Flags
I guess you could've seen this one coming. The Federal Reserve in Virginia has been honoring June as Gay Pride Month (as noted in this week's Presidential Proclamation) by flying the rainbow flag.
Not surprisingly, this has elicited negatively-toned exclamations from certain people who don't know what they're talking about.
The Washington Post:
Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but I think that last thing is new, the "population imbalance relating to the number of workers" thing. Everybody knows the Nutty Ones love to say that gay people are dirty and diseased and so on, but ... I think what he's saying is that Social Security and Medicare will have problems in the future because gay people don't reproduce. Is that what he's saying? That if people are gay there won't be enough babies?
I have never heard that one before.
This guy has a lot to say, and this is a classic instance of either not understanding what he's talking about or intentionally twisting things to mean something else.
The controversy would be something else, it would go away essentially, if being gay was "a behavior." Virginia could just pass a law against that behavior and if people obey the law, voila, no gay people! Take down that flag, no need for it, none of those people in this state.
Nobody who has thought about this believes that homosexuality is a behavior, any more than heterosexuality is.
I don't know how somebody decides that they should call a business and tell them how to decorate their building.
Can somebody tell me what that means? Is Mister Jefferson's Capitol a symbol of gayness, too? I was unaware of that. Mister Washington's monument, okay, I could see this lady obsessing about that. But the Capitol?
I guess these conservatives have registered their obligatory disapproval of things they don't understand, and hopefully they will shut up and do something else for the rest of the month.
Speaking of flags, down in Florida Disney World has Gay Days in the first week of June. Every year hundreds of thousands of gays and lesbians turn out for it. This year the Florida Family Association is protesting it. From WMCTV News:
Check this out:
Someday we'll try to tell our grandchildren about these things, and they'll look at us like we are making it up.
Not surprisingly, this has elicited negatively-toned exclamations from certain people who don't know what they're talking about.
The Washington Post:
Conservatives are calling on the Richmond Federal Reserve Bank to remove the rainbow flag flying outside its building representing gay rights in conjunction with Gay Pride month.
Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William), one of the most conservative members of the General Assembly, wrote a letter to Jeffrey M. Lacker, president of the Richmond Federal Reserve, urging him to take down the flag.
He wrote that homosexuality “adds significantly to illness, increases health costs, promotes venereal diseases, and worsens the population imbalance relating to the number of workers supporting the beneficiaries of America’s Social Security and Medicare programs.” Conservatives call on Federal Reserve to take down gay pride flag
Maybe I haven't been paying attention, but I think that last thing is new, the "population imbalance relating to the number of workers" thing. Everybody knows the Nutty Ones love to say that gay people are dirty and diseased and so on, but ... I think what he's saying is that Social Security and Medicare will have problems in the future because gay people don't reproduce. Is that what he's saying? That if people are gay there won't be enough babies?
I have never heard that one before.
This guy has a lot to say, and this is a classic instance of either not understanding what he's talking about or intentionally twisting things to mean something else.
“I do not believe that a celebration of ‘gay pride’ has anything to do with the mission of the Federal Reserve under the Federal Reserve Act passed by Congress,” Marshall said. “This is a celebration of a behavior that is still a class six felony in Virginia. How can the American people trust the judgement of the Federal Reserve as an institution when its spokesperson celebrates an attack on public morals?”
The controversy would be something else, it would go away essentially, if being gay was "a behavior." Virginia could just pass a law against that behavior and if people obey the law, voila, no gay people! Take down that flag, no need for it, none of those people in this state.
Nobody who has thought about this believes that homosexuality is a behavior, any more than heterosexuality is.
The flag, which is next to an American flag, is being flown at the request of PRISM, one of the Federal Reserve’s employee groups representing gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.
“The flag is an example of our bank’s commitment to diversity,’’ Federal Reserve spokesman Jim Strader said.
Strader said the bank has received comments from people both for and against the flag, and from those who mistakenly think the Federal Reserve is a government entity. Del. Riley E. Ingram (R-Hopewell) also contacted the bank in opposition, Strader said.
I don't know how somebody decides that they should call a business and tell them how to decorate their building.
Victoria Cobb, president of the conservative Family Foundation, mentioned the flag in an an e-mail earlier this week.
“At the Family Foundation, we will simply choose to use this flag, like the view of Mr. Jefferson’s Capitol, as motivation for the work that lies ahead.”
Can somebody tell me what that means? Is Mister Jefferson's Capitol a symbol of gayness, too? I was unaware of that. Mister Washington's monument, okay, I could see this lady obsessing about that. But the Capitol?
James Parrish, executive director of the gay rights group Equality Virginia, released a statement Friday congratulating the bank.
“The Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond should receive accolades for its decision to recognize and celebrate its GLBT employees, customers and vendors during pride month,’’ he said. “It’s a private business and should be able to make its own personnel and corporate policy decisions without Bob Marshall’s guidance or the Family Foundation’s approval.”
I guess these conservatives have registered their obligatory disapproval of things they don't understand, and hopefully they will shut up and do something else for the rest of the month.
Speaking of flags, down in Florida Disney World has Gay Days in the first week of June. Every year hundreds of thousands of gays and lesbians turn out for it. This year the Florida Family Association is protesting it. From WMCTV News:
A Christian group is protesting the annual "Gay Day" by flying a banner plane over Disney World with a warning message for visitors.
The six day celebration for gay pride is a 20 year celebration, held in Orlando, FL, with Saturday spent at the Walt Disney's Magic Kingdom.
"It's just about people being proud of who they are here," said Gay day participant, Floyd Benefield.
With the 160,000 people visiting central Florida to celebrate, Florida Family Association is boycotting and spending $7,000 to fly banners for two full days near Disney, warning unsuspected families of the festivities. “Gay Day” warnings flown over Disney World
Check this out:
"The economy is improving because of what Gay Days bring into it," said Gay Day president, Chris Alexander-Manley. "Our crowd behaves better than most convention crowds, so come on out and see what it's really about."
"Gay Day" brings an estimated $150 million to the area, and some say the opposition to their sexual orientation will not keep them away.
"They really don't have a grasp of what it means to be tolerant of people that are different from you," Benefield said.
Florida Family Association claims thousands of people enter the park, then turn around, and leave when they see the same sex couples, saying mainstream America is offended. Disney and event organizers say that's just not true.
Someday we'll try to tell our grandchildren about these things, and they'll look at us like we are making it up.
posted by JimK at 9:24 AM
38 Comments:
the Federal Reserve is entangled with the government and those special advantages are due to their special mission
radical advocacy is not part of that mission and the gay flag should come down
here's today's reason Barack Obama won't be re-elected:
"FORWARD OPERATING BASE DWYER, Afghanistan –- Defense Secretary Robert Gates bluntly told Marines on Sunday that they won't be able to opt out of their enlistment just because they disagree with a government decision to end a ban on gays serving openly in the military.
Gates, who is on a tour of Afghanistan to bid farewell to the troops before stepping down at the end of the month, was quizzed by a Marine sergeant about the controversial policy during a question and answer session at a base in southwestern Helmand Province.
"Sir, we joined the Marine Corps because the Marine Corps has a set of standards and values that is better than that of the civilian sector. And we have gone and changed those values and repealed the 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' policy," the sergeant told Gates during the question and answer session.
"We have not given the Marines a chance to decide whether they wish to continue serving under that. Is there going to be an option for those Marines that no longer wish to serve due to the fact their moral values have not changed?" he asked.
"No," Gates responded. "You'll have to complete your enlistment.""
Every Marine should be brave enough to follow their leaders like Marine Commandant Amos and Sgt. Maj. Kent IMHO.
Top Marines pledge to 'step out smartly' to repeal 'don't ask, don't tell'
"Gay rights leaders are praising the nation's top Marine for setting a positive, proactive tone as the military prepares to end enforcement of "don't ask, don't tell," despite his previous warnings that openly gay troops could lead to deadly distractions.
Gen. James F. Amos, the commandant of the Marine Corps, has said that allowing gays to serve openly in the military could result in more casualties because openly gay troops on the battlefield could pose "a distraction."
But in a new video, Amos and Sgt. Maj. Carlton W. Kent, the Marine's top enlisted man, remind the rank and file that a change in policy is coming and they expect them to follow the new orders.
"The Marine Corps is a diverse force, and all have earned the privilege to wear the Eagle globe and anchor," Kent says in the video. "As Marines, we are confident you will continue to treat each other with dignity and respect. The commandant and I have trust in the great leadership of our Corps, from junior Marines to the most senior. As always, engaged leadership will be the key to implementation."
Later, Amos says: "I want to be clear to all Marines: We will step out smartly to faithfully implement this new law. It's important that we value the diversity of background, culture and skills that all Marines bring to the service of our nation. As we implement repeal, I want leaders at all levels to reemphasize the importance of maintaining dignity and respect for one another throughout our force. We are Marines, we care for one another and respect the rights of all who wear this uniform. We will continue to demonstrate to the American people that discipline and fidelity, which have been the hallmarks of the United States Marine Corps for more than 235 years, will continue well into the future."..."
U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan will give remarks at the Department’s first-ever Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) youth summit at 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, June 7, at the Washington Court Hotel in Washington, D.C. The two-day summit, “Creating and Maintaining Safe and Supportive Environments for LGBT Youth,” will take place Monday-Tuesday, June 6-7. Duncan will highlight the administration’s commitment to ensuring equal access to education for LGBT students as it does for all students. He also will discuss the Department’s Office for Civil Rights recently released guidance on the protection against harassment in an education setting based on gender, which includes gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgender individuals. The guidance, which was sent to schools, colleges and universities in a “Dear Colleague” letter, explains educators’ legal obligations to protect students from harassment based on racial and national origin, gender and disability.
On Monday, June 6, at 8:30 a.m., the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Administrator Pam Hyde will introduce HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, who will give opening remarks. Kevin Jennings, assistant deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, will introduce Duncan on Tuesday, June 7.
LGBT youths are a uniquely vulnerable population in America’s schools. Because they suffer at a higher rate than many of their peer groups from physical violence, bullying, anxiety and depression, LGBT youths are more prone to exhibit high-risk behaviors such as substance abuse, sexual risk-taking and running away from home. The summit, hosted by the Office of Safe and Drug-Free Schools, will bring together students, educators, administrators, and heads of federal and nonprofit agencies to provide information and seek solutions to these issues.
"U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan will give remarks at the Department’s first-ever Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) youth summit at 8:30 a.m. Tuesday, June 7, at the Washington Court Hotel in Washington, D.C."
Woo hoo!
today we have two reasons in one day why Sir BO won't be re-elected
this pretty much wipes out any chance of Obama winning any Southern or prairie states
"Every Marine should be brave"
only Beatrice would say that Marines aren't brave
most if them disagree with the repeal of DADT
"LGBT youths are a uniquely vulnerable population in America’s schools. Because they suffer at a higher rate than many of their peer groups from physical violence, bullying,"
this is highly misleading
students consider "gay" to be an epithet so when there is tension, this epithet is often used
this happens even if neither party is gay but these stats usually include these typoes of incidents
"anxiety and depression"
lunatic fringe gay advocates say this is because of bullying but the simpler explanation is that they don't fit in and have trouble finding anyone to encourage them in their "interests"
they'd be better off re-evaluating their interest in homosexuality than trying to get everyone else to change to accomodate them
Roger Ailes of Fox News said he'd like to hire Hillary Clinton as a Fox News contributor.
"She looks unhappy at the State Department," he said. "She'd get ratings."
the gay flag flying under the Red, White and Blue tells you all you need to know about the Obama era
November 2012: the end of an error
"I guess you could've seen this one coming."
oh yeah
the Federal Reserve taking a stand for deviant encouragement was just, like, inevitable
why did it take so long?
"the gay flag flying under the Red, White and Blue tells you all you need to know about the Obama era"
And State Senator Marshall's response tells you all you need to know about him and his political allies.
One side seeks a united America; the other would marginalize elements of America with whom they are uncomfortable.
John Edwards, Democratic dream VP creep, has now been indicted for using political contributions to cover up his cheating behind the back of his cancer-stricken wife
and, this afternoon, another Democratic Congressional creep has been unmasked:
"Rep. Anthony Weiner of New York said today he has engaged in "several inappropriate" electronic relationships with six women over three years, and that he publicly lied about a photo of himself sent over Twitter to a college student in Seattle over a week ago.
Weiner said, "The picture was of me, and I sent it."
The announcement came as ABC News prepared to release an interview with Meagan Broussard, a 26-year-old single mother from Texas who provided dozens of photos, emails, Facebook messages and cell phone call logs that she says chronicle a sexually-charged electronic relationship with Weiner that rapidly-evolved for more than a month, starting on April 20, 2011.
ABC News reached out to Weiner earlier today for comment about his possible ties to Broussard, but he did not respond to requests for an interview. At a press conference later, Weiner confirmed Broussard was one of the women with whom he sexted.
Broussard's story had threatened to expose the secret online life of one of the House Democrats' most popular members, and a man many considered a leading candidate for mayor of New York City.
It also raised new questions about Weiner's explanation for how a photo of a man's groin area ended up on his public Twitter feed on May 27. Today the congressman said he accidentally sent the image to a woman, Gennette Cordova, who was following him on Twitter, as a joke.
Meagan Broussard, 26, provided ABC News with photos, emails, Facebook message and phone call logs she says chronicle a sexually-charged electronic relationship with a man identifying himself as Anthony Weiner.
"I just chuckled," Broussard, a nursing student, said of her reaction to Weiner's initial response to the Twitter incident. "It would be one thing if he came out and said, 'Hey, so what?' But now he's saying he got hacked?"
Broussard said she received the same photo of a man's crotch on May 18 in an email from a man who she then believed was Weiner.
Weiner told ABC News last week that the Twitter incident was a "prank" on him, but he neither confirmed nor denied at the time that the photo depicted his body. "I am reluctant to say anything definitively about this," he said of the photo.
Broussard, who describes herself as disinterested in politics and previously unaware of Weiner, said that she has never met the congressman in person.
And, she said, she participated in risque online chats -- as she has done with other men online -- with the man she presumed to be Weiner.
During one flirtatious Facebook chat last month, Broussard said, she issued the man on the other end a challenge.
"I asked him to take a picture and write 'me' on it so I would know," Broussard said in an interview.
The reply, she says, came moments later. Email records provided to ABC News by Broussard show that at 3:08 p.m. on May 5th she received a message from anthonyweiner@aol.com, which is listed as an email address for Weiner on one campaign document found online.
The message included an image of a man, who appears to be Weiner, sporting a tie and a wedding band, holding up the message "me" on a piece of white paper.
"I didn't think it was him," she says. "I thought for sure, 'why would someone in that position be doing this?'"
Broussard said her first contact with Weiner occurred on April 20 after she "liked" a YouTube clip of one of Weiner's speeches that had been posted to his Facebook page.
She also commented -- "hottttt" -- on the link, which is still publicly visible on Weiner's page and has received hundreds of other comments from Facebook users.
Weiner "almost immediately" added Broussard as a Facebook friend through his personal profile account, she said. And she accepted his request.
According to Broussard, the two immediately began messaging through Facebook chat, eventually exchanging "hundreds of messages," most of a sexual nature.
On May 18, Broussard received an image from Weiner that shows a man's erect penis. Two days later, she received a shot of a bare-chested man sitting at an office desk. The relationship between Broussard and Weiner only ventured out of the digital world once, she said, when a man identifying himself as Weiner called by phone from a number associated with Weiner's New York congressional office on the afternoon of May 18.
"The day he called he just said, 'Who in the world would be acting like me?' laughing about it," she said.
"You're an internet rat, aren't you?" Broussard said she asked him, to which Weiner just sort of giggled.
Then, she says, the conversation got personal. "He heard her [Broussard's daughter] in the background, I think, and he said, 'Oh is that --' and then he said her name, and I said, 'yeah, it's her birthday,' and that kind of freaked me out because you had to pilfer through my Facebook to find out her name."
"I don't think he's a bad guy." Broussard said. "Everyone's standards are different, but to be elected to Congress and sit there all day on Facebook and chatting?"
"One side seeks a united America; the other would marginalize elements of America with whom they are uncomfortable."
or consider immoral
Today is the 10th anniversary of the Bush tax cuts passed in 2001. In observance of this day, we should raise taxes on millionaires and billionaires.
A decade of these cuts cost our nation more than $2.5 trillion in lost revenue. Almost 40 percent of the benefits, or about $1 trillion, went to households with incomes above $380,000.
One of us is a member of Congress and lead sponsor of legislation to institute new tax brackets for income of $1 million a year and above. The other is an affluent taxpayer who has advocated for increased millionaire tax rates and believes those who have gained the most from our nation's economic system should contribute more to make the system stronger. Both of us think raising taxes on millionaires is the patriotic and prudent thing to do for America.
A decade ago, federal budget forecasters projected a 10-year surplus of $5.6 trillion over the ensuing decade. That surplus evaporated thanks to massive tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, plus two wars paid for by borrowed money, and a major recession caused by the recklessness of some big Wall Street banks.
At the same time, extreme inequalities of income and wealth are at their greatest level since the Great Depression. The wealthiest 1 percent of households own more than 35.6 percent of all private wealth, more than the bottom 90 percent of the U.S. population combined. And at the very top, wealth is even more concentrated. In 2007, the combined net worth of the Forbes 400 wealthiest Americans was almost as much as the combined net worth of 150 million Americans — 50 percent of Americans.
Unfortunately, after a generation of tax cuts for high-income earners, millionaires are paying the lowest effective tax rates since before the 1920s.
Republican leaders and many governors around the country are saying "we're broke" and advocating a new austerity of budget cuts. But their proposed cuts hit at the vitality of our communities, targeting college loans, food safety, children's health care and converting Medicare into a voucher program.
"Our country is not really broke," said Cynthia Carranza, who directs a food pantry in Niles. Carranza has watched the increase in hungry people at her food pantry door even as government support for her program is slashed. "We're an incredibly rich and prosperous nation. But our wealth is skewed to a very few fortunate at the top. We're not broken, just twisted."
Middle-class and low-income families didn't create these budget deficits or reap economic rewards over the last generation. So our nation's plan to get our fiscal house in order should not sacrifice the vitality of our middle class and our commitments to address poverty.
Spending cuts should include reductions in our bloated Pentagon budget. We could save more than $1 trillion over the next decade by eliminating obsolete weapons systems and closing a third of U.S. military bases around the world that contribute little to our real security. We can eliminate corporate subsidies to agribusiness and oil companies, saving tens of billions over the next decade.
We should let the Bush tax cuts for high-income households expire at the end of 2012, as they are scheduled to do.
The Fairness in Taxation Act, introduced by Rep. Schakowsky, would generate more than $74 billion in 2011 by adding tax brackets starting at $1 million in income and rising to $1 billion in income. This policy would not only help close the budget gap but would also reduce the extreme inequalities that have led to the erosion of the middle class.
The road forward requires spending cuts and fair tax increases. Let's start the next 10 years off on stronger fiscal footing.
Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., represents the 9th Congressional District and served on the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform. Mary Liebman founded Rich American Patriots United for a Tax Increase.
The Justice Department will likely renew its investigation of former Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) in light of the more than 1,000 emails the Senate Ethics Committee received at the tail end of its investigation, according to Reuters.
The emails detail a series of highly sensitive exchanges between Ensign, his lawyers and top-level advisers, according to the news report, and breathe new life into the Senate Ethics investigation, which had reached a relative standstill after a year and a half.
Lawyers with close knowledge of the case told Reuters, which reviewed several of the Ensign emails, that the cache of correspondence is “almost certain” to spur DOJ to reopen its criminal investigation of the former lawmaker.
Justice had formerly investigated allegations brought against Ensign that he had tried to pay off a former staff member and his wife, who had been having an affair with the then-senator, to try and keep them both quiet.
In December, Ensign’s lawyers announced that DOJ had concluded its investigation and had declined to prosecute him. Ensign’s lawyers said the former senator did not conduct himself appropriately, but they maintained his legal innocence.
It remains unclear what effect the damning and detailed 75-page Senate Ethics report, completed by special counsel Carol Elder Bruce, (http://www.scribd.com/doc/55296521/Public-Report-Preliminary-Inquiry-Into-the-Matter-of-Sen-Ensign) will have on the department’s move to reopen the case.
Ensign, under investigation by the Senate Ethics Committee, resigned his seat in April. In May, the committee issued a report stating that Ensign might have broken the law through false statements, potential obstruction of justice and conspiracy to assist an aide in breaking the law.
David Fishback writes,
And State Senator Marshall's response tells you all you need to know about him and his political allies.
One side seeks a united America; the other would marginalize elements of America with whom they are uncomfortable.
I do not feel the least bit uncomfortable around gays or lesbians, and that is not the issue with the GLBTIQ (and any other sexual minority I may have left out by mistake) flag being flown beneath the flag of United States.
The flag to be flown beneath the flag of the United States is the State flag, and in this case, the flag of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
To state that homosexuals are marginalized in any but the most backwater parts of this country is to assert something that is simply not true.
As for outgoing Sec. of Defense Robert Gates...he can say whatever he wants; when enlistments are up folks will vote with their boots.
Orin's right. The military is going to have a recruitment problem that should become apparent by November 2012.
time for today's reason B. Hussein O. won't be renewing his lease on 1600 Pennsylvania in 2013:
"The public opinion boost President Obama received after the killing of Osama bin Laden has dissipated, and Americans’ disapproval of how he is handling the nation’s economy and the deficit has reached new highs, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.
The survey portrays a broadly pessimistic mood in the country this spring as higher gasoline prices, sliding home values and a disappointing employment picture have raised fresh concerns about the pace of the economic recovery.
By 2 to 1, Americans say the country is pretty seriously on the wrong track, and nine in 10 continue to rate the economy in negative terms. Nearly six in 10 say the economy has not started to recover, regardless of what official statistics may say, and most of those who say it has improved rate the recovery as weak.
New Post-ABC numbers show Obama losing to former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, who formally announced his 2012 candidacy last week, making jobs and the economy the central issues in his campaign.
Among registered voters, the former governor leads 49 percent to 46 percent.
Overall, about six in 10 of those surveyed give Obama negative marks on the economy and the deficit. Significantly, nearly half strongly disapprove of his performance in these two crucial areas. Nearly two-thirds of political independents disapprove of the president’s handling of the economy, including — for the first time — a slim majority who do so strongly.
In another indicator of rapidly shifting views on economic issues, 45 percent trust congressional Republicans over the president when it comes to dealing with the economy, an 11-point improvement for the GOP since March."
Orin
The phrase "and any other sexual minority I have left out by mistake" implies, to me at least, discomfort, or worse, contempt. Did you mean it to come out differently?
As to flags, isn't it just state offices that fly the state flag?
"The phrase "and any other sexual minority I have left out by mistake" implies, to me at least, discomfort, or worse, contempt. Did you mean it to come out differently?
As to flags, isn't it just state offices that fly the state flag?"
this is the problem with throwing water on someone whose brain is like a sieve
is there anything wrong, Robert, with discomfort and contempt of sexual deviance?
Yes, as a matter of fact, there is something wrong with that.
If Obama is re-elected, we will pass a law banning discomfort, contempt and other negative feelings against sexual explorers.
Anonymous, darling, please stop.
why, did I leave some sexual explorers out by mistake?
No, seriously, please.
Orin claimed "The flag to be flown beneath the flag of the United States is the State flag, and in this case, the flag of the Commonwealth of Virginia."
I don't know where you picked up your error about what else can share a flagpole with a US flag, Orin, but this lifelong Army brat is going to take this opportunity to teach some facts all Americans should know.
According to the "The United States Flag: Federal Law Relating to Display and Associated Questions"
"Title 4 United States Code
§ 7. Position and Manner of Display...
...(f) When flags of States, cities, or localities, or pennants of societies are flown on the same halyard with the flag of the United States, the latter should always be at the peak. When the flags are flown from adjacent staffs, the flag of the United States should be hoisted first and lowered last. No such flag or pennant may be placed above the flag of the United States or to the United States flag’s right."
Here are some examples:
US Flag with POW-MIA Flag at the National World War II Memorial in Washington DC
Tea Party Flag at Daily Plaza in Chicago, Illinois, USA
you're a bore, Bea
Celebration of ‘gay pride’ has nothing to do with the mission of the Federal Reserve under the Federal Reserve Act passed by Congress. This is a celebration of a behavior that is a class six felony in Virginia.
Encouraging the ignorance of state laws is something the chairman of the Federal Reserve should not do.
Virginia should go take it down.
Robert writes,
Orin
The phrase "and any other sexual minority I have left out by mistake" implies, to me at least, discomfort, or worse, contempt. Did you mean it to come out differently?
Discomfort? Contempt? Try both...what I see with the picture of the homosexual pride flag flying below the flag of the United States at a federal office is an unmistakable message: either celebrate homosexuality with us, *OR* remain silent. Even breathe a syllable of dissent and the State will make your life uncomfortable, to say the least. That is an ominous message with the power of the national government behind it.
Yup, contempt pretty well sums it up. I like you Robert (as I do my best friend, a gay friend of over 25 years), but I will not lie or pretend.
As to flags, isn't it just state offices that fly the state flag?
The federal office building in downtown Fort Collins flies both the US flag and the Colorado State flag.
And Aunt Bea, your point is...well, how can I say it?...ok, pointless. The first example you offer is the MIA/POW flag being also flown at the WWII Memorial. Ever heard of the word context? It is entirely contextual and appropriate to honor MIA and POW's with a flag at a memorial dedicated to those that gave their life for their country. As to the second example...first off, the flag is being displayed by a protester, not a public agency. And second, the flag in question has been used in times past, and you can read up on it here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gadsden_flag
and as such is entirely appropriate to the protest in question. Now, let's suppose that the Federal Reserve office were to display the Gadsden flag ("Don't Tread on me"...that would be as wrong, not to mention passing strange.
Orin writes: "To state that homosexuals are marginalized in any but the most backwater parts of this country is to assert something that is simply not true."
My son and his partner of five years are banned from having the same rights under the U.S. Tax Code and Social Security as straight couples. And it does not matter where they live in the United States, because DOMA requires that discrimination. Is this not marginalization?
Anonymous is correct in stating that the Virginia General Assembly has declined to remove the "Crimes Against Nature" act as a felony, despite Lawrence v. Texas, precisely so they can do what Marshall does, and use it as an argument about school curricula, National Guard membership, and pretty much whatever they want. It's worth noting that the act doesn't address sexual orientation, but rather positions, and effectively made virtually all adult Virginians felons. The law is still used to prosecute lgbt people, and folks like Cuccinelli are looking for cases in which they can push the envelope on Lawrence. Welcome to the Old Dominion.
that's what gays like
they think it's fun when they're sneakin' around doing somethin' illegal
when everything's out in the open, like in this week's heinous gay "pride" parade, it's a drag (wink-wink)
David writes,
My son and his partner of five years are banned from having the same rights under the U.S. Tax Code and Social Security as straight couples. And it does not matter where they live in the United States, because DOMA requires that discrimination. Is this not marginalization?
Your son and his partner are not banned from a thing in this regard as they are perfectly free to accept or reject the terms and conditions that marriage is offered to them, as well as everyone else. That is, there is no "gay marriage ban"...none whatsoever, and to assert such is akin to asserting that two plus two equals five.
Marriage serves a social and public purpose that is not well understood, but that does not oblige those that do to toss out the normative standard of marriage like last week's trash.
And Aunt Bea, your point is...well, how can I say it?...ok, pointless.
Oh brother Orin. Pointing out the legal requirements of US flag displays in response to your mistaken belief that what you see in front of the Fort Collins federal office building explains the law fully, is exactly my point. Legally, there is no requirement, as you implied, that only state flags may wave from the same flagpole as Old Glory. Other flags are permitted.
LGBT employees who work in the Richmond Federal Reserve Bank building asked for and were granted permission to wave their flag for Gay Pride Month. Does that make you uncomfortable? Maybe you can get a group of your similarly uncomfortable co-workers to get your company's management to raise your flag with Old Glory on the flagpole out front too.
Orin asserted:
“That is, there is no "gay marriage ban"...none whatsoever, and to assert such is akin to asserting that two plus two equals five.”
Indeed, they could just go down to Washington D.C. to get married. It may not be their first choice, but it’s better than not getting married. In a few years though, we should have a law allowing gay marriage here in Maryland too. Maybe David’s son and his partner are waiting for that.
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
Orin writes:
"Marriage serves a social and public purpose that is not well understood, but that does not oblige those that do to toss out the normative standard of marriage like last week's trash."
Yes, marriage does serve a social and public purpose: To provide legal protection and governmental encouragement to stable, monogamous relationships both for the benefit of those in the relationships and for children who may be raised in such families.
The issue is not fundamentally whether my son and his partner can get married in D.C. or in Maryland. Rather, it is whether they would be treated the same as any committed straight couple for tax and Social Security purposes. As long as DOMA stands, they will be subject to signficant discrimination, regardless of state laws.
Orin, with all due respect, your conclusory statement regarding why marriage rights should be restricted to straight couples does not cut it. Unless you can provide an explanation as to how straight marriage is in any way weakened by extending those rights to gay couples, your words ring very hollow.
"Unless you can provide an explanation as to how straight marriage is in any way weakened by extending those rights to gay couples, your words ring very hollow."
just to fill up that hollow space, it uses resources that should be dedicated to suporting families
to no good effect
once you rob the institution of marriage of its distinctive character, it no longer exists
your kids don't deserve to have society endorsing and enabling their same gender partnerships
Americans shouldn't have to pay taxes to support what they believe is immoral
Anon asserted:
“Americans shouldn't have to pay taxes to support what they believe is immoral”
I agree. But how the heck to we get just the conservative war zealots to pay for Bush’s War of Terror and the fake hunt for WMD, and leave the rest of us who think his whole fiasco was entirely contrived and immoral with resources to do more productive work?
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
it's called democracy cinco-psycho
the majority of Congress, including the ever-courageous Dems, approved the war in Iraq
thus far, Americans have declined to endorse the obliteration of marriage by redefinition that luntaic fringe gay advocates are seeking
If you represent the best that marriage has to offer for society, the "obliteration of marriage by redefinition" is obviously long over-due!
Whatever it takes to get rid of the huge incidence of spousal cheating (just take a look at Craig's List one day)and its resulting obscene divorce-rate, leading to the destruction of the family unit, the self-centered lack of concern about children's mental health and security, and the hypocritical accusation that somebody else's marriage will destroy mine,would be a blessing for our society.
If you, Anonymous, are so concerned about the health of heterosexual marriage ("once you rob the institution of marriage of its distinctive character, it no longer exists"), perhaps you would support a Constitutional amendment that would ban divorce and imprison anyone who has besmirched this (sick) institution.
“thus far, Americans have declined to endorse the obliteration of marriage by redefinition that lunatic (sic) fringe gay advocates are seeking”
Yeah, all you anons keep whining about that “obliteration of marriage” crap, but you have yet to show one *SINGLE* marriage that has been damaged by any gay couple getting married. There are thousands of gay people married now, and no evidence that heterosexual marriages are any the worse off - just ask Larry King, whose had (what is it?) 7 wives now? How could he possibly continue to get married if the institution was so horribly obliterated by the GAYS??!!!
And I don’t think you can blame the failure of Tiger Wood’s marriage on gays… it seems to have been only heterosexuals involved.
Get off the wild hyperbole and come back to the real world, if you can handle it.
Looking over the past few decades, it’s clear now that acceptance of the LGBT community, despite how far it has to go, is greater now than at any time in the past. People are wising up to the lies that conservatives have been telling over that past few decades and more and more people are ignoring them. DADT would never have been repealed a decade ago, and now all indications are that it will happen smoothly, despite Harold Camping-like predictions of mass defections from the military.
None of the apocalyptic horse apples you guys predict ever come true. Some people are actually starting to catch on. I know it’s a slow process, but hey, they probably were distracted by Sarah Palin’s short skirts, and convoluted history interpretations.
As time goes on we can see the ever shrinking circle of adamant anti-gays get more and more shrill and vitriolic. Even some of their churches are moving into the 21st century and leaving them behind, openly accepting gays and even ordaining gay ministers. Those stragglers, seeing they are losing the battle go even further off the deep end, blaming gays for our soldiers dying in Iraq, as a definitive sign of the coming rapture, the “obliteration of marriage,” and the imminent demise of our entire society; after they finish eating feces for lunch and recruiting all of your children to the “gay lifestyle” at elementary school.
It’s just more ad hominem attacks on gays that have been going on for years, brought to a higher and more ridiculous level. It seems to remind me of an old saying, but I don’t remember it all… it starts out something like “Doing the same thing and expecting different results…”
Have a nice day,
Cynthia
"If you represent the best that marriage has to offer for society, the "obliteration of marriage by redefinition" is obviously long over-due!"
I think this statement epitomizes the homosexual attitude toward marriage.
Lunatic fringe gay advocates are fond of saying the gay "marriage" won't harm marriage as it is now understood.
As this statement shows, however, the intention of these fringe types is to destroy marriage.
"you have yet to show one *SINGLE* marriage that has been damaged by any gay couple getting married"
they will all be damaged when there is no longer a word that refers to heterosexual partnership
gays, who reject conventional sexual morality, would quickly lose interest once the fringe have achieved this goal
"DADT would never have been repealed a decade ago, and now all indications are that it will happen smoothly"
oh, brother
DADT passed as the last act of a Congress so liberal that were soundly rejected by the american voter last November
it wasn't passed because society has changed
it would never pass today
""you have yet to show one *SINGLE* marriage that has been damaged by any gay couple getting married"
they will all be damaged when there is no longer a word that refers to heterosexual partnership"
What a preposterous statement. Anyone who believes that the word "marriage" being defined as "a formal union between two consenting adults" somehow causes damage to already married couples' marriages is paddling without both oars in the water. Do you also believe having marriage defined as "a formal union between one man and one woman" somehow protects marriages, preventing them from ending in divorce?
Let's say David's son marries his partner. How do you imagine their marriage could have any effect on your marriage or anyone else's marriage for that matter?
Will you and your spouse love each other less if David's son weds his partner?
Will you want to divorce your spouse if David's son weds his partner?
Will your spouse want to divorce you if David's son weds his partner?
Will your children become illegitimate if David's son weds his partner?
How do you think your own marriage and "all" marriages "will be damaged when [gay marriage is legalized and] there is no longer a word ["marriage"] that refers [solely] to heterosexual partnership?"
Post a Comment
<< Home