Despite his promise to spend "every waking moment fighting the oil spill by playing golf," Barack Obama is taking time off this evening to host a Whitehouse reception in honor of Gay Pride Month.
The formal affair, at which the president is expected to speak, is honoring gays, lesbians, bisexuals, transexuals, and presumably anyone else who rejects the notion that Tab A goes into Slot B.
Among the honored guests is a specially-invited 17 year old lesbian who sued her high school and forced them to cancel the senior prom for everyone when she was forbidden from cross-dressing and bringing a same-sex date. Despite the disappointment, she's now drying her tears with a $30,000 college scholarship which she received for taking a stand.
And on Sunday, Obama even found a way to inject Gay politicization into Father's Day, when he proclaimed the virtues (if not the actual mechanics) of a "two father family."
In all seriousness, which we try to avoid at Hope n' Change when we can, we're supportive of equal rights for homosexuals...and yes, some of our best friends are gay. We respect them and we respect their committed relationships.
But the president isn't recognizing or celebrating the spectrum of "committed relationships," or his guest list would include traditional male/female partners. As that's not the case, the Whitehouse event is clearly only an endorsement and celebration of sexuality...and non-traditional sexuality at that.
Which is why this use of the president's time, the people's Whitehouse, and no doubt a considerable amount of taxpayers' money feels like one more unnecessary cultural slap in our collective faces.
16 comments:
A reception to commemorate people getting f'ed in the ass? We've been at that reception for almost two years now.
I hope they keep his golf clubs locked away...
Honestly, this is a_nightmare_world. In what sane world does the president take time off of a broken border, gushing oil leak & all the other threatening world problems to celebrate "two fathers" (and I'm asking as a gay man)? If Obama is SO concerned about gay rights (as if gay rights are more pressing than national security issues), why doesn't he do more instead of using gays as pawns in his political machine?
That party should be a real hoot - kind of the calm evening before the s--tstorm that is going to hit Obama tomorrow:
Furious President Obama summons Gen. Stanley McChrystal to D.C.
McChrystal RIPS Obama Administration- Was it Suicide By Rolling Stone?
It is in so many ways fitting that this perversion of a president would celebrate the perversion of sexuality with a Gay Pride Celebration. Just as gay sex leads to death through AIDS and other problems, so this presidency is leading to the death of the nation. The parallels are entirely apt and fitting. I am not in the least bit surprised that he would do this.
Well,I can't hold my tongue any longer.This dangerous anti-american has to be REMOVED IMMEDIATELY from the white house,I can't understand how ANYONE can still approve of this BUFFOON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Changing the subject a federal judge vetoed Obama's 6 months of no drilling. Who would have thought that would happen? We do have a few people with some common sense. Obama is just a dumb ass!
Erik---
If Obama is SO concerned about gay rights (as if gay rights are more pressing than national security issues), why doesn't he do more instead of using gays as pawns in his political machine?
He wants the gay vote!!!! Same reason he wont secure the borders right now. He wants the hispanic vote...to him its all about politics! Im sure you knew that...just wanted to vent my frustration!
He's the most self-centered, to the exclusion of ANYONE else's safety and well-being, President we've ever had.
Pryorguy- I think you're grasping Erik's point exactly; Obama makes political points by promising things to people (and ramping them up with hate speech)...but he fears that delivering on those promises could turn the special interest groups into lethargic voters.
Which is why promises are made to Gays, but nothing happens. And why for decades promises have been made to our nation's black citizens (most notably from Clinton and Obama) and they haven't gotten shit in return. The politicians stoke the heat and the hate, and use the resulting steam only for their own ends.
In fact, there's pretty much no constituency of "real people" (as opposed to unions, special interests, etc) who have gotten anything at all out of this president and his soaring rhetorical promises.
And to bring this discussion full circle, that's what honks me off so much about the big Gay Whitehouse event: I'm fine with respectable homosexuals (just as I'm fine only with respectable heterosexuals), but I'm NOT fine with this most callous and inhuman of presidents lecturing the rest of us about matters of morality.
Please get your facts "straight". Constance didn't force the school to cancel the prom, the school choose to cancel rather than allow her to take her chosen date- like everyone else does.
If you can't get the facts right why even try?
The event was underwritten by your friends at Snap-on Tools
ArmyVet- Sorry, but our facts are straight, although were perhaps too condensed. The school "chose" to cancel the event only AFTER Constance brought the ACLU into the procedings, and it became clear that the school would be sued if it stuck to its "opposite sex dates only" policy.
As few school districts can afford legal fights these days, it seemed their only option was to cancel the whole thing...and they did. Which, for advocates of same-sex dating, should at least have been seen as "fair" - as the hetero kids weren't getting a prom either.
But that didn't end things after all. Constance and the ACLU still filed a lawsuit which is being actively pursued.
Would the prom have been ruined by Constance in a tuxedo, dancing with a girl in a prom gown? Hope n' Change doesn't think so, and we wouldn't lose a moment's sleep if the school changed its policies to be more accepting in the future.
But all that being said, the prom was killed because Constance used the ACLU to create a court battle that the school couldn't afford to fight.
So for the record, we do try to get the facts right. We won't always succeed, and we always encourage dissenting opinions - but don't be surprised if it turns out we've actually done our homework.
And one other personal note: assuming from your nickname that you are an Army Vet, thank you for your service, and know that it's an honor to have you visiting the site and participating in the discussions!
I don't know how much we will hear about this party - today turned out to be a "tow-fer", as far as Obama's ass getting kicked:
A) Obama won't get to kick McChrystal's ass or fire him.
Breaking: General Stanley McChrystal tenders his resignation
B) A judge issued an injunction against Obama's moratorium on deep-well drilling.
Judge Blocks Deep-Water Drilling Moratorium
The downward spiral continues.
oops, meant to say "two-fer"
I noticed the title of this article was "don't ask don't tell", but the almost inevitable repeal of this law wasn't mentioned. As you probably know, it is a near certainity that don't ask don't tell will be phased out by the end of next year. It was the Congress of the United States albeit with President Obama's endorsement that has voted for the repeal (I lobbied for it). I would be interested in your thoughts on that subject Stilton, as well as you Army Vet. Also Army Vet, thanks for your service.
Anonymous- D'OH!!! I just spent a half hour writing the best answer I could, and then my computer froze and everything vanished. So, with apologies to all, I'll recap my thoughts in a shorter form.
• I'm against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" because I don't think we should ask anyone to basically lie at the same time we're asking them to take an oath. And I don't like the idea of anyone being unwillingingly in the closet.
• In non-combat positions, I think "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" should be thrown out, with Gays able to serve anywhere their talents take them. And everyone, Gay or Straight, needs to adhere to military rules of proper conduct.
• Combat duty is different. The combat units must be able to function as a team - their lives depend on it - and whatever it takes to assure that unity is what we have to accept (and even encourage) whether it's politically correct or not. If hetero soldiers aren't comfortable trusting their lives to a gay soldier, then it's not for us on the sidelines (including myself) to make that decision. Prejudice is still wrong...but most of us don't have to bet our lives on political correctness.
• In a nutshell, I'm saying get rid of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell;" allow Gays in most non-combat military roles; and if Gays in combat just aren't going to work out - for good reasons or bad - then they shouldn't be there.
And for the Gays who are already serving? I have nothing but respect, as well as regret that they're living a closeted existence.
They are, however, there by choice. And they took an oath to serve the military as it is...not as they wish it might become.
So those are my thoughts - somewhat messy, but devoid of glibness or dishonesty to the best of my ability.
What do others here think?
One note, looking backward, Stilton: You say that those pandered to by the Dems who continue to vote for them, even though the promises are never delivered upon haven't gotten shit. I disagree. Though you are correct in asserting that they haven't gotten shit from the Dems, they have gotten shit from God. Unfortunately, they're using it for brains...
Post a Comment