Posted on 04/17/2006 4:11:15 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
US President George W. Bush and his wife Laura launched the annual White House Easter egg party today while managing to avoid any awkward moments with dozens of gay couples and their children who attended the outdoor event.
The Easter Egg Roll is a traditional all-American event held on the White House lawn each year since 1878, where kids push an egg with a giant wooden spoon, often with the proud president and his wife looking on.
But gay groups joined the queue for tickets - which were given out to families on a first-come, first served basis at the White House on Sunday.
Despite the opposition of conservative religious groups, Mr Bush and his wife Laura chose not to prevent the gay parents from attending.
The gay groups said their gesture was meant to make their presence felt in American society even though Mr Bush opposes legalising gay marriage.
There were no confrontations or tense moments as the opening of the event was closed to the public, with the president and his wife meeting invited guests, including families of White House staff and volunteers.
The gay parents also chose a discreet approach without any explicit protest, identifying themselves with rainbow-coloured flowers.
"Like other parents in this country, we want to give our children the best opportunities, to shower them with love, to teach them respect and a love for the rich and diverse traditions America has to offer them," said Jennifer Chrisler, executive director for the Family Pride Coalition.
Family Pride has been behind the calls for gay groups to crash the White House party which conservatives have condemned as an attempt to politicise a family event.
In damp, chilly weather, First Lady Laura Bush issued an official welcome before the Easter eggs were rolled across soggy grass outside the White House.
"In Washington, we know that spring has arrived when the White House lawn is filled with children for the Easter Egg Hunt," she said. "I want to thank all of the children here today who brought their parents with them."
The First Lady avoided commenting on the gay couples and before the event her office noted the rules: children of all ages are welcome but there must be at least one aged under seven in each group and no more than two adults in each group.
Until their children want to marry someone of the opposite sex. Then they're cutoff and disowned.
</sarcasm>
All that aside, Mr. and Mrs. Bush are a class act all the way.
IF they are born with an attraction toward the same sex, do you still see them as "disgusting"?
That's a big IF because some research shows they are not born gay.
Regardless, I think what we find disgusting is that two people of the same sex indulge in relations with each other, to put it bluntly.
"Regardless, I think what we find disgusting is that two people of the same sex indulge in relations with each other, to put it bluntly."
However, there is a large portion of the male population who finds "girl on girl" porn to be anything but disgusting. It is only man on man sex they find disgusting.
This was not discrete.
This was overt proclemation of what these adults do for sex via a billboard on a child.
Do you know any?
Naive question.
There is nothing that will get many people beyond their distaste for gays. If you know any gays of a "certain age" then you know that a good portion of them were booted out of their homes for being gay. So even having a gay kid doesn't move them beyond their distaste.
not some, MOST ALL research shows there is no "gay gene". the other studies are so full of fraud and holes as to be beyond taking seriously. Consider how many other diseases and gene locations have been found and this political genital gene evades the homoadvocates.
However, there is a large portion of the male population who finds "girl on girl" porn to be anything but disgusting. It is only man on man sex they find disgusting.
I find this difficult to believe. Perhaps if you'd share some pictures, I could get a better handle on what you're saying.
I know at least six. None of them are molestors.
My point was that knowing a gay guy or gal at work or a social setting won't change someone's mind about their orientation.
Until the gay community comes to a solid conclusion, there will always be debate.
FWIW, the overwhelming majority of lesbians I know were sexually molested as children by men who were family members or friends of the family.
Read it again. They had "invited guests" and then they opened the guests for first-come-first-served public at large. They probably had two roped-off areas, one for the invited guests and one or everyone else. I've been to many presidential events, that's the way it is usually done.
Are the eats better for the invited guests?
They don't want just out of the closet - they want demand in your face, outta my way, to he*l with you all and your traditions...
What can I say? Shall we pass that off as, "Boys will be boys"? Yet somewhere in all this, logic goes by the wayside. Two guys. Two girls. What's the difference?
I don't get it but will acknowledge that males and females do not understand each other's makeup.
I'll also say I don't like any woman trying to "feminize" a man.
Civilizing men who need it? It's probably one of the roles of women. To me, that's not the same as trying to turn a guy into a "girly-man".
Okay, so they weren't invited, but they weren't NOT invited either, as there was an area for First come first served people. I just wanted it straight. Thank you!
they weren't "invited" - they just didn't get their hoped for rejection to feed their political fodder machine...
They traded on the gracious of others - a quality they will never have - and the graciousnous was, I believe, not for them, but for the children and real families there...not to spoil their day with a ruckus which I believe these people wanted.
Santa and Mr. Claus?
Must be terrible. Much worse than all those straight families where Dad beats up the kids and chokes them to death. I'll bet that's much less traumatic for the (dead) child than watching 2 mommies show each other some affection.
There are no statistics which show that children raised by gay parents are more likely to be abused than others. Probably the opposite.
Moot point. Depends on the individuals. Morons are spread equally throughout society.
Jennie the queer says: "Like other parents in this country, we want to give our children the best opportunities, to shower them with love, to teach them respect and a love for the rich and diverse traditions America has to offer them."*First Lady Laura Bush says: "I want to thank all of the children here today who brought their parents with them."
I guess it depends on your definition of "parents."
*Even when she's being "nice" she's beating us up with her agenda.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.