Obama's Gay Egg Hunt!

Thats all you got? Who cares? You still haven't said anything that disputes the facts. This is so easy.

What do you mean that's all I got? And what is easy? And what fact have you presented?

To be fair he did backpedal a lot on his stance during his second term, seemingly to pander to the LGBT demographic, but to say he's done nothing at all isn't quite fair no?

As a related topic to ENDA, even, the full repeal of the Clinton-era "don't-ask-don't-tell" discrimination in the US armed forces--and subsequent full integration of LGB (I am not sure if T is accepted) service personnel--is a significant accomplishment that occurred during his term. Prior to that, people were losing their jobs simply because of being outed (in an official capacity) by those who would want to ruin their military careers.

Well even the DADT was better than how it was before, a fact that a lot of people seem to gloss over.

progress in steps?

Legal to fire a person for being gay in 29 states - fact
Legal to fire a transgender for being transgender in 34 states - fact
Neocons can not counter this with anything, as you and KN have demonstrated. Like I said, easy.

You left out your lie about the Police Chief being fired for being gay. Should we just start calling her Trayvon now since we are completely ignoring the facts of the case?

Go ahead, I didn't even look at the article. Why would I? It has no bearing on the fact that is legal to fire her for being gay. Anything else?

Because you presented it as evidence and an example?


Edit: and you demonstrated exactly what will happen everytime someone gets fired after ENDA passes. Wait she was gay? Get your torches!

Ok. I'm good with it, as long as it gets passed, seeing as how its very necessary and the homophobic culture is very alive in the workplace, as the article demonstrated.

Hey Ama, just curious. If this was the 1950s and 60s, which side of the civil rights movement do you think you would you have been on?

Ihina if you were a vegetable which would you be?

Probably a pizza

And don't be like that. I had faith that you'd be honest and answer the question bluntly like you always do.

The United States military is one of the few modern militaries that does not allow transgender people to serve. The major gay orgs moved on, and we've been left to fend for ourselves on that one.

Obama did the smartest thing he could of done, asked his military advisers for advice, then heeded it. They collected data, analyzed that data, worked out feasibility and determined any impacts that would happen. They then created an implementation plan and he approved it. Then the plan was executed, to great success.

DADT was actually a policy designed to protect homosexual service members while serving in the military. Previous to that it was illegal to be a homosexual service member, it's also illegal to lie to an officer. Thus if an officer, commissioned or non, asked a service member their sexuality, they would have to truthfully answer. If that answer was "homosexual", then they would be chaptered out. If they lied and said they were straight, but later found out to be homosexual, they could be charged with false statements and various other articles, then chaptered out. That's a very bad position for a service member to be in. DADT enforced an executive policy that prohibited officers, commissioned or non, from asking a service member their sexuality.

Also this statement is false and one of those myths that gets passed around.


In order to be discharged for homosexuality you had to first be investigated for it by an appointed investigating officer. The only way for that to happen is through SAM. SAM means the only evidence that is accepted as being homosexual is through Statements, Acts or Marriage. Statements require you to state, in writing, that you are homosexual to a commissioned officer and that statement must be witnessed. You can tell everyone everywhere that you are homosexual, it doesn't count until you sit down and sign a piece of paper stating such. Acts require you to be caught in the commission or admit to the commission of an homosexual act. Basically your commander has to walk in on you butt f*cking your lover with witness's. Heresay and unfounded statements by third party's aren't allowed. Finally Marriage is straight forward, you must of married someone of the same sex or attempted to parry someone of the same sex. The marriage document acts as the evidence here.

The vast majority of people chaptered as being homosexual were done so after voluntarily making a sworn statement of such. They sat down in a chair and signed a piece of paper saying they were homosexual, then someone else witnessed that signature and presented it to the commander who then presents it, along with chapter paperwork, to the JAG for legal review. Nobody forced them out, they chose that path.

The US Military doesn't care about sexuality. We knew who the gay and bi people were, as long as they did their job and didn't demand special treatment we didn't care. I've been to barracks parties where we had girls up on the table stripped each other and putting on quite a show. We knew the gay dude down the hall that always had other guys coming and going from his barracks room. We would see them going out and witness what they did at the clubs. There wasn't much "hiding" going on. They just didn't bring it into the office nor the field, which is all we really care about.

A) If you are going to use a source for your argument, don't use one that is so blatantly partisan, especially in an argument where they are willing to make stuff up just to get readers.

B) It looks like she was fired for bringing up the incompetency of the new mayor. She has a better case against him being fired for whistle blowing than she does being fired for being gay.

C) If it is so common, then how come there hasn't been a bigger issue years ago? You can't honestly say that every gay person out there being fired was fired for being gay. You can't even honestly say that .001% of the fired gay population was fired for being gay. How can that be a "common occurrence?"

It is up to the person being fired to prove that they were fired for being gay. But if there was a correlation between being gay or not that constitutes keeping a job, you would have figured that there would have been a study (sponsored by the PEW Research Center of course) showing that.

But please, continue to assume that it isn't the incompetency of the ex-employee that created the job loss. You haven't picketed an issue lately, might as well create your own issue (again).

Republicans championed civil rights since their beginning.

Try reading a book

Oh. That sounded so familiar.Tell me that one again, please.

You mean this? Or this? Or from PEW as requested?
But yeah, since you haven't personally heard or encountered this, it doesn't exist.

That's hilarious. I bet you think Lincoln and MLK would be on your side too.

Lincoln was a republican though, unless you consider him a RINO.

And the democrats were the original slave owners.

Lincoln was a liberal. He wouldn't even recognize the GOP today.

And you think the republican party today is the same as the republican party in Lincoln's time?

Southern switcheroo, never forget.

Theodore Roosevelt, that environmental hippie was a Republican in his time. You know, the guy that gave us national parks. What would today's Republicans say about one of our best Presidents?

You mean studies where the respondents (who are bitter about losing their jobs) responded that they were treated unfairly after their job was terminated? And you don't think that they responses aren't tainted one bit?

That is the same as saying "Oh noes, a gay sheriff was fired! It must be because she was gay!!!!!!"

...oh wai...

Those darn Dixiecrats!

Gentle reminder that 29% of Mississippi and 21% of Alabama polled think interracial marriage should be illegal. In 2012. And you don't get much redder than those states.

Totally the party of Lincoln.

Yes, yes, I know you can't actually be bothered reading anything contradictory. It just amuses me to point out further the widening gap of how you perceive the world to work and how it actually works.

Technically the world only works the way you perceive it to work. There is no absolute.