, I respect your right to think that other issues are more important than gay rights and vote accordingly. I also respect folks who are trying to change the party from within (there is one such Republican I know of where I live for whom I plan to vote in November). But I do also feel that my current sense that the Repubs are not just indifferent but actively hostile to my interests and those of my family is more than reasonable, given their record over the last 20 years with regard to the LGBT community. To the extent you all want to win over more gay moderates (rather than just tossing potshots at the activist minority), a frank acknowledgment of that fact might get you farther.

knowningly lets a *genetically defective* [emphasis added; note lack of reference to chromosomes] child into this overpopulated world vs a redo on the pregnancy. ya, a clear thinking woman….. dare you not to delete it bruce.

I was talking down at michael’s level, in vain hopes that he might understand. Now I’m to be blamed for his stupid mistake. OK. Whatev!

Yes, ILC, how silly and pedestrian of you not to recognize the razor-sharp nuance between the two situations without michael explaining it to you. The sharp contrast is clear: eugenics is about mass-murdering those troublesome undesirables at the earliest possible opportunity, while euthanasia of defectives is about exterminating undesirables after it is subjectively clear to the state that certain embarrassing individuals have nothing to contribute to or offer society. For short, we can just call the second variety “eugenics for LAZY mass-murdering fu*ks.”

For a liberal like michael, the two situations are like,…totally different. Both morally neutral, of course. But different. Oh, yeah, one more thing–they’re SPELLED differently too. That’s an important distinction as well.

First of all, Dan, Bush in 2000 and 2004 did endorse civil unions and said so. In 2004, he indicated that he supported civil unions (which in part may have resulted in his getting about 26% of GLBT votes)

VP Cheney said in the VP debate with John Edwards, that he and Bush disagreed on the proposed federal constitutional ban on marriage. Indeed, Cheney indicated marriage under the federal constitution is an issue that is left for the states to decide…which is accurate and correct.

In the 2004 Advocate interview, John Kerry said he supported constitutional bans on marriage, just not the federal constitutional ban and said marriage is between a man and a woman and that is the same position Barack Obama has taken. Obama adds a heinous twist by saying he will not be for eliminating the section of DOMA regarding the incidents of marriage while talking out of the other side of his lying mouth by saying same sex couples should be entitled to the same federal benefits regarding marriage as str8 couples (which he can’t do unless Congress repeals that part of DOMA, which he said should not be repealed.)

I do not have a problem with a candidate

As to McCain, his position is no different then John Kerry’s who in 2004 said he supported a Massachusetts state constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage. Kerry also said he supported Missouri’s state constitutional amendment to ban civil unions. (I note that he and Teresa Heinz Kerry, per his Advocate interview that marriage is for heterosexuals and marriage is for procreation purposes by his definition should not be married since they have not procreated together and by his moronic statement all those str8 couples that don’t have children and/or are unable to have children by means of procreation or choose not to have children, best get divorced now)

As to DADT, the Democrats have controlled Congress again and they have not passed legislation to repeal it…but then again, it was a Democratic Congress in 1993 and a Democratic President that signed DADT into law and my guess is its a great money raiser to take our money and do nothing about it….

It will take a GOP President, as has been said, to repeal it…

As to DOMA…..which President gave us DOMA? OH YEAH, Democrat Bill Clinton and then campaigned bragging about it in his 1996 re-election for the Presidency..

‘nuf said.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=35656

No doubt michael’s comments about Palin’s irresponsible and selfish decision to have her son Trig were inspired by Stopes own visionary words: “Our race is weakened by an appallingly high percentage of unfit weaklings and diseased individuals.” She wasn’t afraid to attend Nazi population control conferences in Berlin and go on the record with her distaste for the “puny and utterly unsatisfactory” children of the poor. Isn’t that enchanting? Stopes was truly a woman of “distinction”–the kind of woman that today’s voting feminists could really get behind in an election (unlike that awful, irresponsible Sarah Palin).

So, if michael isn’t prompt in his responses, it’s probably because he’s booked solid, what with the ceremony for the unveiling of the Stopes postage stamp, or the partial birth abortion rally scheduled for this afternoon, or he’s probably helping the organizers get set up for the Racial Purity Dinner Dance this evening. For a modern day supporter of eugenics like michael, this is a really big deal–its like the abortion Olympics (naturally, you can imagine there is no affiliated “special” version of these Olympics–their mission is to ensure that “unsatisfactory” individuals like that are killed in the womb, not winning medals in some race or track & field event).

you apparently don’t understand the nature of a trisomy (let alone what chromosome down’s is associated with

michael, so now you want to make a technical argument. You’re arguing in effect that, since the human life you wish had been exterminated here has a defect more strictly chromosomal than genetic in nature (that you know of – haha), then, technically, your programme more resembles Nazi-style euthanasia of “defectives” than Nazi-style eugenics.

Freaking… Brilliant… Move.What a thorough and devastating refutation of your Nazi tendencies.

Biting back on a couple of points.

Most DOMA legislation is in reaction to courts deciding to make end runs around the democratic process, be it referrendums in CA, or legislature pased elsewhere. I’m not surprised that an action (a court pulling things out of the Aether) causes an equal and oposite reaction. I can be amused, bemused, sad, disappointed, or a host of other reactions, but not surprised.

A lot of the conservative arguements (Walter Williams, Jonah Goldberg come to mind) about Lawrence vs. Texas is that a government can make bad law, and it is the role of the legislative process to change that bad law. Here in Ohio, for example, the Payday Lenders law sucks, and our Govenour is using Obama-esque tactics to try to keep the referrendum off the ballot.

Full Disclosure: I voted -for- the Ohio DOMA ammendment, after reading it and finding the arguments against hystarical and spurious. Meanwhile I applauded the CT Legislature and Condemed the MA and CA supreme court discusions.

Also I have a (female) Domestic Partner I support. Yes the additonal ‘income’ bites, but a) it’s cheeper than her COBRA, and b) I accept it as a consequence of a non-standard choice. I may be divorced twice, but I’m not marrying someone for the ‘bennies’.

As to DADT. It has been said many times many ways, Merry Chirstma- oops, I mean that most democrats are on the record of supporting it and have taken no steps to remove it. Maybe they find it useful and a fundraiser?

I’ll bet you $50 it will be a Republican President who gets it repealed through.

Since this is going to be eaten by the spam filter, let me finish by saying thank you for taking the time to post in a mature and adult fashion. I am confident that people such as you are not the minority of liberals but, unfortunately, you’re outnumbered by those who think capitals and punctuation are tools of the Right.

Spot on!

Many left-wing feminists… are against Palin… because they disagree with her politics.

In other words: Because they are threatened by a strong *politically conservative* woman. Well, this is going in circles fast.

It’s NOT because Palin disrupts their image of how a… woman should behave

Remember your premise. As specifically *left*-*wing* feminists, they would believe that a modern, Western woman:

- shouldn’t kill animals. (Think PETA, hip vegetarianism, etc.)
- shouldn’t *actually* believe in a male, Biblical God
- should be a Democrat (or further Left)
- is a fool if she doesn’t abort Down Sydrome babies (as also believed by michael, our resident Nazi-style eugenicist)
- is altogether too lucky, and probably secretly phony or corrupt, if she seems to have a great husband with a real pair on him who nonetheless happily subordinates himself to *her* career.

Show me a feminist who violates the above image of how a woman should behave, and I will show you a feminist who is authentic but who can’t and shouldn’t be called “left-wing”. Like… say… oh, what is that Alaskan gal’s name? Sarah Palin. Long story short: Of course Palin violates the left-wing feminists’ image of how a woman should behave!