Posted on 12/18/2010 11:33:01 AM PST by Jim Robinson
Guess we need another reminder:
If you support the homosexual agenda you are anti-constitution and you'll get the zot from FR. Homosexuals already have the same "rights" as everyone else. God did not grant and the constitution does not guarantee homosexuals any special rights. In fact, the homosexual agenda is a full frontal attack on OUR God-given, constitutionally protected rights to free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of association, Life, Family, Marriage, Pursuit of Happiness, etc.
I don't want it on FR and won't have it on FR.
Like abortion, if you support the homosexual agenda on FR, your account here will be zotted!
Don't like it? Tough frickin Shinola! Get the hell OFF this conservative site!!
~Jim Robinson
God bless you!!!! Amen!!!!
Speaking of New Hampshire...’flip-flop’ Governor Lynch signed a ‘gay marriage’ bill back in 2009...all ‘civil unions’ will officially convert to ‘gay marriages’ effective January 1, 2011. You can bet the sodomites are celebrating the repeal of ‘DADT’ all across New Hampshire this morning. (Polls indicate a majority of NH residents support ‘gay marriage’. I imagine the same applies to the repeal of ‘DADT’. NH = Massachusetts.)
I suspect that you are correct.
I don't exactly know what the "homosexual agenda" is, however. I support basic human rights for ALL people, including the unmarried, etc. I don't consider the military to be normal "society", so I believe they should be allowed to have their own set of rules that can deviate a little from what normal society might have. I thought DADT was a pretty good compromise actually.
I don't seem to have in me, the anti-gay rancor that many freepers have, but I _think_ I am opposed to the "homosexual agenda", just not really sure what that is...
Thankfully Jim will have the ability to sum it all up in three little letters...
do one troll and take your pro homosexual crap elsewhere like DU, oh and if you decide to re-register then it just shows you have no life what so ever.
Or if he had just repeated his boilerplate constituent answer:
"As you probably know, the current "don't ask, don't tell" policy was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. I was not a member of Congress at that time.On June 8th of this year (2009), the Supreme Court announced it would not review a 2008 decision by the First Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston that rejected a challenge of "don't ask, don't tell" by service members discharged under the current policy. In rejecting a challenge of the policy last June on a first amendment basis, the First Circuit Court said the current law "is justified on a content-neutral, non-speech basis; specifically, maintaining the military's effectiveness as a fighting force." I support the decision of the Supreme Court in upholding the law.
In its brief, the Obama Administration supported the court's decision to uphold the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. "Applying the strong deference traditionally afforded to the Legislative and Executive Branches in the area of military affairs, the court of appeals properly upheld the statute," argued Elena Kagan, who as Solicitor General represents the Administration before the Supreme Court. The brief argued that the "don't ask, don't tell" policy "rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in military discipline and cohesion."
The primary responsibilities of our military, defending our nation and winning wars, should not be compromised by politics. As I noted, this military policy was created by Congress and the President but is supported by many in our armed forces. While I believe it is imperative that the elected leaders of the people hold all government Departments accountable for their actions and policies, I defer in large part to our military leaders on matters of military readiness and code of conduct. This includes the impact changing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy would have, especially since military leaders note that this issue is fundamentally about military readiness.
The overriding issue that would affect the readiness of the armed forces would be the forced cohabitation of homosexuals with heterosexuals at forward operating bases and deployed ships. This would be similar to forcing female soldiers to cohabit with male soldiers in housing situations that offer little to no privacy. The 1993 law does not ban or exclude homosexuals from serving in the armed forces and some estimate there are currently 65,000 homosexual men and women in the military. Please know that I have the utmost respect for every man and woman who chooses to wear our nation's uniform and accepts the responsibility and sacrifices that come with it.
What compelled you to post that diatribe on a thread like this? What else are you confused about?
The Pink agenda has gone from tolerance to acceptance. This place, Free Republic, is one of the last bastions of sanity left in the world. Get a clue.
Show me where I have ever supported the homosexual agenda.
You would be incorrect.
Really? Enlighten me.
Wow, that's right out of the homosexual agenda handbook.
How is innate characteristic the same as a chosen behavior?
I would not and have not ever done that. I have been called a racist Klansman about a million times on this site just for defending the South in the late "unpleasantness" and have never hit that button. Never even thought about it.
Seems to me those decisions belong to Mr. Robinson.
Awesome!
seeing as you are for the pro homosexual agenda and say that the military discriminates then do they do the same to those who has sex with animals or have 9 wives or has incest and have you served because seeing as you seem that this is no problem I assume you must know what you’;re talking about and if you have not then I suggest you do serve and share you shower, room, sleeping bag in a combat unit and then get back to me.
If you disagree with Jim's position, perhaps you should take it up with him directly, instead of skulking around the thread firing potshots.
put me down pal please.
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.