Video: Noted gay-marriage opponent sounding oddly supportive of gay marriage

posted at 5:36 pm on June 29, 2011 by Allahpundit

Via Greg Hengler, a video garnish to Ed’s earlier post from today’s presser. Watch for the part at around 2:45 where he endorses the core argument of gay-marriage supporters — “[gays] have got to be treated like every other American” — while steadfastly refusing to call himself a gay-marriage supporter. Has there been any moment like this in recent U.S. history, where it’s so obvious that the president is lying about his true position on a given issue that he feels free to argue that position at White House press conferences? We’re all in on the joke by now, I guess he figures, so why keep up anything more than the barest pretense? The next time he claims his feelings about this are still “evolving,” he might as well grin, wink, and elbow the person next to him. In fact, he’s already basically doing that: Check out the last 20 seconds or so here, where he ends up joking with reporters about the fact that his position on this will, at some point, certainly change. It’s not a matter of if, but when. Just … not today.

Be sure to watch the whole clip, too, to see how his dissembling leads him into legal incoherence. His comments about New York make it sound like he’s a federalist on this issue, preferring to let states vote it out. Does anyone believe, though, that The One would object to a U.S. Supreme Court decision holding that gay marriage bans violate the Equal Protection Clause? That would have the effect of legalizing SSM in all 50 states, precisely the opposite of O’s supposedly favored outcome, and yet somehow I can’t imagine him being broken up about it. And a bonus irony: His refusal to defend DOMA in the courts is predicated on that very idea — that gays are a minority that deserve greater protection under the EPC by having courts apply “heightened scrutiny” to laws that target them. If Obama’s (and Holder’s) view of equal protection prevailed, New Yorkers never would have had a chance to vote. So he’s lying about this too. Even on an issue where I agree with him, he’s embarrassing.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Adams referred to God once! Wow what a great point. That totally means we’re a Christian nation!

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:06 PM

Your understanding of the founding of this country is poor. In fact, until the progressives started revising and erasng history and weeding God out of the public square the US was very much a Christian nation and if you ask most people they’ll still agree that it is.

darwin on June 29, 2011 at 7:16 PM

Most of are laws are derived from the moral code in the bible. To say otherwise is just plain ignorant. Ever heard of the ten commandments?

JannyMae on June 29, 2011 at 7:09 PM

What percentage of those commandments have been translated into US law?

dedalus on June 29, 2011 at 7:17 PM

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Says nothing about what laws we can make not being based in any religion.

(PS: I voted for bush twice. This kind of crap pushed me to the left. You’re losing people like me EVERY DAY.)

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:11 PM

Good riddance.

JannyMae on June 29, 2011 at 7:17 PM

Okay. Lets leave my friendships out of this.

Religion is the reason people are against gay marraige. No one can deny that.

Yes, some people claim its because they can’t have kids, or the kids won’t turn out right, or it will lead to pedophiles marrying 4 year olds…

But you know what? IT JUST SO HAPPENS 100% of people who make those arguments are ALSO christian! What a total coincidence! I bet it’s not directly related at all!

Religion has no place in politics.

Religion ESPECIALLY has no place in politics when you’re oppressing a minority group’s right to do as it pleases.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:18 PM

What percentage of those commandments have been translated into US law?

dedalus on June 29, 2011 at 7:17 PM

You tell me.

JannyMae on June 29, 2011 at 7:18 PM

Says nothing about what laws we can make not being based in any religion.

dude?

Congress shall make no law

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:19 PM

Okay. Lets leave my friendships out of this.

Good idea.

terryannonline on June 29, 2011 at 7:20 PM

(PS: I voted for bush twice. This kind of crap pushed me to the left. You’re losing people like me EVERY DAY.)

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:11 PM

You know what. Good riddance. You’re ignorant.

I’m tired of talking to people who have so much hate and disgust for anything related to religion and the spirit and principles that founded this country. Keep your sorry a$$ over there.

darwin on June 29, 2011 at 7:20 PM

K-12 Catholic School and an Altar Boy.

Oh, you think I’m ignorant?

No, I know too much.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:21 PM

Religion is the reason people are against gay marraige. No one can deny that.

Yes, some people claim its because they can’t have kids, or the kids won’t turn out right, or it will lead to pedophiles marrying 4 year olds…

But you know what? IT JUST SO HAPPENS 100% of people who make those arguments are ALSO christian! What a total coincidence! I bet it’s not directly related at all!

Religion has no place in politics.

Religion ESPECIALLY has no place in politics when you’re oppressing a minority group’s right to do as it pleases.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:18 PM

So, explain the atheists who don’t support same sex marriage. 100%?

Just admit you hate Christians and get it over with.

JannyMae on June 29, 2011 at 7:21 PM

the spirit and principles that founded this country.

Oppressing minorities?

Some ‘america’ you have there.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:22 PM

No, I know too much.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:21 PM

No, you don’t … and to think you do is embarrassingly arrogant.

darwin on June 29, 2011 at 7:23 PM

Religion is the reason people are against gay marraige. No one can deny that

I’ll deny that it’s the only reason. There’s a strong secular argument against legally recognizing gay marriage.

The non-religious argument against is that a man-and-a-man or a woman-and-a-woman whatever their sexual orientation is fundamentally different than a man and a woman.

And that it is better for a child to be raised by a male and a female than two males or two females.

We have seen, for example, that a boy raised without a father is more likely to have trouble later in life. That is truancy, drug usage, criminal behavior.

And that promoting same sex marriage weakens the important role that traditional marriage plays in socializing children.

SteveMG on June 29, 2011 at 7:24 PM

I know God doesn’t exist and never has.

(PS: Santa is fake too.)

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:24 PM

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:19 PM

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion.

Establishment of a religion is prohibited. That’s all. If you don’t understand the distinction, then there is no help for you. I’d suggest you protest against laws against murder and stealing, because they are in the bible, and according to your interpretation of the first amendment, we can’t make laws against them.

JannyMae on June 29, 2011 at 7:24 PM

Oppressing minorities?

Some ‘america’ you have there.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:22 PM

Fine, go over to the Middle East where you’ll be better appreciated. Leave if you’re so damn unhappy.

darwin on June 29, 2011 at 7:24 PM

The non-religious argument against is that…

No, that’s the arguments religious people use to try and claim their hostility isn’t based solely on religion and hate.

Have you ever seen an atheist use that argument?

Name one.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:26 PM

Name one.

Me, just now.

Respond to the points please.

SteveMG on June 29, 2011 at 7:26 PM

So you’re also against single parents, infertile couples..

Right?

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:27 PM

This clown is just looking to vent his obvious hatred of all things relgious or more accurately … Christian.

darwin on June 29, 2011 at 7:28 PM

So you’re also against single parents, infertile couples

Of course not.

Respond to the argument that a man-and-a-man or a woman-and-woman is different than a man and a woman.

True or false?

SteveMG on June 29, 2011 at 7:28 PM

I was born a christian you goddamn moron.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:28 PM

No, I know too much.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:21 PM

No, you don’t … and to think you do is embarrassingly arrogant.

darwin on June 29, 2011 at 7:23 PM

Remember what Reagan said, darwin. “It’s not that liberals are stupid, it’s that so much of what they know just isn’t so.”

SKYFOX on June 29, 2011 at 7:29 PM

Respond to the argument that a man-and-a-man or a woman-and-woman is different than a man and a woman.

True or false?

As far as raising kids goes? False. I have seen lesbian couples (with kids) first hand and their kids are no different or more eff’d up than the rest of us.

That’s not liberal propaganda, that’s my own personal experience.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:30 PM

I was born a christian you goddamn moron.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:28 PM

So what? What … you want a cookie or something? You’re still a useful idiot.

Got anymore neat quotes for us? You know, since you know too much.

darwin on June 29, 2011 at 7:30 PM

I was born a christian you goddamn moron.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:28 PM

Oh, by the way. No one is born a Christian.

darwin on June 29, 2011 at 7:31 PM

Remember what Reagan said, darwin. “It’s not that liberals are stupid, it’s that so much of what they know just isn’t so.”

SKYFOX on June 29, 2011 at 7:29 PM

Very true.

darwin on June 29, 2011 at 7:31 PM

I know the Bible isn’t the “oldest book in the world” and I know western civilization, while heavily christian, was based on greek culture due to alexander the great’s Hellenistic empire.. hence western civilization.. duh..

of course you could mention the fact that christianity and the church heavily influenced european culture, of course I would counter that it also put us into the freaking DARK AGES.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:32 PM

Procreation isn’t the only reason people marry but it’s one of the most important ones.

And raising children isn’t the only reason people get married but it’s one of the most important ones.

The question is whether a marriage between a man-and-a-man or a woman-and-a-woman – regardless of their sexual orientation (if any) – is the same as a man and a woman.

Answer: it’s not.

Non-religious opponents of same sex marriage believe that civil unions are sufficent for gay people and that the institution of marriage was intended fundamentally for heterosexual union and the socialization of children.

And those important roles shouldn’t be altered.

SteveMG on June 29, 2011 at 7:32 PM

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:32 PM

Wow … and if you could make a point you’d really be doing something!

darwin on June 29, 2011 at 7:33 PM

And why, do tell, do you think you’re the arbiter of what is “sufficient” marriage for anyone but yourself?

Who made you king?

No one.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:34 PM

As far as raising kids goes? False. I have seen lesbian couples (with kids) first hand and their kids are no different or more eff’d up than the rest of us.

Yes, and we’ve seen single parents raise children correctly.

But the social science clearly shows that a male child raised in a fatherless home is more likely to get into trouble.

For what it’s worth, I’m not convinced that this is enough to not legalize gay marriage. I am on either side of this.

I see the benefits but I also see the potential harm.

And I try to use secular or non-religious and social science based facts as best as I can.

We can’t use anecdotes; we need to use facts.

SteveMG on June 29, 2011 at 7:35 PM

Marriage is THE MOST PERSONAL decision someone can make, and you idiots think you can enforce your personal beliefs on other people in that arena? Eff you.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:35 PM

of course you could mention the fact that christianity and the church heavily influenced european culture, of course I would counter that it also put us into the freaking DARK AGES.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:32 PM

So you don’t think the collapse of the Roman Empire had anything to do with the Dark Ages? Hmmmm …

darwin on June 29, 2011 at 7:35 PM

I like how you quote science without actually quoting any science.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:36 PM

So you don’t think the collapse of the Roman Empire had anything to do with the Dark Ages? Hmmmm …

Oh you mean the collapse of the roman empire that happened because justinian f’d off to byzantine with all the money

that collapse

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:37 PM

Marriage is THE MOST PERSONAL decision someone can make, and you idiots think you can enforce your personal beliefs on other people in that arena? Eff you.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:35 PM

That must make divorce the second MOST PERSONAL decision.

Hey, did it ever occur to you that you’re forcing your personal beliefs on others?

Yes? No?

Marriage of a man and woman has been around for thousands of years, and now a screaming minority wants to force their beliefs on others.

But that’s ok with you because you know too much.

darwin on June 29, 2011 at 7:39 PM

Oh you mean the collapse of the roman empire that happened because justinian f’d off to byzantine with all the money

that collapse

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:37 PM

I take it your answer is no, and you really have no idea what the Dark Ages were or why they were called that.

darwin on June 29, 2011 at 7:40 PM

You tell me.

JannyMae on June 29, 2011 at 7:18 PM

It’s your argument. You’ll have to develop it. My guess is fewer than half the commandments. Of the ones that do have corresponding US laws, you’d find other older civilizations that had adopted similar laws, including the one in Egypt that Moses and the Israelites had lived in.

dedalus on June 29, 2011 at 7:42 PM

Marriage of a man and woman has been around for thousands of years, and now a screaming minority wants to force their beliefs on others.

Well, here’s the thing.

If you guys get your way, gays CANT GET MARRIED.

If gays get their way, YOU CAN STILL GET MARRIED.

Gay marriage has absolutely ZERO EFFECT on you and you STILL want to limit their rights.

Just absolutely absurd.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:43 PM

Well, here’s the thing.

If you guys get your way, gays CANT GET MARRIED.

If gays get their way, YOU CAN STILL GET MARRIED.

Gay marriage has absolutely ZERO EFFECT on you and you STILL want to limit their rights.

Just absolutely absurd.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:43 PM

Calm down. There is no reason to get this upset.

terryannonline on June 29, 2011 at 7:45 PM

If two lesbians get married in northampton, how does that effect me? How are they “imposing their will” on me? Seriously, answer that to my satisfaction, and i’ll shut up.

Two people you don’t even know get married. “My rights are being violated!” Seriously?

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Hmmmmmmmm………election season is that close huh?

GarandFan on June 29, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Just admit you hate Christians and get it over with.

JannyMae on June 29, 2011 at 7:21 PM

And on the other side:

Just admit you hate gays and get it over with.

Guess what? Both assertions are bulls**t.

MadisonConservative on June 29, 2011 at 7:45 PM

Gays already treated just like every other American before the creation of unnecessary legal arrangements between same sex adults.

Count to 10 on June 29, 2011 at 7:46 PM

If two lesbians get married in northampton, how does that effect me? How are they “imposing their will” on me? Seriously, answer that to my satisfaction, and i’ll shut up.

Two people you don’t even know get married. “My rights are being violated!” Seriously?

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:45 PM

It’s not about you.

terryannonline on June 29, 2011 at 7:46 PM

More shameless pushing of calling same-sex perversion “marriage” while pretending you’re on the side of smaller government.

Just Say No.

tom on June 29, 2011 at 7:46 PM

Marriage of a man and woman has been around for thousands of years, and now a screaming minority wants to force their beliefs on others.

But that’s ok with you because you know too much.

darwin on June 29, 2011 at 7:39 PM

Are we really forced to believe in other people’s marriages? Some marriages are worthy of respect, others deserve scorn. I government license doesn’t compel respect any more than a corporate registration compels investment.

dedalus on June 29, 2011 at 7:47 PM

i have a shocking idea, how about everyone just worries about their own personal lives and stops judging people? its none of your goddamn business.

ya know why I know god doesn’t exist? Because no god (worth worshiping) would allow his believers to engage in this much hate in his name.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:50 PM

If two lesbians get married in northampton, how does that effect me? How are they “imposing their will” on me? Seriously, answer that to my satisfaction, and i’ll shut up.

Two people you don’t even know get married. “My rights are being violated!” Seriously?

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:45 PM

The two people getting “married” is irrelevant. It is that the government is endorsing the homosexual and DINK lifestyles and assumptions over ones that contribute positively. It doesn’t actually matter if no gay marriages take place — the fact that the government has taken this position is what does the damage.

Count to 10 on June 29, 2011 at 7:50 PM

If you guys get your way, gays CANT GET MARRIED.

If gays get their way, YOU CAN STILL GET MARRIED.

Gay marriage has absolutely ZERO EFFECT on you and you STILL want to limit their rights.

Just absolutely absurd.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:43 PM

See, you know what really bothers me? When this all started gays were saying all they wanted were the same protections and supposed “perks” that married people had and clamored for civil unions. Almost everyone said yeah that’s only fair.

Well it instantly turned into YOU”RE OPPRESSING ME BECAUSE I CAN”T GET MARRIED.

I thought that was a tad disingenuous and has made me somewhat distrustful of the “gay lobby” and their agenda.

darwin on June 29, 2011 at 7:51 PM

If marriage is based on a religious text, why should government be administering it at all?

MadisonConservative on June 29, 2011 at 6:01 PM

Can’t argue with this…

ladyingray on June 29, 2011 at 6:12 PM

Really? How about questioning the presumption that marriage is based on a religious text?

tom on June 29, 2011 at 7:51 PM

I government license doesn’t compel respect any more than a corporate registration compels investment.

dedalus on June 29, 2011 at 7:47 PM

Respect? No.
But that was never the aim in the first place. The intent is to compel shame.

Count to 10 on June 29, 2011 at 7:52 PM

Are we really forced to believe in other people’s marriages? Some marriages are worthy of respect, others deserve scorn. I government license doesn’t compel respect any more than a corporate registration compels investment.

dedalus on June 29, 2011 at 7:47 PM

To be honest, I really don’t care. What riles me is the outright vicious hatred of religion and Christians in particular that comes from indoctrinates like “triple”.

darwin on June 29, 2011 at 7:53 PM

Really? How about questioning the presumption that marriage is based on a religious text?

tom on June 29, 2011 at 7:51 PM

Neither of us made that claim. Take it up with jp.

MadisonConservative on June 29, 2011 at 7:54 PM

Really? How about questioning the presumption that marriage is based on a religious text?

tom on June 29, 2011 at 7:51 PM

Historically, marriage has had a religious context. I don’t know how one can argue otherwise.

terryannonline on June 29, 2011 at 7:55 PM

If two lesbians get married in northampton, how does that effect me? How are they “imposing their will” on me? Seriously, answer that to my satisfaction, and i’ll shut up.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:45 PM

That’s easy.

How does a man and an underage child getting married affect you?

How does people marrying multiple partners affect you?

How does people marrying animals affect you?

How does people marrying blood relatives affect you?

Since you’ve made the grounds for whether or not you can restrict marriage solely dependent on whether or not it affects you, you now have to justify all of these bans with direct examples of how such marriages would affect you personally.

And if you so much as try to wiggle out of this, you’re exposed as a hypocrite who is demanding evidence and proof of others that he won’t supply himself.

northdallasthirty on June 29, 2011 at 7:57 PM

People who believe that the institution of marriage is one designed for heterosexual couples chiefly to produce families and socialize children think that a marriage of two people of the same sex (whatever their orientation) is just fundamentally different than that of an opposite sex couple.

It’s not theocracy, it’s not hating gay people; it is just the view that an opposite sex couple – a man and a woman – is not the same type of relationship as two men or two women.

If you wish to change the definition of what marriage has been – fine. But recognize that you’re changing it and not just giving “equal rights” to gay people.

Two things are happening: gay people get the same marriage rights as straight people AND the institution of marriage is being changed.

SteveMG on June 29, 2011 at 7:58 PM

If you wish to change the definition of what marriage has been – fine. But recognize that you’re changing it and not just giving “equal rights” to gay people.

SteveMG on June 29, 2011 at 7:58 PM

Very good point and probably the sticking point.

darwin on June 29, 2011 at 8:00 PM

ya know why I know god doesn’t exist? Because no god (worth worshiping) would allow his believers to engage in this much hate in his name.

triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Yawn.

Gays and lesbians scream “hater” and “homophobe” when they’re not allowed to molest children.

Gays and lesbians scream “hater” and “homophobe” when they’re not allowed to dress their children as sex slaves and parade them for naked and masturbating adults to enjoy.

Gays and lesbians scream “hater” and “homophobe” when they’re not allowed to demand sex from their subordinates and discriminate against heterosexuals or people who refuse their advances.

In short, since you’re defining “hate” as preventing you from sexually assaulting a child, no one really cares any more what you and your gay and lesbian friends think.

northdallasthirty on June 29, 2011 at 8:01 PM

So, is it legal for hetero same-sex siblings to marry one another?

Christien on June 29, 2011 at 8:03 PM

Very good point and probably the sticking point.

I think it is. One side sees “equal rights” being enforced by government and the other sees a “fundamental change” in what marriage means being made by government.

And so the fight ensues.

SteveMG on June 29, 2011 at 8:04 PM

So, is it legal for hetero same-sex siblings to marry one another?

Christien on June 29, 2011 at 8:03 PM

According to gays and lesbians, yes. Indeed, their community, including its leaders like Chai Feldblum, Barack Obama’s personal puppet, are openly calling for plural and relative marriage and insisting that such relationships are just as good and “worthy”.

So again, if you oppose plural and sibling marriage, you’re a homophobe. That’s what the gay and lesbian community says, and that’s what Chai Feldblum, Barack Obama’s advisor, says.

northdallasthirty on June 29, 2011 at 8:06 PM

Men and women can get married. Two men can’t. Two women can’t.

Whether you’re gay has nothing to do with it.

So you want to pass a law redefining marriage, NOT because it was excluding gay people, NOT because gay people were not allowed to get married, but simply because gay people were NOT INTERESTED in marriage unless you redefine it.

Anyone pushing for gay marriage is demanding the government use its force to mandate acceptance of same-sex relationships. But if you can demand that of the government, then the many-times-larger faction of evangelicals should have as much right to demand the government mandate some of their moral beliefs.

Do you really want to go down that road?

tom on June 29, 2011 at 8:06 PM

Historically, marriage has had a religious context. I don’t know how one can argue otherwise.

terryannonline on June 29, 2011 at 7:55 PM

Explain to me how common-law marriages have a religious context.

tom on June 29, 2011 at 8:08 PM

Really? How about questioning the presumption that marriage is based on a religious text?

tom on June 29, 2011 at 7:51 PM

Neither of us made that claim. Take it up with jp.

MadisonConservative on June 29, 2011 at 7:54 PM

Wasn’t blaming you for the claim. Just pointing out that the argument is not that hard to make.

tom on June 29, 2011 at 8:09 PM

tom on June 29, 2011 at 8:06 PM

Though what is actually going on is that the plurality that resents the moral expectations placed on them by religions (theirs and others) is looking for a way to rebuke that morality and feel superior to those who profess it. Those with homosexual habits are just being used for leverage.

Count to 10 on June 29, 2011 at 8:11 PM

Men and women can get married. Two men can’t. Two women can’t.

Not to be pedantic but they can. It’s an “informal” marriage that isn’t recognized by the state.

But two men can go to a church – if the church performs same sex marriages – and get married by the minister. They can call each other husband and husband and married and live together as a married couple.

But again, it’s an “informal” marriage and they don’t get a marriage license.

Whether that’s really a “marriage” can be debated, I guess.

I said I was being pedantic, didn’t I?

SteveMG on June 29, 2011 at 8:13 PM

Historically, marriage has had a religious context. I don’t know how one can argue otherwise.

terryannonline on June 29, 2011 at 7:55 PM

Explain to me how common-law marriages have a religious context.

tom on June 29, 2011 at 8:08 PM

My impression is that we tend to look back at the extravagance of the ruling class as being tradition, rather than the more common practices of the, um, commoners.

Count to 10 on June 29, 2011 at 8:13 PM

Religion is the reason people are against gay marraige. No one can deny that

I’ll deny that it’s the only reason. There’s a strong secular argument against legally recognizing gay marriage.

SteveMG on June 29, 2011 at 7:24 PM

It’s interesting how the assertion is made that opposition to homosexuality is always based on religion.

I seriously doubt that’s true.

Like it or not, there are a lot of people who are not religious at all that find homosexuality to be, quite frankly, disgusting. In fact, it seems most people have to learn to even tolerate homosexuality, quite apart from their religious faith.

I’m reminded of the famous Seinfeld episode where they kept saying, “Not that there’s anything wrong with that!”

Doesn’t that imply that people by default feel like there is something wrong with it? And that they have to keep convincing themselves that there is nothing wrong with it?

Greater acceptance of homosexuality has been relentlessly pushed by our culture for the last generation, and yet…..

In fact, I believe the only reason people are as accepting of homosexuality as they currently are is because certain not-exactly-rigorous* scientific studies were touted to support the claim that homosexuality is inborn, and nobody wants to hold it against someone who was “born that way.”

* By “not exactly rigorous,” I mean for example a number of studies that appeared to support the contention that homosexuality was genetic, then turned out to be faulty, and of course the studies where they decided that homosexuals had some brain differences from others, but were completely unable to say whether the differences were the cause of homosexuality or the effect.

tom on June 29, 2011 at 8:29 PM

When the voters would have opposed him if he favored it, he opposed it.

Now that the “gay” tide seems to be turning, Barry’s moral realitivistic pandering pimpiness is shifting to the greater bloc of potential voters.

The man is a rock of Jell-o.

profitsbeard on June 29, 2011 at 8:48 PM

Guess what? Both assertions are bulls**t.

MadisonConservative on June 29, 2011 at 7:45 PM

I read his posts. He clearly hates Christians.

Nice try, though.

JannyMae on June 29, 2011 at 9:06 PM

I read his posts. He clearly hates Christians.

Nice try, though.

JannyMae on June 29, 2011 at 9:06 PM

Given that half a dozen posters have said the same about me(possibly including you), I’m not inclined to take your word for it.

MadisonConservative on June 29, 2011 at 9:59 PM

Maybe Michelle O. thinks her beard is getting a little thin?

profitsbeard on June 29, 2011 at 10:06 PM

I know God doesn’t exist and never has.
triple on June 29, 2011 at 7:24 PM

Wow, you’re omniscient.

Akzed on June 30, 2011 at 9:19 AM

Comment pages: 1 2