Sign Up to Receive Email Action Alerts From Issa Exposed
×

DADT repeal on the line: Tuesday’s cloture vote in the Senate could be a nail-biter

DADT trial

(Cross-posted from LGBTPOV)

By Karen Ocamb

Lady Gaga in MaineMany in the LGBT Nation participated in a last-minute blitz to help Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid get the 60 votes he needs to counter a filibuster on a motion to stop unlimited debate on three amendments – one of which is the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell – in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). This first critical vote is call a “cloture” vote scheduled to take place on the US Senate floor at 11:15am Pacific time, 2:15pm in Washington DC.

Both MSNBC’s First Read and the gay Washington Blade report that key Democratic leaders are not sure if Reid has the votes. And with Democratic Sen. Jim Webb voting against cloture and DADT repeal, Reid needs at least two Republicans. Lady Gaga attended a Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) rally held in Portland, Maine (seen here in a photo by Terry Richardson) to persuade voters to call moderate Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine to vote for cloture.

Log Cabin Republicans targeted Reid instead, saying he “unfairly” limited the number of amendments up for debate and that’s preventing many “supportive” Republicans from supporting the bill. LCR wants Reid to work out a compromise deal with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. LCR Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper says that there is “an overwhelming majority of Senators, Democrats and Republicans, who are committed to repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” and blames Reid for “partisan tactics could prevent the Senate from moving forward with this critical legislation.”

The three amendments Reid has allowed to NDAA are: the DREAM Act, which provides a “path to citizenship” for undocumented students who came to the US as children; an amendment to strip DADT repeal from the NDAA, and an amendment that would prevent Senators from placing an “anonymous hold” on confirmation candidates and legislation. In last week’s announcement of the scheduled cloture vote, Reid said he intended to allow Republicans to submit amendments – but only when the final vote on NDAA is taken after the elections in the lame duck session.

Conservative GOProud’s Chris Barron (photo by Rex Wockner) also blasted Reid for adding an amendment to theChris Barron - Photo Rex Wockner original bill by Sen. Roland Burris that changes federal law to allow abortions on foreign military bases. See the right wing Newsmax story here.

In an email exchange with Barron, I noted that the DREAM ACT and the legal abortions amendment have a direct impact on the military (DREAM ACT through ROTC, and women soldiers and wives should have the same legal protections on American property aboard as in the States). Barron’s response: “I could care less about whether they are related to the military or not. They may end up sinking DADT.”

The Washington Blade reports that Collins, Snowe Scott Brown (R-Mass., who was also called out by Lady Gaga)), George Voinovoich (R-Ohio) and Richard Lugar (R-Ind.) are seeking concessions from Reid.

HuffPost Hill seemed to confirm LCR and GOProud’s points, or at least the GOP talking points, reporting late that Snowe, “hounded all day by Lady Gaga,” issued a statement complaining about the GOP not being allowed to offer amendments and that two or three “don’t even relate to the military.” The email newsletter from the Huffington Post took her to task:

“First, Snowe knows as well as anybody that for more than 200 years the Senate has put zero value in whether an amendment is germane. But, more specifically, what’s she talking about? The repeal of DADT and the DREAM Act are both related. The DREAM Act is backed by the military because it would aid recruiting; young, undocumented immigrants could find a pathway to citizenship by enlisting. (The third amendment, which hasn’t been finalized, would repeal tax breaks for outsourcing.) Snowe also said she wanted to wait on the Defense Department report on how to go about repealing DADT. BUT! Her statement, and one put out by Susan Collins, left wiggle room; neither flat-out said she was filibustering.”

Olympia-SnoweEarlier, Pam Spaulding of Pam’s House Blend reported that Snowe would likely vote against cloture; she wants to first see the Pentagon’s report on how the military will implement the repeal of DADT. So maybe Lady Gaga and the blitz she helped inspire prompted that “wiggle room.” That Pentagon report is due Dec. 1 – after the critical Nov. 2 elections when Congress will hold a lame duck session. However, with pollsters signaling that the Republicans are likely to regain control of Congress, there may be little incentive for any Republican to vote against the Party now.

HuffPost Hill also had this tidbit:

“John McCain threw a fit on the Senate floor, panicked at the possibility that an unrelated amendment might come up for a vote. Of course, McCain has introduced plenty of unrelated amendments himself, and even tried to tack a campaign finance measure onto the 2008 defense authorization bill.. A classic Sam Stein: http://huff.to/9jCuOH

Does it matter to anybody that a judge already ruled it unconstitutional?

They’re referring to the recent decision in the federal constitutional challenge brought by LCR in which District Court Judge Virginia Phillips ruled that “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is unconstitutional.

Republican Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell set up the “rushing” the process point on Thursday.

“Democrats have decided to put their own political interests ahead of the collective judgment of our military service chiefs, who are still in the midst of a study about whether [DADT] can be repealed without hurting combat readiness.

Unfortunately, the Democrats’ whole game plan over the past year and a half and through today is to tick as many items as possible off their liberal wish list while they have a chance.”

Meanwhile, the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, fresh off media attention with his Tony Perkins nc re DADTreligious right wing Values Voter Summit, held a news conference with a slew of African American ministers – and TheCall’s Lou Engel. This is from Perkin’s press release:

This Tuesday the Senate will vote on a bill that would overturn the 1993 law which codified the military’s longstanding prohibition of homosexual conduct in the ranks. The language that would force open homosexuality upon the military is found in the defense authorization bill – along with another anti-family provision that would turn U.S. military medical facilities here and around the globe into abortion centers.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has arranged it so that pro-family senators do not have an opportunity to offer any of their own amendments to counter his political abuse of our military. This means the only way to stop this monstrosity is to vote against proceeding to the bill.

Obama for America responded:

“[Reid] never has ruled out working out a process with the GOP partisans, if they are “reasonable” as you suggest and able to do so, and among Democrats who are so inclined. The cloture vote tomorrow is essential to ensure we get a final vote on passage for the bill, and that the Senate clock is not run out by our opponents on this legislation’s ultimate passage, but does not preclude necessary debate/amendments.

If Susan Collins and Mitch McConnell and others intend to use parliamentary “talking points” to paint the Democratic majority and the Majority Leader in this fashion, then they merely are scoring points. It is not a legitimate or persuasive argument.”

From a political insider on what might happen Tuesday:

If Reid does not have 60 firm votes tomorrow, he has little option but to proceed (and media reports today are meaningless – if the 60 votes are in hand, it is also very possible that no one will acknowledge it with certainty). Reid will call the vote, and if it loses by a Senator, he will then either decide to try again the following day or put aside the legislation entirely for the time being.

He must have a cloture vote to win Congressional support for the Defense Authorization legislation, or the DOD will operate under a continuing resolution for the foreseeable future – i.e. under rate of current fiscal year spending.) It has to be done in order to get agreement on a final vote (and any amendments that are later cleared for Senate consideration.)

Lambda Legal adds: “Find your Senators’ contact information here, or call the Capitol switchboard to connect directly, 24 hours a day: (202) 224-3121. Urge them to vote for cloture and authorize the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell! SLDN helps with what to say on the phone.

112 Comments

  • 1. anonygrl  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:12 pm

    Don't bite nails… have a cookie to chew instead.

  • 2. MJFargo  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    How's that hunger strike comin' along?

  • 3. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:17 pm

    So, according to Barron, we should just throw all of our military women under the bus!?! And this is someone who is supposedly supportive of full equality!?! He is so full of s**t he makes the Thanksgiving Turkey population jealous!

  • 4. Sagesse  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:18 pm

    I hope Harry Reid knows what he's doing.

  • 5. Ronnie  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:29 pm

    I am really getting tired of this bullshite… >I …Ronnie

  • 6. Rhie  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:31 pm

    watching…

  • 7. Gregory in SLC  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:31 pm

    Glad President Obama chimed in! Tune in tomorrow! One thing is for certain it is not a matter of "if"…its a matter "when".

  • 8. Gregory in SLC  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:33 pm

    p.s. Thank you Karen for putting all these sources together in a readable format :)

  • 9. Gregory in SLC  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:34 pm

    !!!!!!

  • 10. Gregory in SLC  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:36 pm

    ….or watch all the excellent videos anonygrl has been posting :)

  • 11. JonT  |  September 20, 2010 at 12:53 pm

    Oh, I do too. There's a lot at stake here.

  • 12. Sagesse  |  September 20, 2010 at 1:00 pm

    Change.org calling out the Catholic Bishops in Minnesota

    Hey Minnesota Catholic Bishops: Focus on Poverty, Not Gay Marriage
    http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/hey_minneso

  • 13. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 1:02 pm

    This seems more like an old Dallas episode cliffhanger…and the theme to Jaws comes to mind…
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvCI-gNK_y4

  • 14. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 1:07 pm

    Unfortunately the Catholic church has given up on helping people…they are all about politics now.

  • 15. Felyx  |  September 20, 2010 at 1:12 pm

    Wow Richard! You sure do have a way with metaphors!

  • 16. Gregory in SLC  |  September 20, 2010 at 1:13 pm

    err….videos (and articles!) LLB has been posting…appreciate all your posts too anonygrl :)

  • 17. Straight Ally #3008  |  September 20, 2010 at 1:18 pm

    LCR Executive Director R. Clarke Cooper says that there is “an overwhelming majority of Senators, Democrats and Republicans, who are committed to repealing Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

    Absolute nonsense. In addition to being the right thing to do from a civil rights perspective – the most important point – DADT repeal is supported by a majority of Americans, so on paper it's not politically risky. However, a huge percentage of GOP Senators are in thrall to the Religious Right. Now think about the election of someone like Christine O'Donnell, who was affiliated with Concerned Women for America (they're very concerned about teh gheyz) and shudder.

    Snowe, “hounded all day by Lady Gaga,”

    Just wanted to say that I love this image.

    Friends, I'm not sanguine about tomorrow at all. I do believe I'll avoid the news as much as possible until the dust settles. One thing's for sure, though, this has gotten the issue a lot of attention – I'm willing to bet, for example, that literally millions of people would have had no clue about this vote and its implications without Lady Gaga's advocacy.

  • 18. Jeremy  |  September 20, 2010 at 1:34 pm

    I still think we'd be better off if the repeal fails legislatively. If Congress fails to address DADT, then I am fairly certain Judge Phillips will issue a global injunction against enforcing DADT. Due to the enormous harm the law causes our servicemembers and military, I can't see the 9th or SCOTUS overturning that injunction during appeal.

    DADT may not be repealed tomorrow, but I bet it will be all but dead by Thursday. Ain't having 3 branches of government grand?

  • 19. Dave  |  September 20, 2010 at 2:49 pm

    I disagree with the DREAM act being directly relating to the military. Less than 10% of the people affected by the DREAM act will have ever been in the military or will be in the military.

  • 20. Dave  |  September 20, 2010 at 2:58 pm

    If removing the DREAM act allows the repeal to pass then the DREAM act should be removed. There is no good reason to add an amendment has strong opposition to it and leads to the failure of the whole bill. I believe the abortion amendment has enough support so that should stay and that does relate directly the the military unlike the dream act.

  • 21. Ann S.  |  September 20, 2010 at 3:11 pm

    Me, too.

  • 22. AndrewPDX  |  September 20, 2010 at 3:20 pm

    Mmmm… cookies!

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 23. AndrewPDX  |  September 20, 2010 at 3:21 pm

    Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the voting booth…

    Liberty, Equality, Fraternity
    Andrew

  • 24. Franck  |  September 20, 2010 at 4:08 pm

    Hello, fellow trackers!

    This is a bit off-topic (again) but as usual, relevant to a certain number in our ranks:

    (copied from an e-mail from the Out4Immigration mail list)

    Greeting O4I'ers!

    The Out4Immigration weekly letter writing campaign resumes this week – Week 76 – with a letter to Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) who is planning on introducing a Comprehensive Immigration Reform bill in the Senate very soon. We are urging Senator Menendez to include the Uniting American Families Act (UAFA; S.424) or its language into his bill so that same-sex bi-national couples will be a part of this legislation from the start.

    This week we started calling Senator Menendez office and urging that he include UAFA. The response from his staffers has been positive. On Friday morning, one of our members was told, very politely, that the Senator is working to include UAFA in his bill. This is no doubt a result from the multitude of calls he has been getting since last Thursday morning. Let's put this over the top. Please sign and send this e-letter today, and urge all your family, friends and colleagues to do so, too. Let's see how close to our goal of 500 signatures we can get!

    To send your letter electronically to Senator Menendez through Change.org, just click on the link below:

    http://www.change.org/petitions/view/week_76–tel

    This has been a significant week with 6 new cosponsors signing on to the UAFA, so let's keep the momentum going! If you haven't called Sen. Menendez's office yet, please do that, too. His number is: (202) 224-4744.

    Thanks, and keep the faith!

    C&R

    Thanks in advance for any help you could give on this. Again, remember that passing this bill would have an enormous impact on some of use here, if only to cite Felyx, Kevyn (ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ) and myself.

    – Franck P. Rabeson
    Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1187 days, as of today.

  • 25. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 20, 2010 at 4:17 pm

    They were about politics from the very beginning, LLB, in a very aggressive and violent way. Helping people was always a sideline.

  • 26. Elizabeth Oakes  |  September 20, 2010 at 4:18 pm

    Will do Franck, and thanks for keeping us posted.

  • 27. CaliGirl  |  September 20, 2010 at 6:20 pm

    D:

    *hugs*

  • 28. Franck  |  September 20, 2010 at 6:45 pm

    Heh, remember when they threatened to cut off funding to social help programs in DC unless the district repealed their marriage equality decision? That's the kind of people we're talking about.

    Anyone knows a pro-equality Catholic group? Those need more support to counterbalance the Church's heavily pro-discrimination hierarchy.

    – Franck P. Rabeson
    Days spent apart from my fiancé because of DOMA: 1187 days, as of today.

  • 29. AndrewW  |  September 20, 2010 at 8:53 pm

    We DON'T have 60 votes in the US Senate and we never have.

    National polls don't do anything for Senators in States with high religious-intensity, in fact polling there has majorities against repeal.

    Calls, emails and faxes to politicians are useless. Anyone who thinks a US Senators tallies up calls and emails – instead of legitimate polling data – is just childish.

  • 30. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  September 20, 2010 at 9:35 pm

    Brian Fischer (American Family Association): “We are gonna have to choose as a nation between the homosexual agenda and freedom because the two cannot co-exist.  Every advance of the homosexual agenda comes at the expense of liberty, particularly religious liberty.
    (The Rachel Maddow Show, 08:46–09:13)

    — ♂KF

  • 31. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  September 20, 2010 at 10:16 pm

    The Rachel Maddow Show (September 20)
    “McCain stands firm for hypocrisy on ‘Don't ask, don't tell’”
    Rachel Maddow reports on support by military leadership for the repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell" and plans by Republicans like John McCain to filibuster Defense Department funding despite that support and promises to the contrary.

    (see YouTube video below, h/t StartLoving3)

    — ♂KF
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBJ9fF7BUUY

  • 32. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  September 20, 2010 at 10:17 pm

    The Rachel Maddow Show (September 20)
    “GOP set to block defense funds over ‘DADT’ repeal”
    NBC News Senate producer Ken Strickland reports on the political dynamics ahead of Tuesday's Senate vote on a defense bill that includes the repeal of "Don't ask, don't tell."

    (see YouTube video below, h/t StartLoving3)

    — ♂KF
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buFUYkX68kQ

  • 33. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  September 20, 2010 at 10:17 pm

    The Rachel Maddow Show (September 20)
    “‘DADT’ opposition rallies ahead of vote”
    Major Mike Almy, who was discharged from the Air Force under "Don't ask, don't tell" talks with Rachel Maddow about the groundswell of public support for the law's repeal and the energy Lady Gaga has brought to the cause.

    (see YouTube video below, h/t StartLoving3)

    — ♂KF
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbjJcSwonoM

  • 34. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  September 20, 2010 at 10:18 pm

    The Rachel Maddow Show (September 20)
    “‘Don't ask, don't tell’ vote covered live on MSNBC”
    Rachel Maddow points out that MSNBC will cover the "Don't ask, don't tell" vote (which begins at 2:15 p.m. ET) live on Tuesday afternoon and she will be on the air some time during the 3 p.m. ET hour to contribute to that coverage.

    (see YouTube video below, h/t StartLoving3)

    — ♂KF
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_jBVg2lnG0

  • 35. rf  |  September 20, 2010 at 10:34 pm

    "When fascism comes to America, it will be called anti-fascism" AKA "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and waving a cross."

    amazing to watch these right wing demagogues continue to claim that the curtailment of liberty is liberty. and people listen. and laws get passed.

  • 36. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 10:34 pm

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jX0q-bh0rF8

  • 37. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 10:41 pm

    For all you Futurama Fans…it's Back! Good news, everyone! Gay marriage is commonplace in the year 3000.

    Standing up for robosexuality
    Jake Kornegay reviews Futurama, the sci-fi cartoon The Simpsons creator Matt Groening–now back on the air after a seven-year absence.

    WELCOME TO the world of tomorrowww! Again. That's right, meatbags, Futurama is back!

    In case you've been hiding under a space rock, Futurama is Matt Groening's "other" show–the one he put his true nerd heart into. If it looks like a Simpson's knockoff to you, bite your eye, fellow Earthican. It's anything but. This is sweet, savory sci-fi at its most adventurous, presented in beautiful, Technicolor cartoon form.

    More: http://socialistworker.org/2010/09/21/standing-up

  • 38. anonygrl  |  September 20, 2010 at 10:45 pm

    There are most certainly gay Catholics, and there are gay Catholic activist groups… don't know if any are specifically pro-Equality.

  • 39. anonygrl  |  September 20, 2010 at 10:47 pm

    I have to say there will be a lot of people whose only hope of staying in the country they grew up in would disagree with you there.

    And as far as "relating", amendments often don't relate at ALL… DREAM does, somewhat.

  • 40. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 11:15 pm

    Ricky Martin joins fight to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell

    Joining Lady Gaga, who delivered a speech at a rally in Maine Monday, Ricky Martin has joined the fight to repeal 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell'.

    Speaking up late Monday, Martin plead with Congress to repeal the policy.

    "Members of Congress:As a HISPANIC member of the LGBT community,I ask u 2 pls repeal #DADT (Don't Ask, Don't Tell) and move fwd with the#DREAMAct #enddiscrmination," Martin wrote via Twitter.

    Read More: http://www.examiner.com/urban-pop-in-national/ric

  • 41. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 20, 2010 at 11:57 pm

    Is your Senator's voicemail box always full…send a free fax then!

    Just another way to make sure they get your message…

    Fax your Senators: Repeal "Don't Ask, Don't Tell"
    http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/dadt_repeal/?…

  • 42. Erik  |  September 21, 2010 at 12:00 am

    I agree with you. The ruling gives us a strong back-up in case the vote goes wrong.

  • 43. Erik  |  September 21, 2010 at 12:07 am

    In all honesty, it should never have come to this. The President should have taken a page from Pres. Truman's book and ordered the military to stop enforcement. (There is precedent for this. Technically, sodomy – of any sort – is banned in the UCMJ. But no one gets prosecuted for sodomy in the military – even before the USSC decision striking down those laws.)

    Or, if he wanted to stay closer to the fence, he should have put a hold on discharges until the Pentagon report is released.

    Several people above have mentioned this, but I want to add my comments as well… The Republicans have been screaming for years "support the troops!" Now they are going to filabuster an allocation bill that funds "the troops." True, the military will still get paid, but funding is needed for other things. McCain is the worst; he ran on being a war hero, but will not help today's heroes.

  • 44. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  September 21, 2010 at 12:10 am

    Countdown with Keith Olbermann (September 20)
    “Lady Gaga takes on the Senate”
    On the eve of the vote in Senate to repeal the “Don’t ask, don’t tell” policy, the famed musician is lobbying directly for the repeal.

    (see YouTube video below, h/t FixedNewsChannel)

    — ♂KF
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WMNebMZENTc

  • 45. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  September 21, 2010 at 12:28 am

    This just in via NOM email…

    The Prop 8 legal defense team has filed their opening brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in the Perry v. Schwarzenegger case, and it is a tour de force.

    Authored by chief Prop 8 litigator Chuck Cooper, the 100+ page brief shreds the decision of federal district court Judge Vaughn Walker, and lays bare all the legal, logical, and factual errors that Walker made in his ruling. Read it here.

    Citing case after case from court after court, Cooper thoroughly and meticulously dismantles Walker’s outrageous opinion finding that voters have no right to protect marriage as one man and one woman. As noted legal commentator Ed Whelan has pointed out, the alleged “Dream Team” of Olson and Boies have lost in every court they have argued this case–with the sole exception of the rogue Judge Vaughn Walker. Judge Walker ignored mountains of evidence–from binding Supreme Court precedent, to at least 9 other state and federal court precedents, along with the conclusions of academic research and eminent scholars, and even common sense–to reach his radical conclusion.

    “This is not a hard question,” Cooper writes. “Indeed, because of the distinguishing procreative characteristics of heterosexual relationships, until quite recently ‘it was accepted truth for almost everyone who ever lived, in any society in which marriage existed, that there could be marriage only between participants of different sex.’ And marriage has existed in virtually all societies, from the ancients to the American states, because it serves a vital and universal societal purpose – a purpose, indeed, that makes marriage, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized, ‘fundamental to the very existence and survival of the [human] race.’”

    Here are some more of the many terrific quotes from the brief:

    On the procreative purpose of marriage:

    “The institution of marriage serves society’s existential interests, in the words of the California Supreme Court, by ‘channel[ing] biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive’ into enduring marital unions and ‘ensur[ing] that care and education of children in a stable environment.’”

    On the historical recognition of the connection between marriage and procreation:

    “And the abiding link between marriage and its procreative and child-rearing purposes has been routinely recognized, without a hint of controversy, not only  by the California Supreme Court, as noted above, but repeatedly by state appellate courts addressing the purpose of marriage. Likewise, eminent scholars, past and present, from all relevant academic fields were agreed on the animating purpose of marriage. Blackstone put it well: the ‘relation of parent and child…is consequential to that of marriage, being its principal end and design; it is by virtue of this relations that infants are protected, maintained, and educated.’”

    On the long list of appellate cases that address the validity of traditional marriage:

    “In light of all this, it is hardly surprising that every appellate court decision, both state and federal, to address the validity of traditional marriage laws under the federal Constitution has upheld them as rationally related to the state’s interest in promoting and regulating procreation and child-rearing.”

    On Baker v Nelson, a U.S. Supreme Court case from Minnesota where a gay couple claimed a constitutional right to same-sex marriage:

    “The United States Supreme Court dismissed the couple’s appeal for want of a substantial federal question. Not a single Justice found the couple’s constitutional claims – the same ones at issue here – substantial enough even to warrant plenary review. These, too, are not hard questions.”

    On Walker’s purported findings of “fact”:

    “These findings are, we respectfully submit, patently false, and only by assiduously ignoring the ‘history, tradition, and practice of marriage in the United States’ and everywhere else, could the district court make them. Nowhere in his 136-page opinion does the district court even cite any of the evidence overwhelmingly acknowledging responsible procreation and child-rearing as the animating purpose of marriage. All of the evidence – the judicial authority from California and numerous other states, the works of eminent scholars from all relevant academic fields, the extensive historical evidence – is simply ignored. And the district court ignored it quite deliberately; in the court’s view, only oral testimony presented at trial constituted “evidence” of the issue (and its treatment of even this evidence was egregiously selective and one-sided.)”

    On Walker’s finding that the People of California acted with animus in adopting Prop 8:

    “This charge is false and unfair on its face, and leveling it against the people of California is especially unfounded, for they have enacted into law some of the Nation’s most sweeping and progressive protections of gays and lesbians, including a domestic partnership law that gives same-sex couples all of the same substantive benefits and protections as marriage. And it defames as anti-gay bigots not only the seven million California voters, but everyone else in this Country, and elsewhere, who believes that the traditional opposite-sex definition of marriage continues to meaningfully serve the legitimate interests of society – from the current President of the United States, to a large majority of legislators throughout the nation, both in statehouses and in the United States Congress, and even to most of the scores of state and federal judges who have addressed this issue.  The simple truth is that ‘there are millions of Americans’ as one of the Plaintiff’s own expert witnesses has acknowledged, ‘who believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians…but who draw the line at marriage.’”

    This is the kind of terrific lawyering that we need to protect marriage as this case makes its way to the Supreme Court. NOM is working hard to raise money to support the outstanding legal team under Chuck Cooper’s leadership. Please help us help them.

    — ♂KF

  • 46. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 21, 2010 at 12:36 am

    "shreds"???

    Authored by chief Prop 8 litigator Chuck Cooper, the 100+ page brief shreds the decision of federal district court Judge Vaughn Walker, and lays bare all the legal, logical, and factual errors that Walker made in his ruling.

    Didn't know NOM had comedians working for them now! Very funny. Thanks for the laugh.

  • 47. Richard A. Walter (s  |  September 21, 2010 at 12:42 am

    How can a man be a war hero when he started singing to the Viet Cong after only four days as a POW? I know too many Vietnam vets, and many of them were POWs and never said one word that helped the Viet Cong find troop locations. OTOH, McCain's information increased the success rate of Viet Cong raids and ambushes by close to 1,000% IMHO, McCain is NO war hero.

  • 48. isa  |  September 21, 2010 at 12:43 am

    interesting that the NOM email has no dates attached to any of that. Everything they mentioned could have happened in 1862 for all we know from their letter.

  • 49. Bill  |  September 21, 2010 at 12:48 am

    "The simple truth is that ‘there are millions of Americans’ as one of the Plaintiff’s own expert witnesses has acknowledged, ‘who believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians…but who draw the line at marriage.’”

    With all due respect to the bigots, exactly who the fuck do they think they are to be 'drawing the line' in regards to other human being's rights???

    That pissed me off. Totally. 'We draw the line.' What an asshole.

    How's about WE draw the line. WE draw the line at our government singling us out for poor treatment. WE draw the line at our fellow citizens trampling our freedom in favor of Apartheid.

    Chuck Cooper is an asshole for saying that. His ability to say these words makes him a bigot, but it's his belief of those words where the asshole part of his personality comes in.

    Sorry, Had to vent. Pissed off.

  • 50. Ronnie  |  September 21, 2010 at 1:00 am

    Nazis…that's all they are…we need to revolt against them…no more Mr. Nice Gay….this "people" need to be put in their place….. >I ..Ronnie

  • 51. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 21, 2010 at 1:04 am

    On the procreative purpose of marriage:
    “The institution of marriage serves society’s existential interests, in the words of the California Supreme Court, by ‘channel[ing] biological drives that might otherwise become socially destructive’ into enduring marital unions and ‘ensur[ing] that care and education of children in a stable environment.’”

    The procreative argument is not only weak, it should be considered an invalid argument. Opposite-sex couples are NOT going to stop having sex.

  • 52. Kate  |  September 21, 2010 at 1:05 am

    Tour de farce, of course. Can't believe I get to be the first person here to say that.

  • 53. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 21, 2010 at 1:07 am

    On the historical recognition of the connection between marriage and procreation:
    “And the abiding link between marriage and its procreative and child-rearing purposes has been routinely recognized, without a hint of controversy, not only by the California Supreme Court, as noted above, but repeatedly by state appellate courts addressing the purpose of marriage. Likewise, eminent scholars, past and present, from all relevant academic fields were agreed on the animating purpose of marriage. Blackstone put it well: the ‘relation of parent and child…is consequential to that of marriage, being its principal end and design; it is by virtue of this relations that infants are protected, maintained, and educated.’”

    Wrong – according to this published study: The Effects of Marriage, Civil Union, and Domestic Partnership Laws on the Health and Well-being of Children

    Children born to and raised by lesbian couples seem to develop in ways that are indistinguishable from children raised by heterosexual parents. Ratings by their mothers and teachers have demonstrated children's social competence and the prevalence of behavioral difficulties to be comparable with population norms. In fact, growing up with parents who are lesbian or gay may confer some advantages to children. They have been described as more tolerant of diversity and more nurturing toward younger children than children whose parents are heterosexual.

    In one study, children of heterosexual parents saw themselves as being somewhat more aggressive than did children of lesbian parents, and they were seen by parents and teachers as more bossy, negative, and domineering. Children of lesbian parents saw themselves as more lovable and were seen by parents and teachers as more affectionate, responsive, and protective of younger children, compared with children of heterosexual parents. In another investigation, children of lesbian parents reported their self-esteem to be similar to that of children of heterosexual parents and saw themselves as similar in aggressiveness and sociability.

    Early studies that attempted to evaluate the well-being of children whose parents are gay or lesbian encountered predictable challenges in sample selection, sample size, investigator bias, and measurement.

    Recent investigations have attempted to overcome some of these challenges and clarify some factors that promote optimal well-being of this growing population of children. The adjustment of children who have 2 mothers seems to be related to their parents' satisfaction with their relationship and specifically with the division of responsibility they have worked out with regard to child care and household chores. Children with lesbian parents who reported greater relationship satisfaction, more egalitarian division of household and paid labor, and more regular contact with grandparents and other relatives were rated by parents and teachers to be better adjusted and to have fewer behavioral problems. These findings are consistent with general knowledge among students of child development, namely that greater stability and nurturance within a family system predicts greater security and fewer behavioral problems among children.
    http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content

  • 54. Leo  |  September 21, 2010 at 1:21 am

    <cite>As noted legal commentator Ed Whelan has pointed out, the alleged “Dream Team” of Olson and Boies have lost in every court they have argued this case–with the sole exception of the rogue Judge Vaughn Walker.</cite>

    What on earth is he talking about? They haven't argued this case in any other court.

  • 55. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 21, 2010 at 1:22 am

    On the long list of appellate cases that address the validity of traditional marriage:
    “In light of all this, it is hardly surprising that every appellate court decision, both state and federal, to address the validity of traditional marriage laws under the federal Constitution has upheld them as rationally related to the state’s interest in promoting and regulating procreation and child-rearing.”

    Iowa Study:

    Gay marriage causes no harm to traditional marriage, study finds

    While social conservatives depict same-sex marriage as a threat to married life as we know it, Iowa’s 18-month experience with the newly legalized institution has revealed striking similarities to traditional marriage and no discernible harm to it, according to research by IowaWatch.org.

    Moreover, marriage statistics show that female couples made up nearly two-thirds of the same-sex marriages in Iowa in the year after the state Supreme Court ruled it legal in April 2009. Although experts say a single year does not constitute a trend, the disparity is consistent with the traditional way Americans raise children and establish their gender roles early in life. The disparity also reflects similar trends in other states where same-sex marriages are allowed.

    The findings are based on more than a dozen interviews with gay couples and national experts, and on an examination of journal articles, marriage statistics, census data, polls and court rulings by IowaWatch.org, a nonprofit website run by The Iowa Center for Public Affairs Journalism.

    Thousands of same sex couples married during the year since the Iowa Supreme Court struck down the state’s Defense of Marriage Act in April 2009, and despite the controversy that has swirled around them, their marriages have endured.

    For many, the marriage license provided a slice of American life previously denied them. For others, the license, because legal limitations remain, is just recognition of relationships already tested by time, legal obstacles and social ostracism.

    More: http://iowaindependent.com/42714/same-sex-marriag

  • 56. Steve  |  September 21, 2010 at 1:30 am

    The president can't repeal a law per executive order!

    Before DADT, the so-called "gay ban" was just military policy. DADT enshrined that into law. It was added as part of the defense authorization bill, and judicial action aside, that's how it has to be removed.

    What Obama could do – and should do if the vote fails – is to issue a stop-loss order that immediately halts all discharges.

  • 57. BK  |  September 21, 2010 at 1:31 am

    I agree that guy was irrationally selfish. Quite rude as well. Blegh.

  • 58. Felyx  |  September 21, 2010 at 1:33 am

    "This is the kind of terrific lawyering that we need to protect marriage as this case makes its way to the Supreme Court."

    ZOMG!!! I starting laughing think that Kyrill is such a cut up. I was thinking that Kyrill was say that WE need them to keep up what we would consider 'terrific' lawyering so that this case continues to fall flat on its ass. It wasn't until I got to the…

    "Please help us help them."

    that I realized I was still reading the email.

    ZOMG! That is so funny! Wasn't NOM (Maggie) earlier complaining how bad the lawyering was? This is just too rich!

    Felyx

  • 59. BK  |  September 21, 2010 at 1:35 am

    Ooh. Scary…

    I bet this is what the anti-equality folks are hearing in their dreams… (hee hee)

    Maybe they'll have nightmares with evil gay people burning down the USA and allying themselves with the darn Muslims…. ROFL.

  • 60. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 21, 2010 at 1:36 am

    On Baker v Nelson, a U.S. Supreme Court case from Minnesota where a gay couple claimed a constitutional right to same-sex marriage:
    “The United States Supreme Court dismissed the couple’s appeal for want of a substantial federal question. Not a single Justice found the couple’s constitutional claims – the same ones at issue here – substantial enough even to warrant plenary review. These, too, are not hard questions.”

    Baker is a key part of the fuss. The decision does have precedential value but the question now is how seriously it will be taken by the 9th Circuit, said Vikram Amar of the University of California-Davis School of Law.

    The Baker decision was a "summary disposition," a one-line order without an explanation by the justices. The Supreme Court in the 1970s, he said, made clear, particularly in Hicks v. Miranda, that a summary dismissal for want of a substantial federal question constitutes a ruling on the merits that is fully binding on lower courts. Baker should have been a problem for opponents of Proposition 8 as it has been in a number of other same-sex marriage cases.

    A dissenting Justice William Brennan in Hicks said that, without an explanation of the dismissal, lower courts do not know what issues have been resolved.

    "What that has done is led lower courts, understandably and correctly, to construe these dismissals as having decided as little as possible," said Amar. "As long as the case the court is dealing with is arguably different from the one that was summarily dismissed, then there is running room for a lower court to do what it wants.

    "You still need to find some difference between that dismissed case and your case today," he added. "The problem with Baker is it's not obvious what the difference is."

    But Judge Walker found several ways in which Baker differs from the Perry case. As USC's Roithmayr explained, Walker found important and different facts in the two cases. "In Baker, there was a statute neutral on its face but interpreted to prohibit gay marriage," she said. "In Perry, he said he was looking at a statute that expressly prohibits gay marriage. In addition, that statute strips gays and lesbians of their right to marry, a right that had been accorded to them by a prior court."
    http://www.law.com/jsp/nlj/PubArticleNLJ.jsp?id=1

  • 61. BK  |  September 21, 2010 at 1:36 am

    I believe the DREAM act is needed, and if this is the only way to get it passed, so be it. I sympathize with those young people for whom this act is their only hope for staying in the only country they've ever known. (<–run on sentence?)

  • 62. BK  |  September 21, 2010 at 1:38 am

    If a senator votes against this bill for the repeal of DADT inside, then so be it. They have shown their true selves.

  • 63. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 21, 2010 at 1:43 am

    On Walker’s purported findings of “fact”:
    “These findings are, we respectfully submit, patently false, and only by assiduously ignoring the ‘history, tradition, and practice of marriage in the United States’ and everywhere else, could the district court make them. Nowhere in his 136-page opinion does the district court even cite any of the evidence overwhelmingly acknowledging responsible procreation and child-rearing as the animating purpose of marriage. All of the evidence – the judicial authority from California and numerous other states, the works of eminent scholars from all relevant academic fields, the extensive historical evidence – is simply ignored. And the district court ignored it quite deliberately; in the court’s view, only oral testimony presented at trial constituted “evidence” of the issue (and its treatment of even this evidence was egregiously selective and one-sided.)”

    I am sorry, but I don't remember seeing any eminent scholars from all academic fields or reading any extensive historical evidence during the trial. Anyone have some links for this?

  • 64. Tom B.  |  September 21, 2010 at 1:48 am

    GLaDOS: "Thank you for helping us help you help us all." :)

  • 65. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 21, 2010 at 1:50 am

    On Walker’s finding that the People of California acted with animus in adopting Prop 8:
    “This charge is false and unfair on its face, and leveling it against the people of California is especially unfounded, for they have enacted into law some of the Nation’s most sweeping and progressive protections of gays and lesbians, including a domestic partnership law that gives same-sex couples all of the same substantive benefits and protections as marriage. And it defames as anti-gay bigots not only the seven million California voters, but everyone else in this Country, and elsewhere, who believes that the traditional opposite-sex definition of marriage continues to meaningfully serve the legitimate interests of society – from the current President of the United States, to a large majority of legislators throughout the nation, both in statehouses and in the United States Congress, and even to most of the scores of state and federal judges who have addressed this issue. The simple truth is that ‘there are millions of Americans’ as one of the Plaintiff’s own expert witnesses has acknowledged, ‘who believe in equal rights for gays and lesbians…but who draw the line at marriage.’”

    Separate but Equal is NOT Equal.

  • 66. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 21, 2010 at 1:54 am

    Watch LIVE: Senate Debates 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell', Defense Bill
    http://www.towleroad.com/2010/09/watch-live-senat

  • 67. Phillip R  |  September 21, 2010 at 1:54 am

    Funny episode. I am a huge fan of the show. Amy and Bender start a robosexual relationship and fight for robosexual marriage. At that point in time, all sorts of marriages are legal including gay and inner-species (2 alien species).

  • 68. Freddy  |  September 21, 2010 at 1:57 am

    So I have been watching C-SPAN2 for a bit this morning and for some reason, I am starting to feel sick to my stomach. I guess I can always look forward to Thursday.
    Freddy

  • 69. Mark M  |  September 21, 2010 at 1:58 am

    Thank you! I was thinking that too….wtf other courts have they failed in with this case?????
    Nazi scumbags!!!

  • 70. BK  |  September 21, 2010 at 2:08 am

    ROFL!!!

    I saw 'procreation' about twenty million times. My eyes are bleeding!! 😛

  • 71. Brittney  |  September 21, 2010 at 2:08 am

    I am ashamed to live in the state of Alabama.
    I am listening to cnn live on the debate of DADT and my senator is currently speaking.
    Ridiculous. Even his accent is annoying >.<

  • 72. BK  |  September 21, 2010 at 2:10 am

    "…separate but unequal…"

    (made that up, but it sounds like what they might say.)

  • 73. Mark M  |  September 21, 2010 at 2:12 am

    I couldn't watch but just a few minutes….my blood pressure was getting to high
    UGH!!!

  • 74. BK  |  September 21, 2010 at 2:12 am

    Hi, Brittney!

    "Even his accent is annoying >.<" ROFL! You are definitely right. 😉

    Don't be ashamed to live in Alabama–you aren't anti-equality, so why should you feel guilty? Besides; you have an amazing opportunity to change the minds of those anti-equality folks around you. :)

    Ciao for now,
    BK

  • 75. Brittney  |  September 21, 2010 at 2:21 am

    My blood pressure is boiling.
    But I can't stop listening…..

  • 76. Brittney  |  September 21, 2010 at 2:24 am

    I don't feel guilty… :)
    I have sent a number of e-mails to my senator, and he always writes me back saying the same thing.
    Basically that he's against equality and there's nothing I can do to change his mind. It's a bit annoying.

  • 77. Leo  |  September 21, 2010 at 2:44 am

    Their argument isn't that children won't be born without marriage, but that children that are born will receive worse care.

  • 78. Freddy  |  September 21, 2010 at 2:46 am

    @Brittney, there is actually one thing you can do and that is help gather votes to remove the senator when he is up for re-election.

  • 79. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 21, 2010 at 2:49 am

    So, because Same Sex couples will be able to marry, opposite sex couples will start abusing their kids?

  • 80. Mark M  |  September 21, 2010 at 2:51 am

    You should publish his email responses….show people what kind of man he really is.
    If he is bigoted towards GLBT persons than what else is he hiding

  • 81. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 21, 2010 at 2:54 am

    I agree. They need to be called out on their actions…and if that action is a negative email, it should be published for the world to see.

  • 82. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 21, 2010 at 2:55 am

    Freddy, we need to do that with McCain! Remove him from office.

  • 83. Anonygrl  |  September 21, 2010 at 2:57 am

    "Noted" legal commentator Ed Whelan is a conservative, corporate lawyer who served as an advisor to the White House counsel, and DOJ from 2001 to 2004. He currently blogs for "National Review". He is head of The Ethics and Public Policy Center, which "was established in 1976 to clarify and reinforce the bond between the Judeo-Christian moral tradition and the public debate over domestic and foreign policy issues."

    So the courts he refers to are probably the courts of Heaven.
    'Nuff said.

  • 84. Chris From CO  |  September 21, 2010 at 2:57 am

    Just watched c-span2 as always sounds like minds are made up. John McCain didnt make sence again and came across angry. Im proud of the senator of Michigan he was clear on the issues, he made the appropriate arguments the bill must pass to debate the issues like the DREAM act and the repeal of the DADT. This is procedural vote and I dont know how McCain sees it in any other way. He thinks the Dems are pushing this for political reason before the elections, I feel when he was speaking he was the one making a political calculation. He doesnt want to support the DREAM act because of Arizonas stance on immigration, and he wants gays to keep their mouths shut. Mr. McCain did not recongnize that this vote is a vote to debate the issue. We will see what happens.

  • 85. Mark M  |  September 21, 2010 at 3:00 am

    It's always US and THEM
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sh1qWZWNGGE

  • 86. Anonygrl  |  September 21, 2010 at 3:02 am

    If same sex couples CAN marry, then opposite sex couples will, obviously, decide that the should NOT marry… in protest! Yeah, that's it! Protest! So…kids born to opposite sex couples… will grow up… as PROTESTERS! And we all know, from current experience… that protesters are GAY! And those gay kids… will not have any more children. Which proves that same sex marriage will lead to extinction in ONE GENERATION.

    Well, why not? It makes as much sense as any other theory they have advanced.

  • 87. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  September 21, 2010 at 3:02 am

    Thanks for videos LLB and ĶĭŗîļĺęΧҲΪ . I wonder what those surveys ask…example, the surveys sent to the spouses of military persons… All this seems so dumb!

    On another note, I attended a Chilean Bicentennial Party on Saturday this weekend with my partner. We sat next to each other at dinner, didn't hold hands, or even touch that I recall. When came time for dance we even danced with two female family members but STILL some thought important to indicate we were somehow being inappropriate for this group. It was a public event that anyone could go to, if pay the $30/person. I was thinking about Alan E. recent trip and experiences when this was occurring. I'm looking forward to the day went at least the law supports us, even if persons "folk ways" do not.

    HUGS to all! count down until vote!

  • 88. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 21, 2010 at 3:04 am

    I don't have a star on my belly either – but I still stand proud!

  • 89. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 21, 2010 at 3:06 am

    Here is the Spouse Survey
    http://www.servicemembersunited.org/spousesurvey

  • 90. Mark M  |  September 21, 2010 at 3:06 am

    It's one of the reasons we all love LLB :-)

  • 91. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  September 21, 2010 at 3:06 am

    :) I appreciate his comments. They eloquently illustrate the remarkable process of being true to yourself.

    "These years in silence and reflection made me stronger and reminded me that acceptance has to come from within and that this kind of truth gives me the power to conquer emotions I didn't even know existed. What will happen from now on? It doesn't matter. I can only focus on what's happening to me in this moment. The word "happiness" takes on a new meaning for me as of today. It has been a very intense process. Every word that I write in this letter is born out of love, acceptance, detachment and real contentment. Writing this is a solid step towards my inner peace and vital part of my evolution."

  • 92. elliom  |  September 21, 2010 at 3:09 am

    Looks like there's another hurdle:

    Sen. Collins: “I Cannot Vote to Proceed”
    http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/09/21/26410

  • 93. Anonygrl  |  September 21, 2010 at 3:09 am

    Nowhere in his 136-page opinion does the district court even cite any of the evidence overwhelmingly acknowledging responsible procreation and child-rearing as the animating purpose of marriage. All of the evidence – the judicial authority from California and numerous other states, the works of eminent scholars from all relevant academic fields, the extensive historical evidence – is simply ignored.

    Predominantly this is because none of the evidence here claimed was presented in court. It is not Judge Walker's job to go out and hunt for evidence that proves the defendants' case for them, it is primarily his job to evaluate the evidence presented to him by each side. When there is a profound LACK of such evidence, it only makes sense that he would fail to comment on its existence.

    He did comment on the evidence that WAS presented.

  • 94. elliom  |  September 21, 2010 at 3:11 am

    An even asked them to present more…which they refused.

    "We don't need evidence."

  • 95. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  September 21, 2010 at 3:11 am

    Oh my GOSH LLB! I'm flabbergasted at your resourcefulness! (and at Many of the pp8TT community). Thank your! reviewing….

  • 96. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  September 21, 2010 at 3:16 am

    I find these questions offensive. I like Lady Gaga's "Go Home!" if have a problem with it. At ANY cost it is not worth discriminating our service people.

    "
    Would a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell affect your preference for your spouse's
    plans for his or her future in the military?
    1) Yes, I would want my spouse to stay longer
    2) Yes, I would want my spouse to leave earlier
    3) No, it would have no effect on my preference for my spouse's plans for
    military service in the future
    4) Don't Know

    Would a repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell affect your willingness to recommend
    military service to a family member or close friend?
    1) Yes, I would be more likely to recommend military service to a family member or close friend
    2) Yes, I would be less likely to recommend military service to a family member or close friend
    3) No, it would not affect my willingness to recommend military service to a family member or
    close friend
    4) Don't Know
    "

  • 97. Freddy  |  September 21, 2010 at 3:16 am

    LLB, I totally agree, I just don't know if it is possible at this point, I have been trying to push for Glassman but he is still 30 points down in the polls and McPAIN has consistently been over 50%, I don't think things look good for the non-discrimination party.

  • 98. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  September 21, 2010 at 3:20 am

    yes! go AWAY McCain! Take your homophobic and immigration bigotry with you!

  • 99. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  September 21, 2010 at 3:21 am

    Love it! I like it when they all get mixed up and forget who had stars originally :)

  • 100. Alan E.  |  September 21, 2010 at 3:34 am

    I called Jim Webb yesterday, even though I live in CA, because I used to live there and my family still lives there. My brother just signed up for the Army, and I know he wouldn't care about gay people in the military. I made sure to remind him that the language in the bill does not immediately repeal DADT.

  • 101. bJason  |  September 21, 2010 at 3:35 am

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kczmDfeFN8M

  • 102. Erik  |  September 21, 2010 at 3:43 am

    As I said, the military does not enforce all regulations. Sodomy was a crime in the UCMJ, but no one was prosecuted for it.

  • 103. AndrewW  |  September 21, 2010 at 3:48 am

    She must not have received enough emails, calls or faxes.

    Maybe you should hire temp workers and then can send and call 24 hours a day.

  • 104. Steve  |  September 21, 2010 at 4:02 am

    Well, he is sort of right about that. The Democrats will lose in the elections and getting this on the road now is the only chance there is. Which is one reason why the Republicans try to block it.

  • 105. Lesbians Love Boies  |  September 21, 2010 at 4:05 am

    Maybe Steve…this might backfire on the republicans though…they get the democrats ticked off enough, more will go out and vote come November.

  • 106. JefferyK  |  September 21, 2010 at 4:09 am

    Beginning to look like Reid intentionally sabotaged the bill.

  • 107. Gregory in Salt Lake  |  September 21, 2010 at 4:11 am

    Hi Alan :) re: "My brother just signed up for the Army, and I know he wouldn’t care about gay people in the military…" It caused me to think about why should he or anyone else care since LGBTQ persons exists in every state, country, business, church, school, in every era…. Our kind have always existed…. general population just started recognizing this…

  • 108. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  September 21, 2010 at 7:17 am

    Which proves that same sex marriage will lead to extinction in ONE GENERATION.

    One generation, maybe two… according to Kuhle… 😀

    — ♂KF

  • 109. Ķĭŗîļĺę&  |  September 21, 2010 at 7:43 am

    Wow!  That is very interesting and very important!
    I didn't know they have to look at Baker v. Nelson to find differences.
    Somebody already said that somewhere: Baker v. Nelson was decided in 1972, and homosexuality was considered a mental disorder till 1973, so when Baker was decided judges thought homosexuals are mentally ill and need treatment, rather than recognition of their rights.  Now that we know it's different and science, real science says it's not a disorder, this case should absolutely be reconsidered and it should not have any merit, but, of course, it will because their decision did not have any specific explanation: judicial system at its “best.”

    — ♂KF

  • 110. Rhie  |  September 21, 2010 at 9:10 am

    Franck,

    They did leave and then claimed they were forced out by the Gay Agenda. Bah.

  • 111. JonT  |  September 21, 2010 at 11:31 am

    LOL!

    My brother keeps telling me to watch this show. Maybe I should :)

  • 112. Puristat Reviews&hellip  |  May 11, 2011 at 9:23 am

    Official Colon Cleanse…

    […]here are some links to sites that we link to because we think they are worth visiting[…]…

Having technical problems? Visit our support page to report an issue!