The gay community finds room in the big tent under the wheels of the Obama bus.
Is there a constituency that the current administration hasn't chucked under the tires yet?
Say what you will about the Shrub on fiscal issues; on social issues he danced with the ones who brung him.
How about the pro-choice lobby?
ReplyDelete(Not wanting to start a war, just pointing it out)
Shootin' Buddy
and yet even under the bus they will back Obama and the Dems in the next election . . . If I were one of them I would back a third party. . .. the two main ones are screwing them.
ReplyDeleteArizonans are having a grand old time with one of Bush's Brungers right now.
ReplyDeleteis RKBA a social issue?
ReplyDeleteBush kinda sorta asks me to that big whitehouse shindig, but then he made me park my truck with the gun racks out back, behind the barn. He never asked me to dance either. But I got one small bit of gristle in a doggy bag just when the party was almost over.
What a totally bogus beating around the bush this all is.
ReplyDeleteThere is really no DOMA; it's DO$$. Only periperally mentioned in the story, the gist is this:
"...they are denied federal benefits like Social Security survivors’ payments, the right to file taxes jointly and guaranteed leave from work to care for a sick spouse."
Follow. The. Money.
Regardless of who loves whom or what, and putting aside extraneous issues and diversionary arguments from both sides, everyone wants and deserves the same treatment *by their government* as everyone else.
And in the case of personal relationships, gov has no business involved at all; pay your taxes and mind your own business and, regardless of what rings your bell in the bedroom, everyone has the same rights and responsibilities.
Of course such simplicity would remove from the arsenal of political payola the ability to act as omnipotent protector of either the "rights of individuals" or of the "sanctity of the institution.". Well, geez, how we gonna buy them votes now?
And of course that explains BO's indifference to campaign lies; like someone else said, he's got the gays in the bag, bought if not paid for, regardless. Or so he thinks.
So as an unabashed supporter of partisan alternatives, let me unofficially welcome gays to our nondenominational tent...it's the one with the little l or the big T in the title. As long as what they're looking for is equality and not some kind of punitive or reparational discrimination of their own, we're with them.
AT
its all about the money! MONEY!!! NOT sex! It is about the parties use of contrabutions and the votes the parties garner.
ReplyDeletewhere is Rusty when you need him?
ReplyDeleteWait...who needs 'im.
WV Humpho.
How many Heller and MacDonald Justices were Bush nominations?
ReplyDeleteWhat would those decisions have looked like if we had had Presidents Gore and Kerry from 2001-2009?
AFAIK, I am the only RKBA person to take public notice of this. (In) Gratitude works both ways.
Stag, I'll second that!!!
ReplyDeleteIf Alphonse Gore had been picking the replacements for Rehnquist and O'Connor, well.... I think the likelyhood of ...well, I'd rather not speak of that in public.
posting the same comment I left as SaysUncle
ReplyDeleteJust to make the connections clear.
The decision based itself on the 10th Amendment, and said that Congress had no business interfering in something that was traditionally a state matter.
That logic would also apply to some other things, such as No Child Left Behind--about which Obama may not really care--and Obamacare--about which of course Obama desperately cares.
If the ruling stands, then you have a reinforced argument against Obamacare. If the ruling gets overturned, then it becomes that much easier to defend Obamacare when it gets challenged in the courts. Which is why, undoubtedly, Obama is appealing this decision.
If you were paying attention to the relevant lobby, pro-choice went under the wheels during Obamacare and the subsequent sausage-making promises, or at least they think so.
ReplyDeleteAs for the gays, I've actually come to suspect that Obama personally is no fonder of them than the average black Democrat. He's thrown them too many completely unnecessary middle fingers for me to think otherwise. Bush was friendlier.
*sings*
ReplyDelete"The wheels on the bus go *thump! thump! thump!*..."
It's long odds that Bush knew personally (and probably fairly well) at least one lesbian... I wouldn't be surprised to find out that other than necessary political functions the Obamas have never socialized with "one of them".
ReplyDeleteBut the primary driver here is $$$ - expanding .gov benefits will make Social Security broker faster
It's long odds that Bush knew personally (and probably fairly well) at least one lesbian
ReplyDeleteNo odds at, unless he somehow managed to avoid meeting VP Cheney's family.
That's what I was trying to get at; that the Bushes and the Roves probably had extensive social interaction...
ReplyDeleteGiven that Mary Cheney was pretty prominent in the Bush-Cheney campaign, as well as being active in higher level Republican political activities, I'd say that it's a dead certainty that george and Laura Bush know Mary Cheney well, both personally and professionally.
ReplyDeleteI mean she WAS director of vice presidential operations for Bush-Cheney 2004.