Wednesday, August 18, 2010

via JMG: HomoQuotable - Richard Socarides

"Can President Obama, who once supported gay marriage, only to oppose it now, change his position again? The answer is yes — and he in fact has no choice. People understand that most public officials who now support gay marriage once opposed it. It wasn’t until after they left office that Bill Clinton and Al Gore (and, most recently, Laura Bush) said that they favored marriage equality. As Nate Silver recently wrote on his blog “Does anyone really believe, in a country that is becoming close to evenly divided on gay marriage, that Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Kerry are among the half who oppose it? “

"The sooner Obama changes his answer on this most important equal-rights issue of the day, the better off he will be. The Perry ruling provides the right opportunity to shift his emphasis and provide real leadership, reminding people that in this country, we look to the courts for direction on what our Constitution requires. It might also help the president’s popularity with those that elected him, and it puts him and his party on the right side of the equality question, where he, of course, belongs and presumably wants to be." - Former Clinton White House adviser Richard Socarides, writing for Politico. 
reposted from Joe

via JMG: Hate Group Vs. Hate Group!

The anti-gay Liberty Counsel wanted to be one of the hate groups arguing Prop 8. The anti-gay Alliance Defense Fund blocked their involvement, saying, "No fucking way, bitches. We're the only haters up in this here case." Protect Marriage even dissed the Liberty Counsel as the "extreme fringe" of the hate movement and "not part of the coalition that got Prop 8 passed."

And ever since Walker ruled, the Liberty Counsel's Matt Staver has been screaming about the lousy job the ADF did, whining that ADF didn't hate nearly hard enough during the case. Why, they never even said that dirty homos were doomed to eternal damnation!
"First was a misplaced idea of competition or domination of the case," he said. "And second, a desire to narrow the defense so as not to focus or even address the consequences of homosexuality and homosexual marriage." "We wanted to include that as part of our defense," he continued. According to Staver, the ADF "basically gave away the essence of the case, because they wanted to shy away from homosexuality and really were not willing to take the issue directly head on." The ADF wished to stipulate, he said, that counseling some homosexuals to change could be harmful, that homosexual partners form long and lasting relationships, and that homosexuality does not impair any area of life. Liberty Counsel was not willing to do so.

Regardless of the reason that the ADF opposed Liberty Counsel’s entrance, the attitude that the ADF wished to project towards the court was reflected in the witnesses they planned on calling: at least three seemed to think that homosexuality, in itself, was perfectly fine. Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson had been slated to testify before the court for the proponents of Proposition 8, but they were both withdrawn before they did so.

Advocates of same-sex “marriage,” however, used Young’s and Nathanson’s videotaped depositions to help bolster their own arguments. In Nathanson's deposition he stated that homosexuals can be good parents, while Young said in his videotaped testimony that homosexuality is a normal variant of human sexuality and that homosexuals have the same potential and desire as heterosexual couples to raise children. In 2003, Katherine Young and Paul Nathanson wrote that although legalizing "same sex marriage is a bad idea" they only opposed "gay marriage, not gay relationships." "There's nothing wrong with homosexuality," they stated. "One of us, in fact, is gay."
Staver further bitches that none of the Liberty Counsel's suggested witnesses, all of whom were ready to testify about the inherent eeee-ville of teh gay, were ever contacted, much less asked to appear in court.
reposted from Joe

Yes We Canberra - Old Spice parody