Sexual Orientation and Military Service

[Thorne]

As much fun as it may be to make blanket statements about still highly contested mythical races. It would be nice to stay on topic and perhaps open another thread for the other topic.

I'm not so sure it's off topic. The Amazons were, as he says, real, not mythical, and I'm quite sure they indulged in lesbian sex, as well as heterosexual when they wanted children. Nor were they the only female warriors in ancient times. From what I can recall (no citations, though, sorry) homosexual warriors, both male and female, were at one time considered superior warriors.

[DuncanONeil]

I agree with Ian, they are not a myth. Don't know about his details though.

As much fun as it may be to make blanket statements about still highly contested mythical races. It would be nice to stay on topic and perhaps open another thread for the other topic.

[IAN 2411]

Should the Military place restrictions on it's service members for their sexual orientation?

As much fun as it may be to make blanket statements about still highly contested mythical races. It would be nice to stay on topic and perhaps open another thread for the other topic.

The subject of Amazons is still in keeping with your original question denuseri, because to answer it with knowledge and conviction you must delve into history for reference. As thorn as stated they were a not a mythical race as some historians stated, they lived on the shores of the Black sea. They were part lesbian race, and i supose one of the first bi-sexuals, and only had sex with men once a year, and it was for breeding purposes. Taking that in mind, the Amazons had a direct bearing on your question at the beginning of this thread. Proof of reality for the Amazons came about 15 years ago when an expeditionary force of historians went to the Steppes of Russia. They dug into over twenty burial mounds out of several hundred and found all the graves to be of women, all were buried with their swords and all had bowed legs from continues riding of horses. It was also stated that at one time not only did this army of lesbian females fight against Attila the Hun, but they also joined forces with him in several battles. Throwing water on the fire, that gays cannot fight alongside heterosexuals and be successful. Attila and the Amazons were probably one of the most fierce and feared armies that roamed the Siberian plains and Mongolia.


Regards ian 2411

[denuseri]

All of which is still highly contested. A few Sythian burial mounds containing remians of a small grouping intermingled with males all buried with weapons a superiour lesbian fighting force that mated only once a year does not make.

The validity of which should have its own seperate thread where supporting evidience can be presented in detail becuase as a side bar it will consume a great deal of this thread which isnt here to debate their existance so much as determine if sexual orientation should be a criteria of modern militaries. Its about equal rights.

[IAN 2411]

which isnt here to debate their existance so much as determine if sexual orientation should be a criteria of modern militaries. Its about equal rights.

Russian Women

World War II
Women played a large part in most of the armed forces of the Second World War. In most countries though, women tended to serve mostly in administrative, medical and in auxiliary roles. But in the Soviet Union women fought in larger numbers in front line roles. Over 800,000 women served their Motherland in World War II; nearly 200,000 of them were decorated and 89 of them eventually received the Soviet Union’s highest award, the Hero of the Soviet Union. They served as pilots, snipers, machine gunners, tank crew members and partisans, as well as in auxiliary roles.

Land forces
The Soviet Union also used women for sniping duties extensively, and to great effect, including Nina Alexeyevna Lobkovskaya and Ukrainian Lyudmila Pavlichenko (who killed over 300 enemy soldiers). The Soviets found that sniper duties fit women well, since good snipers are patient, careful, deliberate, can avoid hand-to-hand combat, and need higher levels of aerobic conditioning than other troops. Women also served as machine gunners, tank drivers, medics, communication personnel and political officers. Manshuk Mametova was a machine gunner from Kazakhstan and was the first Soviet Asian woman to receive the Hero of the Soviet Union for acts of bravery.


I said in my last post denuseri, that the only way you can argue a case for equality is have a firm basis to work from. Now the above paragraphs state a case for women’s equality that no one can argue with, now as you say it might be a good idea to find one for the gays and lesbian community.

Regards ian 2411

[denuseri]

Finally some progress from the pencil pushers in Washington.


From Dana Bash and Deirdre Walsh, CNN
Washington (CNN) - Congressional Democrats reached an agreement Monday with the White House and possibly the Pentagon on a key legislative step toward repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that bars openly gay soldiers from the military.
In a letter to President Obama obtained by CNN, three congressional sponsors of legislation to repeal the policy outlined the proposed agreement that would set contingencies based on completion of a military review of the matter already under way and subsequent final approval from the president and military leaders.

Specifically, the proposed agreement calls for repeal to become final only after completion of the military review expected by the end of 2010, followed by a review certification from Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen.

"We have developed a legislative proposal for consideration by the House and Senate that puts a process in place to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell' once the working group has completed its review and you, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs certify that repeal can be achieved consistent with the military's standards of readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention," said the letter sent Monday night that was signed by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan; Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut; and Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pennsylvania.

The Obama administration endorsed the proposal in a letter sent to the congressmen Tuesday from Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag, who wrote that the agreement "meets the concerns raised by the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

Congressional Democratic sources said they hoped Gates himself would explicitly support the compromise language because that could determine whether the measure will pass. Several Democrats in the Senate and House have said they are reluctant to support any legislation that doesn't have complete backing of the Pentagon.

There was no formal comment from the Pentagon on a possible agreement.

"Given that Congress insists on addressing this issue this week, we are trying to gain a better understanding of the legislative proposals they will be considering," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said in a statement.

Initial votes on the measure in the Senate Armed Services Committee and the full House could occur as soon as Thursday, sources said.

Joe Solmonese, president of the civil rights organization Human Rights Campaign, praised the agreement.

"We are on the brink of historic action to both strengthen our military and respect the service of lesbian and gay troops," he said in a statement Monday. "Today's announcement paves the path to fulfill the president's call to end 'don't ask, don't tell' this year and puts us one step closer to removing this stain from the laws of our nation."

The agreement emerged from a meeting Monday at the White House involving administration officials, gay rights groups and Pentagon officials, the sources said. There were also talks on Capitol Hill involving White House lawyers, Pentagon officials and staff from the offices of influential House and Senate Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the sources added.

Gates has said he supports repealing the policy, but also has launched an extensive review of how to make the change. The review won't be finished until the end of the year.

Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, recently said he would push for a measure now to repeal the law. Gates opposed the idea, saying in a letter to the House Armed Services Committee chairman that he "strongly opposed" any changes before completion of the military review.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a top Republican on defense issues, also indicated his support for the military review before any possible repeal.

"I think most members really would like to hear from our commanders and men and women in uniform and get their input on a decision like this," said Graham, a member of the Armed Services Committee.

A senior U.S. military official with direct knowledge of the review process said that the Joint Chiefs of Staff remain committed to taking the time to get views from troops.

That process is well under way, the official said, noting that a survey will go out shortly to about 70,000 troops and families to solicit their views. In addition, the official said, town hall meetings already have been held around the country and more are expected, while a website provides a place for troops to write in their views.

The official noted that military commanders have been telling the troops for weeks that the review process was intended to ensure their views were incorporated in contingency planning in the event that Congress changes the law.

According to the official, changing the process now before completing the review could be harmful because some troops believe the whole repeal initiative is an effort to appease supporters of repeal.

The military needs until the end of 2010 to figure out how to implement the repeal in terms of housing, medical and marriage benefits, as well as issues involving the reinstatement of gay soldiers previously discharged under the policy, the official said.

The Obama administration letter indicated the agreement would address those issues, saying its approach "recognizes the critical need to allow our military and their families the full opportunity to inform and shape the implementation process through a thorough understanding of their concerns, insights and suggestions."

A major problem might be determining how to reconcile the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" with federal law that defines marriage as between a man a woman, the official added.

Supporters of repealing the policy have been pressuring congressional Democrats to act now, fearing the party will lose its House or Senate majority in November's mid-term election and be unable to pass the measure then.

A senior administration official said Monday it was the understanding at the White House that "Congress is determined to act this week."

[DuncanONeil]

It is entirely possible that this will turn out to be another feel good policy that does nothing. If a mixed sex couple can be charged and punished for openly sexual practices the same would be true of openly gay couples.

Finally some progress from the pencil pushers in Washington.


From Dana Bash and Deirdre Walsh, CNN
Washington (CNN) - Congressional Democrats reached an agreement Monday with the White House and possibly the Pentagon on a key legislative step toward repealing the "don't ask, don't tell" policy that bars openly gay soldiers from the military.
In a letter to President Obama obtained by CNN, three congressional sponsors of legislation to repeal the policy outlined the proposed agreement that would set contingencies based on completion of a military review of the matter already under way and subsequent final approval from the president and military leaders.

Specifically, the proposed agreement calls for repeal to become final only after completion of the military review expected by the end of 2010, followed by a review certification from Obama, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen.

"We have developed a legislative proposal for consideration by the House and Senate that puts a process in place to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell' once the working group has completed its review and you, the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs certify that repeal can be achieved consistent with the military's standards of readiness, effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention," said the letter sent Monday night that was signed by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan; Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Connecticut; and Rep. Patrick Murphy, D-Pennsylvania.

The Obama administration endorsed the proposal in a letter sent to the congressmen Tuesday from Office of Management and Budget Director Peter Orszag, who wrote that the agreement "meets the concerns raised by the Secretary of Defense and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."

Congressional Democratic sources said they hoped Gates himself would explicitly support the compromise language because that could determine whether the measure will pass. Several Democrats in the Senate and House have said they are reluctant to support any legislation that doesn't have complete backing of the Pentagon.

There was no formal comment from the Pentagon on a possible agreement.

"Given that Congress insists on addressing this issue this week, we are trying to gain a better understanding of the legislative proposals they will be considering," Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell said in a statement.

Initial votes on the measure in the Senate Armed Services Committee and the full House could occur as soon as Thursday, sources said.

Joe Solmonese, president of the civil rights organization Human Rights Campaign, praised the agreement.

"We are on the brink of historic action to both strengthen our military and respect the service of lesbian and gay troops," he said in a statement Monday. "Today's announcement paves the path to fulfill the president's call to end 'don't ask, don't tell' this year and puts us one step closer to removing this stain from the laws of our nation."

The agreement emerged from a meeting Monday at the White House involving administration officials, gay rights groups and Pentagon officials, the sources said. There were also talks on Capitol Hill involving White House lawyers, Pentagon officials and staff from the offices of influential House and Senate Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the sources added.

Gates has said he supports repealing the policy, but also has launched an extensive review of how to make the change. The review won't be finished until the end of the year.

Levin, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, recently said he would push for a measure now to repeal the law. Gates opposed the idea, saying in a letter to the House Armed Services Committee chairman that he "strongly opposed" any changes before completion of the military review.

South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a top Republican on defense issues, also indicated his support for the military review before any possible repeal.

"I think most members really would like to hear from our commanders and men and women in uniform and get their input on a decision like this," said Graham, a member of the Armed Services Committee.

A senior U.S. military official with direct knowledge of the review process said that the Joint Chiefs of Staff remain committed to taking the time to get views from troops.

That process is well under way, the official said, noting that a survey will go out shortly to about 70,000 troops and families to solicit their views. In addition, the official said, town hall meetings already have been held around the country and more are expected, while a website provides a place for troops to write in their views.

The official noted that military commanders have been telling the troops for weeks that the review process was intended to ensure their views were incorporated in contingency planning in the event that Congress changes the law.

According to the official, changing the process now before completing the review could be harmful because some troops believe the whole repeal initiative is an effort to appease supporters of repeal.

The military needs until the end of 2010 to figure out how to implement the repeal in terms of housing, medical and marriage benefits, as well as issues involving the reinstatement of gay soldiers previously discharged under the policy, the official said.

The Obama administration letter indicated the agreement would address those issues, saying its approach "recognizes the critical need to allow our military and their families the full opportunity to inform and shape the implementation process through a thorough understanding of their concerns, insights and suggestions."

A major problem might be determining how to reconcile the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell" with federal law that defines marriage as between a man a woman, the official added.

Supporters of repealing the policy have been pressuring congressional Democrats to act now, fearing the party will lose its House or Senate majority in November's mid-term election and be unable to pass the measure then.

A senior administration official said Monday it was the understanding at the White House that "Congress is determined to act this week."

[DuncanONeil]

Should the Military place restrictions on it's service members for their sexual orientation?

The military has all kinds of restrictions on sexual activity and said restrictions are not limited to same sex issues.

Personally I think it is a red herring issue. There are gays in the military, probably always have been. This pressure is more likely aimed at aiding the Gay community in the civilian world than anything else!

[Hamishlacastle]

ahh Deni you complicate every thing it is simple put the gays into their own battallions. the competition betweent eh gay and straight battalions would lead to a fiersom army. Can you imagine dome taliban not knowing which batallion is attacking. spoils of war and all lOl. mixing the straights and gays is not wise if they are identifiable. I think the army had the best policy in dont ask dont tell. It seems to have worked so far. Why do they openly want to enroll as being homosexual. thats like declaring your religion. or sexual fantasies. being a special class may be desirable, but it opens the door to to many other issues what about cross dressers, transsexual etc. I would be terrifying for the taliban to have bunch of men dressed in burka charging across the field lol

[Hamishlacastle]

or Gorean women who think they should be in the mens battalion because they are just as tough

[Hamishlacastle]

i WILL LEAVE THIS ISSUE TGO THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED. the military should have one law for all

[DuncanONeil]

They do! The UCMJ!

i WILL LEAVE THIS ISSUE TGO THOSE WHO ARE INVOLVED. the military should have one law for all

[Hamishlacastle]

it is simple put the gays into their own battallions. the competition betweent eh gay and straight battalions would lead to a fiersom army. Can you imagine dome taliban not knowing which batallion is attacking. spoils of war and all lOl. mixing the straights and gays is not wise if they are identifiable. I think the army had the best policy in dont ask dont tell. It seems to have worked so far. Why do they openly want to enroll as being homosexual. thats like declaring your religion. or sexual fantasies. being a special class may be desirable, but it opens the door to to many other issues what about cross dressers, transsexual etc. I would be terrifying for the taliban to have bunch of men dressed in burka charging across the field lol

[Hamishlacastle]

I have stepped into a minefield here. I was born during the 2nd world war and lived in a war vets housing complex.(war destroys everyone not only the wounded and dead) At university I took a course on the history of war. one thing I learned is that, study after study shows that soldiers in active combat function best in groups of 5

through out history it has been said by many soldiers why didn't you run when it happened. the answer was always I couldnt leave my buddies. They were not fighting for king and country or family or god. they were fighting for each other. One thing is sure you dont want a homophoe in a squad where there is a gay. Perhaps for the future they should put the homophoes in their own groups and the rest of the straights and gays mixed. I am straight. the issue has never crossed my mind.

previously on this page I took a frivious look at it If I were in a squad I think that I would be more concerned that my back is covered than someones sexual orientation. I apologise. It comes down to the squad being able to handle hellish pressure that one man cant. they do it as a unit. If one breaks they often all do. If the unit is a band of brothers, women working as one.
I am told women have proven them selves in war. I was opposed to that, it is not the person; it is can you trust them. that is all that matters. you put your life in their care. I never thought if they were gay or not until the issue was raised a few years ago. If they want to sacrifice for their country let them and honor them for their service. like we do all military personal. not gay or straight. just soldiers serving their service to country. they should march proudly with their medals like every soldier.

[DuncanONeil]

Should the Military place restrictions on it's service members for their sexual orientation?

I do not know who designed the poll questions but they do not allow for a reasoned analysis. The intent behind the poll must always be considered before you allow yourself to make your Regis answer (Is that your final answer). I could answer "no", yet I have no problem with the current policy. I only object to the "requirement" of losing your position in the Services. So presuming that the poll is to help in determining the countries feeling toward open gays in the Military, I can not answer at all. But the point is not the actual sexual orientation, it is one of security.

In spite of the potential risk ghays have always been in the Services!

[mkemse]

No, ANYONE be they Gay, Lesbian etc. if they so choose to Serve our Country they should be allowed to
Just as I feel if woken wantto be allwoed to fight onte front lines they should be aloowed to as well
Rember that paer tha twas written in 1774, called the United States Contitution, the Bill of Right ect it does says in ther ALL MEN A RE CREATED EQUAL, it does not say ALL Men, unless they are Gay, Women who are Lesbians etc, are not Equal
The Billof rights and Our Constition does not sperate Striaght from Gay, TG. L etc whyshould the Miitary, if they are wiling to srve, they should be allowed to serve
Just my thought

[Lion]

I'm happy that congress has finally recognized the rights of those who proudly wear the uniform. Hopefully this will translate to full gay rights in every part of the country.

[denuseri]

Hip Hip Hoooorahhhh!! WOOOOOOOOOOOTZ! AWsome!!!! This is just fantastic and really fills me with hope that our governement isnt completely broken!

Its been a long struggle here in the states for this freedom to be extended finally.

[Thorne]

While I agree that this is long overdue, I think I'll withhold any celebrations pending the installation of the new Congress in January. If the Tea Baggers don't come up with some way around this, or something even worse, I'll be pleasantly surprised!

[brwneydgirl]

If the Tea Baggers don't come up with some way around this, or something even worse, I'll be pleasantly surprised!

I think Tea Baggers are a WHOLE different group of folks...just sayin'.

[Thorne]

I think Tea Baggers are a WHOLE different group of folks...just sayin'.

Context, girl. Everything in context.

Still, it can be hard to tell the two groups apart, sometimes.

[denuseri]

Blinks...um ...the Tea Baggers don't = the Republican party people...no matter how much some Republicans or some Democrats may want us too...(yesh I am a full on Tea Bagger).

Additonally most of the tea baggers Ive spoken with are for the repeal!

[Thorne]

Like most other groups, the Tea Party people are diverse, spanning from the ultra-conservatives to the slightly more moderate. Unfortunately, the ultra-conservatives tend to be more vocal, more colorful, more insane, and thus more noticed. They get the press coverage and thereby taint the Tea Party, and the Republican Party, with their bizarre platforms. To my mind, the only hope the Republicans have to retain any credibility is to separate themselves from these whackos, before it's too late.

[IAN 2411]

Remind me as i am not American, who are the Tea Baggers and Tea Party?

Regards IAN 2411{lillirose}

[denuseri]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement isnt wiki wonderful?

[StrictMasterD]

Our Military (In The United States) is ALL Voluntary, if someone who is Gay, wants to Serve His/Her country and put their life on the line so we can continue to Enjoy and Treasure the Freedoms we have, I can support that.

[denuseri]

HI!..Figured I would bump this one since I saw some intrest in this topic shown recently in the forums.

[denuseri]

A group of U.S. service members marched in a San Diego gay pride parade on Saturday, in a demonstration organizers touted as an unprecedented step for gay and lesbian military personnel under the Pentagon's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy.

The military contingent in the parade numbered about 250 people, and the former Navy operations specialist who brought the group together said many are currently in the military, while the rest are veterans. They dressed in civilian clothes.
Marine Corporal Will Rodriguez-Kennedy is on active duty and said he looks forward to next year's parade, when he believes it will be possible to march in "dress blues."
"One of my friends here has been back from Afghanistan for three days, and when he heard about the parade he said he served in uniform and he should be able to march in uniform," said Rodriguez-Kennedy, 24.
It was unclear exactly how many members of the San Diego gay pride parade's military contingent were on active duty. Several participants who spoke to Reuters had recently left the armed services.
Under the military's existing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy, service members are barred from saying they are gay or lesbian, and that has until now discouraged some members of the military from participating in gay pride parades.
Organizers said the San Diego contingent, which included straight supporters also in the armed services, represented the largest group of members of the military to ever march in the city's gay pride parade, or any similar U.S. event.
Gay service members have been known to march in other pride parades, but usually in a low-key manner without calling attention to themselves.
COURT DECISION
The march came a day after a three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals temporarily reinstated the military's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on gays, but blocked the Pentagon from penalizing or discharging anyone for being openly gay. The decision marked a reversal from an earlier order to immediately end the policy.
President Barack Obama signed legislation in December to repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," but the bill gave the Pentagon an unlimited time frame to implement the change, leading up to a final "certification" of the repeal.
That certification is expected within weeks.
In a parade that featured drag queens costumed as nuns and men dressed as pirates with G-strings, the military contingent of mostly men in their 20s and 30s marched in markedly more conservative clothing.
They wore green or grey t-shirts emblazoned with their military branch, and each carried in hand a small U.S. flag.
"This is my first time here, out as who I am: a gay man in the Army Reserves," Dale Smith, 50, told Reuters. "It's a great day for me and for all the gay people who've chosen to serve their country."
A Pentagon spokeswoman said U.S. Department of Defense regulations do not prohibit marching in parades while wearing civilian clothes, and that participation "does not constitute a declaration of sexual orientation."
The military contingent in the San Diego parade was organized by Sean Sala, an openly gay 26 year-old man, who left the Navy in June after six years.
"When we were walking, every step of the way it was standing ovations from the crowd," Sala said. "My mom was with me and it made her cry."
San Diego, California's second-largest city, has a large military presence. The nearby Camp Pendleton is the largest Marine Corps base west of the Mississippi River.

[denuseri]

The 9th Circuit Court in California struck down as unconstitutional the state's voter-passed ban on gay marriage Tuesday, ruling 2-1 that it violates the rights of gay Californians.


"Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples," Judge Stephen Reinhardt wrote in the decision. The court concludes that the law violates the 14th Amendment rights of gay couples to equal protection under the law. Access to gay marriage will remain on hold pending appeals to the decision.


The Circuit Court backed up District Judge Vaughn Walker, who ruled in August of 2010 that the state of California has no "rational basis" to single out gay men and women as ineligible for marriage. The group fighting for Prop. 8, which passed in 2008 after thousands of gay couples had already married, appealed Walker's decision arguing that it should be vacated because Walker is gay and has a same-sex partner. The 9th Circuit Court judges denied this motion.
Walker's sweeping 2010 decision was called a "grand slam" by gay rights advocates, who hoped it would convince the Supreme Court to rule states cannot outlaw gay marriage. But Reinhardt was explicit in his decision that his ruling is "narrow" and only relates to California, not to the entire nation. In California, gay people had the right to marry for five months before it was taken away by voters. This amounts to a violation of equal protection because a right was specifically taken away from a minority group, Reinhardt writes. But this argument would not apply to gay people in most other states, where gay marriage was never legalized in the first place. "It's a strong decision but it is not the ringing endorsement of broader marriage equality that some might have hoped for," Hunter College professor and gay rights advocate Kenneth Sherrill said.
But University of California Irvine law professor Erwin Chemerinsky tells Yahoo News that the underlying reasoning in the decision is broad--there's no legitimate state interest in denying same-sex marriage rights. Chemerinsky noted that the decision appeals to swing vote Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, by citing his decision in a 1996 case striking down a Colorado law that prevented communities from treating gay people as a protected class.
Ted Olson, the U.S. solicitor general under President George W. Bush who represents the plaintiffs, said at a press conference that the decision is the first step to ending discrimination. "Today we are more American because of this decision," he said.
The pro-Prop. 8 camp has said it will appeal the decision. The group can now ask for 11 members of the 9th Circuit hear their case, instead of just the panel of three who decided against them on Tuesday. "Today's ruling finally clears the field for an appeal to the United States Supreme Court, where we are confident we will be victorious," the Save Prop 8 campaign said in a statement.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released a statement saying the "fight" over states' rights to ban gay marriage is not over. "Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage," he said, adding that he would appoint judges who oppose same-sex marriage if he's elected. President Obama also opposes same-sex marriage, but says that his opinion on the issue is "evolving."

[IAN 2411]

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney released a statement saying the "fight" over states' rights to ban gay marriage is not over. "Today, unelected judges cast aside the will of the people of California who voted to protect traditional marriage," he said, adding that he would appoint judges who oppose same-sex marriage if he's elected.

denu...I really can't make out what all this shit is about. It seems to me that the American leaders and the sheep that follow them in these public displays of bigotry, must love making themselves look like idiots to the rest of the world. If that is a display of American democracy then thank God you have it and the UK has not.

For a man to say, because I don’t like that judges, judgement, I will go and get my case passed through a judge that is like minded as me. That is obscene? I will kick out all judges that I don’t think have my values? I will put in judges that are all of the same value of morals as me?

That is dictatorship and I ask where will it end?

Be well IAN 2411