OT: Gay Marriage

[briansd1]

I think we already know which side is winning the culture war.

Like I said before, progressive ideas always win the day, sooner or later.

Now he joins several other members of the Bush inner circle who have publicly stated their support for same-sex marriage. Former Vice President Dick Cheney, who has a daughter who is gay, has said he supports the right of gay people to marry, as has the former first lady Laura Bush.

[Aecetia]

So does that make him a progressive?

[Aecetia]

So does that make him a progressive?

[Aecetia]

So does that make him a progressive?

[Aecetia]

So does that make him a progressive?

[Aecetia]

So does that make him a progressive?

[briansd1]

[quote=Aecetia]So does that make him a progressive?[/quote]

Ken Melhman is definitely becoming a progressive.

The agenda he was working on in 2004 appears to have all been a lie. It’ll take him a few more years to works it out.

Mr. Mehlman told The Atlantic, “It’s taken me 43 years to get comfortable with this part of my life.”

Given that he’s 43, it appears he’s saying that he was born gay. And all the conservative ideas couldn’t overcome his sexuality. Pretty much destroys all the logic of the conservatives.

[briansd1]

[quote=Aecetia]So does that make him a progressive?[/quote]

Ken Melhman is definitely becoming a progressive.

The agenda he was working on in 2004 appears to have all been a lie. It’ll take him a few more years to works it out.

Mr. Mehlman told The Atlantic, “It’s taken me 43 years to get comfortable with this part of my life.”

Given that he’s 43, it appears he’s saying that he was born gay. And all the conservative ideas couldn’t overcome his sexuality. Pretty much destroys all the logic of the conservatives.

[briansd1]

[quote=Aecetia]So does that make him a progressive?[/quote]

Ken Melhman is definitely becoming a progressive.

The agenda he was working on in 2004 appears to have all been a lie. It’ll take him a few more years to works it out.

Mr. Mehlman told The Atlantic, “It’s taken me 43 years to get comfortable with this part of my life.”

Given that he’s 43, it appears he’s saying that he was born gay. And all the conservative ideas couldn’t overcome his sexuality. Pretty much destroys all the logic of the conservatives.

[briansd1]

[quote=Aecetia]So does that make him a progressive?[/quote]

Ken Melhman is definitely becoming a progressive.

The agenda he was working on in 2004 appears to have all been a lie. It’ll take him a few more years to works it out.

Mr. Mehlman told The Atlantic, “It’s taken me 43 years to get comfortable with this part of my life.”

Given that he’s 43, it appears he’s saying that he was born gay. And all the conservative ideas couldn’t overcome his sexuality. Pretty much destroys all the logic of the conservatives.

[briansd1]

[quote=Aecetia]So does that make him a progressive?[/quote]

Ken Melhman is definitely becoming a progressive.

The agenda he was working on in 2004 appears to have all been a lie. It’ll take him a few more years to works it out.

Mr. Mehlman told The Atlantic, “It’s taken me 43 years to get comfortable with this part of my life.”

Given that he’s 43, it appears he’s saying that he was born gay. And all the conservative ideas couldn’t overcome his sexuality. Pretty much destroys all the logic of the conservatives.

[briansd1]

[quote=UCGal]What amazes me is if the roles were reversed – if the Dems had filibustered, blocked an up/down vote, on a defense spending bill they’d be vilified as soft on terror, mean to the troops, not serious about defense.

I don’t see any discussion of this when the shoe’s on the other foot. The GOP voted against cloture on a defense spending bill. They voted against funding the troops. Yet there is no suggestion that they don’t support the troops, national defense, the two wars, etc…

As far as DADT – it sounds like that will be settled in the court long before congress acts. A federal judge ruled a few weeks ago that DADT violates free speech and due process.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/09/10/ask-and-tell-court-strikes-down-military-policy-on-gays/

If the Obama administration chooses NOT to appeal the decision – DADT might very well be dead.

[/quote]

UCGal I’m responding to your earlier post on the other thread here to keep more on topic.
http://piggington.com/ot_illegal039s_arizona_and_obama?page=2

I agree on both your points.

As was pointed out on the News Hour tonight, the military is young and young people no longer see being gay as an issue.

I went to my young cousin’s wedding. His brother brought his boyfriend to the wedding and nobody had any problem with that.

I’m not that young anymore, but I try to stay young at heart, so I do wholeheartedly support gays in the military.

MARK THOMPSON: Well, no, but you have leaders like Admiral Mullen saying, you know, we hear about these concerns, but, anecdotally, they say, we’re not hearing them. When we go out to bases and posts around the country and around the world, they basically support what we’re trying to do.

Remember, the military is overwhelmingly young. And this is a generational change. And the younger people you talk to, the less of an issue it is.

JIM LEHRER: Is that true with the population generally in the polls, David?

DAVID CHALIAN: Right. You referenced that Washington Post/ABC poll from February.

JIM LEHRER: Yes. Yes.

DAVID CHALIAN: It is one of those issues, Jim, that we have seen a real movement on over time, where an overwhelming majority is supportive of the idea of gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, as you said.

Even a majority of Republicans have come to that point of view. We have really seen the electorate move on this, largely in — to that point about it being a generational issue, as younger voters are coming into the electorate, they have less and less concern about it.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec10/dontask_09-21.html

[briansd1]

[quote=UCGal]What amazes me is if the roles were reversed – if the Dems had filibustered, blocked an up/down vote, on a defense spending bill they’d be vilified as soft on terror, mean to the troops, not serious about defense.

I don’t see any discussion of this when the shoe’s on the other foot. The GOP voted against cloture on a defense spending bill. They voted against funding the troops. Yet there is no suggestion that they don’t support the troops, national defense, the two wars, etc…

As far as DADT – it sounds like that will be settled in the court long before congress acts. A federal judge ruled a few weeks ago that DADT violates free speech and due process.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/09/10/ask-and-tell-court-strikes-down-military-policy-on-gays/

If the Obama administration chooses NOT to appeal the decision – DADT might very well be dead.

[/quote]

UCGal I’m responding to your earlier post on the other thread here to keep more on topic.
http://piggington.com/ot_illegal039s_arizona_and_obama?page=2

I agree on both your points.

As was pointed out on the News Hour tonight, the military is young and young people no longer see being gay as an issue.

I went to my young cousin’s wedding. His brother brought his boyfriend to the wedding and nobody had any problem with that.

I’m not that young anymore, but I try to stay young at heart, so I do wholeheartedly support gays in the military.

MARK THOMPSON: Well, no, but you have leaders like Admiral Mullen saying, you know, we hear about these concerns, but, anecdotally, they say, we’re not hearing them. When we go out to bases and posts around the country and around the world, they basically support what we’re trying to do.

Remember, the military is overwhelmingly young. And this is a generational change. And the younger people you talk to, the less of an issue it is.

JIM LEHRER: Is that true with the population generally in the polls, David?

DAVID CHALIAN: Right. You referenced that Washington Post/ABC poll from February.

JIM LEHRER: Yes. Yes.

DAVID CHALIAN: It is one of those issues, Jim, that we have seen a real movement on over time, where an overwhelming majority is supportive of the idea of gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, as you said.

Even a majority of Republicans have come to that point of view. We have really seen the electorate move on this, largely in — to that point about it being a generational issue, as younger voters are coming into the electorate, they have less and less concern about it.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec10/dontask_09-21.html

[briansd1]

[quote=UCGal]What amazes me is if the roles were reversed – if the Dems had filibustered, blocked an up/down vote, on a defense spending bill they’d be vilified as soft on terror, mean to the troops, not serious about defense.

I don’t see any discussion of this when the shoe’s on the other foot. The GOP voted against cloture on a defense spending bill. They voted against funding the troops. Yet there is no suggestion that they don’t support the troops, national defense, the two wars, etc…

As far as DADT – it sounds like that will be settled in the court long before congress acts. A federal judge ruled a few weeks ago that DADT violates free speech and due process.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/09/10/ask-and-tell-court-strikes-down-military-policy-on-gays/

If the Obama administration chooses NOT to appeal the decision – DADT might very well be dead.

[/quote]

UCGal I’m responding to your earlier post on the other thread here to keep more on topic.
http://piggington.com/ot_illegal039s_arizona_and_obama?page=2

I agree on both your points.

As was pointed out on the News Hour tonight, the military is young and young people no longer see being gay as an issue.

I went to my young cousin’s wedding. His brother brought his boyfriend to the wedding and nobody had any problem with that.

I’m not that young anymore, but I try to stay young at heart, so I do wholeheartedly support gays in the military.

MARK THOMPSON: Well, no, but you have leaders like Admiral Mullen saying, you know, we hear about these concerns, but, anecdotally, they say, we’re not hearing them. When we go out to bases and posts around the country and around the world, they basically support what we’re trying to do.

Remember, the military is overwhelmingly young. And this is a generational change. And the younger people you talk to, the less of an issue it is.

JIM LEHRER: Is that true with the population generally in the polls, David?

DAVID CHALIAN: Right. You referenced that Washington Post/ABC poll from February.

JIM LEHRER: Yes. Yes.

DAVID CHALIAN: It is one of those issues, Jim, that we have seen a real movement on over time, where an overwhelming majority is supportive of the idea of gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, as you said.

Even a majority of Republicans have come to that point of view. We have really seen the electorate move on this, largely in — to that point about it being a generational issue, as younger voters are coming into the electorate, they have less and less concern about it.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec10/dontask_09-21.html

[briansd1]

[quote=UCGal]What amazes me is if the roles were reversed – if the Dems had filibustered, blocked an up/down vote, on a defense spending bill they’d be vilified as soft on terror, mean to the troops, not serious about defense.

I don’t see any discussion of this when the shoe’s on the other foot. The GOP voted against cloture on a defense spending bill. They voted against funding the troops. Yet there is no suggestion that they don’t support the troops, national defense, the two wars, etc…

As far as DADT – it sounds like that will be settled in the court long before congress acts. A federal judge ruled a few weeks ago that DADT violates free speech and due process.
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2010/09/10/ask-and-tell-court-strikes-down-military-policy-on-gays/

If the Obama administration chooses NOT to appeal the decision – DADT might very well be dead.

[/quote]

UCGal I’m responding to your earlier post on the other thread here to keep more on topic.
http://piggington.com/ot_illegal039s_arizona_and_obama?page=2

I agree on both your points.

As was pointed out on the News Hour tonight, the military is young and young people no longer see being gay as an issue.

I went to my young cousin’s wedding. His brother brought his boyfriend to the wedding and nobody had any problem with that.

I’m not that young anymore, but I try to stay young at heart, so I do wholeheartedly support gays in the military.

MARK THOMPSON: Well, no, but you have leaders like Admiral Mullen saying, you know, we hear about these concerns, but, anecdotally, they say, we’re not hearing them. When we go out to bases and posts around the country and around the world, they basically support what we’re trying to do.

Remember, the military is overwhelmingly young. And this is a generational change. And the younger people you talk to, the less of an issue it is.

JIM LEHRER: Is that true with the population generally in the polls, David?

DAVID CHALIAN: Right. You referenced that Washington Post/ABC poll from February.

JIM LEHRER: Yes. Yes.

DAVID CHALIAN: It is one of those issues, Jim, that we have seen a real movement on over time, where an overwhelming majority is supportive of the idea of gays and lesbians serving openly in the military, as you said.

Even a majority of Republicans have come to that point of view. We have really seen the electorate move on this, largely in — to that point about it being a generational issue, as younger voters are coming into the electorate, they have less and less concern about it.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec10/dontask_09-21.html

[Author]

Posts