Wednesday, July 4 @ 5:02:42 pm

Comments

Janey's picture

He always talks up the gay rights agenda and then backtracks. Fool us once, shame on you, fool us twice..
laa laa's picture

yeah, may as well vote for romney then, clearly that is a better option

Janey's picture

we're fucked either way with this one
rodr3's picture

Well there are other candidates... however since most of America sees voting as akin to gambling on a sports team and you only win if you pick the winning side.... then any attempts to vote for what you BELIEVE IN is 'throwing your vote away'.

*been 'throwing my vote away' since '96*

wtf_mom's picture

ron paul
jfps's picture

bender's picture

Mother fucking aye right brother time to let the blind drive no more of the aparthied.
bollo's picture

so brave
deathwish's picture

To be treated like shit?  
4rliss's picture

You know what I think is funny.

If Barrack Obama wanted to, he could do it tomorrow.  He controls the IRS, he could easily implement a way for Gays to form a civil union like a marriage and receive the same benefits that married people do.  He doesnt need congress to do this.  I think gays should have all the rights that married people do, its plain and simple.

The problem is that gays want to be married, they don't want a civil unions, and they feel this is their right to be Married.

The problem is, a marriage is a ceremony and a contract or vows that historically has been a religious ceremony. And the issue is that most religions dont accept gay marriage, .... yet..   And I agree with Religion 100% on this.  The government cant tell them what to do.  For some reason marriage was not seperated from the government like everything else. And this is what needs to fundamentally change.
laa laa's picture

No, he couldn't.  He has discretion over priorities and practices in agencies but not what the law actually is.  Just like presidents who are anti-gay can't simply lock that door forever, opening it fully or even partially requires a legal process.  The immigration thing, for example, is a short-term statement designed to force some kind of resolution on something that's been stalled in congress for two years.

Despite the best efforts of Republicans to redefine the executive branch into a sort of dictatorship, and their fear that Obama is somehow realizing this, it is not nearly so all-powerful.
parthenogenesis's picture

what about convicted serial pedophiles?  do they deserve equal treatment?
Iskra's picture

and what about burglars, impostors, tax evaders, fare dogers, war criminals, rapists, punters or crazy men yelling at trees? what the fuck have pedophiles to to with lgbt ?
Janey's picture

those goddamn crazy men yelling at trees better not get no rights. If they do, I'm movin to Can-a-jah.
parthenogenesis's picture

my point is that it's a simplistic polemic statement, not everyone is equal.
bollo's picture

strawman detected

i havent seen any drinking fountains that say "straights only"
Iskra's picture

A+ smart boy