Comments on: Is Obama’s Same Sex Partners Policy Enough?

By: srv000051

srv000051 — Thu, 16 Jun 2011 09:43:19 +0000

srv000147…

fotkividiki…

By: ïåðååçä êâàðòèðû äåøåâî

ïåðååçä êâàðòèðû äåøåâî — Thu, 19 May 2011 13:42:11 +0000

îðãàíèçàöèÿ ïåðååçäà êâàðòèðû…

gruzchiki spb…

By: whiterosebuddy

whiterosebuddy — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 00:56:04 +0000

Legalizing same gender marriage solves nothing it only creates a whole host of other issues for society.

Cunnilingus should not be allowed to cover anyone as long as she is single, unless it is a child.

Single people will be able to cover their parents as significant others!!

By: whiterosebuddy

whiterosebuddy — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 20:56:04 +0000

By: patatsea

patatsea — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 02:12:40 +0000

But your scenario is exactly what would be solved by the legalization of same sex marriage, that's what I was pointing out. I'm assuming the 'fellatio' and 'cunnilingus' you speak of are the same gender (I would assume male, given Romance language masculine word endings, though its so hard to tell with such unusual names). If 'fellatio' and 'cunnilingus' could marry, then 'cunnilingus' could simply cover 'fellatio' as a spouse, no more worrying about what "live-in" status is. And clearly, since one can only marry one other person, 'cunnilingus' would be limited to only covering 'fellatio', unless they should ever get divorced. Then 'fellatio' would no longer be covered, and if 'cunnilingus' should ever remarry, let's say to 'John', then 'John' would be covered as 'cunnilingus's' husband.

By: Facebook User

Facebook User — Fri, 19 Jun 2009 00:29:00 +0000

Amen. I think that people from the left assumed that they owned Pres. Obama. Instead of waiting for what a politician can do for you, you need to do for yourself.

By: Lilytiger

Lilytiger — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 22:11:17 +0000

Really! It seems as if there are only three dems in power at the moment and two of them aren't really doing anything. Where's my Dems, where are the rest of the country's. They aren't making nearly enough noise on any issue.

By: texascowgirl

texascowgirl — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:38:32 +0000

Thanks. I just don't like irrational knee-jerk emotionalism that's based on wanting to fell a certain way and not actual facts. We already have a crazy rightwing in this country and I don't like seeing it on the left either. If there is one thing the right does better then the left it's that they know how to support their presidents. I have never seen president get turned on like this in my life from his own damn party and after only 5 months. Maybe that's why we have lost so many elections in the last 40 years. Our best and brightest don't want to deal with Democrats let alone the GOP.

By: spirit_55z

spirit_55z — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:23:25 +0000

HELLO!!!! Keep telling it, texascowgirl.

By: spirit_55z

spirit_55z — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:17:21 +0000

I 1000% AGREE, Miranda. I reallllllllllllllly don't appreciate the fact the gay community is equating the Civil Rights Movement and Black struggles with their plight.

As a matter of fact, it totally, fucking pissing me off, and all the whiners who spew this nonsense, will not get one iota of compassion from me until they fess up and be truthful about what role they play in their movement.

By: whiterosebuddy

whiterosebuddy — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:11:58 +0000

The example you use of JFK is different from what BHO is facing. JFK had laws on the book that he could command and direct to be executed. That is the President's role. BHO does not have laws on the book he can uphold or execute!!

BHO has to wait for Congress to legislate the laws.

You are mixing up the responsibilities of the leadership roles involved. Presidents' do not MAKE laws they EXECUTe them. Congress LEGISLATES. Once Congress legislates then Presidents execute and UPHOLD the law.

so you are angry at the wrong person!!

By: ASmith

ASmith — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 18:05:11 +0000

I'm glad you bring up the temporary nature of an Executive Order.

Since he got into office, Obama has repealed LOTS of Bush EOs... cause he can... but all the ones he's writing up can be repealed as soon as someone who doesn't like it gets into office.

Folks need to get off Obama and get their behinds in the Halls of Congress because there are A LOT of closeted gay members who they need to call to task (while they want to out celebs like Queen Latifah). You want something permanent, right? Well get a LAW. The Executive Branch does not pass laws, Congress does. Period.

All this blame and anger is just in the wrong spot and that's all there is to that. Rep. Barney Frank is an openly gay member of Congress and I haven't heard of him spearheading anything to change this situation.

By: whiterosebuddy

whiterosebuddy — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:55:00 +0000

TXgirl…you are on fire, again!! Great post.

By: whiterosebuddy

whiterosebuddy — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:49:39 +0000

NO. As leader of the executive branch his primary job is to EXECUTE the laws. It is the job of the DOJ to ENFORCE the laws.

You know like how JFK had to execute the DOJ to have RFK send in the Federal troops to Alabama to ENFORCE the FEDERAL civil laws.

Please understand the roles of leadership within our government before you start making demands, on folks positions.

By: whiterosebuddy

whiterosebuddy — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:39:05 +0000

False. If they wanted the so-called 'benefits' they would marry the opposite gender. All this 'live-in' coverage is completely wrong and the entire reason their are laws that surround and support the institution of marriage.

What is going to stop a 'live-in' from discontinuing benefits at their capricious whim? Is the law going to say well even though 'fellatio' moved out that 'cunnilingus' no longer has to cover them? Will 'fellatio' be able to sue to keep cunnilingus' benefits and will cunnilingus be able to put 'fellatio2' on their benefits too?

How many "fellatio's" will cunnilingus be allowed to live with and have healthcare benefits?

By: whiterosebuddy

whiterosebuddy — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:31:28 +0000

Single people are NOT penalized that is the entire point. Marriage is a LOSS of individual constitutional and property rights.

Only gay people have made marriage about 'benefits' it is a totally specicous argument i.e. based on a false premise!

Go buy a 'ring' if you think that is where the 'power' is vested it ain't.

Ask Usher, if he wishes he wasn't married to Tameka right now, in terms of his individual rights...he would certainly would have far less to lose.

Gay folks just want to turn the society upside down and inside out to support their outside the box choices.

By: whiterosebuddy

whiterosebuddy — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 17:28:52 +0000

ITA! We are definitely like-minded on this Guns.

By: MoObama

MoObama — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:52:35 +0000

If I were gay I would have muster up some dignity and civility as well as respect for the president, since I want help with this issue.

By: MoObama

MoObama — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:37:05 +0000

I don't remember Hillary taking up any gay cause while running for president. She was too busy trying to out do Obama.

By: MrNoface

MrNoface — Thu, 18 Jun 2009 02:57:07 +0000

I wanted to give a large majority in that movement the benefit of the doubt, but given some of the things being said by their talking heads, you may be more correct than I am!