CNN, One Time News Organization, Celebrates Overturn of Prop 8 from A Gay Bar

CNN, the one time news organization did not report the news of the judicial overturn of Prop. 8 in California. They CELEBRATED the event from a gay bar in West Hollywood. Go here to see the video of this travesty. The first person they interviewed proposed that non-gays be disenfranchised. The ‘reporter’ treated this proposition as unlikely to come about but accepted it as just the kind of bullying intolerance that CNN treats as rational discourse.
The ‘reporter’ felt the need to try to explain away the recent passage of the proposition by the California electorate by implying that maybe that was all because of the evil Orange County (you know they have way whole bunches of, Saints preserve us, Republicans down in that black hole of politics and, apparently, shame). He did mention that the Prop passed 52% to 48% but made no attempt to explain how the evil Orange County could overcome the mathematical impossibility of that wide a margin coming from their vile efforts alone. Could it be that that he is such an Obama sellout that he just assumes that the viewer will think that all needed votes will be filled in by the still-registered-to-vote dead?

But She Probably Still Doesn't Understand Why AIDS Has Been an Epidemic in the Gay Community

***********************************************


If you're gay you're allowed to contradict Joy. Isn't that special.
I still don't know if she knows what 'suffrage' means.

****************************************************
*********** UPDATE *********************************

Individuals with many severe personality disorders often have no fixed sexuality. They are not straight or gay. Often they have many of both kinds of relationships. The psychiatric literature refers to it as 'polymorphous perversity. The reason I bring this up is because for a while I was mystified by the nasty virulence of so many members of the gay marriage political clique. But when I remembered that most people with personality disorders have an inability to mesh with others socially, unstable interpersonal relations and little or no ability to control their anger that often veers into rage, I began to see a connection. Maybe most of these wildly angry political activists are not gay but individuals with personality disorders that have fallen into a mostly gay rut, convinced themselves that they are gay and have found an outlet for their unbridled rage.

Noted Liar Talking Out of Both Sides of His Mouth

And I'm not even going to remind you of his massive deceit in pledging to use public funding. But your average citizen is becoming very aware that mountains of lies are inevitable and inescapable with this guy.

h/t: Hot Air.c

Protest Against Prop. 8 Gay Marriage Ruling San Francisco, May 26, 2009

I hope that's a girl because I'm a little excited.


There's nothing quite like the self-righteous self pity that gets ginned up by a special interest group created and nurtured by the DNC.


My favorite way to demand tolerance from others: threaten to fracture their skull if they disagree with you.

many Hat Tips/Zombietime

The Finest Links in All of Christendom

Hot Air.com has a clip with a miraculous story about a wounded soldier. I cannot recommend this highly enough. General David Petraeus is a major part of the story. Which got me to thinking that he would be a great presidential candidate. But one of the commenters wisely observed that the ugly, filthy dirt that the MSM would do the general might just be more than a decent man needs or wants in his life. Sad that it has come to this: the lefties win because they'll throw more lying filth than most people want to be near?. HA also linked a good analysis of the relations among Obama, Palestine, Rahm Emanuel and Israel written by Alan Dershowitz. Then HA has a link to a great story in a small town paper about Obama’s ever changing positions and prouncements. The Jawa Report has an analysis of the actions of Lt. Choi who just rebelled against don’t ask don’t tell in the military. Jawa also addresses Perez Hilton and here are just a couple of sentences: "Perez Hilton Has Convinced Me......that it's just wrong to try to hold a moderate position on homosexual issues.
"The continued vicious persecution of Miss USA contestant Carrie Prejean clearly demonstrates that most gay men are too mentally unstable and utterly self-absorbed to function in society."
Pat at So It Goes In Shreveport has some reflections on the cowboy spirit with a shirtless picture of Steve McQueen.
Jo-Joe Politico writes about presidential honesty. He did some fact checking for this.
Pundit and Pundette have a post about Barack Obama’s arrogance which you might find interesting if you haven’t been irretrievably convinced by Katie Couric that it’s just an extra special mode of wonderful. They also have a good piece about how Obama played and mislead the 9/11 and the USS Cole families. The most mind opening thing I saw there was a quote given from a Hot Air post about gay marriage. I am reprinting a big chunk of it since it nails the situation we are faced with: “Two or three generations is a very short time to push an idea from unthinkable to inevitable. Many Americans don’t like the way this particular change is being presented as mandatory, with all opposition dismissed as evil, insane, or ignorant. It’s bad enough to be told you must put forth an opinion about something you’d rather not think about. It’s even worse when you’re told that only one opinion is acceptable. Perez Hilton wasn’t asking Carrie Prejean a question - he was demanding submission. Thoughtless genuflection to “the right of gay persons in love to get married” is the jizya paid to the dominant culture, and you’re not allowed to squeak out so much as a tepid salute to traditional marriage until you’ve paid it“
At Insert clever s.logan here Suzanna posted about the American entrepreneurial spirit, But if you absolutely don’t want to read about the dildos that look like Obama and Romney, don’t go there.

Is This Gay Marriage Compromise Really A Compromise?

From the site Thinking Out Loud I have a proposed comprise on gay marriage that was occasioned by proposals from Jonathan Rausch and David Blankenhorn. The last paragraph of the post says, “If it’s a grand bargain we’re after, consider an alternative federal law prohibiting states from attaching legal significance to an individual’s marital status. The law would define “marital status” narrowly to include an individual’s relationship with a significant other as recognized by a religious organization. Likewise, the law would define “marriage” as the spiritual union of two individuals. Under this regime, legal benefits or obligations which traditionally flow from marital status would do so no longer. Instead, states could recognize and regulate healthy, stable interpersonal relationships by way of civil union, provided they do so equally and on a secular basis. Left for churches and other religious organizations are the religious and moral dimensions of “marriage.” Religious organizations will have autonomy over those aspects of matrimony in which they claim historical or divine province. That is, churches would be left to govern the sacred principles associated with the institution, and to ordain whichever marriages they see fit without fear of legal repercussion.”
I find this to be an unusual use of the word ‘compromise’ since the opponents of gay marriage would have to give up much in return for nothing. But the supporters of gay marriage would get most every thing they want and set the precedent of becoming the sole deciders of the terms of the discussion. Thus would 'compromise' become as devalued in meaning as 'bipartisan,' 'transparency' and 'most ethical congress ever.' A lack of respect for reasonable discussion has been demonstrated by many opponents of California’s Proposition 8 in their blanket description of all supporters of the Proposition as guilty of hate based solely on lack of political conformity: thus the word ‘hate’ is nearly striped of meaning in public discussion.
This s a huge, major and very big issue. It deserves long and reasoned discussion. And right now is not the best time to give this the attention it deserves. Too much focus is demanded by financial issues for this large an area of public policy to be treated as it deserves. My compromise: let’s table all action for five years and then see if we can give it the scrutiny and public discussion it merits. Now is not a good time to become overly defocused.