e are two explanations for any dissatisfaction on the LGBT Left. Radical activists expect nothing less than extremism in the pursuit of “equality.” And liberal candidates seem to be following the example of Bill Clinton in 1992. Clinton promised to lift the ban on gays in the military, but did not emphasize that commitment in his campaign.Then-president George H. W. Bush helped Clinton by ignoring the issue. In December 1993, President Clinton advanced the gay agenda halfway by administratively imposing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which Hillary Clinton has described as a “transitional policy” toward homosexuals in the military. Military social issues that affect good order and discipline are matters of national security, which are essential in sustaining not one but two legs of an updated conservative three-legged stool: national defense, the economy, and social issues.Responses to the Human Rights Campaign survey seem to indicate that liberal activists expect their candidate, whether Clinton or Obama, to stand on a shaky, left-leaning stool. Regardless of which candidate wins the Republican nomination, he will need the help of social and national-security conservatives to get elected. To win their support, candidates should promise to confront the LGBT Left. That movement should not be allowed to threaten national security by undermining the strength of the only military we h
Thoughts
Then why is he so familiar with Donnie McClurkin?
Submitted on April 10th, 2008 by AnonymousAnyone who spends that much time with a hater is, himself, a hater. Obama is a two-faced
hypocrite. Just give another speach, Barack. (Almost) nobody seems to be able to put two and two together and conclude the obvious. Obama is an effortlessly charming and altogether beguiling sociopathic liar.
gays
Submitted on April 4th, 2008 by CORNFINGER66Gay's are the victims of ignorance, and the G.O.P. is the party of ingnorance.
How does people being gay effect anyone but the gay person?
Best to Support Contractual Rights Between Consenting Adults
Submitted on April 4th, 2008 by Chuck_JohnsonWe don't need "special rights" for homosexuals. We need contractual rights for all people.
That said, the party that best represents gays is the G.O.P.
Gays are the victims of crime and G.O.P. is the party of fighting crime.
Chuck Johnson is a student at Claremont McKenna College. Feel free to contact him.
Please, no name-calling
Submitted on April 4th, 2008 by JoelWe can do without "dunce."
Having said that, there's plenty of difference between what two consenting adults do and the stuff you describe. I'd be alarmed if a man really tried to marry a chicken -- but, of course, that doesn't happen all that often in real life, the chicken can't consent, and there's no real human damage done if a man can't visit his chicken spouse in the hospital.
I don't expect social conservatives to approve of homosexual relationships; I do wish they could have the good graces to get out of the way of them, however.
Its the slippery slope,
Submitted on April 4th, 2008 by AnonymousIts the slippery slope, dunce. Do you think it is "backwards" for an adult man/woman marrying a minor, a human being marrying a chicken, siblings marrying...where does it end and how can you pass judgment on these type of wackos and not allow their "happiness". Wake up and look a little further down the road...there will be consequences.
Gay Marriage should be legal.
Submitted on April 4th, 2008 by AnonymousI can't believe in this day and age that people are so backward that they think gay people getting into monogamous relationships is an affront to their own lives. Our priorities are so backward now, we should be worried about bringing our soldiers home from Iraq.
Gays?
Submitted on April 4th, 2008 by AnonymousAs everyone knows it's the older people against gays.
Obama would understand he was born in a new era. We need someone younger and can remember his next meeting, before 3:oo am in the morning.