He Shall Take Care That the Laws are Faithfully Executed

A political science professor of mine once said that “some people in America consider the Constitution very important.” I should hope so. It is the very foundation of all law in our country, and the single document through which our rights are protected.

The Constitution ensures that the government cannot oppress its people, and gives individual states the right to handle matters not specifically assigned to the federal government. So should “some” people consider it very important? Or is it, in fact, very important to all of us – whether we choose to realize it or not?

Yesterday, President Obama announced that his Justice Department will no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in court. For those on the left this is a major victory. They have been waiting for DOMA to be repealed ever since President Bill Clinton (Yes, a Democrat) signed it into law in 1996.

For anyone who does not know, DOMA allows states to choose not to recognize gay marriages, partnerships or unions from other states where they are legal, and provides no federal recognition of same-sex relationships whatsoever. This has been a major sticking point for the gay marriage movement, because no matter how many states legalize gay marriage, there will be no federal benefits for gay couples.

For the record, I believe marriage is a state issue. It always has been, and nowhere in the Constitution does it mention marriage falling under the responsibility of the federal government. Therefore, I happen to personally feel that DOMA is unconstitutional. If a state decides gays can marry legally, or enter into domestic partnerships or civil unions, the federal government should be obligated to recognize the laws of that state – so long as they do not conflict with federal law.

I also believe that any state has the right to choose not to recognize a marriage from another state. Keep in mind this would not be an issue if the federal government stayed out of marriage altogether. I still have no idea why the federal government gives anyone special benefits because they are married. That is the very definition of “special rights,” whether you are traditionally married or gay married.

The 14th Amendment, which is cited so often in protecting marriage recognition across state lines, simply states that “No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States.”

That means no state can deny you rights protected by the federal government. However it does not prevent states from denying you rights protected by other states. Example: You have a concealed weapons permit from Nevada. You own a gun, and are allowed – by Nevada law – to carry it concealed on your person, within the laws set forth in Nevada.

You are not allowed, however, to bring that gun to Maine – unless you obtain a concealed carry permit from Maine. Maine will deny your right – protected by Nevada – to carry a concealed weapon, until such time as you obtain that right from Maine. Meanwhile, Illinois does not allow any concealed weapons at all. Therefore, Illinois will deny your right – protected by Nevada – to carry a concealed weapon.

So clearly states have the right to have different laws from other states, and the Constitution does not force them to recognize privileges you’ve obtained from other states.

So while the left celebrates Obama’s refusal to enforce DOMA, the rest of America is wondering why this president feels he has the power to choose which laws are valid and which are not. As stated in Article 2, Section 3, of the U.S. Constitution, “he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” DOMA is currently the law, and therefore President Obama is constitutionally obligated to enforce it – whether he likes it or not.

Imagine, for a moment, if George W. Bush decided that he did not personally approve of Roe v. Wade, and chose to overturn it. “I will no longer enforce protections to allow abortions.” How do you think the left would react? With outrage, I’d imagine – and they would be justified. Whether you like it or not, abortion is legal in America. You can try to make it illegal, advocate the overturn of Roe v. Wade, pass laws restricting abortion, etc… but TODAY, it is legal.

Likewise, TODAY, DOMA is law. President Obama may choose to ignore the law, but the moment he chooses not to defend DOMA in court, he is in direct violation of the Constitution – which by the way is his SOLE responsibility as president: “To preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

500 BILLION PEOPLE saw him recite the oath on inauguration day. A few people even saw him recite it a second time later in the week. Did he not understand what he was pledging?

Regardless of whether you support or oppose President Obama politically, there is no doubt that he is testing the limits of presidential power. He has done this numerous times.

Health Care – President Obama has given the federal government unprecedented power in the area of health care, even though it is mentioned nowhere in the Constitution. Obamacare has been declared unconstitutional by two federal judges, and will not likely stand up to a Supreme Court review.

The government simply does not have the right to mandate that every American buy a product from a private company, or face fines. (And for those of you who will bring up car insurance, it is only mandatory if you choose to own a car – and you get to make that choice)

Cap & Trade – The Constitution does not give the federal government power over energy, yet President Obama’s Cap & Trade policy would put costly burdens on companies (which would be passed on to consumers) to meet arbitrary goals that the largest polluters on the Earth (India and China) refuse to agree to.

You think we’re losing jobs to India and China now? Wait until these companies have to live under oppressive costs invented to fund a premature green movement. They’ll simply move to India and China where there are no restrictions – and they get the added bonus of cheaper labor. Then all the liberals will complain about evil corporations moving to China to exploit workers. You know the story. It’s as old as time.

Student Loans – Where the hell does the federal government have the right to take sole custody of the student loan industry? I have no problem with federal loans, Pell Grants, etc. But to remove student loans from private institutions completely? That’s just ridiculous. While President Obama says he wants to increase access to education, he really just wants to control the access to education.

There are many more examples just like these.

I’m not a birther, or a right-wing radical – I’m just an American that sees a president consistently ignore the restrictions placed on his office, and the entire federal government. And while every response I get to this article from a liberal will no doubt conjure up images of George W. Bush shredding the Constitution while drinking the blood of poor people with Dick Cheney – two wrongs do not make a right.

President Obama is constitutionally obligated to execute the office of the President of the United States. He is constitutionally obligated to ensure that the laws are faithfully executed.

While campaigning in 2008, then-candidate Obama promised to repeal DOMA. With super-majorities in Congress, he never made one attempt. He had the opportunity, and Republicans would have had no choice but to sit back and watch it happen. He did not act. He is not repealing DOMA now. He is ignoring DOMA – and that’s just as unconstitutional as DOMA itself.

We, as Americans, should want a president who stays within the confines of the Constitution, and within the restrictions it places on the power of the federal government.

We, as Americans, should want any law we disagree with to be overturned legally – so the repeal has a foundation in law and cannot be overturned later on what some may call a technicality. I happen to believe violating the Constitution is a tad bit more serious than a technicality.

This is not a matter of gay versus straight, or Democrat versus Republican. This is a matter of what is right. And even if you believe President Obama’s heart is in the right place, his methods must also be in the right place – or they have no merit.

The ends do not justify the means, when the means are illegal.


“The drive for same-sex marriage is, in effect, an effort to make a sneak attack on society by encoding this aberrant behavior in legal form before society itself has decided it should be legal … Let us defend the oldest institution, the institution of marriage between male and female as set forth in the Holy Bible.” -the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV)

Yesterday, a landmark ruling was announced that many gay and lesbian Americans have prayed for since 2008. Judge Vaughn Walker made the decision that didn’t really surprise anybody: he ruled California’s Proposition 8 Unconstitutional. Proposition 8 overturned a California State Supreme Court ruling that declared gay marriage legal within the borders of the state.

I say it wasn’t a surprise because Judge Walker is one of exactly three openly gay federal justices across America. I don’t think anyone doubted that he would rule the way he did. What pleased me wasn’t so much his ruling as it was his opinion.

It is no secret that I have long opposed same-sex marriage. My reasoning was that marriage is one of the last moral bastions in American culture; the benefits, financial and otherwise, were primarily meant to foster a positive atmosphere for raising children (and make it less expensive). I have argued that civil unions should be our fight, something that doesn’t infringe on what began as, and has ever been, a religious institution – whether those who partake in it see it that way or not.

Judge Walker has made a believer out of me, though. He brought up points that I had not considered. He also made me think of a few of my own.

At its heart, marriage has always been firmly rooted in religion. For the first two hundred years of American history, having a child out of wedlock was a taboo that could result in losing one’s entire life, career and all. It was the same way in most of the Western world until the 1960’s. That was largely due to religious sensibilities. It has long been seen as the responsibility of a pastor, rabbi or priest to oversee marriage ceremonies. It remains, to this day, the only legal institution in the United States that is presided over by both the church and the government at the sanction of the law.

Judge Walker disagrees with this, as do I. Married couples are not required to have children, nor are those who wish to have children required to marry. Marriage in today’s culture is supposed to be about love (or the benefits that come with it, particularly if you’re in the military). American culture does not support betrothing girls, nor is dowry paid any longer. Women have equal rights and equal footing with men, and interracial marriage was legalized decades ago. Plus, it is easy to dissolve a marriage nowadays.

The place of gay people in our culture has changed, too. Once seen as sick, twisted individuals in need of a cure, popular opinion (while not always bright and rosy) is far better than it once was. It’s no longer taboo to be gay or lesbian, unless your entire life is wrapped up in religion. We are portrayed as normal, productive members of society on TV and in the movies. We no longer have to fear losing jobs or housing because someone doesn’t like our sexual orientation. We no longer have to hide from public view or lie about who sleeps with us in our own homes.

Having pointed out that the current incarnation of marriage, as supported by the government, is heavily religious, I have to bring up another point. Judge Walker pointed out that marriage is now a civil matter. The establishment clause of the First Amendment says this: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Walker also opined that of all of the testimony offered by the organization defending Proposition 8, all of it was personal opinion based almost entirely on Judeo-Christian beliefs. According to the First Amendment, Christians are allowed to believe as they like and express it peacefully. Congress, however, while unable to prohibit them from expressing their views, is also not allowed to write said views into law. It is up to the people to decide.

The final argument that has been made regards voters’ rights. Our process is in place for a reason. The biggest gripe is that the voters decided to enact this legislation, and by overturning it, Judge Walker is supposedly engaging in judicial activism. Not so. As long as he can truthfully argue his decision and prove that it has sound basis in law, including the Constitution, he isn’t writing the law – he is interpreting it, which is his job. Yes, the voters can enact any law they wish to enact. On the same token, another group can challenge the Constitutionality of that law. Our system does not begin and end with the popular vote. If it did, segregation might still be in place today. When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was signed into law, 12 Democrats and one Republican filibustered to stop its passage. They nearly managed to stop the bill dead in its tracks. Until the Supreme Court of the United States rules one way or another, the fate of marriage rights in this country will remain in a semblance of limbo.

I posted Robert Byrd’s comments at the beginning of this post for a reason. Byrd was a Democrat. He opposed the Civil Rights Act, managing to block it at least once before it finally passed. Despite those comments, made in 1996 in support of the Defense of Marriage Act (signed into law by Bill Clinton and defended by Barack Obama), our GLBT counterparts call us traitors for being politically conservative. They tell us we’re deviants for not all being registered Democrats. What has the current uber-majority of Democrats done for us? Nothing, so far.

Here’s something I bet you didn’t know about Walker. He was already openly gay when President Ronald Reagan first nominated him for the federal bench in 1986. Citing his representation of the US Olympic Committee against the Gay Olympics (a case where the USOC sued to stop the group from calling their event Olympic), Nancy Pelosi led the Democratic charge to block his appointment. It was George H.W. Bush who succeeded in appointing him to the bench he now holds. Fellow gay conservative Drew Sweetwater pointed out a few more facts. It was a Republican from Florida who first introduced legislation that would repeal DADT, Ileans Ros-Letinen; Democrats refused to allow her bill to move to a vote. Republican Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice appointed an openly gay man as the country’s AIDS czar. President George W. Bush approved the highest funding in history for AIDS research. Sarah Palin’s first veto as the governor of Alaska was amazing: the Alaskan people voted to end benefits for the same-sex partners of state employees. Palin vetoed the bill.

I fail to see how Republicans have been the ones fighting against our equality in society.

In the end, the government must do one of two things in order to be in line with the true meaning of the First Amendment. They either need to make marriage legal for any couple comprised of two consenting adults, or they need to get out of marriage altogether, leave it to the church to define, and issue civil unions for all couples, whether gay or straight.

Washington’s Dividing (Gay) Issue of the Year: D.A.D.T.

For about a week now, the number-one searched term on internet search engines like YAHOO! has been: “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” 

As with the previous administration, the current one is using an issue important to some members of the gay community to deflect from much larger problems most sane people would like dealt with first.

After completely failing the American people, Obama finally held a press conference today on the BP oil disaster which is closing down businesses, endangering the Gulf and all of its natural resources which human beings and wildlife rely on, and happened to kill a handful of decent hardworking Americans responsible for providing and refining energy that we need as a nation to remain productive.  In the conference, Obama accomplished what we all knew he was capable of doing: to assign total blame to BP and accept absolutely no substantial responsibility whatsoever.  

Couldn’t he have done this about 20 days ago?  Ahh, he must have been too busy playing golf, giving comedy routines to the Hollywood elite, and attending fundraisers and events for Barbara Boxer.  (Guessing by his track record of carrying candidates to victory in 2010 with endorsement, perhaps we can thank him for his contribution to at least one issue important to Americans: getting rid of pompous incumbents.)

And while he wasn’t playing golf and stumping for Boxer, he was busy having lavish state dinners with foreign leaders who attack American policies.  After inviting President Calderon from Mexico to the United States last week, we saw two Presidents disparage Jan Brewer’s noble efforts to protect Arizonans and rail in rounds of applause from a liberal Congress by trashing the majority of Americans who support it.  (Rumor has it one of those presidents were supposed to be American.)

Clearly Americans are royally pissed off at the administration and Congress which are reflected in the latest GALLUP tracking poll with the President’s approval rating at 46% and his disapproval rating at 47%.

What better way to attempt to distract from issues important to Americans like immigration and a current national crisis which goes far beyond the simple characterization of something equivalent to “Bush’s Katrina” than to stir up American disagreement on crucial matters of national security?

Clearly, “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is a matter of national security where its proponents have made their valid arguments and its opponents have made theirs.  Honestly, I am sorry, but I couldn’t care less about it right now.  Other than a few friends directly affected by it — one in particular who was kicked out of the military once it was discovered he was gay — it is not an issue that united Americans are focusing on.

Flashback a few years to George W. Bush.  If you recall; McCain, Kennedy, and GWB were trying to force amnesty down our throats before the 2006 midterm elections and in the heat of grassroots-American rage in its opposition to what became known as “shamnesty,” Bush directed Congress to jump on a divisive issue attached to homosexuality and they immediately began debating gay marriage.

Most strident adversity to gay issues like “gays in the military” come from people who equate homosexuality to a sickness or a social disorder of some kind.  But people change and in order to get them to change, we must exist in a society where the most important issues of the day like a national tragedy such as the oil spill or the complete and utter madness stemming from a simple Arizona law supported by the majority are discussed and resolved.

Clearly, this administration and its liberal congressional partners-in-crime are not, and have never been, interested in representing the core parts of its people who unite us.  If they had, their version of “health care reform” would have never had a chance to come up for a vote, we wouldn’t be using our hard-working tax dollars to contribute to bailing out Greece’s failed socialist policies, we wouldn’t be inviting foreign leaders who cannot control criminals within their own country to come on our soil and accuse us of all being racists, and we wouldn’t be witnessing the most embarrassing reaction to a national crisis.

Instead of blaming Bush this time, he’s blaming BP and has ripped a page out of the worst chapter of the Bush playbook: when you’re up against the ropes, turn against the voters and throw out a scapegoat issues sure to divide Americans to distract from finding solutions to our biggest current problems.

THIS is the extent of gay relevance in Washington.  It doesn’t matter which party is running the show.  But at least one of those parties don’t run around pretending to be our best friends so we foolishly walk into voting booths and pull levers to gratify their electoral hunger.

Until we can get matters on track like jobs, our economy, securing our borders, and assisting those in the southern states most affected by the BP gush, I’d prefer Washington stop using our community to divide Americans and screw with delicate matters of national security.

Irony? Try Hypocrisy

(There’s been a lot going on in my corner of the world…I’ve been “seeing” a girl from my hometown who’s in med school here in Arizona, and that’s the only information I’m going to give–she doesn’t want to be identified publicly and won’t give me pictures until she’s absolutely sure I will never, ever post them on Facebook or MySpace (no matter how much I swear). As a result I haven’t been spending much time going to the library or my dad’s to use a computer. Once I fix my computer next month it won’t be so long between posts and responses. There’s also been an event that has rattled several of my friends in public safety, and I won’t give many details as I’ve promised not to give much away, but an Arizona DPS officer was killed last night while laying down stop sticks to end a chase. Pray for his family; he had a wife and four children aged 4 months – 7 years.)

Reader BurningMonk added this comment a couple of days ago to the post Burn Their Churches to the Ground:

I’m so tired of the irony of your blog.

Spend time doing something for your community, like building one, not splintering off.

Fighting back is the only way to achieve freedom. Please just check out some of the violence against gays around the world and in your hometown…Please don’t be the gay that will walk by as I get beaten up or threatened.

Read the book “Faggots” by Larry Kramer, and start to get a clue about your history.

Stop spreading Hate please, Conservative Gay…thank you

I felt this needed its own post and response. Here it is.

I am tired of the absolute hypocrisy and shill nature of the gay rights movement.

I will always, regardless of who the target is, stand up and either speak or act in defense of those targeted unfairly. If I hear a politician spewing outright lies, I will call them out. If I hear a fellow Christian disparaging all gays as being sick and twisted, I will correct them. If I were to see someone being beaten by a group of people simply for being gay, I would have absolutely no fear in taking a few hits to fight to protect them–I am well-trained and not afraid to take or offer harm if the situation calls for it, though I don’t issue threats unless I am about to actually do harm.

Note what I said there: regardless of who the target is. That means that if I hear a gay rights activist saying or doing something wrong, I’ll stand up against you, too.

Wanting equal rights does not give anybody the right to do or say anything you please. We’re not being rounded up and put in camps. Hell, we’re not even being arrested under sodomy laws anymore. The big issues now are the right to marry and protections for housing and employment (hate crimes is marked off the list, thanks to you guys–I have always been firmly against any and all hate crimes legislation). Housing and employment I can certainly understand; nobody should be discriminated against as long as they are responsible, capable members of society. Marriage (Philip will likely disagree with me on this) is something I don’t think we should mess with, and I’m perfectly fine with civil unions as long as they offer the same benefits under the law.

Either way, proposing violence against your adversary simply because you disagree with them is never excusable unless they do violence against you first. THAT is hate, folks, whether you like it or not. By doing and saying these things you are, believe it or not, persecuting them, and that is something they actually look forward to.

I know the gay community’s history quite well, as do Philip and Steve. There is just as much hypocrisy and crime in our past as there is in everyone else’s. BurningMonk, if I saw you being beaten I would fight just as hard for you as I would for any of my friends. I would be willing to do severe injury–even kill–to protect you from the violent thugs who actually do threaten us. Those punks are not being led by Christians today, however, and I will not tolerate them being branded as hatemongers any more than I would tolerate the punks doing violence.

If you want to know where the hate is, take a long hard look in the mirror. It’s a two-way street.

Yes, they can (and yes, they DID!)

Being a midwestern night owl, I was about to go to bed after drying my eyes over Hoffman’s loss in NY23 when this headline popped up:

“Maine voters repeal law that would have allowed gay marriage.”

Yes, for the last five national elections, Maine has been loyal to the Democrats.

Yes, Maine has a Democrat for a Governor.

Yes, Maine’s members of the U.S. House are Democrats.

And if that’s not bad enough, Maine is also responsible for RINO, Olympia Snowe.  (The one John McCain should have picked, remember?)

Somehow, the national mandate on banning gay marriage continues to pass in state, after state, after state.

To the members of my community giving all of your support to RINOS and/or liberals, ask yourselves how forceful big-government politicians have managed to persuade Americans on this issue.

See What I Mean? Perez Proves Me RIGHT!

Here was the scene at the Miss USA pageant a few days ago:


Before I get into the meat of the issue, somebody please explain to me how Perez Hilton landed a spot on the judge’s panel for Miss USA. PLEASE. Does he have an ounce of expertise, or is he just a horrid attempt at being inclusive? If that was their aim, I’d rather they chose a member of the gay community LEAST likely to pull some half-baked stunt, like Melissa Etheridge. Anyway, you can well guess what was likely after Carrie PreJean’s answer was in the video above made the rounds. Here was Hilton’s equally half-baked response:


My short response? GAG ME.

We’ve all heard the controversy. It’s been all over the news for the past two nights. What really galls me is that this flittin’ drama queen has the balls to post on his blog “this is getting to the point of ridiculous now!”

Perez, you are a sleazeball. You knew what you were doing when you submitted that question, and you knew as soon as Carrie PreJean gave her answer that it was going to become another controversy. I have no trouble at all believing that you were planning what you’d say and do before you’d even pulled your backside out of that auditorium seat, and you absolutely love the attention. You make a living off of it.

That said, Perez has proved me 100% right: the liberal gay community is incredibly hypocritical and completely intolerant of anyone who disagrees, no matter how civil or nice that person is. They are completely incapable of tolerating any viewpoint that differs from theirs. This is where I distance myself from the gay community at large, at least to what degree I can, because I cannot disagree with anyone more than I do right now with those who are castigating Miss California. I cannot wrap my brain around the concept of demanding tolerance while being unwilling to offer it. Perez apologized briefly, then retracted his apology and escalated the whole thing by invoking the c-word on a national news show.

This is what I’ve been talking about for so long. The gay community wants tolerance, maybe acceptance to a degree, but the instant someone politely disagrees the GLBT masses (and their PC supporters) jump up and down and scream “HATEMONGERS!!!” at the top of their lungs. In this case, I’m particularly embarrassed because there was no malice whatsoever in Miss California’s words, tone or expression. She simply offered an honest answer, and the ultra-PC crowd can’t handle it.

I obviously disagree with Miss California’s beliefs. I personally know my homosexuality to be normal; loving women, for me, is as natural as breathing. And as cynical as I can be sometimes I still believe there’s some amazing girl out there who is waiting to share this life with me. When I find her, I intend to commit myself to her and I’d like the law to recognize that union. I do NOT, however, condone in any way, shape or form this wholesale evisceration of Carrie PreJean’s character simply because she doesn’t see things the way I do. I hope she can accept this humble lil’ blogger’s apology on behalf of all of the GLBT people out there who believe in her right to her beliefs.

You, however, Perez–you scum-sucking, bottom-feeding lowlife–if you ever grow up, I may forgive you for making us all look like raving lunatics. While I may agree that freedom of speech in America means that having an opinion that isn’t popular may mean you don’t get paid to talk about that opinion, I refuse to let you get away with taking it so far. And for you to post on your blog all this sadness at two 11-year-old kids who killed themselves supposedly because other kids were calling them gay? You have no right to feign such shock, especially considering you feel it is the duty of every gay and lesbian person to come out of the closet and you’ve deliberately outed a few to prove your point.

One last thing…had to add this later…didn’t Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton all say essentially the same thing? That they “respectfully” disagreed with legalizing gay marriage? Where the hell is all the contempt for them that’s being fired with both barrels at Miss California?!?


I am about to die of hypoperfusion. After California voters very convincingly supported Proposition 8, banning gay marriage after the California Supreme Court had legalized it, I thought there was no way on God’s green Earth that gay marriage would receive a favorable vote any time soon.

I was wrong.

The Iowa Supreme Court today cast a unanimous vote to legalize gay marriage, making it the first Heartland state to take such a bold step. Naturally, the opponents are coming out swinging, promising to put the issue on the ballot and make it illegal again as California did. Accusations of judicial activism have already started as well. But I have a question: can anybody tell me exactly how we are to define judicial activism?

I climbed all over Barney Frank for his scathing rant against SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia, but I have to admit–in his dissenting opinion on the case that struck down sodomy laws nationwide, Scalia’s decision was based less on law and more on personal ideals. THAT is judicial activism, folks. When a judge is making decisions that have little basis in the law and more footing in personal or religious ideology, then you can accuse them of “judicial activism.” The fact that a judge is passing down a verdict that you disagree with does not automatically make them wrong. Both in Lawrence v. Texas and in the Iowa Supreme Court decision announced today, the law was soundly upheld–and was easily argued.

And, like it or not, California’s Supreme Court does have the power to strike down Proposition 8, although they will be scrutinized heavily if they choose to do so. The people do have the right to make law by popular vote. But if the law created by said vote is deemed Unconstitutional, what are those left behind by the law to do? That is why our system of checks and balances exists. No single group–not the people, the judiciary, the legislature or the President–is to have more power than all the others.

Ladies and gentlemen, I’ll have you know that I do not dance. I just broke that rule. If Iowa can legalize it, so can Texas and Arizona. It may not happen next year, but it can happen.

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t…What?

I know I promised a blog on violence perpetrated by liberal activists, but I’ve been going non-stop since I made that promise. This is literally the first chance I’ve had to sit down and think about anything other than work, and I had to point something out. I will deliver on my promise, but for now, I think this is more pressing.

It’s come across the wires that the 2010 budget includes funding for continuing the enforcement of DADT. “Don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue, don’t harass” was signed into law by Bill Clinton in 1994 after he made a campaign promise to end the military ban on homosexuals in service. The same guy who promised to be a friend to the gay community gave us DOMA (the Defense of Marriage Act) shortly after DADT. Last year, during the heated presidential campaigns, Barack Obama made a promise to end DADT and the ban for good.

Considering how things have gone so far, should we really be surprised that he has not only not kept his promise, but has extended the life of the policy?

He promised change. What’s changed? He’s managed to nearly triple the national deficit with a pork-laden spending bill that the Associated Press has finally agreed had absolutely no basis in reality whatsoever. We thought Bush economic policies were bad with his bailout? I was pretty sure we wanted that crap to stop, yet Obama has handed out more bailout money since he entered office than Bush did in eight years. The man has only been in office for seventy days! He talked a big game about “applying some flinty Chicago toughness” to D.C. in regards to the weather, yet he can’t even do what he’s calling on the rest of America to do–turn down his own freakin’ thermostat. Where’s the example? Geez, at least Carter put on a sweater, lit a fire in the White House fireplace and did exactly what he expected everyone else to do.

Should it really surprise us that Obama hasn’t come close to carrying out the promises he made to the gay community? When Kerry was running against Bush, I told everyone to beware: he was NOT going to be the savior of the gay community. I said the same thing when Obama was running, and hardly anyone believed me. Now we’ve got some of the gay news agencies quietly sticking in the back pages the news that Obama isn’t keeping his promise after all. Why can’t we all just admit it? Another politician lied to gain our trust and votes. I’d rather vote for someone who isn’t going to lie to me about giving me my rights than a man who will get on TV, tell a slick lie, do it with all the conviction in the world and not care that he has no intention of following through.

Don’t ask, don’t tell–don’t mess with the way things are. Lord knows if he pisses off too many people he won’t get re-elected. We can’t have that, now, can we?

I’m gettin’ a little tired of being used as a damned bargaining chip. Mark my words, folks, that’s exactly what we are.

Barney Frank, STFU!!!

The gay community has plenty of challenges to overcome in our quest for equal marriage rights. Many conservatives (and a fair number of liberals) are against gay marriage, mostly because of their religious leanings. Some aren’t religious at all; they just think it’s wrong to allow couples of the same sex the right to marry, flying in the face of thousands of years of tradition. Gay and lesbian people make up barely more than 2% of the total population, so we’re naturally outnumbered. Plenty of lawmakers feel that it would be detrimental to American society to allow gay marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act was passed by a largely Republican Senate and House and signed into law by none other than Bill Clinton (and he was supposed to be our hero!). As if we didn’t have enough problems as it is…

Enter Barney Frank and his huge freakin’ yapper.

That brainless, toothless wonder said in an interview with an as-yet-unnamed gay news agency, “At some point, [the Defense of Marriage Act] is going to have to go to the United States Supreme Court…I wouldn’t want it to go to the United States Supreme Court now because that homophobe Antonin Scalia has got too many votes on this current court.”


Barney, could you be just a little more inflammatory? Could you make it any more difficult for us than it already is? Instead of trying to have a civil conversation with those who disagree with us, you’re going to insult them all just like your constituents? Is it possible in the least for you to try to be nice? Has it occurred to you that they might be more willing to listen if you WOULD be nice? Of course not! You’re too busy griping and moaning about how unfair it is for you.

You have just guaranteed that there is no way in heaven, hell or on Earth that the current SCOTUS will ever render a vote in our favor on the issue of gay marriage. The further you push this issue, the more you insult Justice Scalia and those who think the way he does, the worse you make it for us. Scalia isn’t going anywhere any time soon. And the way you Democrats are playing now, conservatives will win the day in 2010 and 2012–guaranteeing that Obama will have one hell of a hard time getting anyone more liberal than O’Connor named to the bench. You’re not helping our chances with this kind of garbage.

Do us a favor, Barney, and SHUT UP.

Free Speech…As Long As You Agree With Me!

Jonathan Lopez, a community college student in Los Angeles, is suing his school for violating his First Amendment rights. In his speech class, he stood to deliver his assigned speech only to be shouted down by two students AND the instructor because they were offended by his speech. The professor even went so far as to call him a “fascist bastard” in front of the entire class. What was he speaking about?

His beliefs on why gay marriage is wrong.

This is what I’ve talked about before. We’re edging dangerously close to trying to enact hate-speech laws, and incidents like this underscore my previous points about the issue. I haven’t been able to find out what the assignment was, but if it was anything like my speech class assignments, they were probably told to give a speech on a political issue, and it’s likely they were not given any boundaries on what they could or could not speak about. It’s been a while since I had a speech class but the last time I did so, I spoke about the importance of allowing parents to raise their children their own way, as long as they weren’t being abusive or neglectful. It was a subject my instructor said hadn’t been brought up much, and I was given a perfect score for it despite one of my classmates objecting to my defense of corporal punishment.

Had I been in class with Jonathan Lopez, I’d have stood up immediately and announced to the class that I’m gay, but I’m also an American and I object to this sort of censorship. I would have said that refusing any person their free speech rights is more like fascism than anything he was saying. If I could talk to that instructor now, I’d ask what made him think he could get away with telling any student that the content of their speech was wrong because it offended someone. I’d ask if he’d have done the same to a gay student trying to argue for gay marriage rights in the presence of a class full of known Christians – or if he’d have considered it a type of education for those students. On Lopez’s evaluation sheet, the instructor, John Matteson, wrote “proselytizing is inappropriate in public school” and refused to actually grade the speech, instead writing, “ask God what your grade is…”

Later on, Matteson spotted Lopez speaking to the dean of academic affairs and threatened to have him expelled. It has also been reported by other students in the class that after the November 4 elections, Matteson told the class that anyone who voted in support of Prop 8 was a fascist. Nice.

The professor involved said that one student said in class that Lopez “should have to pay some price for preaching hate in the classroom.” In other words, you’re free to speak your mind, but only as long as you agree with the rest of us. Talk about fascism. If this student had wanted to speak in defense of the rights of the KKK, he should have been allowed to do so. These folks decrying this young man’s speech are the same ones who scream that teenagers in high school shouldn’t be denied their right to speak freely, ever, even when that free speech involves unleashing a string of profanities at a teacher. I suppose as long as you’re liberal, you’re safe, right?

I hope Mr. Lopez wins his lawsuit. I hope the dean who humiliated him in front of his peers has to pay a hefty penalty for her behavior. And I sincerely hope that the students who shouted him down learn that tolerance goes both ways, and that if you wish for Christians to tolerate you, then you need to be willing to tolerate them.