Which makes him, initially, smarter than Bill Clinton but also, initially, more of a political coward than bill Clinton:
President-elect Barack Obama will not move for months, and perhaps not until 2010, to ask Congress to end the military’s decades-old ban on open homosexuals in the ranks, two people who have advised the Obama transition team on this issue say.
Repealing the ban was an Obama campaign promise. However, Mr. Obama first wants to confer with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and his new political appointees at the Pentagon to reach a consensus and then present legislation to Congress, the advisers said.
“I think 2009 is about foundation building and reaching consensus,” said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network. The group supports military personnel targeted under the ban.
Mr. Sarvis told The Washington Times that he has held “informal discussions” with the Obama transition team on how the new president should proceed on the potentially explosive issue.
Lawrence Korb, an analyst at the Center for American Progress and an adviser to the Obama campaign, said the new administration should set up a Pentagon committee to make recommendations to Congress on a host of manpower issues, including the gay ban.
In other words, “we won’t do it until we figure we’ve got a time when we’ll suffer as little damage as possible over it”. My fellow Americans who are gay and supported Obama - feel proud of your vote, now?
As for me, I’m ok with gay people serving openly in the United States military - provided it is coupled with a strict regulation against in-unit, on-duty and on-base sexual relations between unmarried, active duty service member’s, straight or gay. Meaning - if you’re in the same unit; or if you’re on duty; or if your on a military base and you are an active duty service member, you can’t have sex with any other active duty service member. Gay people are my fellow Americans and just as likely to be stout patriots and brave warriors as any other of my fellow Americans. Their sexual activities don’t please me and I urge them to the life of chastity they are called to by God, but in as much as their sexual activities don’t interfere with good order and discipline, I’ve really got nothing to say about them.
Nothing disgusted me more in the early Clinton years than the way he betrayed those millions of gay Americans who gave him their all, partially based on his pledge to allow gay Americans to serve openly in the United States military. This had nothing to do with whether gays serving is a good or bad thing - it had to do with anger over the worst sort of political betrayal, and it was merely an indicator of the way Clinton would conduct affairs through the 8 years of his term. Now Obama is doing the same thing - let me tell you, I prefer an honest liberal who works diligently to boldly advance liberal causes to a liberal who chickens out and tries to triangulate himself into a second term from day one of his first term. Obama has sunk very mightily in my estimation - not as a liberal, but as a man.
Grow a pair, Barry.
UPDATE: Gay Patriot takes note:
Once again, the lilly-livered Gay Left gets punched in the face while their tongues are firmly up the backside of the Democrat Party Establishment.
High-larious politics…. yet very disappointing, however predictable, from a gay rights policy perspective.
Just HOW many issues does the Hypocrite Rights Campaign and their fellow gay comrades have to lose before they are just laughed at and completely ignored??
Tags: gay rights, homosexuality, liberal lies, US Military
November 21st, 2008
Interesting, from Gay Patriot:
I found Sarah Palin’s answer to Charles Gibson’s question on homosexuality satisfactory (though not ideal) in large part because of my basic political philosophy. I don’t think someone’s sexuality should be a matter of government concern.
I don’t need the government to affirm my sexuality. I just expect the government to leave me alone so I can affirm it in my own way.
And how did Governor Palin answer the question? Thusly:
GIBSON: Homosexuality, genetic or learned?
PALIN: Oh, I don’t — I don’t know, but I’m not one to judge and, you know, I’m from a family and from a community with many, many members of many diverse backgrounds and I’m not going to judge someone on whether they believe that homosexuality is a choice or genetic. I’m not going to judge them.
This was yet another question from Gibson where Palin could reasonably have asked, “in what sense, Charlie?”. It is an open question as to whether or not homosexuality is genetic (with the Catholic position being neutral on that assertion, but noting that some people do have a “deep seated” attraction for members of the same sex), but there is no question that in order to do something homosexual, it must be learned, as all voluntary human acts must be learned. Just because a young man might find his heart racing at the sight of another young man doesn’t mean he’ll immediately leap to the homosexual act - no more than a heterosexual young man instantly knows what to do about his first strong sexual attraction to a young woman.
As for me, I also do not judge on this matter - people who are gay assert strongly that they have “always” felt that way; I can’t gainsay them, as I can’t peer into their souls and discover the rock-solid truth of the matter. On the other hand, there are cases out there of men and women living entirely gay for a while, and then switching over to living heterosexual - such things don’t, of course, demonstrate that genetic is invalid nor that choice is valid…all they show is that a person can do what he wishes, including ignore a strong sexual urge in favor of some other act or way of living (you know, like a good monk or nun who eschews sexual activity of any type).
The crucial thing here is to not judge - and that cuts both ways; the non-homosexual must not judge the homosexual as bad, the homosexual must not judge the person who asserts Christian teaching on homosexuality as a bigot. God will figure this one out for us. Supposing a gay friend didn’t know my views on homosexual sex and then asked me, I’d tell him - but I’d also add that there are bigger fish to fry and, furthermore, in the grand scheme of things carnal sins are generally less dangerous for the immortal soul than sins against the Spirit. Naturally, a homosexual person who puts his sexual appetites above all other things is at risk of damnation - but so, too, is the man who puts his money, his possessions or his power above all things. Sarah Palin, a true Christian who has promised us she’ll keep a servant’s heart understands this very well - and even if she prays ten times a day for homosexuals to cease homosexuality, it doesn’t change the fact that our gay brothers and sisters are, indeed, our brothers and sisters and they are to be loved and respected at all times.
And as Palin attempts to show this love, so she has managed - at least with Gay Patriot - to secure a measure of respect one would think no gay person would even bestow upon an Evangelical Christian. One down, many millions to go…but each journey does start with the first step.
Tags: gay rights, homosexuality, Sarah Palin
September 15th, 2008
From Canada:
What could Mark Steyn’s punishment look like, if he’s convicted by the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal?
It could look like this order, issued just last week by Alberta’s human rights commission, against a Christian pastor named Rev. Stephen Boission.
The kangaroo court judge in this case is a Tory patronage appointee, a divorce lawyer from Lethbridge named Lori Andreachuk, (pictured at left). That’s her expertise: divorce law. Not constitutional law; not freedom of speech or freedom of religion. And it shows.
Last November, she convicted Boissoin. Last week she ordered her “remedy”.
It is the most revolting order I have ever seen in Canada. Ever.
I’ll excerpt a few lines from her ruling:
In this case, there is no specific individual who can be compensated as there is no direct victim who has come forward…
That’s insane already. No-one was hurt. The complainant was an officious intermeddler, a busybody, the town scold, an anti-Christian activist named Darren Lund who had an axe to grind, and Andreachuk gave it to him.
Dr. Lund, although not a direct victim, did expend considerable time and energy and suffered ridicule and harassment as a result of his complaint. The Panel finds therefore that he is entitled to some compensation.
So a busybody with no standing spends time filing complaints — and gets a tax-free reward for doing so. Oh — and for his “suffering”. Not suffering at the hands of Rev. Boission, but “as a result of his complaint”. People in the community ridiculed Lund for filing the complaint — as they should. And so Andreachuk will get the pastor to pay for that. Why the hell not? Who’s going to stop her? Her political patron, Ed Stelmach?
Mr. Boissoin and [his organization] The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the Internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals.
There’s a lot there, starting with a small but telling point. Darren Lund is a not a medical doctor. He’s a professor. But Andreachuk refers to him as Dr. Lund. Stephen Boissoin is a pastor. But Andreachuk calls him “Mr. Boissoin”. No “Rev. Boissoin” for her.
But look at the staggering order there. Boissoin can never — ever — communicate anything “disparaging” about gays. It’s a lifetime ban — and it applies to every conceivable medium, including his private e-mails.
But nothing “disparaging”? That means nothing critical.
She didn’t order him not to communicate anything “illegal” or even anything “hateful”. She ordered him to say nothing disparaging. Ever. For the rest of his life.
A divorce lawyer from Lethbridge with a second-rate patronage job just ordered a Canadian pastor to stop communicating to anyone, ever, about gays. Not to stop “hate speech” — whatever that malleable legal definition is. She just told him to shut up, period.
Its from Canada, but this is precisely what the left wants to bring to the United States - and if we don’t stop them, cold, it is whaat they will do. They don’t want the free play of ideas amongst thinking people, but unthinking acceptance of liberal orthodoxy in all matters. In the United States they are handicapped by the First Amendment and a staunch desire for liberty amongst the American people…but if, say, they ever get a solid, leftist majority on the Supreme Court, you just watch them push this sort of thing through via judicial fiat.
Each election matters; each battle matters and as we’re dealing with people who’s concept of freedom is sexual license coupled with slavery in all other matters, we daren’t compromise. Its fight for freedom, or become the mindless robots of liberalism.
Tags: Christianity, conservative truth, Freedom of Religion, gay rights, Iraq Campaign, liberal lies
June 8th, 2008
Just bizarre:
Madrid, Jan. 3, 2008 (CWNews.com) - Spanish government leaders have asked the country’s Catholic bishops to apologize for the massive pro-family rally held in Madrid on December 30, Vatican Radio reports.
Leaders of the Socialist governing party have charged that the Church intervened in partisan political affairs with the rally, which drew nearly 2 million participants. (The government is reporting that only 160,000 took part in the demonstration.) The government has asked the bishops’ conference for an apology.
Although 40 bishops took part in the pro-family event, and the hierarchy gave clear support to the event, the rally was organized primarily by lay Catholic activists. The organizers have consistently argued that the rally was not intended as a partisan political event, but as a public expression of support for the traditional family founded on Christian marriage.
This is what the secular left wants - the Church to be removed from the public square. They’ll kindly allow us to practise our faith, as long as we don’t disturb their worldview by demonstrating publically what we stand for. If we’ll just keep it off the streets, all will be well - until they arrest our priests and pastors for “hate speech” because they teach Christian morality in the pulpit.
Tags: Christianity, gay rights, government persecution
January 5th, 2008
