Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Homosexual Marriage’

Has there ever been such a far left radical out of touch with the mainstream President as B Hussein Obama?

June 29th, 2010 17 comments

While in the Illinois State Senate, Obama supported homosexual marriage, racial preferences, the banning of all firearms, flag-burning, socialized medicine and the absolute right to abortion, including partial-birth abortions. He voted against requiring medical care for aborted fetuses who survive an abortion. He is anti-war, voted against the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act, against privatizing Social Security and opposes the death penalty, three strikes laws and school vouchers. He has no military service record. He strongly supports the decriminalization of marijuana.

Barack Hussein Obama was voted the most liberal Senator of 2007

because he lets muslims recruit in america.
because he tells the world how he hates us.
He is the first pres to side with the enemy we are fighting in 2 wars.
He is a chicago money changer for organized crime.
He is pushing a Godless Communist agenda and we won’t stand for it any longer.

Do Gays Truly Seek Tolerance?

April 3rd, 2010 8 comments

Here is a story (from AP) about gays going after people who exercised their right to vote. I’ve also seen video on youtube of gays attacking people who were for prop 8. There have also been news stories of them going after churches and their congregations.
Is this the tolerance they scream so loud for?

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Supporters of the ballot measure that banned same-sex "marriage" in California have filed a lawsuit seeking to block their campaign finance records from public view, saying the reports have led to the harassment of donors.

"No one should have to worry about getting a death threat because of the way he or she votes," said James Bopp, Jr., an attorney representing two groups that supported Proposition 8, Protect Marriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage California. "This lawsuit will protect the right of all people to help support causes they agree with, without having to worry about harassment or threats."

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in federal court in Sacramento, asks the court to order the secretary of state’s office to remove all donations for the proposition from its website. It also asks the court to relieve the two groups and "all similarly situated persons" from having to meet the state’s campaign disclosure requirements. That would include having to file a final report on Proposition 8 contributions at the end of January, as well as reports for any future campaigns the groups undertake.

Proposition 8, approved by 52.3 percent of California voters on Nov. 4, reversed a state Supreme Court decision allowing homosexual marriage. The measure’s opponents have asked the Supreme Court to overturn it.

The lawsuit filed Wednesday cites a series of incidents in which those who gave money to support Proposition 8 received threatening phone calls, e-mails and postcards. One woman claims she was told: "If I had a gun, I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter." Another donor reported a broken window, one said a fliyer calling him a bigot was distributed around his hometown and others received envelopes containing suspicious white power, according to the lawsuit.

Businesses employing people who contributed to the Proposition 8 campaign have been threatened with boycotts, the suit said.

Supporters of the homosexual marriage ban fear the donor backlash will hurt their efforts to raise money in the future, perhaps to fight an initiative seeking to overturn the ban.

"Several donors have indicated that they will not contribute to committee plaintiffs or similar organizations in the future because of the threats and harassment directed at them as a result of their contributions…and the public disclosure of that fact," the lawsuit said.

The suit said courts have held that laws requiring disclosure of campaign contributions can be overturned or restricted if a group can make "an uncontroverted showing" that identifying its members can result in economic reprisals or threats of physical coercion. California’s Political Reform Act, which voters approved in 1974, established disclosure requirements for candidates and campaign committees.

The secretary of state’s office and another defendant, the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission, declined to comment Thursday on the lawsuit. But Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, the homosexual-rights group that led the campaign against Proposition 8, called it hypocritical for supporters of the measure to try to overturn voter-approved campaign finance laws.

He said Proposition 8 supporters used campaign finance records during the campaign to threaten homosexual-rights supporters. "They’ve used these records to attack corporations, to attack individuals," Kors said.

Peter Scheer, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, which supports public access to government records and meetings, said the lawsuit is likely to be unsuccessful. But he also said the plaintiffs’ arguments are not trivial. "The problem with their argument, of course, is that campaign finance laws, both at the state and federal level, have been litigated endlessly now since Watergate and the argument has, in one form or another, been rejected," Scheer said.

He said courts have consistently failed to agree that contributors have a right to donate directly and anonymously to a candidate or campaign. He said some states have less restrictive reporting requirements, but they always include disclosure of donors.
Don,
Gays NEVER HAD the right to marry. How can it be taken from them if they never had it?
Friendly neighborhood queer: The pendulum swings. Be careful that you bring the fight to people who respond appropriately. We try to be tolerant. Some push their luck. That is sad.

Sorry that we finally decided to fight back after all the years of oppression and death that we were put through simply because of something that we can’t change.

Do Gays Really Want Tolerance (for themselves and others)?

April 1st, 2010 9 comments

Here is a story (from AP) about gays going after people who exercised their right to vote. I’ve also seen video on youtube of gays attacking people who were for prop 8. There have also been news stories of them going after churches and their congregations.
Is this the tolerance they scream so loud for?

SACRAMENTO, Calif. – Supporters of the ballot measure that banned same-sex "marriage" in California have filed a lawsuit seeking to block their campaign finance records from public view, saying the reports have led to the harassment of donors.

"No one should have to worry about getting a death threat because of the way he or she votes," said James Bopp, Jr., an attorney representing two groups that supported Proposition 8, Protect Marriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage California. "This lawsuit will protect the right of all people to help support causes they agree with, without having to worry about harassment or threats."

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in federal court in Sacramento, asks the court to order the secretary of state’s office to remove all donations for the proposition from its website. It also asks the court to relieve the two groups and "all similarly situated persons" from having to meet the state’s campaign disclosure requirements. That would include having to file a final report on Proposition 8 contributions at the end of January, as well as reports for any future campaigns the groups undertake.

Proposition 8, approved by 52.3 percent of California voters on Nov. 4, reversed a state Supreme Court decision allowing homosexual marriage. The measure’s opponents have asked the Supreme Court to overturn it.

The lawsuit filed Wednesday cites a series of incidents in which those who gave money to support Proposition 8 received threatening phone calls, e-mails and postcards. One woman claims she was told: "If I had a gun, I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter." Another donor reported a broken window, one said a fliyer calling him a bigot was distributed around his hometown and others received envelopes containing suspicious white power, according to the lawsuit.

Businesses employing people who contributed to the Proposition 8 campaign have been threatened with boycotts, the suit said.

Supporters of the homosexual marriage ban fear the donor backlash will hurt their efforts to raise money in the future, perhaps to fight an initiative seeking to overturn the ban.

"Several donors have indicated that they will not contribute to committee plaintiffs or similar organizations in the future because of the threats and harassment directed at them as a result of their contributions…and the public disclosure of that fact," the lawsuit said.

The suit said courts have held that laws requiring disclosure of campaign contributions can be overturned or restricted if a group can make "an uncontroverted showing" that identifying its members can result in economic reprisals or threats of physical coercion. California’s Political Reform Act, which voters approved in 1974, established disclosure requirements for candidates and campaign committees.

The secretary of state’s office and another defendant, the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission, declined to comment Thursday on the lawsuit. But Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, the homosexual-rights group that led the campaign against Proposition 8, called it hypocritical for supporters of the measure to try to overturn voter-approved campaign finance laws.

He said Proposition 8 supporters used campaign finance records during the campaign to threaten homosexual-rights supporters. "They’ve used these records to attack corporations, to attack individuals," Kors said.

Peter Scheer, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, which supports public access to government records and meetings, said the lawsuit is likely to be unsuccessful. But he also said the plaintiffs’ arguments are not trivial. "The problem with their argument, of course, is that campaign finance laws, both at the state and federal level, have been litigated endlessly now since Watergate and the argument has, in one form or another, been rejected," Scheer said.

He said courts have consistently failed to agree that contributors have a right to donate directly and anonymously to a candidate or campaign. He said some states have less restrictive reporting requirements, but they always include disclosure of donors.

Gays want tolerance for them, but they would still want to bash Christians.

Why did Obama vote NO to helping babies of botched abortions live?

March 16th, 2010 6 comments

Just how pro-abortion is Obama? Consider the following excerpt from a Sept. 1, 2004 column on IllinoisLeader.com by former nurse and noted pro-life activist Jill Stanek:

“For three years in a row I submitted the same testimony to Illinois Senate committees that were deciding whether to let the full Senate vote on the Born Alive Infants Protection Act.

“It was during those committee hearings that I first came face-to-face with state Senator Barack Obama, who functioned as either a member or the chairman, depending on the year and the committee.

“Each time I testified, I described to Obama and other members the death of a particular little girl who was aborted alive at Christ Hospital.

“The baby’s death haunts me, because she might have lived with help. Her abandonment by medical professionals clearly demonstrated that wanted and unwanted babies are treated differently at delivery….

“When Obama and his fellow Democrats voted against [the Born Alive Infants Protection Act] in committee that first year, I didn’t think they understood the magnitude of the 23-weeker’s death.

“So the next year along with my testimony I submitted a page from the neonatal textbook demonstrating the resuscitation of a baby about the same age as I described. I watched Obama look at those photos… before he voted no again….”

Besides his 100 percent pro-abortion voting record, Obama also opposes a Constitutional Amendment banning homosexual “marriage.” (He has, however, claimed that he is not in favor of homosexual “marriage.” Only “civil unions,” you see.)

Its sick isnt it, but thats the democrats for you. They allow want to abolish the death penalty but favor abortion on demand