Jan. 21st, 2007 @ 06:35 pm
I'm trying to remember the party affiliation of the president who signed the Defense of Marriage Act and who signed the ban of gays in the military into federal law, but it slipped my mind. Do you remember?
I do. And Clinton quite rightly deserves an ass kicking. However, he was brokering a political compromise--he wasn't flat-out saying that gays are second-class citizens.
I am done with this. Carry on with your self-hatred.
|Date:||January 22nd, 2007 09:20 pm (UTC)|| |
And Bob Byrd and Sam Nunn, who led the fight not to lift the ban on gays in the military (back when Democrats controlled both Congress and the Presidency).
In any event, who the Hell are you to judge or lecture Americans on their political affiliation?
isn't a Republican.
What part of "I'm done" do you not understand?
|Date:||January 23rd, 2007 01:17 am (UTC)|| |
You must not be, since you keep commenting.
It isn't my fault you're wrong.
Wow, way to assume. Do you usually assume that anyone who questions the Democratic Party in any way is a Republican, or at least engaged in some form of self-hatred? Is acceptance of oneself possible only through faith in the Democratic Party?
If it was a political compromise, what did he get for it? A compromise involves each side getting something. How exactly
would things have been made worse for gays if he simply vetoed both measures?
Isn't calling it "brokering a political compromise" when a Democrat does it just extending the benefit of the doubt to one party while not extending it to the other? Doesn't a federal law to prohibit one group of people from being able to marry qualify as "flat-out saying that gays are second-class citizens"? A constitutional amendment is worse than DOMA because it's harder to change and all that, but whether people are denied marriage rights by federal law or constitutional amendment, they're pretty much being declared second-class citizens either way, aren't they?
|Top of Page
||Powered by LiveJournal.com|