Gay Patriot Header Image

But, Nancy, you didn’t hold a vote on DOMA repeal when you were Speaker (& Democrats Held Majority in the House)

On Facebook, super-sweet left-wing blogress Pam Spaulding links this article from the Washington Blade, Pelosi vows to drop DOMA defense in Democratic House:

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) vowed to drop congressional defense of the Defense of Marriage Act in court if Democrats retake control of the House in November.

Um, Nancy, please do tell me why you don’t bring up DOMA repeal when you were Speaker and had a 76-vote (256 Democrats to 178 Republicans) majority in the House.  We wouldn’t have to worry about litigating this issue if Congress had repealed the legislation.

RELATED: When they had a majority, House Democrats never voted on repealing DOMA, yet now they’re campaigning on Obama’s support of same-sex marriage

Share

119 Comments

  1. Civility is at issue and we must put forth some effort to restore it.

    I don’t know about that. The only person whose behavior we can control, is our own. Unless we’re the hosts, i.e. Bruce/Dan. I think they could take some steps, like putting Pajamas Media-style instructions in the comment form itself, where everybody must see them, every time they comment:

    PJ Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:

    1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.

    2. Stay on topic.

    3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.

    4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.

    5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.

    These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don’t assume that PJ Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion.

    That’s a great little policy. And then Bruce/Dan could take enforcement actions on especially bad violators, BUT, I leave that part to them. I don’t expect them to spend a lot of time on it. And I’m willing to put with whomever they are willing to put up with… that is my part, as a li’l’ ol’ guest here.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 10, 2012 @ 1:38 pm - June 10, 2012

  2. I’ve gathered that there’s some to-do over at Ace, about civility in the comments. I’m not sure what it is… but Ace seems to think that registration (for the privilege of commenting) will help?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 10, 2012 @ 2:32 pm - June 10, 2012

  3. I’ve gathered that there’s some to-do over at Ace, about civility in the comments. I’m not sure what it is… but Ace seems to think that registration (for the privilege of commenting) will help?

    ILC – I believe that Ace is cracking down on commenters who post things that put him in greater jeopardy re: Brett Kimberlin. He’s sticking his neck out by blogging about it, and he’s asked his readers to be very careful not to post anything that increases his exposure.

    Comment by jman1961 — June 10, 2012 @ 3:02 pm - June 10, 2012

  4. ILC and Rusty, thanks for your comments. ILC, you are correct that I can take care of myself, and do my best to do so. I try not to start any attacks of commenters. I’m sure there have been times where I am at fault for that, but think I have done a good job of not starting the attacks. When I am attacked, I will defend myself as best as I can within the parameters of Dan and Bruce civility rules. One thing I have done is tried to stay out of personal attacks that do not include me, in the interest of not adding more fuel to the fire. When I am attacked, I do feel a little hamstrung when trying to defend myself while following the rules against someone, such as NDT, who appears to have no interest in following the rules (although I realize he either somehow doesn’t see it that way or feels justified in violating the rules).

    Pat did cast aspersions on Romney without being able to identify what Romney had done wrong.

    That is a fair criticism. To me something didn’t add up in the Grenell episode, and thought Romney could have done a better job of handling it. However, I fully realize my intuition could be wrong, and Romney did only what he could. In other words, I withdraw my aspersions of Romney regarding this incident.

    Comment by Pat — June 10, 2012 @ 6:49 pm - June 10, 2012

  5. Hey Susan, you misunderstood. I was not describing an imagined armageddon. You were the one who brought up marriage in ancient times. I was merely pointing out how you conveniently omitted the ancient (and not so ancient) reality that marriage was largely about arranged marriages, having no say in who you marry, women being the property of men, young teenage brides, and polygamy. The notion of people choosing their spouses is a fairly radical modern construct in the overall context of human history.

    You said, “The financial protections within marriage laws have been put in place to protect children and the weak party . . .” So, why do all the heterosexual couples without children get to share in all the goodies that marriage offers? Obviously they get a pass simply because they are penis/vagina based marriages. If marriage is really ALL about children, why doesn’t marriage require procreation, and procreation require marriage? And your assertion that gay couples would not have a “career stop” for child rearing is simply false.

    Why should my partner of 30 years and I have to go to the expense of developing legal documents that would not be required if we could be married. Oh, wait, that’s right, it’s all about you being entitled to the utmost comfort and contentment, and being free of the anxiety that comes with knowing that inferior people are enjoying the same good things in life that you enjoy. And my responsibility is to cater to your needs.

    Comment by Richard R — June 10, 2012 @ 7:48 pm - June 10, 2012

  6. I was merely pointing out how you conveniently omitted the ancient (and not so ancient) reality that marriage was largely about arranged marriages, having no say in who you marry, women being the property of men, young teenage brides, and polygamy. The notion of people choosing their spouses is a fairly radical modern construct in the overall context of human history.

    Comment by Richard R — June 10, 2012 @ 7:48 pm – June 10, 2012

    And yet, through all those changes, one thing has remained clear: male-female.

    Obfuscate, spin, and lie all you want, Richard Rush. Millennia of human existence has overwhelmingly produced and supported male-female marriage.

    Why? Because they recognized the basic fact: male-female interaction produces children, and those children need protection.

    Children are the reason for marriage. Since you and your gay-sex partners cannot produce, will not produce, and are incapable of ever producing them, there is no need for society to waste the money and social support on you.

    And thus we get this whine:

    Why should my partner of 30 years and I have to go to the expense of developing legal documents that would not be required if we could be married.

    Because you are adults, not children, and can afford to work, earn money, and pay for it yourselves.

    The children produced by opposite-sex couples are not. They are dependent, unable to care for themselves, unable to pay their own bills, unable to represent themselves legally, and unable to create such documentation. Marriage was created to do and provide all of those things for them.

    And you will never produce children. You are physically and physiologically incapable of producing children by having sex with another man. Therefore, giving any money to you is a pure waste and steals from the dependent children who need it.

    The fact that you are a mental and emotional child who needs other people to pay your bills for you is not society’s problem. Spend your own money and contribute your “fair share” instead of stealing money from REAL children, Richard Rush.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 10, 2012 @ 8:46 pm - June 10, 2012

  7. But ILC, my attempt is to raise Dan’s awareness that the folk here he is attacking are human beings, and some of them deserve better treatment and a sincere apology.

    Comment by rusty — June 10, 2012 @ 10:33 am – June 10, 2012

    Actually, rusty, I already answered this question — by simply pointing out the treatment that you and your fellow gay liberal bigots decided that people here “deserved”.

    And that’s why you can take your “civility” claptrap and cram it. It has nothing to do with “civility”, because clearly you, the gay and lesbian community, and the Obama Party neither respect or demand “civility”; it’s all about making other people shut up.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 10, 2012 @ 10:03 pm - June 10, 2012

  8. heliotrope said, “As least no one (yet) has thrown the thread into how rotten hetero marriage is and therefore homo marriage can hardly bring marriage any lower. That is my least favorite of reasons to support gay marriage.”

    Just wondering: What is your most favorite of reasons to support gay marriage?

    Comment by Richard R — June 10, 2012 @ 10:06 pm - June 10, 2012

  9. New on NRO . . .
    JUNE 10, 2012 6:00 P.M.
    Is Gay Parenting Bad for the Kids?
    Children of gay couples are disadvantaged — because of family instability.
    By Charles C. W. Cooke

    So this is what the republicans are writing about gay issues and you are attacking Pelosi. Don’t you see how crazy and mistaken you are!

    Comment by George — June 10, 2012 @ 10:48 pm - June 10, 2012

  10. Smooches NDT

    “Gay people are born into, and belong to, every society in the world. They are all ages, all races, all faiths. They are doctors and teachers, farmers and bankers, soldiers and athletes. And whether we know it or whether we acknowledge it, they are our family, our friends, and our neighbors. Being gay is not a Western invention. It is a human reality.”. Hillary Clinton

    http://i1124.photobucket.com/albums/l569/rusty98119/abfeea64.jpg

    Comment by rusty — June 10, 2012 @ 11:53 pm - June 10, 2012

  11. So this is what the republicans are writing about gay issues and you are attacking Pelosi. Don’t you see how crazy and mistaken you are!

    Comment by George — June 10, 2012 @ 10:48 pm – June 10, 2012

    Nope.

    Because when you talk about Pelosi, you are talking about a delusional nutjob who says unemployment is better than employment and that non-unionized workers should lose their jobs.

    Now, George, I’m not expecting this to make a dent in your skull, because you’re clearly a bigot who doesn’t have a grasp on reality and will do whatever Pelosi says because she’s an Obama Party leader.

    But it amuses the hell out of me to post the fact that gays like you who scream and rant about gay employment protections and the like actually support and endorse mass unemployment.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — June 11, 2012 @ 12:52 am - June 11, 2012

  12. ND30: “You are truly sick, Vince … you … are molesting their children.”

    ILC: “At no point does NDT do so … Cinesnatch’s claims at #36 that he was accused of child molesting in the linked thread, are only so much drama – or lying. I find *that* incivil. Libel accusations, especially false ones (in themselves a form of libel), could spill out into the real world, in a way that harms somebody.”

    I’ll leave it up to everyone on here to judge for themselves. Won’t you?

    But, I must say, ILC, I am surprised by your use of context. Kind of reminds of the Shirley Sherrod matter. LOL.

    Bottom-line, ILC, 1) We’re watching the same program and seeing two different things. 2) That’s never going to change. 3) Either one of us saying “I’m right” bears no more relevance than the other’s assertion within the realm of just you and me.

    To disagree with this is to just perpetuate the cycle that keeps turning between us.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — June 11, 2012 @ 3:55 am - June 11, 2012

  13. Civility is in the mind of the beholder.

    Emily Post, Miss Manners, Ann Landers, Judge Judy, Maury Povich, Jerry Springer, Whoopi Goldberg, Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann, GW Bush, Barack Obama, Ed Schultz, Rush Limbaugh, Mike Huckabee, Chris Matthews, Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Bill Clinton, Jessie Jackson, and on and on and on …… all practice and demand “civility” in different ways.

    It is a side show to get caught up in it. I far prefer for Bruce and Dan to pull the plug when they have had enough of the mud slinging. It is subjective and the right of the site masters. To try to objectify civility is to play an endless back and forth with Cass, Serenity and Levi with all manner and shades of pet peeve artists in between.

    NDT is a lightening rod to some. Apparently, it does not affect his digestive track to the same degree it offends others. If all he had to say was to troll in here and smear someone, I would vote for his eviction. But he is a master at making his point specific and providing links to illuminate it. That is not common dyspeptic troll flame throwing.

    Comment by heliotrope — June 11, 2012 @ 9:13 am - June 11, 2012

  14. Some uses of ellipses (…) are legitimate because they simply let readers read more quickly; they do not divorce the words from context enough that they change a quote’s meaning. Other uses of ellipses may be sleazy, because they alter meaning.

    Let’s restore context now to Cinesnatch’s quote of NDT, shall we? In the thread, NDT spoke repeatedly of a group of people – “you and your fellow liberal gays”, or similar phrases – as holding a philosophy which gives molesters too much room in which to operate, effectively giving cover to molesters among them. NDT did NOT, I believe, claim that every individual in his grouping is a molester in personal action. At least that’s what I understood as a reader of NDT’s English original:

    How does sex abuse occur when no sex took place, particularly involving a student who was above the age of consent?

    Comment by Cinesnatch — November 14, 2011 @ 3:17 pm – November 14, 2011

    [NDT speaking:] Very simple.

    1) Allowing a minor student to leave campus without adult supervision was a violation of school rules

    2) Having a minor student report sexual activity with an adult to a teacher is a violation of Massachusetts reporting requirements and constitutes facilitating of sexual abuse

    3) Failing to report 2) to the state, school administrators, and parents, all of which were required by law or school policy, constitutes facilitating of sexual abuse.

    And in regard to all of these, the argument about “age of consent” and “no sexual relationship” came out only AFTER the person was called on the carpet for having claimed exactly the opposite in their book and in numerous speaking and lecture tours — and was backed up, not by an actual revealing of the person’s identity, but by an attestation by an anonymous person using a driver’s license with all identifying information blacked out.

    Libbies like to put in place laws and regulations, Cinesnatch. It’s very interesting that you don’t support them being followed and that you don’t believe they should be enforced against gays and lesbians, especially in the area of child sexual abuse.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 14, 2011 @ 3:31 pm – November 14, 2011

    30. [Cinesnatch being quoted:] Butt-raping a child will never be rationalized as acceptable or anything less deplorable.

    [NDT speaking:] Actually, it has been and was by the ILGA and its established member NAMBLA. I believe their wording was that it was helping children explore their natural sexual instincts.

    But this one really took the cake.

    [Cinesnatch being quoted:] And one of these days, when kids like the character of Steven in What’s Wrong With Anger? or Augusten Burroughs in his Running With Scissors memoir can grow up in an environment where they have parents who have their back and support them for who they are while raising them with a principled foundation, they won’t need to run to people like Kevin Jennings.

    [NDT speaking:] What. The. Hell.

    You are blaming PARENTS for their child being molested?

    You are claiming it’s the PARENTS’ fault when gays like Kevin Jennings have sex with their children or hide the fact that their child is having bareback sex with adults in bus station restrooms?

    You are rationalizing the fact that you and your fellow liberal gays and lesbians can’t keep your hands off children by claiming that it’s their parents’ fault for not being “accepting”.

    You are truly sick, Vince. And I hope everyone who comments here finally realized the depth of depravity to which you will go when you are blaming parents for the fact that you and your fellow liberal gays are molesting their children.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — November 15, 2011 @ 12:42 pm – November 15, 2011

    Let me state for the record that I read the quotes the day NDT posted them, and not for one second did I take NDT’s words as a suggestion that Cinesnatch was personally a molester. Not one second. “You are truly sick” – that’s NDT expressing a personal opinion or feeling. “You and your fellow liberal gays” – that’s the group-philosophy thing.

    In short, I had no problem, at the time and in context, in understanding that NDT was expressing personal opinion in assigning a general kind of moral responsibility to a group of people. I find Cinesnatch’s choice to personalize the matter interesting, and equally so, his reliance on ellipses to misrepresent NDT’s quote.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 11, 2012 @ 11:36 am - June 11, 2012

  15. (continued) Having said that, I do also believe that NDT’s frequent use of “you and your fellow…” phraseology with people is a less-than-ideal practice, because it elicits an emotional response in the person who is being grouped (or accused of general moral responsibility). I couldn’t say if NDT intends to elicit an emotional response; but doing so promotes “Internet flame wars”, i.e. lots of smoke, not so much light.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 11, 2012 @ 11:48 am - June 11, 2012

  16. Finally, as to this:

    the cycle that keeps turning between us

    It’s not a cycle, Cinesnatch. It’s a straight line, your choice. You choose to come to the blog and lob stink bombs, like a junior high-schooler trying to get even. You choose to be “determined to depict [a great man, and friend of the blog] as disingenuous and lack [sic] integrity” in his memorial thread. You choose to violate confidences and/or privacy of other commentors. You choose to offer apologies that miss the point to begin with – and then you cancel them. You choose to engage NDT. You choose to take NDT’s words as an accusation about personal action, then misrepresent them to help you feel justified. In short, you choose to come here and make enemies. It’s not me being involved in any “cycle” with you. It’s you, choosing a nasty path.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 11, 2012 @ 12:10 pm - June 11, 2012

  17. @ George

    So what is being hailed as “The largest” study, is to be derided, because you disagree with it? If the study or methodology is flawed, then I’m sure you can attack it.

    If it isn’t, then you’re upset that they’re discussin concern for the wellbeing of children, over adults. Talk about selfish.

    Here’s a quote from Maggie Gallagher.

    On 25 of 40 outcome measures, adult children who reported their mother had a same-sex romantic relationship fared poorly compared to children raised by intact biological married parents. This should surprise no one. It doesn’t mean that gay parents are bad parents. Plenty of kids raised outside of intact married families do fine. Nonetheless, this new research tends to affirm that the ideal for a child is a married mom and dad.

    [Emphasis mine]

    So a study shows a result you don’t like, therefore talking about the study is evil? Brilliant argument there.

    But hey, Obama thinks states should be allowed to define marriage! So let’s ignore everything else, he’s embraced the status quo. He tolerates us! He really tolerates us!

    Comment by The_Livewire — June 11, 2012 @ 3:43 pm - June 11, 2012

  18. ILC >> You have demonstrated that you can’t agree to disagree with me. So, please continue on your quest of seeing yourself as the grand arbiter of truth, as that is how you are coming across to me (perhaps I’m the only one, or perhaps others agree and do not express it). If I’m on a nasty path, that’s your opinion and you’re welcome to it. Obviously. And if others choose to have the same opinion of me and my conduct on GP, whether or not they express it, the same goes for them.

    Comment by Cinesnatch — June 11, 2012 @ 9:50 pm - June 11, 2012

  19. See #89, Cinesnatch. As previously stated, I don’t think I’m the arbiter of anything. But I do call ’em as I see ’em. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — June 15, 2012 @ 3:36 pm - June 15, 2012

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.