I predicted that it would be amusing to hear “Wayne” try to defend McCain on DADT. I guess “Wayne” doesn’t remember that a similar discussion came up only a few days ago on this site, and that he tried then to claim that a president can end DADT by executive order. He seems to have forgotten that Congress passed a law which the president cannot just conveniently ignore. Of course, “Wayne” was told about that at the time by others, but did he let that little fact get in his way? No. He’s on a mission.

Hey, “Wayne,” that’s good news! Thank you. I hope you keep your word about that, because I really don’t care if you respond to me or not. I’m much more concerned about how your illogical comments might mislead others into thinking that Obama is the bad guy you want us to think he is (although most visitors here seem to see right through you immediately without any help from me).

Oh, by the way, when I was of draft age, I was in a religious order and exempt from military service. However, I have 4 brothers who served in the military (army, marines and navy) and in 3 wars. And my domestic partner is a navy vet. And, yes, they all served honorably.

You can remove your foot from your mouth now.

———–

Not only am I an Army brat, I’m an Army Vet, who has served my country honorably, which is more than you have ever done, I’m sure. You wouldn’t know the first thing about valor or sacrifice, you spend all of your time attacking me instead of trying to articulate your own ideas. You are pathetic, and I tire of responding to your drivel. But, if you want to discuss DADT and it’s ramifications, and more specifically McCain’s position on the issue as compared to Obama’s continually shifting and backtraking on the issue then lets do so. McCain has said that he has consulted Military leaders and ask if they felt it was wise to remove the DADT policy, to which they replied in the negative. McCain passed the buck, and was wrong not to take a more strident stand against DADT. But Obama has promised to end DADT only to backtrack away to end DADT and now wants a Legislative end to DADT, which only a fool believes is coming any time soon, and would depend at least in part on what those very military leaders wanted to do. Neither candidate is perfect on the issue. Now if you want to now the truth of the matter, the army (and all the services) are starting to change their attitudes. Several people in my unit knew I was gay, but I pulled my weight did my job, and kept my head down. And there is an entire subculture within the military of gay service personnel (probably always has been) and it’s those people, the gay men and women who have served honorably, we are the ones making the real changes, it’s our service that has changed those attitudes, and DADT will end but it won’t come from politicians, it will come from those same military leaders that McCain went to, and asked thier advise. When those leaders have finally moved past thier prejudice, then and only then will DADT end.

Don’t ever accuse me or any vet of faking of faking thier service in the Military. I’m not going to respond to you any more. You are pathetic.

Actually, just about the only one on this site who promotes that illogical view is “Wayne” (not Besen) and any other names he writes under. He’s been johnny-one-note on the issue for weeks now, trying to sow doubts about Obama, and no amount of evidence or argument to the contrary discourages him. He ignores it all. He’s on a mission, and that’s to get McCain/Palin elected.

And, by the way, if “Wayne” really is an army brat and so much in favor of national defense, let’s hear him try to defend McCain’s adamant support for Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. That should be amusing.

——-

I don’t know about “delusional” but the Connecticut Supreme Court just ruled that Obama’s “Separate But Equal” civil unions are in fact DISCRIMINATORY TO GAY PEOPLE. Maybe the Supreme Court is delusional too?

Fact: Obama opposes Propostion 8 in California. Obama said he “opposes all divisive and discriminatory Constitutional amendments, state or federal.” This also includes the proposed amendments in Arizona and Florida.

Fact: McCain supports Prop 8 in California. In an e‐mail to protectmarriage.com, McCain said “I support the efforts of the people of California to recognize marriage as a
unique institution between a man and a
woman, just as we did in my home state.”

Fact: McCain is “proud” to have led an effort to ban same‐sex marriage AND EVEN CIVIL UNIONS in Arizona. McCain said “I’m proud to have led an effort in my home state to change our state Constitution to protect the sanctity of marriage between man and woman.”

On discrimonatory constitutional state amendments to ban same sex mariage, O’bama supports us, McCain supports our hateful opponents.

On Defense of Marriage Act:

Fact: Obama supports complete repeal of DOMA. Obama believes we need to fully repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same sex couples in marriages, civil unions and other legally recognized relationships. Thus our spouses and domestic partners would be entitled to our social security benefits.

Fact: McCain continues to defend DOMA. McCain voted for passage of the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, which denies federal legal rights and benefits to same‐sex couples, and he continues to defend that discriminatory law to this day.

On DOMA, Obama supports our position for full repeal, and McCain supports the position of the wacko conservative religious right to retain DOMA.

US Constitutional Amendment to Ban Same Sex marriage:

Fact: Obama voted against a federal amendment to ban same‐sex marriage. Obama sided with the vast majority of Democrats opposing attempts by the Republican leadership to bring
up a vote on a constitutional amendment to ban same sex‐marriage

Fact: McCain recently said he would sign the Federal Marriage Amendment into law. When asked if he would sign the federal marriage amendment if elected President, McCain replied, “of course,” although he voted against the amendment in the Senate.

Any person who thinks McCain is better on marriage issues for the LBGT community than Obama is quite simply delusional.

Absolutely. Do I support granting same-sex benefits? Absolutely positively. Look, in an Obama-Biden administration, there will be absolutely no distinction from a constitutional standpoint or a legal standpoint between a same-sex and a heterosexual couple.

This sounds good, right? Notice the specific use of the words “constitutional” and “legal.” It seems to me that he uses these words precisely to specify what he’s talking about so that he can come back later and talk about a kind of marriage that is non-constitutional and non-legal.

The fact of the matter is that under the Constitution we should be granted — same-sex couples should be able to have visitation rights in the hospitals, joint ownership of property, life insurance policies, et cetera. That’s only fair.

It’s what the Constitution calls for. And so we do support it. We do support making sure that committed couples in a same-sex marriage are guaranteed the same constitutional benefits as it relates to their property rights, their rights of visitation, their rights to insurance, their rights of ownership as heterosexual couples do.

Again he reiterates that that, from a legal standpoint, same sex couples are to be treated the same as opposite sex couples. This is a far cry from McCain’s stance, which basically “allows” us to spend thousands of dollars in lawyers fees to enter into contracts that garner us only some of the rights that opposite sex couples get with one document.

This is not a gift, McCain, we can do it already, and it doesn’t work out so well.

No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that. That is basically the decision to be able to be able to be left to faiths and people who practice their faiths the determination what you call it.

Here’s the line that gets hisses and boos. Again, though, I think the wording here is again very deliberate. Notice how in the first sentence he says they don’t support redefining marriage “from a civil side” and how it’s up to people of faith how they define marriage. This is where that non-legal marriage idea comes in. This is where he’s reassuring the religious that the government isn’t going to come into their places of worship and telling them what to do, rewriting their holy books, etc.

This is good, because the government has nor right doing that. From the legal and constitutional standpoint, however, Biden rightly says that marriage is equal for hetero and homosexual couples.

The bottom line though is, and I’m glad to hear the governor, I take her at her word, obviously, that she think there should be no civil rights distinction, none whatsoever, between a committed gay couple and a committed heterosexual couple. If that’s the case, we really don’t have a difference.

Here again, he repeats the stance of the Obama campaign; that homosexual couples are equal in the eyes of the law to heterosexual couples.

If you’ll remember, the Connecticut Supreme Court said the exact same thing a couple of years ago and left the legislature to decide how to make gay couples equal in the eyes of the law. They chose civil unions. The reports came in, civil unions were not garnering gay couples the rights they were promised by the courts and thus the courts revisited the case and determined that gay couples could not be denied access to marriage.

Honestly, the rest of the country should take this as a lesson, but this does show that civil unions are a stepping stone to marriage equality.

From the McCain side we have Palin saying

I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that’s where we would go. I don’t support gay marriage

From McCain himself we have opposition to a Federal Amendment banning gay marriage and support for an amendment to the Arizona Constitution banning gay marriage in that state.

The state’s rights issue is a strong point for the McCain campaign, except where does that leave me, who would like to get a greencard for my foreign husband? We’re married in California, but a state marriage does nothing for immigration, which is a federal issue.

In his tolerance, McCain assures us that we can definitely enter into contracts with each other. Well, thanks, I guess? Couldn’t we do that already?