• CLICK HERE To Join Broke Straight Boys & Instantly Get Full Access To Entire Site & 3 FREE bonus sites.

Gay News

Never mind that the spelling is different. Dike/Dyke

Did any of you ever read the now Senator Al Franken's book: Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations? It was quite good!

Maybe we should retire the word "windbag" because it has been usurped by a megalomaniac drug addict. Then in the future when we look up windbag in the dictionary it will just show his picture. :thumbup:

It's just a headline, not a story, but it came out when Limbaugh's deafness was announced...

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/34614
 
Gay advocates have a proposition for Obama
Pressure is building on hot-button issues: same-sex marriage, lobbying for a gay Supreme Court justice and 'don't ask, don't tell.'
By Andrew Malcolm and Johanna Neuman
May 17, 2009
With more states enacting same-sex marriage laws, pressure is growing on President Obama to moderate his stance against gay marriage.

Advocates are urging him to appoint a gay man or woman to the Supreme Court to replace retiring Justice David H. Souter. Even if Obama does not name a gay justice, senators are likely to question the nominee about the hot-button issue during confirmation hearings, propelling it to the top of the political agenda this summer.


Two gay women are among the candidates being considered, according to the New York Times: Kathleen M. Sullivan and Pamela S. Karlan, both of Stanford Law School.

Already, Christian groups are lobbying against such a selection by organizing protests in Washington, where the District of Columbia City Council recently voted to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.

"That would be tantamount to opening the gate for the other side," Bishop Harry J. Jackson Jr. of the Hope Christian Church in Beltsville, Md., told the New York Times. "If [Obama] meant what he said about marriage, then I think he has got to stand up and be a president who acts on his beliefs."


Gay advocates are also working to persuade the Pentagon to repeal its Clinton-era "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

This month, national security advisor James L. Jones Jr., a retired four-star Marine general, said changing Pentagon policy on gays in the military would require not the flick of a light switch but "more of a rheostat." And he told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that this "complicated issue" needs to be "teed up appropriately and it will be discussed in the way the president does things, which is be very deliberative, very thoughtful, seeking out all sides on the issue."

The New York Times’ Sheryl Stolberg wrote recently that Obama has tread cautiously on these issues for fear of alienating some moderate and religious voters he courted during the campaign, including black preachers who form a core constituency.

But as writer David Mixner put it, gay activists are beginning to wonder, "How much longer do we give him the benefit of the doubt?"

Our guess is that Obama, a pragmatist, is waiting for consensus to build on the issue. After a meeting with gay rights organizations at the White House recently, Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese said, "They have a vision. They have a plan."

Cheney could be fishing, except . . .

For those who have been wondering why former Vice President Dick Cheney doesn't just go gently into the night -- or at least park himself at that undisclosed location for a while -- now comes the answer. Apparently he really cares.

Liz Cheney, the vice presidential daughter who got a plum job at the State Department during George W. Bush's administration, has taken to the airwaves to defend her father's rants. Ever since President Obama started initiating new policies -- closing the Guantanamo Bay military prison, ending harsh interrogation techniques -- Dick Cheney has made the oft-repeated and truly incendiary assertion that Obama's policies are making the country less safe from terrorism.

On Tuesday on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” Liz Cheney said her father would "rather be fishing in Wyoming" but felt compelled to tear down the Obama administration.

Her basic argument: Waterboarding was not only effective, it was legal, since the Bush administration had the legal documents that said so -- despite international conventions to the contrary.

Liz Cheney also accused the media of a double standard in criticizing her father over his outspoken views, noting that the media embraces former Vice President Al Gore when he speaks about global climate change.

"You want [Cheney] to shut up because you disagree with what he's saying," she told the Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson, whose column called Cheney "an Old Faithful of self-serving nonsense."

The Post's Pulitzer Prize-winning columnist also asked this question: Can't we send Dick Cheney back to Wyoming? Shouldn't we chip in and buy him a home where the buffalo roam and there's always room for one more crazy old coot down at the general store?

Others in key policy roles in the Bush administration -- former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, former CIA Director George Tenet, even former President George W. Bush -- have maintained a respectful silence during the recent debate over whether the "enhanced interrogation" methods they approved crossed the line into torture.

Not so Cheney, who has become a familiar face on the Sunday talk shows, spewing his critiques about the Obama administration, urging Republicans to recover politically by embracing the very Bush conservatism that cost them control of the White House, the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Asked about Cheney's recent comment that he would rather see the future of the Republican Party in the hands of conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh than the more centrist Colin L. Powell, former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman and former Secretary of state, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs called it "an illuminating answer."

The former vice president, Gibbs added, keeps floating ideas that "in many ways the last election was about and the last election rejected. They're essentially going forward by looking backward."

"If the vice president believes that's a way of growing and expanding the Republican Party, then we're happy to leave him to those devices."

[email protected]

Neuman writes for The Times.

Read Top of the Ticket, The Times' blog on national politics with its blend of news, commentary and analysis, at latimes.com/ticket.


How many of us wish that Dick Cheney would go back to his secure, undisclosed location and freakin stay there?!! :cursing:
 
Last edited:
How many of us wish that Dick Cheney would go back to his secure, undisclosed location and freakin stay there?!! :cursing:

I am all for it. Please , be sure to take away his hunting licenses too. Before some more innocent people get shot. Or send him to Afganistan and tell him hunting season is in and they all swear to be good friends of Cheney. The give the man an M-60 or an automatic 50 cal. We could save millions on the war effort right there. :thumbup:
 
Last edited:
Obama Lawyers offer Reluctant Defense of Gay Marriage Ban

Obama Lawyers offer Reluctant Defense of Gay Marriage Ban

The Defense of Marriage Act should be repealed, but an Orange County couple's lawsuit against it should still be dismissed, administration lawyers say in court papers.

A 1996 law banning federal recognition of same-sex marriage is discriminatory and should be repealed, lawyers for the Obama administration said in court papers filed Monday, offering moral support for a constitutional challenge brought by a gay couple from Orange County.

But in a demonstration of the president's inability to quickly deliver on campaign promises to end bias against gays, the Justice Department urged dismissal of the lawsuit challenging the Defense of Marriage Act, noting it remains law until Congress repeals it.

That ambivalence spurred criticism from both sides of the gay rights battle. Opponents of same-sex marriage accused the White House of insincerity in its defense of the act, and supporters demanded a more proactive approach to ensuring that all citizens enjoy equal protection under the law.

As a candidate for the White House, Barack Obama vowed to repeal the law, which bars the federal government from treating same-sex marriages as legal or granting federal benefits to gay spouses.

President Obama announced two months ago that he was extending some benefits to gay federal employees and proclaimed June "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month."

But gay rights advocates want the administration's support in getting courts to strike down as unconstitutional the federal gay marriage ban, as well as the "don't ask, don't tell" policy prohibiting gays from openly serving in the military.

The administration's original response in June to the Orange County couple's lawsuit angered gay rights advocates for its focus on jurisdictional grounds and on the plaintiffs' "failure to state a claim" to have been harmed by the federal law. Monday's filing made clear that the White House opposes the law and defends it reluctantly against the constitutional challenge.

"This administration does not support DOMA as a matter of policy, believes that it is discriminatory and supports its repeal," Assistant Atty. Gen. Tony West wrote in a brief filed with the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. "Consistent with the rule of law, however, the Department of Justice has long followed the practice of defending federal statutes as long as reasonable arguments can be made in support of their constitutionality."

Gay rights advocates saluted the administration's expression of distaste for the ban and its rejection of conservatives' arguments that gay parenting poses a threat to children. But they disputed the position that the law deserved defending.

"It's simply wrong when they say there are reasonable arguments that can be made in support of its constitutionality," said Carisa Cunningham, director of public affairs for Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders, which is suing the government on behalf of a dozen gays in Massachusetts denied federal benefits because of the ban.

"But this administration, contrary to its predecessors, has acknowledged the reality that children are part of families with gay and lesbian parents and those children can grow up as well adjusted as anyone else. That's a very important acknowledgment, and it is also important legally," Cunningham said.

Opponents of gay marriage were critical of the administration for what they saw as a half-hearted defense of the federal ban.

"I think it's unfortunate that the administration has taken a position seeking to repeal federal DOMA and now is in the precarious position of defending it in court," said Brian Raum, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal organization.

West urged the court to dismiss the lawsuit brought by Arthur Smelt and Christopher Hammer of Mission Viejo on technical grounds, rather than weigh the merit of their claim that the law is unconstitutional.

Smelt and Hammer haven't shown that they have been adversely affected by the law, West argued, because their marriage is legal in California and they have neither sought nor been denied federal benefits.

Hammer said he and Smelt had attempted to file a joint income tax return this year but were rebuffed, as Internal Revenue Service instructions limit joint returns to marriages of a man and a woman. He said he had lost faith that Obama would make good on his campaign promises.

"I think he's going to do what Clinton did -- fudge it all, like with 'don't ask, don't tell,' " Hammer said. "I'm sorry to see that because he will end up being a one-term president if he alienates everyone who supported him."

West, in the nine-page brief, defended the ban as a legitimate federal posture while the issue of gay marriage is being hashed out at the state level.

The law "reflects a cautiously limited response to society's still-evolving understanding of the institution of marriage," he wrote.

But West made clear that the administration saw little justification for the law.

"The United States does not believe that DOMA is rationally related to any legitimate government interests in procreation and child-rearing and is therefore not relying upon any such interests to defend DOMA's constitutionality," West said.

He also referred to reports by pediatric, psychological and child-advocacy agencies that "children raised by gay and lesbian parents are as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by heterosexual parents."

Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler said Obama remained committed to seeing the ban repealed.

"The department's filing in this case upholds the rule of law in keeping with our obligation to defend federal statutes when they are challenged in court," Schmaler said. "The Justice Department cannot pick and choose which federal laws it will defend based on any one administration's policy preferences."

[email protected]


Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

This is starting to get crazy. I wish the administration would take a dam side regarding this issue.:wink:
 
This is starting to get crazy. I wish the administration would take a dam side regarding this issue.
Jay, I do not see the Obama's administration's policy on gay issues, as "flip flopping". I understand as gay men, this is an incredibly important issue to us, but Obama has an incredible amount of issues to deal with that must be dealt with swiftly, from health care reform, to the economy, to the two wars that the United States is currently fighting in. And these are only the tip of his agenda.

As a gay man, who certainly wants full rights, I can be patient, and see these other issues as being more important to deal with first. And there are political reasons too. I firmly believe that Obama is in favor of full and equal rights to all Americans, but with the vocal right wing talk radio hosts and columnists, and twittering chatterboxes like Sarah Palin out there, he has to be very careful what he says. The right wing activists, are the one's that I am afraid of, as a gay man, (among other reasons). Now is not the time to be adding more ammunition to their divisive rants and raves.

I believe that Obama is trying to take a mid ground approach to gay rights, at this time. And I'm sure he is trying to get his administration in line, to give comments on the issue that he is in agreement with. I do believe that he will deal with this issue, as he promised in his campaign. Keep in mind that he has been president for seven months, and he does have four years. I am willing to be patient, and I still believe that our president is a true friend of gay Americans, as was Bill Clinton. It is just a very sensitive hot button issue to many Christian conservatives, and a President must weigh his words very carefully, (as we saw the mistake he made with the professor and the cop).

In time, I do expect him to fulfill the hope that many gay people had in him during the campaign.

Respectfully,

Mike
 
Jay, I do not see the Obama's administration's policy on gay issues, as "flip flopping". I understand as gay men, this is an incredibly important issue to us, but Obama has an incredible amount of issues to deal with that must be dealt with swiftly, from health care reform, to the economy, to the two wars that the United States is currently fighting in. And these are only the tip of his agenda.

As a gay man, who certainly wants full rights, I can be patient, and see these other issues as being more important to deal with first. And there are political reasons too. I firmly believe that Obama is in favor of full and equal rights to all Americans, but with the vocal right wing talk radio hosts and columnists, and twittering chatterboxes like Sarah Palin out there, he has to be very careful what he says. The right wing activists, are the one's that I am afraid of, as a gay man, (among other reasons). Now is not the time to be adding more ammunition to their divisive rants and raves.

I believe that Obama is trying to take a mid ground approach to gay rights, at this time. And I'm sure he is trying to get his administration in line, to give comments on the issue that he is in agreement with. I do believe that he will deal with this issue, as he promised in his campaign. Keep in mind that he has been president for seven months, and he does have four years. I am willing to be patient, and I still believe that our president is a true friend of gay Americans, as was Bill Clinton. It is just a very sensitive hot button issue to many Christian conservatives, and a President must weigh his words very carefully, (as we saw the mistake he made with the professor and the cop).

In time, I do expect him to fulfill the hope that many gay people had in him during the campaign.

Respectfully,

Mike

I totally agree with you. I guess it is like you said I am being a little impatient with him holding the middle ground of the issue. I was hoping to hear a little more in regards to an acknowledgment that the current law needs to be amended. I am worried that with proposition 8 coming to a head in the federal courts that a precedent will be set that could be unfavorable toward gay rights. I understand what you are saying and I totally agree with you Mike. I think that pushing the proposition 8 issue to a federal court before the current laws are changed could be more detrimental to our cause. :biggrin:
 
I totally agree with you. I guess it is like you said I am being a little impatient with him holding the middle ground of the issue. I was hoping to hear a little more in regards to an acknowledgment that the current law needs to be amended. I am worried that with proposition 8 coming to a head in the federal courts that a precedent will be set that could be unfavorable toward gay rights. I understand what you are saying and I totally agree with you Mike. I think that pushing the proposition 8 issue to a federal court before the current laws are changed could be more detrimental to our cause. :biggrin:

I am very glad that the administration backed off from the legal arguments it made earlier this year in court.
 
I'm torn by the number of fronts on which decisions are being made. The reopening of the suit against DOMA in Oklahoma, the signature counting in Maine and Washington, the hearing in California on the suit against 8, are all important - losing one could turn the right people off and the wrong people on. There are so many parallels between now and the earlier civil rights movements. I keep waiting for the dogs and fire hoses. I know that sounds horrible, but that's what turned the vast majority of the country around. When they saw real human beings being attacked for wanting nothing more than to be treated like real human beings, they said 'enough is enough' and the tidal wave began. Kent State did the same for Viet Nam. I have nightmares when I think it could be my child out there in front and I want to protect him and to walk in front of him and then I realize that only protects him today - to protect him tomorrow I have to take his hand and walk beside him and if one of us falls then the line simply moves over and keeps going. We don't have to fight or scream or yell. We just have to keep working until the rest of the country looks up and says "enough is enough." Dear God, he's not my baby anymore. Please let him be standing at the end.
 
I'm torn by the number of fronts on which decisions are being made. The reopening of the suit against DOMA in Oklahoma, the signature counting in Maine and Washington, the hearing in California on the suit against 8, are all important - losing one could turn the right people off and the wrong people on. There are so many parallels between now and the earlier civil rights movements. I keep waiting for the dogs and fire hoses. I know that sounds horrible, but that's what turned the vast majority of the country around. When they saw real human beings being attacked for wanting nothing more than to be treated like real human beings, they said 'enough is enough' and the tidal wave began. Kent State did the same for Viet Nam. I have nightmares when I think it could be my child out there in front and I want to protect him and to walk in front of him and then I realize that only protects him today - to protect him tomorrow I have to take his hand and walk beside him and if one of us falls then the line simply moves over and keeps going. We don't have to fight or scream or yell. We just have to keep working until the rest of the country looks up and says "enough is enough." Dear God, he's not my baby anymore. Please let him be standing at the end.

Very well said. I totally agree. We need to be careful from this point forward and pick and choose our battles wisely.
 
since i'm back.....i'd like to see people focusing on healthcare reform right now. real people need to get out there and make themselves heard....over power the insane ramblings of the religious consertive right wing. the government isn't going to make this happen unless those in favor of reform start mobilize. then after everyone in the USA has healthcare available, us fags can get married......
 
since i'm back.....i'd like to see people focusing on healthcare reform right now. real people need to get out there and make themselves heard....over power the insane ramblings of the religious consertive right wing. the government isn't going to make this happen unless those in favor of reform start mobilize. then after everyone in the USA has healthcare available, us fags can get married......
Beautifully said, tightywhiteyboy!!! We need to deal with the insanity of "religious conservative right wing", by prioritizing our issues. We need affordable health care for all Americans, and then "fag weddings". :001_rolleyes:
 
Oh, tighty, I agree with you on health care. If it's ever going to be done, it must be now and it's going to have to happen over those shills and hirelings who are disrupting honest debate. But, I'm afraid, the right's not going to back down on gay marriage even if they are defeated on health care. Look at that ridiculous threat sent by the Catholics to the Lutherans after they voted 2 to 1 in favor of gay clergy. With the right on any issue Yogi Berra becomes so unfortunately true "It ain't over 'til it's over." They will have to be fought on every issue on every battle till every war is won and, then, when they've all been won, they'll become very sanctimonious like the LDS Church who've so conveniently forgotten that until Jun 8, 1978 (at 7pm) blacks were denied the priesthood in their churches and were secondclass citizens in heaven. I just feel we can't back down on anything now. Not when 49% of the young people in the largest conservative denomination in the United States (Southern Baptists) think their own church is being too hard on homosexuals. I will fight with you on health care because I know how important it is to our own and to everyone else, but I'm also going to fight for marriage, the military, equal rights, the end of doma, and one very special thing - in Paris this summer my middle son and his partner strolled through a garden holding hands and talking about the flowers and the fountains and their own back yard back home and my husband and I watched from a park bench with his arm across my shoulders and our heads touching - I want to be able to do that in this country, too.

So glad you're back, tightiywhitie, your voice has been missed!
 
Oh, tighty, I agree with you on health care. If it's ever going to be done, it must be now and it's going to have to happen over those shills and hirelings who are disrupting honest debate. But, I'm afraid, the right's not going to back down on gay marriage even if they are defeated on health care. Look at that ridiculous threat sent by the Catholics to the Lutherans after they voted 2 to 1 in favor of gay clergy. With the right on any issue Yogi Berra becomes so unfortunately true "It ain't over 'til it's over." They will have to be fought on every issue on every battle till every war is won and, then, when they've all been won, they'll become very sanctimonious like the LDS Church who've so conveniently forgotten that until Jun 8, 1978 (at 7pm) blacks were denied the priesthood in their churches and were secondclass citizens in heaven. I just feel we can't back down on anything now. Not when 49% of the young people in the largest conservative denomination in the United States (Southern Baptists) think their own church is being too hard on homosexuals. I will fight with you on health care because I know how important it is to our own and to everyone else, but I'm also going to fight for marriage, the military, equal rights, the end of doma, and one very special thing - in Paris this summer my middle son and his partner strolled through a garden holding hands and talking about the flowers and the fountains and their own back yard back home and my husband and I watched from a park bench with his arm across my shoulders and our heads touching - I want to be able to do that in this country, too.

So glad you're back, tightiywhitie, your voice has been missed!

its not a matter of if healthcare reform happens then the right wing will back down on gay rights. i just think healthcare for all is a higher priority. that's all. prioritize and fight one battle at a time. any military strategist will tell you of the dangers of fighting on too many fronts!
 
since i'm back.....i'd like to see people focusing on healthcare reform right now. real people need to get out there and make themselves heard....over power the insane ramblings of the religious consertive right wing. the government isn't going to make this happen unless those in favor of reform start mobilize. then after everyone in the USA has healthcare available, us fags can get married......

You are so right TWB. I think health care reform is worthy of an thread all by itself. I have been considering starting a thread on that very subject. Especially in light of the mob scene we had here in Tampa a few weeks ago. Has anybody read the latest issue of Time? Joe Klein makes the point that with the health care debate and the sleazy means the GOP is using to try to defeat it that, there can be no honest and serious debate or negotiations with a party that has jumped the shark. He says the radicals have taken over the party and now it's a party of "nihilists".
 
Top