Posted on 01/21/2009 8:33:32 AM PST by Pyro7480
President Barack H. Obama is poised to be the most pro-homosexual chief executive in history.
Unveiling his agenda Tuesday on the newly refurbished version of the White House Web site, Obama called for the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), as well as the extension of more than 1,000 federal marriage benefits and of adoption rights to homosexual couples.
The new administration laid out its plans on the Web site--whitehouse.gov--at 12:01 p.m. EST, during Obama’s swearing-in ceremony.
The site’s “Civil Rights” section lists a number of items long on the homosexual agenda, including expanding federal hate-crimes laws, repealing the ban on homosexuals in the military and extending the definition of workplace discrimination to include sexual orientation.
In the section entitled “Support for the LGBT (Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgendered) Community,” the Web site says Obama wants full inclusion of homosexual couples under federal law.
“President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples,” the Web site says.
“Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100-plus federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples.” the Web site says....
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
Not a doubt in my mind that this started almost a year ago. There was a hugely popular video regarding the birth certificate you You Tube and it was the most #2 of the week almost at number one. Some people made some really demeaning statements there and one of the moonbats said that Axelrod and the blog employees would make sure their names were added to the list and that You Tube and Google knew how to find out who they were. Now it could have been BS, but I saw this same sort of thing on other videos there as well. Also, that popular video on the bc that was almost number one? Replaced later that day with one favorable to zer0 that had half the votes.
Really, they are such a minority of the population, I would hold absolutely no animus toward them if they kept their proclivities and jubbly rubbin’ preferences to themselves and didn’t feel the need to make everyone else accept and “celebrate” their disorder.
“, the sheeple will wake up and elect a genuine conservative. “
... you will wake up and find the sheeple were bought and paid for and will re-elect the shyster into more slide to socialism.
Be very afraid. America is toast.
“The media paid attention, though. They just won’t make a big deal about: quadrupling tobacco taxes, legalizing gay mariage, repealing don’t ask/don’t tell, taxing ammunition, closing Gitmo, establishing ‘lists’ of gun owners....and thats just one day’s work. It will happen very quietly.”
We need to make a stink about it.
so the first two things he has done is not Israel and the middle east, not Iraq nor is it Afghanistan nor is it social security or the economy.
He has an agenda. PERIOD!! He doesn’t care about the economy or foreign affairs. That was all campaign rhetoric to make the zombies think he was important and knew what he was doing.
He will fail. Watch.
The next few years are going to look a lot like the movie “Little Nicky.”
Gonna be a long four years, (minimally)
You said it. This is exactly the reason why government needs to recognize it. Childbirth predates government so it recognizes its legitimacy to society thru inheritance laws, property rights, benefits, etc...
The "problem" that is being forced down the people's throats, as if it is a real problem ,is what do we do with people who want to be gay and marry. The answer is a very simple one, nothing. The government shouldn't be forced by mob rule to recognize it. No rational government has for very good reason; it doesn't make any sense and it is the seed of destruction to society.
Are we next going to start calling the blue color, yellow when it isn't?
A party line voter in January 2009 has helped the USA how?
He's not going to do all that. Even if he did, he wouldn't be a great President if he is destroying what marriage is, increasing drug usage by giving clean needles to drug addicts, continues to advance the policies of the culture of death and leaves our nation vulnerable to Islamic fascism.
“When banns started or when marriage licenses replaced banns starting around the 1680-90’s?”
Right. Government was not always involved. What is the need for government involvement and does government involvement need to be more now than when it started and if so why? If the answer to that is to ensure civilization’s survival, to what extent is government involment needed and is that even true of modern society or could other means be established?
“(Research my first sentence above)”
I don’t believe that response will prevail during debate in the “public square”.
Let's look to what Bill Ayers had to say on this type of relationship...
No Regrets for a Love Of Explosives; In a Memoir of Sorts, a War Protester Talks of Life With the Weathermen (By DINITIA SMITH Published: September 11, 2001)
He (Bill Ayers) also writes about the Weathermen's sexual experimentation as they tried to ''smash monogamy.'' The Weathermen were ''an army of lovers,'' he says, and describes having had different sexual partners, including his best male friend.
It truly IS defense of marriage.
The best way to do that would be to outlaw homosexuality.
The pro-Castro Communists in America don’t say much about Cuba’s policy of imprioning those with AIDS.
I'm hoping it will and soon.
you want Govt out of marriage.
OK
well then you are now getting rid of a law about marriage thus now any kind of whack job thinks and they will mark my words think they can marry their daughter, son, pet dog, horse, grandmother etc.
we live in a country of laws regulated by Govt, some I do not like others I do like everyone but a line needs to be drawn in the sand and that means marriage is between a man and a woman plain and simple
in the commie handbook it states that they have to get rid of traditional marriage, they have to destroy the fabric of traditional society.
With you say what you have then you are helping their cause and helping to make America a bit perverted mental case whack job country
do you not see that at all?
“we have laws for a reason”
Granted. And sometimes the reason is bad and other times the reason may be overcome by events. In this case, what is the reason? Apparently you say:
“Now if we did not have that law we would have all sorts of marriages and idiots wanting benefits for themselves.
man marries his daughter
woman marries her son
man marries his dog
and so on”
Idiots want benefits that accrue from marriage because the law provides such benefits to marriage. If the law stops providing those benefits, the idiots will have to find another way.
If their is no benefit for a man to marry his daughter,a woman to marry her son or a man to marry his dog, they won’t.
I’ll get back to you later. Real Life is intruding.
Yup...here’s your pie!
Stupid dupes.
No problem, thanks for the conversation.
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.