Obama Begins Push For Mandatory Nationwide Gay Marriage

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam. He is completing a book on the international challenges America faces in the 21st century.


The absurd idea that compromise was ever going to work was… absurd. The left doesn’t compromise, instead it uses each compromise as proof of insincerity. The only way to beat the left is to never compromise with the left. Once you try to find common ground, then you’ve given up the fight in a fight that never ends.

Civil unions were supposed to be a compromise. Instead Obama’s corrupt Justice Department is arguing that civil unions for homosexuals are proof of discrimination.

Obama and Holder have taken the position that any laws that gay lobbies don’t like should be “subject to heightened scrutiny”, which is another “Guilty until proven innocent” dodge that really means that no such laws can even be found legitimate because they are inherently illegitimate.

Naturally Obama Inc. rejects democracy out of the gate. “petitioners contend that Proposition 8 serves an interest in returning the issue of marriage to the democratic process. But use of a voter initiative to promote democratic self-governance cannot save a law like Proposition 8 that would otherwise violate equal protection.”

Not that Obama believes in any self-governance whatsoever. A poll purports to show that a majority of California voters support gay marriage. Why not take it to a referendum then? Because the whole point of using the judiciary to override self-governance is to demonstrate the power of leftist officials over people.

And of course there’s no room for moral judgement. “Protecting children from being taught about same-sex marriage is not a permissible interest insofar as it rests on a moral judgment about gay and lesbian people or their intimate relationships.”

But of course endorsing the construct of gay marriage is already a moral judgement. The government has the right to make moral judgement about the intimate relationships of polygamists. So clearly such a right does exist. The left favors altering the definition of marriage to mean two men in Miami Beach, but not two men and a woman in a Jersey City Pakistani emigre community. Why not?

Moral judgement.

Civil unions emerge as a bait and switch scam. Recognize them and you mandate gay marriage.

Same-sex partners in California may, inter alia, raise children with the same rights and obligations as spouses; adopt each other’s children; gain a presumption of parentage for a child born to or adopted by one partner; become foster parents; file joint state tax returns; participate in a partner’s health-insurance policy; visit their partner when hospitalized; make medical decisions for a partner; and, upon the death of a partner, serve as the conservator of the partner’s estate. Pet. App. 49a-50a. California has therefore recognized that same-sex couples form deeply committed relationships that bear the hallmarks of their neighbors’ opposite-sex marriages:

Proposition 8 nevertheless forbids committed samesex couples from solemnizing their union in marriage, and instead relegates them to a legal status—domestic partnership—distinct from marriage but identical to it
in terms of the substantive rights and obligations under state law.

And once you let in gay civil unions, then a case can be made that you recognize the existence of gay partnerships, but discriminate against them in the area of gay marriage. Compromise fail.

Gay marriage, according to Obama Inc. and its wealthy gay donors, is now a Constitutional right.

Proposition 8’s denial of marriage to same-sex couples, particularly where California at the same time grants same-sex partners all the substantive rights of marriage, violates equal protection. The Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection embodies a defining constitutional ideal that “all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.”

For now, Obama Inc. is just applying that constitutional right to California and civil union states, but the clear meaning is that it applies nationwide.

If gay marriage is an equal protection issue, then every state must enact gay marriage. The Supreme Court may not uphold that particular misinterpretation of the Constitution, but they will also have to stop Obama from mandating it through various legal and illegal means.

  • Mary Sue

    One thing I do think they need is the ability to visit their partner in the hospital and such, though I don't think it requires gay marriage/civil unions to have this happen.

    Though I think a Power of Attorney thing can be worked out despite or regardless of marital status?

    • http://www.adinakutnicki.com AdinaK

      Mary Sue, agreed. There are surely ways to make it easier for same sex couples to have access to important health and monetary issues, regarding their partner. However, no one should be fooled by Obama's real goal, despite his "non outing" of his real goal – gay marriage.

      Now, one has to know with whom they are dealing, and that is that – http://adinakutnicki.com/2013/02/21/the-continued

      And the above is as open as one can get. Couldn't make it any more transparent.

      Adina Kutnicki, Israel http://adinakutnicki.com/about/

      • Grayzel

        I have two cousins in separate long term relationships. They each own a separate businesses together with their partners. They have all the rights of a heterosexual married couple except the tax breaks. They accomplished this with the laws that are in place at this time. Instead of changing the word marriage and spending the money for the costs of lawsuits there is a simple solution. Eliminate any tax breaks for married couples. Remove all government out of the taxing, regulating and licensing of marriage. As a side note all four of these men disagree with idea of changing the word marriage to include two men or two women.

        • D-Boy

          hey here is an idea, just make homosexuality illegal again. Being illegal didn't stop them from trying to recruit all the young adults they came in contact with for sex. Gays are not born they are created by selfish perverted people who prey on the young.

          • thomas_h

            "Gays are not born they are created by selfish perverted people who prey on the young".

            By "gays" you, of course, meant "homosexuals". Am I right? OK, I know I am.

            Now whether some people are born homosexual is beside the point. What matters is whether they follow their inborn tendency, or not. It is not the tendency itself, but following it that makes them perverts.
            Man is born imperfect, but he is free to strive for perfection. To indulge unnatural cravings is not freedom, but a sick addiction.

  • Asher

    All we need is more Jerry Sandusky types out there, or Wayne Brock, former Scout Master who was arrested for abusing a young man under 13 years old., or transgenders and homosexuals in bathrooms that approach our children. I am repulsed by this administration's lack of morality! Jude 1:7 "Even as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." Going after strange flesh means going after strange flesh different than what is rightly ours to claim, and that which God has forbidden. God did not create 2 women or 2 men, he created 1 man and 1 woman to reproduce and populate the earth…2 men or 2 women are not physically equipped to create life…its a no brainer…

  • PAthena

    The advocates of "gay marriage" are dishonest. Any adults can live together, with or without sexual relations (except incest), can make whatever financial arrangements they want. So why make such arrangements between homosexuals "marriage"? Society has an interest in real marriage because children are involved, but it has not interest in homosexual relations. Is the effort to make "gay marriage" yet another enterprise of that wealthy, politically active homosexual James Hormel?

    • Brent

      Once same-sex marraige becomes firmly established as a legal principle, won't everyone be in danger of being sued for palimony by some old roomate?

  • delmaster

    I pay taxes. I believe in the American promise of equality. I reject Al Quaeda's and the Westborough Baptist church's stance that gay marriage is wrong. We have separation of church and state in this country.

    Gay marriage is legal in my State. But my Federal government does not recognize it and thus I get no tax benefits (inheritance rights, pension benefits, etc) because everyone defers to the IRS and the IRS is bound by the very anti-American DOMA law.

    Please stand up for the 14th Amendment's promise of equal protection under the law. It's the American way.

    • Mary Sue

      just get them to put you in their will. Then you get inheritance rights.

    • Ed in Texas

      Only Al Queda and Westboro consider gay marriage wrong? Well, I guess that is true. Christianity and Judaism haven't a position on gay marriage per se, they just find homosexuality an abomination. Those post-modernist Christians who have decided the Bible is totally wrong on this issue obviously believe the Bible is neither infallible, nor inerrant. They have found, or will eventually find, the Bible is wrong on everything else, or at least those things which make them feel uncomfortable – like sin.

      • D-Boy

        Yeah maybe if we can keep our laws for sin being OK we won't be judged by God. Good luck with that.

  • Briz

    You mention polygamy, but sexual deviance doesn't stop there. It could also lead to more incest, cousin marriage, a marriage between relatives, constant lowering the age of consent, etc.

    • B. Wyler

      Our nation's brightest jurists have discovered an "equal protections clause" in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution (which was ratified in 1868, but hitherto was unnoticed). The amendment reads: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." At the moment, I can't imagine what sort of dangers marraige protects against, but if there are such dangers, surely it is unconstitutional to deny any protection of the law to unmarried citizens; and therefore, the priveleged class known as "married persons" will have to be abolished.

  • stephen

    This is easily the most partisan site I've ever been on. I just wanted to post a forecast into the future: Gays are going to be allowed to marry. Get over it.

    • JacksonPearson

      You're a definite victim of Planned Parenthood retroactive birth control.

    • WSG

      This is a CONSERVATIVE site. Please stay, you might learn to think rather than emote. Facts are hard things but they have a way of forcing their way to the front even in today's secularly wrecked culture. For several hundred years man has known salt as NaCl and oxygen as O2 . For several thousand years marriage has been defined as between one man and one woman. So for the sake of a radical socio- political agenda society is now to call oxygen salt ! ? Words (still) have meaning, you can call homosexual unions, "marriage" I will not.

    • mkat68

      Assimilate THIS!

    • D-Boy

      Yeah be ashamed America. but get over it… it won't kill you or ruin your kids lives. Oh wait yes it very well could do both those things.

    • thomas_h

      ”This is easily the most partisan site I've ever been on. I just wanted to post a forecast into the future: Gays are going to be allowed to marry.”

      Partisan? If agreeing that practicing a disgusting perversion is partisan, then what is wrong with partisan? I assume that majority, if not all, here (I don’t know about you) agree that pedophilia is a vile perversion. Are we therefore all partisan? If so, I can’t see a problem here.

      “Gays are going to be allowed to marry”

      Gays? Oh, I see, you mean sodomites…

      Well, to be allowed is one thing. To be able to take advantage of that is something different. Marriage is per definition and in principle between man and woman and there is no earthly power able to magically transform a man into a woman, or vice versa by declaring a couple of homosexuals married.
      A government may just as well allow that a man may marry his telephone, or that a triangle may have more than three sides.

    • Robert Eddinger

      The new definition of marraige appeals to the plebeian mind. The masses regard sex as an achievement, and they think that the monetary advantages of marraige are designed, not as a needed benefit for those who have undertaken the financial burden of parenthood, but as a deserved reward merely for having a live-in sex partner. Thus same-sex marraige (with its deserved monetary rewards) reinforces the popular notion that those with live-in sex partners are superior to those without.

  • JacksonPearson

    The Bible doesn't speak of homosexuality very often, but when it does, it condemns it as sin. Let's take a look.

    * Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."

    * Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"

    * Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,

    * nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."

    * Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."

    Homosexuality is clearly condemned in the Bible. But, it also goes against the created order of God who made Adam, a man, and Eve, a woman — not two men, not two women — to carry out his command to fill and subdue the earth (Gen. 1:28). Homosexuality cannot carry out that command. It is, therefore, a contradiction to God's stated desire in the created order.

    • wsg

      Quoting the Bible to secular/ atheist Progressives is largely a lost cause. They compulsively refuse to recognize that there is any higher authority in the universe than their falsely inflated "intellect." Nihilists and narcissists by definition must worship themselves, the state or Gaia because Judeo-Christian culture is a threat to their delusional world view.

      • Rebecca

        Christians don't have to quote the Bible. God created the laws of nature and nature itself teaches us that heterosexuality is normal and homosexuality is abnormal. Some are attempting to codify a psychsexual abnormality by pushing for gay marriage. It is a completely illogical construct. The psychosexual problem will still exist and everyone will always know it. Including gay people. Hence one of the reasons we also have this push for "hate speech" laws to prevent people from saying anything that can take the fantasy of normalcy away from gays.

    • Danny

      "….they shall surely be put to death". Welcome to Al Qaeda in America.

      • mkat68

        AIDS, hepatitis, herpes, anal cancer, suicide, depression, substance abuse. shortened lifespan – why should anyone want to put homosexuals to death when they’re perfectly willing to do it to themselves?

      • Mark

        Yes, the nutty right has a lot in common with the Islamic nuts, doesn't it? They both agree on the persecution of gays.

  • JacksonPearson

    I'll take my chances…
    Jesus said, "I am the way the truth and the life; no one comes to the Father but by me."

    • wsg

      JP => do not get me wrong please quote away but I am sure you are aware of the scorn and contempt that flows from these "superior intellect" types towards practicing Christians/ Jews. I have worn a simple -"non bling" crucifix since 9/11/01 – under my shirt as I am a working stiff – but on occasion when bending over or putting on my glasses it does appear to strangers. Their reactions have been most telling, at times – spittle inducing rage or tuck tail and walk away as if confronted unexpectedly with the school principal…. .

      • JacksonPearson

        I've worn a crucifix most of my life, not as jewelery, under my clothing, and have never had a problem or have been questioned. I get comments and ridicule from low, or non informed thinkers on the Internet, as everyone are entitled to their beliefs and opinions. In spite of their comments, no one will ever change mine, because there are to many Biblicle proofs: e.g., The discovery of the Ark of the Covenant, the Dead Sea Scrolls etc.

        Why I wear a crucifix? There's a number of reasons, but to keep it simple, it's a constant reminder of my Christian faith, that a sinless person by the name of Yahushua (Jesus Christ), fulfilled Bible prophecy. He was miraculously born as the son of God, died a torturous death for me, and was buried. Then after three days, he miraculously was resurrected, then miraculously ascended. The miracles of Christ's "Birth, Death, Resurrection, and Ascension" can only be done by a higher authority.

        There are Four Spiritual laws:
        *God loves you;
        *Man is sinful and separated from God;
        *Jesus Christ is God's only provision for man's sin;
        *We must individually receive Jesus as Savior and Lord.

  • Mary Sue

    I wonder if his marriage to Michelle is actually almost as much of a sham as his mother's marriage to Obama Sr….except staying together is actually politically advantageous at this point.

    Those kids of his are going to be so messed up in the head if they aren't already.

  • thomas_h

    What makes you believe he is a homosexual? You'd better have a reliable source to back up your claim if you want to be taken seriously.

    • JacksonPearson

      What makes you believe Obama's NOT a homosexual?
      A good "serious" starting point for you would be right here:
      http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2010/07/25

      Next, take another "serious" look here:
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-jC42HAsxs

      • thomas_h

        Well, I did have a look at your "serious sources".

        If you accept the incoherent blabbering of an evidently brain -damaged individual who supports his fantasy of sex with Obama with photos of a vodka bottle, pink limousine, interior of a hotel room, baseball cap, cocaine line etc…and other stunningly idiotic "evidence" as a "serious source" then you obviously have no idea what "serious source" means. And I suspect even the very concept of seriousness may be a mystery to you. Let me give you a hint: it is NOT what you have presented.

        And then you ask me an absurd question: "What makes you believe Obama's NOT a homosexual?"
        Well, you may just as well have asked me: "What makes you believe I – JacksonPearson – am NOT a homosexual"? I would have responded with "touche!"

        • JacksonPearson

          You've responded with nothing…but carry on with your rainbow colors!

          • thomas_h

            MY rainbow colours? Mine???
            Is that a reply?

            My goodness, you are so primitive that you are unable to substantiate you refutation with a sound argument and instead must resort to sleazy insinuation.
            Well, I again get a lesson to never respond to an intellectual amoeba. Do something to this IQ of yours. Get a brain transplant from a sheep.
            Ah, by the way. I see that the comment from a confused individual I had originally replied and to whose rescue you rushed by means of the idiocy you so abundantly supplied has been removed by the administrators of the site. Seems I am not the only one who thinks both of you should look for another venues for broadcasting your stupidity.
            Poor you. So much of your idiocy wasted on nothing.

            Another thing: Do you really think that repeatedly clicking on your "thumbs up" and my "thumbs down" will make your posting more serious while making mine less so?
            Now I see how you routinely make your miserable comments appear "popular". What a pathetically unmanly, sub-intellectual, creature you are…AND a cheat.

          • JacksonPearson

            Let's just say you can share your rainbow colors, with your butt hero! http://c481901.r1.cf2.rackcdn.com/wp-content/uplo

          • thomas_h

            Oh I see your troglodyte brain has produced another turd while your decorated yourself with another four "thumbs up"!
            Ha, as long as you have one finger, or one thumb you will never run out of admirers!

            Is that your retort???
            Can't you see how pathetically devoid of wit you are, El Cretino? No you can't – you are too stupid to be embarrassed.

            You know, there are idiots and there are idiots.. You belong to the category that believe that being nasty will deflect awareness from your abysmal stupidity. Or that you can hide your stupidity behind the smoke screen of your nastiness.

            I have news for you, bozo. You are wrong. Again.

            Now good bye, pathetic dunce. It has been fun to run circles around you..

          • thomas_h

            Why should anyone pay attention to links made by an obvious imbecile and provided by an even more obvious idiot?
            Internet is an ocean of links. Some may educate one and some even under most cursory inspection reveal they are a toil of an imbecile for the consumption of imbeciles.
            But why should an average person bother with them?

            That you have chosen to follow the links is only natural since you are one – I mean an imbecile.
            But why do you have to take my word for it?
            Why don't you simply ask around people to give you an honest , candid estimation of your mental capacity?
            Or have a hat with a sticker "honk if you think I am an imbecile"?
            Or: "give me ten cents if you think I am an idiot"?
            I have no doubt that if you chose the first you will go deaf and if you chose the second you will be a wealthy man in a very short time. So try not to make a mistake. I hope you will manage, Don Cretino.
            You can also take an intelligence test. Ask for the one designed for testing chickens. Actually, don't ask – they will give you one after you open your mouth.

            Ah, and where did you discover "leftist excuses", "pissing", "moaning, "pathetic whining", "accusations"…in my responses to your prose? The comments are open for everyone's inspection, so no doubt the fan crowd that gives you all these "thumb ups" will rush to prove me wrong and provide relevant quotes.

            I am waiting.

            I also notice that you sign off with a melodious "PUKE". An amazingly appropriate appellation. Have you conceived it all by yourself,, or is it the pet name assigned to you in the kindergarden?

            Good bye now stupido. I have quite a few friends watching our exchange and they thank you for being a source of great merriment here.
            PS.
            How come you never answered my pointing out that the moron whose site you took at the beginning of the exchange had his allegation of Obama's homosexuality deleted by the management of the webside? Now what is their reason to do so? Leftist moronism, as you attribute to me? If so, be a man and spell it out to them directly in your inimitably idiotic style. I can't wait for you to do it…

          • JacksonPearson

            You obviously need another brain to makeup for the half-wit side.
            {{{PUKE AGAIN}}}

          • JacksonPearson

            BAHAHAHAHAaaa… Eat Crow punk
            Newsweek Magazine…The First Gay President:
            http://i46.tinypic.com/2ajdjxv.jpg

          • thomas_h

            This time you really outdid yourself!, bozo

            You must be the only person in the US to have taken the Newsweek vignette literally. Well, maybe not the only one. There must be a few more with chicken's IQ – mostly chickens…

            Listen carefully, moron:
            Obama gained the title "The First American Gay President" for the same reason Bill Clinton got his "First American Black President" distinction.
            The former is catering to homosexuals while the latter bent backward to accommodate the blacks. Are you so monumentally stupid you couldn't figure that out?

            In principle there is a hypothetical chance you will be elected a President of the US. I am sure the Newsweek would have you on the cover with the caption "The first American Chicken-Brain President". Well, the analogy is not really perfect, because in case of both Obama and Clinton their titles are so called "honorable" while your would be a 100% accurate.

            And you, YOU dance around leaping up and down howling "Eat Crow Punk" after once again making such a pathetic fool of yourself?
            Is there a limit to your stupidity, or will you continue surprising us again and again?

            If you could for one short instance perceive the true extent of your stupidity you would probably die of grief. Fortunately (for you) for a person to be able to see his stupidity requires having a token residue of sensibility and that has the Nature denied you. So in a way you are lucky and need not worry – seeing the truth about yourself will never be the cause of your demise. Neither will be the multitude of broken eggs all over your face.
            What a miserable clown you are.

          • thomas_h

            correction:

            "… in case of both Obama and Clinton their titles are so called "honorable" while your would be a 100% accurate. …"

            It should of course, be "honorary" instead of honorable.

          • JacksonPearson

            I bet you were up all night trying to come up that one. http://i51.tinypic.com/1z4adzr.gif

          • thomas_h

            What?

          • JacksonPearson

            I could eat a bowl of alphabet soup and sh*t out a smarter statement than that. {{{BARF}}}

          • thomas_h

            Hm, Then why don't you?

            Why, oh why, ALL your comments are so depressingly dull, repetitive and never smart? Why don't you ever come up with something fresh, original and engaging indicating an independent, intelligent mind? Why all you can do is to deliver hackneyed and overused boilerplate? Why are you so clumsy, low brow and lackluster?

            Look, English is not even my second language yet I have no problem running circles around you while having fun seeing your pathetic attempts to be witty and hide your frustration. Gosh, it must be a drag to be as unintelligent as you are.

            And then you say you could sh*t smart statements if you were on the diet of alphabet soup. Well, I had impression ALL your sentences are delivered from your arse! Evidently there must be some short-circuit between it and your chicken brain. Have it checked., clown.

          • JacksonPearson
          • thomas_h

            And here is what the AUTHOR himself of the Newsweek's cover essay
            : "The First Gay President" tries to clarify:

            "As Andrew Sullivan himself acknowledged, the headline for his cover essay was not intended to be understood literally.
            Newsweek was not attempting to “out” Obama but rather was making a play on Toni Morrison calling President Bill Clinton “the first black president.” But Randall points out that this isn’t the first time that reference has been made. Obama has twice been called the first woman president: first in 2008, by Newsweek’s Martin Linsky, and then again by The Washington Post’s Kathleen Parker in 2010. The argument in both cases was that Obama’s wisdom, values, and management style were similar to that of a female leader. In 2009 the Associated Foreign Press asked if Obama was the first Asian-American president while, the same year, Geraldo Rivera suggested he might be the first Hispanic president. Then, in 2011, New York magazine declared him the first Jewish president. “Expectations were high that editor Tina Brown would do something typically attention-grabbing to mark this occasion, but this effort seems, well, cliché,” Randall writes. “It wasn’t going to be long before someone outed our first black, female, Jewish, Hispanic, Asian-American president as gay.”

            But, I am sure you think you know better than Andrew Sullivan intended to convey by the title of his essay. Well, the fellow is available at the Newsweek, do give him a call and explain to him what he really meant.
            Yes, you are a miserable, dense clown.

          • JacksonPearson

            Wow, you're even dumber than you look.
            Newsweek Magazine…The First Gay President: http://i46.tinypic.com/2ajdjxv.jpg

          • thomas_h

            I dealt with that particular "proof" quite profusely in my most recent comments. Why do you resend it?
            Either answer to my reply or shut up if you don't know what to say and are too embarrassed to admit it. What you are doing is not only unmanly, but stupid..
            Can't you see that this, in fact, is admitting you have been trounced?
            Hm,.you probably don't.

          • JacksonPearson
          • thomas_h

            How is your crow? Well done, or medium raw? seems you are choking on it.
            Call back when you are done. I'm going out. Don't have all day for clowns like yourself…

          • JacksonPearson

            BAHAHAHAHAaaa… Eat Crow again punk
            Newsweek Magazine…The First Gay President: http://i46.tinypic.com/2ajdjxv.jpg

            I'd like to see things from your point of view, but I can't get my head that far up my azz.
            http://i51.tinypic.com/1z4adzr.gif

          • thomas_h

            You remind me of Comical Ali.
            You know the Iraqi general who kept on assuring international TV reporters that the Iraqi forces are beating the crap out of the American invaders and the victory is now imminent. At the same time one could see the American troops smiling and waiving into camera waiting for the general to shut up so he can be taken to custody.
            You are exactly as pathetically comical as Comical Ali. You were unable to fire one lousy bullet, lost a war, but insist on "face saving" parody of victory celebration. Do you really believe anyone reading our exchange would agree with you?

            While Newsweeks Andrew Sullivan – the author of the essay "The first gay president" explicitly states that he never meant it literally you, like the Comical Ali figure insist , the things are not what reality shows, but what you would like to be.

            OK, Comical Jackson, I leave you at that.
            It was a lot of fun, but now I am bored with you. Indeed, how long can one dance around a slow punching bag. I like it very much a good fight, but my oponent has to be alive and responsive. Punching bags, like yourself, are not. To be able to scream "victory" while suffering a total humiliation is not exactly the same as winning a debate.
            And now, Comical Jackson – (alias Don Cretino) – do get lost!

          • JacksonPearson

            Goodby, good luck;
            Good riddence;
            Get lost;
            Get your A$$ out of here;
            Go jump in the bay;
            Take a hike;
            So long;
            See ya;-
            Don't let the door hit you on the way out;
            Ta-ta;
            Don't forget to put the dog out;
            Hasta la vista baby;
            Drive safely;
            Have a nice day;
            And my regards to you and the horse you rode in on;

            Para usted, pendejo: http://i48.tinypic.com/33aaq2q.jpg

          • thomas_h

            Wow!!!

            Comical Jackson has produced 17 lines!
            ALL BY HIMSELF!!!

            Thomas_h can't hide his envy.

            PS. It is "riddance", not riddence, bozo.

          • JacksonPearson

            Okay Pendejo:
            Good by, good luck;
            Good riddance;
            Get lost;
            Get your A$$ out of here;
            Go jump in the bay;
            Take a hike;
            So long;
            See ya;-
            Don't let the door hit you on the way out;
            Ta-ta;
            Don't forget to put the dog out;
            Hasta la vista baby;
            Drive safely;
            Have a nice day;
            And my regards to you and the horse you rode in on;

            Para usted, PENDEJO:
            http://i48.tinypic.com/33aaq2q.jpg

          • thomas_h

            And it is "good bye", not "good by", illiterate/comical Jackson.

            Otherwise a friend makes me aware that none of the lines you wrote is yours, but copied and pasted.

            But I wrote enough about your pitiable inability to compose something authentically yours.
            You, just like your "president" O'Bimbo, are an empty suit full of borrowed phrases. Except that he is infinitely more adept at juggling with them. Something you will never learn – regardless how much you would love to and how hard you try…

            And now, Comical Jackson, good bye for good.

          • JacksonPearson

            Keep Flying That Rainbow Flag For Baracky Tommy http://i47.tinypic.com/mvhhcg.jpg

          • JacksonPearson

            Hearts forever/Larry and Barry:
            http://i35.tinypic.com/x4i69e.jpg

          • thomas_h

            The FrontPageMag, must have taken pity on JacksonPearson being systematically reduced to a role of a pitifully dumb, helpless punching bag. Yes, I know It is not good for the image of the site and I understand them very well for deciding to deliver the guy from his misery and humiliation by removing the part of the exchange where I sweep the floor with what is left of him.

            A passer by is referred to the remaining part of the exchange and get the idea how much more fun I must have had with the poor thing if the FrontPage decided to put the end to his agony. Enjoy!

          • Christian West

            I know it's not nice to enjoy witnessing a total demolition of someone, but I admit having great pleasure seeing you sending a jab after jab of your wit to JacksonPearson's helpless jaw. The guy was totally outclassed – also quite evident from the part of your "polemic" the administrators did not remove.

            Well, to be fair, you did get a bit too hard on him now and then, but that's nothing compared to his crude nastiness and vulgarity.
            I guess JacksonPearsn post will retaliate now and send a heavy barrage of "thumb down" my way. Oh, well…

            Otherwise, thank you for the entertainment!
            Christian

          • JacksonPearson

            "The guy was totally outclassed"
            You have a natural talent for finding subliminal messages in ice cubes!

          • thomas_h

            What exactly is subliminal in something so obvious as the fact that Thomas swept the floor with you?
            You evidently don't know what subliminal means, or are so desperate to use a witty phrase that you can't be bothered with its total inappropriateness. It is better not to answer at all than to say something neither here nor there.

          • JacksonPearson
          • JacksonPearson

            BOO HOOOOO…now cry your own river…The only thing you proved is, that your're an Obama and err, gay carrying water boy. Obama's gay…the posted pic and all links prove it.
            http://fellowshipofminds.wordpress.com/2010/07/25….

            Next, take another "serious" look here:
            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-jC42HAsxs

    • Mary Sue

      He's bisexual at the very least.

  • gayRepublican

    Anyone else notice that the author of this article repeatedly misspelled ''President Obama'' as ''Obama Inc''?

    • Daniel Greenfield

      Did you notice that you misspelled your name as "Republican"

      • diiiiiiiiiiicks

        I think what you are trying to refer to is known as a ''misnomer''.

  • Justin

    Oh boy do I love seeing the so called "freedom loving Conservatives" come out of their shell and tell us how much they want gay marriage banned. A true Conservative, who supports FREEDOM, would support gay marriage even if they personally do not agree with it. I don't like guns, but I support freedom and recognize the 2nd amendment thus would never want to see them banned or restricted. Anyone that opposes gay marriage is absolutely 100% not a Conservative at ALL. Conservatism is based on the idea of FREEDOM, LIMITED GOVERNMENT.

    • Daniel Greenfield

      You can't ban something that does not exist.

    • B. Wyler

      Expanding the legal definition of marraige to include same-sex couples INCREASES, not decreases, the government's intrusion into people's lives. A married gay couple can't simply break up by their own mutual decision, they have to go to court and get a divorce.

  • thomas_h

    "A true Conservative, who supports FREEDOM, would support gay marriage even if they personally do not agree with it."

    What in the world makes you think so?
    Do you mean that a true Conservative mustn't discriminate between freedoms?
    But if so, and carried out to the inevitable logical conclusion, it would mean that I, as a conservative, must also support your freedom to restrict my freedom. Can't you see the problem?

    For a conservative freedom is not an absolute, but must be firmly rooted in the moral, religious and rational. Satisfying a whim of two homosexuals to have their morally sick liaison granted the same legal and moral status as the oldest and most basic social cell is not supporting freedom. but its hideous caricature.

  • Jake Hamill

    "It is clear that marraige, as an institution, should only interest the state because of children and should be viewed as a purely private matter so long as it is childless." Bertrand Russell, "Our Sexual Ethics," WHY I AM NOT A CHRISTIAN: AND OTHER ESSAYS ON RELIGION AND RELATED SUBJECTS, ed. Paul Edwards (New York: Touchstone-Simon & Schuster, 1957).

  • B. Wyler

    One would think that the proponents of same-sex marraige, with all their talk of "equality," would also insist that the Constitution mandates a flat tax. But I never hear them say that.