I thought Obama was intelligent. But then again, I also thought Orson Scott Card was intelligent.

I have watched a campaign video of Obama, Michelle, and the kids joking around and laughing together. They looked so happy. He obviously loves his family. Why in the modern world would such an intelligent and caring man want to obstruct that happiness for others? In the name of the Bible? God? I don't understand Christianity very well...

There is a legal maxim:  Bad facts make bad law!  This case is bad and the Obama administration is doing us a favor by fighting it!  The best case for the overthrow of DOMA is the case of Gill v. Office of Personnel Management brought by the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) in Massachusetts.  In the Gill case, the government has until June 29 to file their response to the complaint; that is the case to watch, not this one which was obviously brought by people who know nothing about federal constitutional law.  So, hold onto your revulsion until the June 29 response by the government.  Professor of Law Donald Gaudard Emeritus

Ugh this really makes me feel like we have no one to vote for when it comes to the president.

I can't begin to tell you how bad this case is; the lawyers who filed it should be sanctioned by the State Bar for their incompetent work; they are obviously in over their heads.  I suspect they are only going for the publicity.

If the Obama administration decides to fight the Gill case which was brought by the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders which can be found at:

http://www.domawatch.org/cases/1stcircuit/GillvOPM/gill-complaint-03-03-09.pdf,

then that is the time to complain about the Obama administration.  So hold onto your anger until June 29 to see what the Obama administration is going to do about Gill.
Professor of Law Emeritus Donald Gaudard

I don't think it is shocking at all.  The Supreme Court denied hearing on DOMA at the request of the Obama Administration.

But there is hope.  Legislation is underway to repeal DOMA... surely he can't justify a veto:

http://bit.ly/Ug0Us

ok, I'll hold on till the 29th.
I'm hoping this is brilliant politics, cuz at face value, it's criminal.

The title of this post should be "Obama Sells Out Gay Americans." Yeah, when he said "change we can believe in" I never thought it would be a change from his belief that gay people deserve equal rights.

I think it should be a part of everyone's Pride festivities to excoriate the President for this, and loudly, until the federal government realizes that if it is going to be in the marriage business, that it should be in it for ALL Americans, not just heterosexual couples.

Of course Presidents will always go back on campaign promises once elected. But Marlin's post above is right on that we should not be told to patiently wait and see if the nation is ready to grant us our rights. Even Bill O'Reilly recognizes that gay marriage across the land is an inevitability. If someone such as the President, who has given us a promise that he is on our side as a defender and supporter of gay rights, slaps us in the face like this, we should abandon our own "wait and see" approach that the gay media has been giving Obama time to act on his supposed convictions. He clearly has just acted, and it is not in solidarity with us.

read, weep.

http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-doj-lies-to-politico-in-defending.html

He flip-flopped, I was really hoping he wasn't going to do that and to me, President Obama's decision is ironic as I had a different expectation. In addition, DOMA must be repealed because it's a large obstacle for the necessary LGBT right of same-sex marriage. Society may still debating same-sex marriage but the government must ensure that all citizens are treated equal. President Obama is trying pragmatism but for equality and tolerance, his approach is not the way to go.

In that case, wouldn't it be even better for the federal governmnet to ban "opposite marriage", too? There are a heck of a lot more hetero couples out there than there are same-sex ones. Just think of the billions we could save by denying them their benefits! Maybe we could even start another war and bail out an industry or two!

I voted for President Obama, but I would like him to tell me and other LGBT people how banning gay marriage is good for the Federal Government.

We are all Americans and should have the same rights given to straight couples.

Not giving us our rights to marriage is just like when the rights of African Americans were limited by those that treated them like second class citizens.

I still have hopes for Obama.  I think that he is hands down a billion times better compared to the past 8 years.  I think that he is just trying to please everyone, including conservatives and people in the middle.  No excuse though.  He should stick up for GLBT rights just as well. 

How convenient for an African-American president, who has already secured his equality through the American justice system, to simply turn his back on other American citizens who have yet to secure the same kind of equality.

Aside from having an obligation to his LGBT constitutents, perhaps Mr. Obama should study his American history a little better.  The Jewish community in concert with many white Americans helped fight for equality for African-Americans  In fact, the catalysts behind the NAACP and Affirmative Action were Jewish. 

Sadly it appears as if Mr. Obama is too concerned about going through the front door of society as oppossed to the side entry--the door through which his LGBT constituents come and go.  Clearly---si se puede---and----yes we can---were campaign platforms tailored for str8 Americans.

If Mr. Obama refuses to rally for gay rights in his first term in office, I will do everything in my power as a gay liberal to campaign against him if he chooses to run for a second term. 

This is a moment of clarify for LGBT community.  It's not just Obama's decision to defend DOMA that raises grave concerns.  Obama's unbridled condemnation of gays in federal court is so vile, so hateful, and so chilling that it should leave no doubt in anyone's mind that he is a "fierce advocate" against equality and a public "enemy" of LGBT community.  Let's keep it real: Obama has passed the point of no return with LGBT community.

I'm truely disappointed in him.I sensed flip flop in him as I watch him cater to the conservetive christian groups throughout his campaign.The man is a fake.

If anyone watch Bill Maher tonight, you will see that the President is actually becoming more and more like celebrity.  This is exactly what I suspected about him at the first place.  He cares so much about popularity.  He likes to make sure everyone is happy so come lots of compromises and at the end he will leave no one satisfied. 

I won't be this upset if he didn't say that he will repeal DOMA and DADT and if he didn't say he is fierce advocate.  What is the difference between him and Bush in term of duping people?

Michael, I too want to throw up.

Let's make sure we elect as many good lesbiens and gays as we can in the government.

Re the comments that the Justice Department might decide differently on the GLAAD case: just noticed the quote from the spokesman here: "(...) but until Congress passes legislation repealing the law, the administration will continue to defend the statute when it's challenged." This confirms that they will also defend this piece of crap in the GLAAD case. It also proves that Obama is trying to play this both ways: keeping the moderates and GOB voters happy by defending DOMA and hedgeing his bets by saying that Congress will introduce a DOMA repeal bill at some point. It's the same strategy with DADT, i.e. both policies will continue until the repeal is in place.

omg..  its not good for him or thr goverment... he will loose my vote in 20012 if bans same-sex marriage... 1 min hes for it the next hes not.. wonder how he wounld feel  if we ban blacks.... a no iam not races.... he really needs to think before he does it how many lifes he will mess up!!!!!!!

It makes you wonder how the Obama administration is crakind down with stricter gun laws... Makes you wonder if the restriction on our second amendment rights is so we cant revolt when we finally say enough is enough? Who knows...

OOOBama you have more to do then second guess your AG. You are Completely WRONG on thing one.  How does the government save money by limiting civil rights?

Yes they save on giving survivors benefits on SSI. But does that savings come at the cost of our humanity?  Yes!

OOBAMA you said you were in favor of gay rights then you do this unthinkable act- You are exceeding even Bush's level of meanness, by painting yourself as one color, then acting as an extremist.

OBAMA I Now expect your ACTIONS to come out against the poor.  This is another topic you are failing to address.  $9.40 an hour minimum wage is not what is required to end poverty $19.60 is the cost of living. In this bold move your Actions already show you are against The poor GLBT's -you should be ashamed.

That is absolutely crazy, majority of our community voted for him and without us, he wouldn't be inside the White House. Really Bananas!!!!

As one of Obama's early supporters dating before he announced to run, and as one who donated hard earned cash to Obama when he most needed it in early primaries, I will never support him again. One thing I hate more than conservatives is someone who uses me and stabs me in the back when done.

Count me and my money against Obama next time.

One interesting remark has come up from lawyers working for the administration saying that the government has a duty to defend a statute "if there is a legal basis for it". We repeatedly hear that the Smelt case which this is all about was badly put together and argued by the case attorneys. I guess the problem still is that even if the DOJ had an obligation to defend DOMA, it didn't have to be filled with denigrating and offensive content which only serves as a goldmine for Maggie Gallagher, her cronies at NOM and other assholes like Pat Robertson etc. In fact, it makes you question why it was allowed to be released in that form since the administration surely must have been aware that, even allowing for the possibility that they deliberately issued a half-baked brief full with scattershot arguments, the language and content of the brief would create a huge (and justified) backlash in the community. If this was a calculated move, then they should at least have taken care of the content of their defense. If this was intentionally a scattershot response, then it is a very risky strategy.

Also, the line "a duty to defend the legislation if there is a legal basis for it" is interesting. It makes me wonder if the government's intervention or lack of it is determined on a case by case basis. The DOJ still has to file their brief in response to the GLAAD case as previously noted. Law experts say the GLAAD case is very sound and that the attorneys for GLAAD are able to show that DOMA is unconstitutional. This is going to make it much harder for the DOJ to use the same arguments all over again. It could be that the GLAAD case is so legally sound that the DOJ has no proper legal arguments against it in which case they would not be able to defend it. We will see on June 29th if this turns out to be true or not but even if the DOJ can and does defend DOMA again, it will be very interesting to see how their defense is worded and what it contains.

In any case, we must lobby our Congressmen for the swift introduction of a DOMA repeal bill.

Change definitely came...in his word.
How about we ban divorce? 

How can he do this to us during PRIDE MONTH? This is a total slap to the face with an extra "fuck you" to go with it. It's horrendous that he'd do this when so many people of the GLBT community shifted their support to him after Hilary dropped out. Personally, I wanted Hillary to win. Now look what we have. A president that is already disliked for his cowardly and stupid actions.

Thank God I didn't vote for him. Yeah, I may have thrown it away on a "fat chance," but I saw this coming. This topic should not ever, ever, be decided by our government! If people can marry their animals, houses, and 3rd cousins, (WTF?) why can't they marry each other?
  This is discrimination....look, what if you are born both genders? (Yes, I've said this before.) Then, should you be allowed to marry nobody? There are already laws in place to protect minorities. Use the laws that are there; sue the government.

it is time for a PRESIDENT TO BE BOLD INDEED, but it doesn't seem like OBAMA has the balls, or perhaps someone else has a vice-grip on his balls. 

regardless based on some weak performances to date...i have already added my ron paul 2012 bumper sticker underneath Obama 2008 who can say bye bye to the few hundred i gave his campaign & the converts i made to his campaign. 

cannabis & hemp legalization as well as legalized marriage of two...or even three HUMANS should be national amendments NOW.  we need to move forward as a NATION NOW.  spend our taxpayer dollars & man-hours WISELY.  stop incarcerating peaceful humans.  stop judging those that wish to live together 'forever'.

Typical! The LGBT crowd are squalling like a bunch of scalded cats because the President is not prepared to bow to ALL of their demands. The Pro-Abortion bunch are also squealing because he's not meeting ALL of their's.
He is required to compromise in order to get those things done that are of the greatest importance to the running of this nation, and getting us out of the mess Bush dumped on us. This means that he has to find ways to bring many people to agree on many issues. The last time I looked the majority of the US population did not consist (thankfully) of the LGBT and  Pro-Abortionists. So stop being so damned selfish and make an effort to get behind him on the important needs of this country, instead of whining about your self-centered wants!     

Hmmmm.... seems like Obama just doesn't want to touch this one "with a ten foot pole". It seems to me he's being overly cautious about upsetting the status quo. There are some flaws with this logic. First, the status quo elected him precisely for that reason - to 'upset it' for change; second, it is ready for a new direction in civil rights and freedoms. The DOMA initiative is unconstitutional because it discriminates, both on the federal level AND at the state level. Why? Because, at the federal level, we should not need an "Act"  stipulating "society's still-evolving understanding of the institution of marriage", for our current 'evolving' is merely recognizing, finally, that which we already are, nor should we rely on the "States to experiment with new definitions of marriage", for this creates its own unequal distribution of civil rights. That time has passed. We should not have a law that defines marriage in terms of gender, or defines it at all, except in the protections it affords. If the religious communities want to define marriage by their own standards, that is entirely up to them, but not all people abide by the same religious doctrines. This is why our Founding Fathers insisted on the separation of church and state. Obama is wrong to slide this one under the rug. He must take a stand on this issue, and clearly state what his intentions are. Wether or not he personally believes that marriage is between a 'man and a woman' is not the issue, but he must be able to recognize that definitions of what constitutes marriage are of a personal nature and should not be defined by law.

Bad, this is bad. I don't know what to do with this man. He does a few cool things like speak in Cairo and Turkey to reverse Bush's blame the Muslim policy, then he turns tail on gay marriage and don't ask, don't tell (which must be repealed!) I find this to be a travesty, not to mention plain ignorant. The man is scared---but what really scares him--the punishment of the Almighty or losing in 2012? If he doesn't show support for gay marriage and gay soldiers, I will not vote for him--I just can't. I am really saddened and angry.

Well what a turn up for the books! For some years now I have done my best not to be judgemental about homosexuals and here you go reinforcing the old stereotypes. "Never mind about what's needed to get the country back on it's feet, to hell with fixing the economy. My petty needs are more important than anything else, I'll just scream if I don't get what I want". There's such a thing as priorities, so why don't you let the man get on with fixing the important problems, and take care of the petty issues for the  small noisy self centered groups when the essentials are out of the way?

Dear President Obama,
     I’m writing to you, as a member of a minority group, seeking your opinion regarding your views on “equal protection under the law”. I am a citizen of the United States, I am gay, and therefore am a member of a minority group. The debate regarding same sex civil marriages has recently hit fever pitch in this country. Recently, Maine Governor John Baldacci signed his state's same-sex marriage bill less than an hour after the legislature approved it. He stated, "I have come to believe that this is a question of fairness and of equal protection under the law, and that a civil union is not equal to civil marriage." Why is it that Federal Law does not seem to uphold the same high standard of fairness and equal protection under the law? In fact, Federal Law actually pro-actively discriminates against couples that legally have same-sex civil marriages. The fact is that the federal Defense of Marriage Act defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman. The act also specifically denies federal benefits to same-sex couples that have legally state sanctioned civil marriages. The act further dictates that any federal law that applies to married couples does not apply to same-sex couples with legal civil marriages. Furthermore because of the federal Defense of Marriage Act the United States Census Bureau is currently “editing” the 2010 census responses of same-sex couples that married legally in California, Massachusetts, Iowa, Maine, Connecticut, and New Hampshire. Does that sound like the
United States of America? When asked to describe their relationships to others in their household, if a respondent refers to a person of the same gender as their "husband/wife" on the 2010 census form, the Census Bureau will automatically assign them to the "unmarried partner" category. Legally married same-sex couples will be indistinguishable in census data from those who chose "unmarried partner" to describe their relationship. This fraudulent "editing" of responses disenfranchises us, as you are aware the census numbers, aside from delineating the congressional representative distribution, are also used for deciding on the allocation of federal funds. The federal government does not count us, and apparently according to the government we don’t count.

     As a physician radiation oncologist who treats hundreds of indigent/ un-insured, as well as, insured patients (straight and gay) annually at the Los Angeles County + USC Medical Center and the USC/Norris Cancer Hospital, I am particularly outraged at the fact that the federal government continues to discriminate against legal same-sex couples and their children and family members by specifically leaving them out of the federal Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA). This Act requires covered employers to give eligible employees up to twelve weeks of unpaid leave for their own serious health condition or to care for a family member with a serious health condition. Currently, the FMLA does not require employers to provide leave to care for a legally married same-sex spouse. Are we not human? Do we not deserve the same compassion and assurances from our government to which we pay taxes, as other citizens of the United States? Is this consistent with “fairness” and “equal protection under the law”?     

     How would you feel if this country still denied inter-racial marriages simply because 51% of the population felt they were immoral or un-ethical or unnatural? The state of Hawaii, not the United States of America, allowed your parents to marry in 1961. There was a lack of federal leadership, yet finally in 1968 all state inter-racial bans on marriage were thrown out. This was a very long time to wait for equality, in fact, as I’m sure you are aware the fight for inter-racial marriage began in 1948, it took 20 years of states arguing, state constitutions being “amended” to allow discrimination (sound familiar), until all the madness was finally overturned by the federal government because they finally did the right thing and gave these citizens equal protection under the law. As Americans did we not learn from our ugly history? As an African American growing up in the United States, you of all people, should recognize the need for federal regulation to protect and treat all citizens equally. Why do you feel gays who chose to have a civil marriage, should be treated differently than inter-racial couples? Why does the “equal protection under the law” clause in our constitution not apply to us? If you think homosexuality is a lifestyle choice that can somehow be overcome, and therefore not be given an equal if not protected status, then I ask you to think about this. Suppose someone told you, you could not have federal recognition and rights under marriage, you could not be counted in the census and that your responses to the census will be edited, and you could not benefit from the Family Medical Leave Act, unless you were forced to separate from Michelle, the person you love dearly, and marry another man. If you did that then you would be recognized as married. How unnatural would that feel for you? Get the point? We are born gay, just as you were born black. No difference. Just as you had no choice in being born black, we had no choice in being born gay. Furthermore, you certainly can't argue that you "chose" to be heterosexual; it is a ludicrous argument when people say we "choose to be gay". We certainly have more similarities in our plight for equal protection under the law than differences. Remember, this is not a religious argument, it is a civil rights argument. We don’t want to force religions to accept gay marriage; we just want equal protection under the law. We don’t want to force anyone into saying they believe in gay marriage, everyone has the right to believe what they want. We want to be treated equally and with dignity; and not ostracized by our federal government.

      President Obama, I am asking you to think about your own experiences growing up in this country as a minority, and how helpful the federal government was in assuring you equal protection and equal rights under the law. My husband and I are law abiding, federal tax paying citizens, who contribute greatly to our community and society at large; we along with millions of other same sex couples are simply asking to be treated equally by our government. Is that too much to ask for in the country for which you are president? I am calling upon you, President Obama, to stand up to the narrow-minded bigotry that has made its way into federal law and to do the right thing. I am calling upon you to forcefully overturn the federal Defense of Marriage Act. I am calling upon you to be the agent of change, which you had talked about during your campaign. I am calling upon you do to do what is right and just, and treat all Americans equally. I am calling upon you to help secure passage of the bill now moving through Congress imposing new federal penalties for anti-gay hate crimes, as well as legislation allowing gays to serve in the military. I am calling upon you to call for vast federal civil rights legislation, outlawing discrimination based on sexual orientation and granting us a basic umbrella of protections in employment, education, and housing. Like you, I believe that everyone can help contribute to change for the better in our country. Change we can believe in. Six states have legalized same sex civil marriages; several are well on their way. We need a leader to insure equality. It took twenty years for the federal government to put an end to all the anti inter-racial marriage bans in this country, how long we will have to wait?

Sincerely,
Paul G. Pagnini, M.D.
Los Angeles, CA

"The LGBT's have no choice over their sexual orientation"! Well, then this makes them freaks, check out the plumbing. Now this definitely makes a case for extraordinary rights, maybe we can have an amendment to the constitution for their special status in our society. And let's get this hate bill passed with some additional wording to the effect: If a homosexual should offend or assault a heterosexual either verbally (note how I stayed away from orally, don't want to get you boys too excited!) or physically and said heterosexual should respond in kind. The heterosexual should be subject to arrest and prosecution for the commission of a hate inspired act. With no onus, responsibility or blame to be attached to the homosexual party.     

There have been many times that I have felt disappointment. When Barack Obama was voted into office by the people of the United States, I saw it as a sign, a sign that America was ready for change (as his campaign implied), that America was ready to embrace equality. I find it disturbing that we are talking about legislation that is geared at LIMITING the rights of American citizens. This quote is from TV, and though it was spoken in a slightly different setting, the meaning still rings true:

"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied -- chains us all, irrevocably." The very first time any man's freedoms are trampled... we are all damaged. I fear... that today... we are forging that chain.

Obama's just like all the rest of the politicians.  His "change" stops when it effects him politically.  He is willing to sacrifice gays to keep the political right happy.
Now he wants to sign a memorandum to appease gay federal workers by granting them equal benefits.  That's great for the federal employees, but what about the rest of the gay community who supported Obama?
If federal gay workers are entitled to equal benefits, aren't ALL gays entitled to equal benefits....namely marriage and all the benefits it entails?
So now gays are not only being discriminated against on marriage, by where they work as well!
If we have to wait for every state to grant gay marriage or even recognize legally performed marriages from another state, most, if not all of us, will never see marriage in our lifetime.  How is that right?

I wonder if the LGBT's realize how much they have in common with the Fundamentalist Evangelists. "If you don't agree with me you must hate me". Putting words in the mouths of anyone that disagrees with them and cooking up false statistics. Marlin has decided that I am an octogenarian, are all young people queer or are all queers young people? Barbara has decided that I am lacking in love, maybe she can explain how a loveless person like me has remained married to one woman, raised two great kids and is involved with two children's charity organizations.

Now Obama has come out in favor of benefit to federal gays. Why give a select few of us benefit while actively trying to eny it to others. Only gays in federal jobs are entitled to health care?

What makes me gripe most is not just Obama might come out anti-ending all poverty.  By he used what conservatives might call "a legal fiction" to do such.

So called "Standing" to sue",  was introduced about 80 years ago to keep the financially poor out of court, as well as to remove some case from the dockets.   This action court action of Obama is against the human rights of all poor gays

the fact that this is even an issue is appalling. The rights of one to decide what constitutes healthy or valid marriage is ridiculous. These are civil rights...he for one should realize how much he has personally benefited by the civil rights movement. How can he be blase about denying those same civil rights to others?
grrrrr.

Barbara, I did not say that anyone hated me because I didn't agree with them, I said the LGBTers are beginning to sound like the Fundies by accusing people of hating THEM. As for my lack of knowledge as regards Fundies, the area in the southeast where I reside is overrun with them. Furthermore, I have just spent five years writing a book on religions for which I did extensive research on them and other denominations.
Marlin, I'm glad you brought up this age thing you sound just like my kids when they were young; "your generation doesn't understand ours". Well, now they're in their forties and they would tell you that statement was a crock then, and it's a crock now!

"Accusing people of hating them..."  Strong words... I am reminded of a comment a friend made to me a long time ago. "Just because you are paranoid does not mean that people are not out to get you." Brutal attacks are on the rise against the homosexual community as a direct result of the nations economic condition. Don't think for a moment that my life is not in danger. The hate groups may no longer be easy to recognize like the Klan was in it's day....but their hate still exist in the world and it is increasingly being directed at me. Fear is a real and tangible thing to me, those I love and are loved by.

In the deep south, change did not occur until brave people died at the outset of my generations "Civil Rights" movement.

In Skoki, Illinois a Neo Nazi group obtained a permit to parade right through a neighborhood of Concentration Camp survivors. The emotional violence created by this act was deliberate and yet the permit was issued. Their was a need to protect their rights.

After the Watts riots I walked down streets in L.A., San Francisco, Brownsville, and Newark. I found that I had to look down at the ground to avoid eye contact with people from time to time. I noticed that other's would look askance as well. This was not limited to one race or the other. These feelings were felt by all. We all new an injustice had occurred. That the "revolts" occurring all around the country were costly. Many have died defending the foundations of American society. These "horrific" events may have been forced on us all but no one will deny that they contributed greatly to the recognition of long standing injustices.

Let's not forget about Kent State either. Citizens protesting the actions of their government shot down with intent to kill.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights were intended to guarantee my freedom as a citizen, not restrict my freedom. The federal, and state governments have no right to be involved in the issue of marriage.

If bundles of rights are to made available to some citizens they should be available to all. Conditional endowment smack of Jim Crow...If you have a problem with my "Marriage", one recognized and performed by highly credible religious institutions I have the right, and you the obligation to respect and honor it as I would yours.

The problem that we both are confronting is the government and the bundle of rights they assign to a privileged class of individuals. They maintain such tight controls that people are being ostracized from part of the benefits of citizenship.

Separate the sacramental from the secular. In other words: "Render unto Cesar what is Cesar's and unto g-d what is g-d's." Once this distinction is established we have no conflict other than the residuals of sexism (racism).  I am obligated to fight unjust laws. DOMA is such a law. "The teaching of the Fathers" has an especially poignant passage...I am certain I will not due it justice... "If I am not for myself who will be for me.....but ...If I am for myself alone, what am I."

Non of us operate in a vacuum. We all function within very different social and religious contexts. Federal and State involvement has allowed the selective endowment of some rights to you and others to me. EVERY citizens fundamental right in THIS country is guaranteed. My government, your government...our government does not,and should not have the right to create an unjust hardship on it's citizens. I have the moral and ethical duty to stand against it...no matter what other conditions exist.

Much of my extended family would still be alive today if more people of good faith stood up to oppressive laws in the early years of fascism in Europe. That to me is the bottom line.

I am not an abstract concept. I exist and deserve your respect. 
 

It's amazing how Marlin is able to destroy his own arguments while trying to make his point. Point 1: His boss could fire him for being homosexual; that is a lie! Here's a true case in point: When I was hiring for one of my departments an applicant I had asked to come in for an interview turned out to be a "Flamer". Two of my colleagues happened to be in the front office when the flamer checked in with our receptionist, this immediately set off all kinds of talk in the office about how I would handle the situation. Now, let me describe my job applicant: He? was wearing a long black overcoat with a feminine cut, his long bleached hair was combed over to one side like a forties film femme fatale, his fingernails were painted, he had loose bangles hanging on his wrists and he was wearing eyeliner. When I got up front he introduced himself in a breathless faux feminine voice and gave me a limp wristed handshake. Needless to say my two colleagues were almost unable to contain themselves from laughing out loud. When I interviewed this individual he met all the requirements for the job except that he wasn' prepared to work the required hours. When I informed HR of my reason for not hiring him the HR Director immediately pulled the file on the job listing and breathed a huge sigh of relief when he was able to verify that the hours were stated in the classified ad. Had that not been the case and the applicant had gone to the EEOC claiming he had not been hired because of his sexual orientation my employer would have been in big trouble and I would have been unemployed. That was over twenty years ago!
Point 2: Suppose I got beaten up for being old? Well, suppose this law (which the LGBT want enacted to allow them to behave however they please) was in force, I could claim that it was a hate crime even if it were not true. If the prosecutor could prove that at sometime in the past the defendant had made any kind of derogatory remark about old people or had even told an old person joke ergo, HATE CRIME! Any crime should be prosecuted and punished to the fullest extent of the law regardless of what the perpetrator allegedly had in their heart or mind. 

HELLO11111111  Don't you all get...this issue is  all about money..can you imagine how many Social Security are been saved because your partner has no right to collect...wow

Ana, once again we are back into the LGBT manual on misinformation. Two legally married people draw less Social Security than the combined amount of the same two people if they were legally single. In fact if all same sex marriages were granted legal status it would result in a savings for Social Security.
One more trip into the realm of reality for two questions I have asked a number of times and for which I have yet to have a honest and direct answer. The physical differences between men and a women clearly defines natures intention as to where sexual pleasure should be sought. If LGBT's are born the way they are, are they not in fact mistakes of nature; in other words freaks?
Or, on the other hand if they are just seeking something different for thrills, then their inclinations are based on their preferences; doesn't that make them perverts?
It has to be one thing or another, are they freaks or perverts?

Mr. Sawyer...You have not applied my family values in the SS issue. My partner is not working. It is a decision we made to raise our children.

OK!! I am going to show you why the label of perversion is wrong. It would be ridiculous to deny the reality of plumbing.

My partner and I are acutely aware of the plumbing
difference. That does not change the way we feel about "US", nor does it invalidate the way we came together.

Someone is perverted because of you, not because of them.

Compassion and WONDER at the MYSTERY of life should be more important than the need to justify ones own existence by assigning or attributing blame to others. That is what you do when you attribute perversion to someone.

You see a thing and think you know its nature, but it is just a shadow cast out in the world.

At different times nature responds in different ways to evolutionary conditions. We now know that genetic inheritance can be altered during ones lifetime. That genetic alterations are passed down as part of the progenies inheritance. Epigens are being studied and documented just as diligently as was the Human Genome project. Social and environmental elements can now be seen as contributory elements of our DNA.

I have a dear, old, and cherished friendship with a man that has decided to change his gender after decades of struggle with himself and others. Realize first that this Trans Gender man is very accomplished. He is a person of great integrity, strong intellect and rigorousness in the expression of his humanity.

I spoke with him many times about this decision. I could not understand why he could not act in the world with the gender he was give. I just could not get it. I really could not get it and I don't have any plumbing issues.

After seeing his pain I felt that it was more appropriate to simply be present in this persons life as I had always been and not marginalize him.

I could have come to the conclusion that this is unnatural. That he was "perverted." I choose to stand with him because my value structure tells me that compassion and wonder at the unknown in life are much more important than my need to justify my choices by assigning blame to him for his life condition. Or, conversely for him to have to justify to me his life choices.

Sometimes you just have to be "in the room" when the decisions are being made.

Gerald you failed to answer one of my questions with directness and honesty, and you failed to answer my other one at all. Ah well, I guess I should be used to it by now.

Romy, if you are really heterosexual you have to be one of the "look how open minded and generous I am" crowd, quit grandstanding! As to your suggestion that I not be published on this site, is this site supposed to be strictly for people who agree with each other? And if I am to be excluded from this site what about my rights? Something like freedom of speech comes to mind. Well I'll leave your beloved forum but before I go something should be clarified: I have never in my life stated that I hate homosexuals either orally or otherwise. Do I believe that EVERYONE should be treated equally under the law? Most definitely Yes! However equal means just that, it does not mean that special consideration should be given to certain groups because they demand it. The only exceptions to my stated case would be the physically and/or mentally handicapped.

Mr. Sawyer

I have been very direct with you, and as for my honesty...this is not open to debate. You have lost much credability in my eyes. I think that your voice is very important. I encourage you to act in a way that is appropriate for you. Please allow me the same.

I am on a number of Pro Life blogs. The reason I am their is to do what you are doing here. It is important that I know you are out their, just as it important to know that their actions have consequences beyound how they currently think and feel.

I do not see you as an agitator. The group "ACT UP" was designed to agitate. It saved thousands of lives.

The greater the polarity the faster the speed. My statements were designed for those that have the eyes to see and the ears to hear.

Direct... I can get from point A to point B in many direct ways. But I see that from a different dimension than you.

I did not want to end this engagement this way. I wish you a long life in order to reflect on what has been said here.

Romy,

I did misquote you and I'm sorry. Time to put some Crow in the microwave.

Regards Mike

I wish we had Bush and Cheney back

I wish we had Bush and Cheney back

A lively debate!

Well, I saw where the LGBT's are celebrating 40 yrs of protests and outings... the Village incident.

I guess we can all see the correlation... 40 yrs of gay protests and 40 yrs of a country gone mad.

They say a rotten apple can spoil a whole barrel... well, I feel unspoiled but, the company is difficult to bare.

I believe an expression of love to anyone I know that feels they are a homosexual is to refer them to a good psychiatrist. I believe there is a chance for everyone to be healed despite what may ail them mentally. Maybe its just a question of a chemical inbalance?

But, I don't believe homosexuality is a result of some natural mutation - the Gay community has been searching for the "Gay" gene for decades with no results.

So, we are left with what Mr. Sawyer is intemating - a mental state of mind. We know of many gay people that have honestly sought out help and become heterosexual and realized normal life. This proves that homosexuality is a psychosis that can be treated. 

You are my brothers and sisters and I entreat you to seek real help and not try to spread your illness or convince the rest of us that you are OK.

In order to perpetuate your illness you activily attack the young amoung us with "Sex Education in the lowest elementry grades possible. This action is needed because you can't self-replicate through sex. Face the undeniable facts that keep you imprisoned in a un-real world.

We all hope and wish you well.

Is anyone else really bothered by the word "homosexual"?

I hate it.

I find it odd that people are amazed by this.  Obama, even before he was elected, told the nation his stance on this.  He said he wouldn't support it.

Obama stated in two Chicago interviews (1996 & 2000) that he "unecouvocally supoprts same sex marriage".  By 2008 he had changed that position to supporting civil unions.  He stated many times in 2008 that he wanted to repeal the defense of marriage act (DOMO) and the don't ask don't tell (DADT) military policy.  Now that he is in office he doesn't care about us.  He's a liar and I won't support him ever again.  I can't believe I voted for him let alone gave him $1000.  I have already ordered my Ron Paul bumper stickers.  I feel like such a jerk believing Obama.  I thought that this man would understand bigotry, hatred and prejudice.  I was wrong.  It is back to the streets folks!

I havent read all comments but the little I read come from ignorant people. Please informed yourself better about this issue ad then make your comments. I'm not gay or none of my family are but I had a friend who had a girl and a baby boy.  The girl payed with cars and the boy play with dolls.  Can you answer that?