Is Rep. John McHugh refusing to give a straight answer on Don’t Ask Don’t Tell because he doesn’t have an opinion on the matter? Because he doesn’t want to stir up the military ranks? Because he doesn’t want to cross the Obama administration? Or because voicing support one way or the other could make his confirmation proceedings for Army secretary that much harder?
It’s likely McHugh, a Republican congressman from New York, is just falling in line with the White House. When McHugh’s name was announced as Obama’s pick for the job, Press Sec. Robert Gibbs claimed Obama and McHugh were in line with “changing” the policy. Just like Defense Sec. Robert Gates is growing softer on the issue at the direction of the White House.
When Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Missouri) asked yesterday, point blank, whether McHugh supported repealing DADT, he delivered what’s become a stock answer: whatever the president wants. Or, more accurately: “The reality is the president has made very clear, and I have not talked to the president directly, but I have talked to high officials in the administration, and I have no doubt the president is going to press forward with his intent to change that policy — to whatever degree remains to be seen. I think he would like a full reversal. … It’s also without question that Secretary Gates has begun a process of what he describes as ‘softening’ that policy; whatever that may mean remains to be seen.”
And then he hints at some more personal (albeit rehearsed) feelings (emphasis ours): “My view as secretary of the Army, if confirmed, would be to do the most effective job I could garnering the military input and information that I think any secretary and any president would like as they go forward in finalizing the determination. But having said that, there are two other factors: Whatever the decision of the president and the secretary of Defense, it would be my responsibility if confirmed, or any service secretary’s responsibility thereafter, to do the best job he/she could to come before this committee, the [House Armed Services Committee], or whichever other relevant committees may be afoot, to best describe or most effectively describe the reasons, the rationale, and the justification for whatever policy evolves. That’s the responsibility of a service secretary as I see it under Title X and at the end of the day I think it’s worth noting, of course, this is a policy embedded in law and there will be no overturning of it without the agreement of this Congress, the House, the Senate, and of course the president.”
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
It’s exactly the sort of statement you’d expect from a military man hoping to become the Army’s chief. But it’s also part of the problem we find ourselves in: We actually HAVE NO IDEA whether these folks actually do want to repeal DADT (but simply can’t say it so forcefully, or they risk offending Republicans and other top brass), or they’re just hedging their true feelings of wanting to keep the policy (but can’t contradict the White House’s official position).
And that’s a problem.
While we can push Congress and the White House to repeal DADT, it’s going to be the leadership from McHugh and his fellow military equals who determine just how far the armed forces go in treating gays as equals. Yes, halting investigations and dismissals of gay soldiers is the priority, but afterward troops will take direction from McHugh on whether anti-gay discrimination and harassment are still kosher.
Thus far, we have no idea whether McHugh will be a friend to equality in the military, or simply follow the president’s narrowest orders on not kicking gays out. Deciphering McHugh’s position is made all the more hard by his seemingly split positions on equality: In 2004 and 2006 he voted for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, but also voted for workplace anti-discrimination legislation in 2007. In 1999, he voted for banning gay adoptions in Washington D.C.
So does the man’s record speak for his future actions? And if so, which parts do we consider more valid?
Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com
I’m sorry to have to say this, Q, because you’ve been so good about pressuring the President to stop DADT discharges and Congress to repeal…but you’re dead wrong about two things.
1. You wrote, “Just like Defense Sec. Robert Gates is growing softer on the issue at the direction of the White House.”
That should read, “…is PRETENDING to grow softer…at the direction of the White House.”
Gates first comments, June 30th…the same day the Army officially decided to discharge Dan Choi, pending appeal to the Secretary of the Army Pete Geren, though Geren will probably table it for McHugh to decide… about allegedly wanting to find out if there were ways discharge decisions could be “more humane” showed two things:
a. given that weeks before he was claiming he and the other Pentagon dinosaurs were just too darned busy to even discuss DADT, his sudden about face was clearly motivated by an administration running scared of the approaching critical mass of gays refusing to continue to donate to the DNC [the White House gay tea party the day before was the other result]…and of mainstream media that was virtually mocking their refusal to stop DADT discharges.
b. Gates was shocking ignorant about the clear options he has under the statute.
That, nearly three weeks later, July 16th, he was STILL claiming that, “Golly, gee, Aunt Bee, we’ve looked high and low, scoured every inch of Mayberry, including a body cavity search of Otis in the drunk tank, and we still can’t find a legal leg to stand on” leaves us with only two options. Either he and the DOD General Counsel and staff are mentally retarded…or this is another pile of steaming horseshit from the White House Office of Distract & Stall.
Nearly two months before his first Barney Fife moment, the Palm Center released their report documenting the President’s authority to freeze discharges under the law passed by Congress “10 United States Code 12305” AND legal options Gates himself has under the DADT statute itself to regulate discharges.
The result was that average daily media mentions of DADT increased FOUR TIMES…so there’s no excuse for Team Gates not to have known about it then and less now…even if they shouldn’t have needed outside expertise in the first place.
2. You wrote, “While we can push Congress and the White House to repeal DADT, it’s going to be the leadership from McHugh and his fellow military equals who determine just how far the armed forces go in treating gays as equals.”
The responsibility of the President doesn’t end with signing a repeal bill OR an interim executive order. McHugh, if confirmed as expected, and his peers ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO HAVE ANY OPTIONS…they will enforce positive gay integration in direct proportion to the leadership and demands of their Commander-in-Chief.
Even that lying, empty suit homophobe Gen. Rectum Powell said in 1993 … even as he was fighting the idea….that if the President ordered gay integration they would carry it out.
McHugh’s word dance now is simply a reflection of the word games of the man who would be his new direct boss…Gates…and their ultimate boss, Obama…who is shirking his CIC duty and, in his own words, weaking national security by continuing to allow discharges because he wants to keep the antigay dinosaurs happy so they’ll go along with him about other issues.
The faster gays shut off all money to the DNC the faster that will change.
M Shane
I don’t know if you check the cohesivenesss of your editorials , Queerty, or if you are tryin to pull another fast one over on the readers here. First of all you said that McHugh would support the President who he most decisively said wanted a complete reversal, then you said thaty you didn’t know what he wanted to do, because the final determination depended on the Congress too.
What is your point? He stated his position as well as he could, and asserted Presidents Obamas intent.
Andrew
John McHugh is a Roman Catholic. We know his position RE: DADT and “all things homosexual.” Surely he doesn’t wish to burn in Hell.
schlukitz
@Andrew:
John McHugh is a Roman Catholic.
And Sally Kern charges that “homosexuals are infiltrating our government(s)”? ;o)
aaron
A lot can change in 16 years, and he was likely under GOP pressure at the time, but McHugh voted for DADT as a freshman in 1993.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1993/roll471.xml
Andrew
@aaron: He’s still a Catholic. Nothing’s changed.
SM
“The faster gays shut off all money to the DNC the faster that will change.”
I highly doubt any of you are giving money to the DNC right now anyway. Find a new tactic.
youcanthandlethetruth
@Andrew: Are you bigoted against Roman Catholics?
Andrew
@youcanthandlethetruth: No, I’m not bigoted against Roman Catholics – I just think they’re victims of their beliefs. They believe Homosexuals are WRONG. So, that is in McHugh’s head. If you have some kind of plan for removing that from his head – I’m anxious to hear. People vote their beliefs.
Look at what General Peter Pace said regarding DADT and his religious beliefs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fe2bJmMKZ5k
I have no reason to believe the new “catholic” is any different.
Catholics (and all the other religions) make us homos wrong. They must or they go to hell. Haven’t you heard of this problem?
M Shane
The current official position of Rome regarding sex is the Thomistic view that any non-procreative sex is a sin., even though the Church has been a haven for gays. I don’t know about Andrew , but I don’t mind Catholics just hope they keep not listening to the Pope. They aren’t as obnoxious as the Bible beaters. At least they think they’re intelligent. A lot of gay interestingly are ex catholics.
Andrew
@M Shane: Catholics make homosexuals WRONG. That’s the problem. Doesn’t matter if it’s shouted by evangelicals or whispered by Catholics. As long as we’re wrong, we won’t have equality.
Check out Countries that have full equality for gays – you’ll find they have fewer “religious” citizens. Religion is the problem.
Thankfully, 1/3 of young people (under 30) have NO RELIGION. 1/3 of the older crowd are “Casual Believers.” Get these groups to agree to put Equality BEFORE Religion and we can obtain equality. Otherwise, we’ll still be “wrong” and “wronged” by Religion.
SM
Mitchell Bard gets it right…one day you will stop bashing Obama and realize you all were given a great opportunity and your problems are in Congress.
Congress Congress Congress
—————
I am very concerned about the future of this country.
No, not just because health care reform is being so watered down in Congress that it now completely fails to address the underlying dire (and spiraling) problems of the health care system. (As I’ve written previously, there is no defensible position to opposing a public option.) Rather, it’s watching how the health care debate has unfolded (and other attempts at legislation this year, too), and how Congress has handled the relevant legislation. And also how the American people have reacted.
At the risk of oversimplifying something that is far more complicated, in their most basic form, I see two trends that are disturbing:
1) Congress (not just the Republicans, either) has not supported President Obama’s attempts at delivering the change on which he campaigned (and the change for which Americans overwhelmingly voted).
2) The American people have not been savvy about the dynamic in Washington, mainly because, it seems to me, they are in total denial as to the severity of the problems facing the country.
As I removed my New York Times from its three (!?!?!?) protective bags yesterday morning and glanced over the front page, I noticed that four of the six articles directly or indirectly revealed how neither Congress nor the American people are really confronting the problems facing the country. On health care, there is a piece that details how the millions of dollars in campaign donations raised for Democrats by a Texas hospital are affecting how Democrats in Congress are approaching health care. With insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies having poured $81 million and $134 million, respectively, into Congressional coffers, it’s not surprising that more senators and members of Congress seemed to be concerned with the profit margins of these companies than with the health and wallets of the American people. I expect Republicans to out-and-out lie to protect their health insurance company benefactors (like Sen. Tom Coburn saying that people will die if health care reform is passed). But when you have a Blue Dog Democrat like Rep. Mike Ross of Arkansas proudly saying Wednesday, “We have successfully pushed a floor vote to September,” you really start to wonder if there is any pretense left as to who those who oppose the president’s health care reform are working for. What is he so proud of? Delaying relief to the American people?
Another article addresses how despite the Obama administration’s aggressive plan to cut down on home foreclosures, mortgage servicers are subverting the process, because they make so much in fees from foreclosing on delinquent homeowners. This was just another reminder that the banks, despite nearly bringing down the economy last year, still rule on Capitol Hill, which is directly related to the massive amount of money the industry funnels to campaigns. (For example, according to OpenSecrets.org, in the 2010 cycle, the finance/insurance/real estate industry has contributed more than $14 million to 422 members of the House and more than $6 million to 89 senators, and one subset of that group, the securities and investment sector, has given more than $2.8 million to 300 members of the House and more than $1.9 million to 58 senators.)
On the bottom of the front page, there is an item about how the popularity of installing white roofs is increasing in an effort to cut energy costs, which only reminded me of how little this year’s energy bill does to actually address the country’s dependence on foreign oil (impacting national security, the economy, and the environment, including the threat of global warming).
The articles were a reminder of what I’ve been thinking since it became clear that Congress had no intention of passing anything resembling Obama’s ambitious health care reform plan that addressed the underlying systematic problems, rather than just handing out more money to the industries that are responsible for the current broken model: While voters enthusiastically embraced Obama’s calls for change, too many senators and U.S. representatives have no interest in signing on to a new agenda. In fact, beginning with the stimulus bill and moving through energy, financial regulation and now health care, Congress has gutted Obama’s proposals. Instead of embracing necessary systematic change, Republicans have concentrated on opposing anything Obama proposed to win political points, moderate and conservative Democrats have looked to ensure that Obama’s proposals were defanged, and even the mainstream wing of the Democratic party seems more intent on winning old battles than furthering the president’s ambitious proposals, the very ones that carried him (and, to some extent, Democrats in Congress) to power last November.
To me, the battle has shaped up as a forward-looking president (the “Yes We Can!” of my title) trying to deliver the change he promised against an inward-looking Congress more interested in self-preservation (which has different meanings to mainstream Democrats, Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans, but all adds up to the “No We Won’t!”).
You would think that this breakdown would be clear to Americans observing the process unfold. As is often the case when trying to figure out the U.S. electorate, you would be wrong.
The fourth article that caught my attention on the front page of the Times was about poll results that show not only that the country is growing uneasy about Obama’s health care reform plan (even though Obama is still more trusted on the issue than Republicans are), but that, according to the piece,
“Americans are concerned that revamping the health care system would reduce the quality of their care, increase their out-of-pocket health costs and tax bills, and limit their options in choosing doctors and, treatments and tests.”
Clearly, the Republican misinformation campaign, equating a public option with a single-payer Canadian system (and we all know we can’t do anything the Canadians would do), has found traction, which is depressing, considering the judgments are being made based on lies. It’s Harry and Louise all over again. (I re-read the transcript of Obama’s July 22 press conference today, and I think anyone who thinks that the president’s plan will hurt them should really give the speech transcript a look.)
And there was something even more disturbing in the article. According to the Times, “The percentage who describe health care costs as a serious threat to the American economy … has dropped over the past month.” Wow. Fantastic. Denial has set in. (As I pointed out last week, the nonpartisan/bipartisan National Coalition on Health Care has detailed the exponentially growing health care burden on the country, and how despite the high cost, we still receive comparatively lousy care.)
How can we address our serious problems if, as a nation, we aren’t prepared to admit they exist? I feel like the country is an ocean liner heading for an iceberg, but the captain can’t convince the crew to change course because doing so would affect the suntanning opportunities of the passengers (who would then vote the crew out of jobs).
To me, it looks like Obama is trying to honestly take on the mammoth problem of health care, advocating for reform that would reduce costs, increase coverage, improve quality, and protect people from the whims of the insurance companies, but he is being opposed by Congress, even though his party has 60 seats in the Senate and a huge majority in the House (thanks to the Blue Dogs who are siding with the Republicans and mainstream Democrats who lack the constitution and compass to stand firm for systematic change). And, what’s worse, Obama is taking the blame.
Yesterday, in a response to a Facebook friend’s status bashing Obama, someone commented that he was sick of the president making “empty promises” and that he should start fixing the problems facing the country. I felt like I was reading a Facebook page through the looking glass. An “empty promise” is one where the person making the promise has no intention of carrying it out. You can make that charge about Democrats in Congress, but I don’t see how you can put such an accusation at the feet of the president.
I can argue the facts all I want, but in this guy’s mind (and based on the Times poll, he’s not alone), it’s all Obama’s fault, even though, despite George W. Bush’s belief to the contrary, a president is not a dictator who can act alone. To pass legislation, Congress has to do its part. And right now, a majority of members of Congress are not helping Obama face our very real problems.
I’m not sure I have an answer to all of this. Sometimes it feels like our current corrupt system of status quo government is unbreakable. But I do know that if the Democrats in Congress don’t find a way to become co-advocates with the president on these important issues, their future political problems (and there will be losses if things don’t turn around, especially considering that the president’s party traditionally loses Congressional seats in mid-term elections) will be the least of it. The real result will be that we will fail, as a society, to make the truly make-or-break decisions that need to be made to address serious problems that threaten our stability and prosperity. Health care is one of these challenges, and it’s as good a time as any to turn the tide.
And if Americans don’t acknowledge the depth of the health care problem and the role Congress is playing in choosing the interests of health insurance and pharmaceutical companies over their constituents (as well as the other challenges facing the country), the problem won’t be addressed, and the results could be catastrophic.
Actually, Americans have an even bigger job right now. They have to stand up and take responsibility for their country. Even though health care will benefit nearly everybody, we still have to look past self-interest to address the looming threats that escalating health care costs pose to our personal bottom lines, and the economy of the country. The time for placing our heads ostrich-like in the ground and thinking only for today has to end. As the president said in his speech, when you look at the current health care system as a proposal, it’s one no sane person (outside of an insurance or pharmaceutical company) would support.
Am I optimistic? Not really. But it’s important for everyone to speak out now, before it’s too late.
Energy
Barack Obama
schlukitz
@Andrew:
You and I are on exactly the same page. 🙂
youcanthandlethetruth
@Andrew: Did it ever cross your mind that you have it back to front?
It is homosexuals who are victims of their beliefs, a belief that it’s ok to want sex with someone of the same sex.
That’s the only thing that creates all this hatred and bigotry from homosexuals, division from your fellow Americans, and prevents you from being normal.
Andrew
@youcanthandlethetruth: No, it is the BELIEF that HOMOSEXUALITY is WRONG that creates all the hate and discrimination. The truth is that RELIGION created those beliefs.
It is absurd to think that Homosexuals branded themselves as wrong, deviant and abnormal.
On topic in this conversation is the beliefs of John McHugh and HIS beliefs – HE is a CATHOLIC. Before he could even think, he was given those beliefs by his religion. When he has to decide policy re: homosexuals in the military (DADT) his thoughts will be “impaired” by his religious beliefs. That’s the damage here.
Homosexuals will NEVER have EQUALITY until they are “re-branded” and they take a stand against the definition provided by Religion. Homosexuals are NOT WRONG. What Religion did to Homosexuals is WRONG, UNACCEPTABLE and NOT FORGIVABLE.
Unless McHugh (and all elected officials, policy makers and so-called “leaders”) are will to put Equality BEFORE Religion, gays will not be – in your words “normal.”
What Religion did to homosexuals was a LIE. It’s time to set the record straight (painful pun intended).
youcanthandlethetruth
@Andrew: What you are really saying is that as long as there are people of faith, homosexuality will always be viewed as sinful and abnormal.
And it’s not just Christians. No major world religion condones homosexuality or homosexual marriage.
So why should we abandon millenia of human wisdom and faith just to accommodate homosexuals?
Dennis
@youcanthandlethetruth:
“youcouldn’trecognizethetruthifitsnuckupfrombehindandfuckedyouintheass”
What you can’t handle is reality, bitch…that ‘homosexuals’ have IMPROVED the species and contribute FAR more to the collective society (art, education, tolerance, diversity, and much more) than any judgemental, brainwashed douche such as yourself. Even Jesus thinks you’re an asshole.
youcanthandlethetruth
@Dennis: Thanks for improving the species and contributing to “the collective society” with your tolerant little outburst!
But what does their choice of sexual behaviour have to do with homosexuals achievements in art etc?
You guys are so confused.
Dennis
@youcanthandlethetruth:
Thank you for ‘cherry picking’ the information in your Bible to persecute homosexuals, while ignoring HUGE amounts of dysfunctional bullshit (such as not eating shellfish, among many) because it might inconvenience you. That’s called hypocrisy, can you “handle” that? Probably not.
Be advised, you have absolutely NO spiritual authority over me, or anyone else for that matter. All you apppear to have is a desperate, pathetic psychological need to believe yourself ‘superior’ to others because of how you have sex (rather poorly, I suspect). And as with most deranged religious morons, you have to ignore scientific research/information which points to a strong biological component to sexual orientation… (ie) “God” made me as gay, so you’ll just have to deal with it…God made gays exactly as they are.
Work out your fucked up sexual issues in a therapist’s office please, and not on Queerty. (Unless “playing around” and engaging in banter with gay men excites you, as it does most other closeted homophobes.)
youcanthandlethetruth
@Dennis: Sorry you have such pent-up homosexual bigotry, christiophobia, hatred and intolerance towards people who disagree with you.
If we follow your perverse logic then you probably believe that God also created pedophiles, murderers and rapists so therefore those behaviours are “ok” too?
TANK
I think–unless you’re entertained by it–it’s now time to ignore youcanthandle’s hate speech and invalid, unsound argumentation. I proved yesterday that he doesn’t understand how words are used (and simple words, too) in the English language, and has great difficulty comprehending the meaning of simple sentences. It’s just not worth addressing the false claims made by him, because they’re so false and so absurd that it cheapens the discourse. It doesn’t matter how stupid you make him look, or how categorically false you prove his hate speech–his posting is based on mental defect and separately, mental disease of his. He is compelled to post his hate speech and stupidity like the pervert is compelled to flash his junk to small children in public. It’s the same principle. But, if you’re having fun slapping this bigoted retard about as I was, continue.
youcanthandlethetruth
@TANK: Actually you didn’t prove anything about my definition of the word “bigot” yesterday, other than it describes you very accurately.
Your latest hate-speech offering is further substantiation of that.
Dennis
@youcanthandlethetruth:
Do you eat shrimp? Have you ever mixed types of cloth in the same garment? (worn a poly/cotton blend?) Do you support the killing of disobedient children? Do you endorse slavery, as the Bible does? Do you believe the Earth was actually created in six days?
I’m some ‘sinner’ because your fucked up batshit crazy book says I am? You’ve got a hell of a lot of nerve comparing me to a rapist, or a murderer…and in the same spirit of tolerance and compassion-
Fucking hypocrite religious nutjob is what you are…I’m done with your ass…stop jerking off while you play with the gay boys, and get a life…
Please, get some help for your religious derangement. There are tolerant, open-minded, and educated Christians out there, who view Jesus as an example of love, compassion and kindness. Who live and let live, and see God as an EVOLVING phenomenon, one that we study, and praise, but can never fully understand. And then there are nutbags like you who NEED and cling to a warped understanding of God to justify their own deficiencies.
TANK
As you can see, there’s no thinking going on anymore…that’s what happens when someone who is a zealot full of hatred is refuted, and can’t address the challenge with argument. They just repeat themselves (the false claims), and fall back on their dogma.
TANK
@TANK:
And this charazterizes youcant. It has, for all intents and purposes, stopped thinking.
TANK
It’s definitely like arguing with one of those flat earthers, “intelligent design” creationism folks. They’re infected by memes, and no matter how humiliated they are by evidence and argument, they won’t stop. I compare them to the people infected by that virus in 28 days later–that’s what most religious people are like. There’s no reasoning with them. Fire and forget, as they’re lost forever to infectious harmful superstition.
youcanthandlethetruth
You homosexuals are really ramping up your hate-filled, christiophobic, bigoted rhetoric.
Yet you demand that others be tolerant of your chosen behavioural lifestyle?
youcanthandlethetruth
@Dennis: Fucking hypocrite religious nutjob is what you are…I’m done with your ass…stop jerking off while you play with the gay boys, and get a life…
________________________________________
Thanks for your intelligent, mature, well taught-out response Dennis and your use of anal homosexual imagery.
You’re a credit to your “community”.
Mr. Cox
@schlukitz: I wish homosexuals were infiltrating our government.
Andrew
@youcanthandlethetruth: You asked:
“So why should we abandon millenia of human wisdom and faith just to accommodate homosexuals?”
Yes, because it’s a lie. Your religions used to condemn blacks and endorse slavery. You also supported the idea of not allowing women equal rights.
Those were both “lies.” Religion has done the same to homosexuals, but the good news is it’s changing. Religion is slowly going out of business. Gays are about to speed up that process.
Homosexuality is NOT WRONG. Religion is WRONG.
youcanthandlethetruth
I’ll admit it, it’s all a farce because of my own obsession with kiddie porn. Jesus made me do it! Here, it’s right here in Leviticus…
M Shane
You certainly have soe kind of obsession, to be hanging around here seeking attention.
duttybarb
Religion is not the problem..it is sin that is the problem. Homosexuals are funny as they assume that several millenia of teachings, wisdom and religious influence would just evaporate because they want to be allowed to sin in public..
Religion is not going anywhere. It is not!!! As much as there are people who wish to pervert it…Gay bishops, and gay churches.. there just as many people who wish to keep it safe and true to God’s WORD.
Guess who will fade….yep the gays will. Do you know why? Because the pressure will never reduce.. your lifestyle will never be fully acceptable..your families will always be separate from the norm.. and you people will keep on dying out from disease(AIDS), your own promiscuity and bigotry.
Good luck with that, perverts
duttybarb
I have a gay son, so I should know!
gslam
LOL…I love it when the religious zealots come out and spout their hatred based on their religious biases. When are you idiots going to learn that you do not get to tell other people what to do or how to live their lives because of whatever BS mythology you happen to believe in? If you want to continue you to believe in virgin births, zombies raised from the dead, and all your other sci-fi crap, fine by me. But you DO NOT get to take people’s rights from them because you CHOOSE to believe in hocus-pocus. I don’t really give a crap whether you like gay people or not, but you had better start getting used to having people of all colors, creeds, beliefs and lifestyles around you. The inevitable change is coming…will you be on the boat, or left behind to wallow in your own hatred and misery? Talk about gnashing of teeth! LOL
gslam
@Duttybarb: You have a gay son?!? LOL! While I honestly believe you are a bold-faced liar, if you really DO have a gay son, I pity him for having an uncaring, unloving bigot for a parent. How sad for him. My mother and father would have been more than willing to accept your son and give him the love and respect he deserves, as they did with me and all of my straight siblings. If you had your way, you’d probably have my parents take me out back and shoot me like a lame horse! How loving and Christian of you. Bless you! You’re sure to get into heaven, now.
Bill Perdue
Obama appointed him. He’s a catholic cultist. It can’t be good.
schlukitz
@gslam:
You took the words right out of my mouth GSLAM. What did that poor boy ever do to deserve a mother like DuttyBarb? His life must be a living hell.
Dennis
@youcanthandlethetruth:
@duttybarb:
And SluttyBarb too: (God help your poor gay son, you heartless bitch, there’s a special place in hell for the likes of you)
Hey wingnuts, you have never addressed my point about the hypocrisy of cherry picking which parts of the bible you’ll use as a weapon to discriminate, and which parts you’ll ignore because they may inconvenience you…pathetic.
All I’m doing is putting a mirror up to your face and letting you know you’re nothing but a joke…one of millions of feeble-minded sheep, clinging desperately to religious dogma as a psychological crutch, while being incapable of any honest spriritual inquiry…which might require an independant thought, and/or the acknolwledgement of doubt as part of the spiritual journey, and that “whatever God actually is” will remain a mystery as long as we are alive.
Take your bullshit elsewhere, you’ll find no sheep here to convert…and little tolerance for your self-proclaimed moral superiority. Again all you are on this site is a joke, a passing amusement to be laughed at and mocked…doesn’t Jesus have a more interesting plan for your life, or is this the best it gets for you? Sad, just sad.