Later on, 3rd Ballot had Natalie Collins ahead: 37-32.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Posted by lloydletta at 11:17 PM
Posted by lloydletta at 10:48 PM
Posted by lloydletta at 10:45 PM
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
On the record. Peter is a little late to the dance. A number of us complained weeks ago about the "edits" that were made to the White House Civil Rights page. But yes, it is troubling that the repeal of DOMA is no longer mentioned on the White House Civil Rights page. While the repeal of DOMA is still implied between the lines (where they talk about giving gay couples federal benefits), the fact that the commitment now appears to be in code is troubling.
Aravosis started the blog, Americablog.
Posted by lloydletta at 9:48 PM
Monday, May 11, 2009
From Americans for Truth:
Does President Obama recognize that he has no mandate to repeal “Defense of Marriage Act,” which protects states from outside homosexual “marriages”
Obama: No “Gay” Agenda Mandate: President Obama’s website has removed his radical campaign promise to work for the repeal of DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act. Obama’s liberal homosexual/transsexual agenda was barely discussed in the election campaign, so he has no mandate to accomplish these goals: pro-homosexual/transgender federal “Hate Crimes” legislation; repeal DOMA; homosexualize the U.S. military (repeal “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell”); enact federal “civil unions” legislation; pass “ENDA Our Freedom” law (Employment Non-Discrimination Act), which would force businesses to conform to federal “superior rights” based on same-sex- and gender-confused “identities”; and homosexualizing the U.S. immigration process (treating homosexual couples like married couples). TAKE ACTION: Call your Congressman and Senators (202-224-3121; 202-225-3121, www.congress.org) and urge them to reject Obama’s homosexual agenda — including Hate Crimes. Tell them you oppose any bill that would establish the U.S. Government as endorsing immoral homosexual behavior or relationships, and that would invariably result in a loss of freedom for moral-minded Americans.
By Peter LaBarbera
Is President Obama indicating that repealing a law that protects states from being forced to recognize out-of-state “gay marriages” — the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed by President Clinton and passed overwhelmingly by Congress in 1996 – is now a low priority for his administration? We hope so, given that support for traditional marriage, between a man and a woman, remains strong throughout the country.
The White House has stripped Obama’s anti-DOMA pledge (“Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act …”) from its website, as part of new, tighter language under the “Civil Rights” section dealing with homosexuality. Already homosexual activists are chafing at the slow pace of “change” offered by Obama in support of their agenda; many will not appreciate the public scrubbing of his DOMA promise – even though most Americans probably are unaware of it in the first place, as it barely surfaced in the presidential campaign. (Obama hardly has a mandate on DOMA; in fact, in informally questioning voters, I have yet to find an Obama supporter who was aware that Mr. Obama even made the anti-DOMA promise.)
We hope that President Obama recognizes that his anti-DOMA pledge – like his radical campaign embrace of the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA), which would eviscerate pro-life laws restricting abortion across America – is not popular with mainstream voters, even if it was useful in rallying liberal Democratic activists during the campaign. (At his last press conference, Obama disappointed ardent feminist backers by indicating that FOCA – which has engendered huge concern among pro-lifers and mobilized pro-life advocates against the president’s abortion agenda – is not a major priority for his Administration at this point.)
The following is the original language related to President Obama’s pro-homosexuality agenda posted shortly after his inauguration as president of the United States (courtesy of the pro-family group Culture Campaign; emphasis added in red):
Oppose a Constitutional Ban on Same-Sex Marriage: President Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2006 which would have defined marriage as between a man and a woman and prevented judicial extension of marriage-like rights to same-sex or other unmarried couples.
Support Full Civil Unions and Federal Rights for LGBT Couples: President Obama supports full civil unions that give same-sex couples legal rights and privileges equal to those of married couples. Obama also believes we need to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and enact legislation that would ensure that the 1,100+ federal legal rights and benefits currently provided on the basis of marital status are extended to same-sex couples in civil unions and other legally-recognized unions. These rights and benefits include the right to assist a loved one in times of emergency, the right to equal health insurance and other employment benefits, and property rights.
The following is the new White House web language on homosexuality, with the anti-DOMA text removed:
President Obama also continues to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. He supports repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security, and also believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation.
It is interesting that the White House through its official website retained Obama’s promise to repeal “Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell” (thus allowing open homosexuality in the armed forces) even as it removed his pledge to repeal DOMA–one of the top goals of his homosexual activist allies.
Will the liberal gay bloggers call Obama out about this?
Posted by lloydletta at 10:39 PM
On a vote of 5-3-1 the Duluth City Council passed an ordinance creating a domestic partner registry in the City.
Duluth is my hometown, so I am happy to see this pass. I also support Councilor Fedora's motion to create a dissolution fee (seeing as how there is an application fee). There are domestic relationships that will undoubtedly end in separation, therefore, there should be a fee associated with the process to end that relationship since the City has to send notification when one of the partners decides to dissolve the registration.
Posted by DavidD at 10:21 PM
Sunday, May 10, 2009
SLDN Press Release:
WASHINGTON, DC - When asked this morning on This Week with George Stephanopoulos if "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" will be overturned, the president's national security advisor, General Jones, responded, "I don't know."
" 'I don't know?' The answer should have been a one-word answer ‘Yes,' said Aubrey Sarvis, executive director of Servicemembers Legal Defense Network.
"Jones's answer, along with Secretary Gates's remarks to the Army War College on April 16, make it clear that a calculated political decision has been made that the President is not going to take ‘Don't Ask, Don't Tell' on publicly-himself-and instead his defense team is doing it."
There should be no waffling in this Administration-whether from Jones or Gates, on whether repeal is going to happen. The discussions should be when and how. Recall what Obama said on the campaign trail in 2007:
America is ready to get rid of the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy. That work should have started long ago. It will start when I take office. America is ready to get rid of the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. All that is required is leadership.(Fall 2007 to Human Rights Campaign)
That was then. This is now. The Center for Military Readiness (CMR)-which wrote in Human Events recently, "Obama administration officials appear equivocal on this issue"- is boasting about "changing the debate" and taking credit for intimidating the White House to back off DADT. Phyllis Schlafly, grandmother of the conservative movement, sits on the CMR Board.
Gay and lesbian soldiers continue to get fired on this President's watch, most recently Arabic linguist Army Lt. Dan Choi and 2nd Army Second Lt. Sandy Tsao. At the end of the day, this is what the debate is about-them and their families.
Also on ‘This Week', Senator John McCain indicated that a study or review should be conducted.
"A protracted study or National Commission is a cop out," notes Sarvis. "It is the way Washington ignores something it doesn't want to deal with. We hope Obama is not going along with this."
There have been almost a dozen studies on the topic. Going back to 1993, RAND did a study on the impact of openly gay and lesbian soldiers on unit cohesion. Their conclusion: no negative impact. Every scientific, credible study since then has come to the same conclusion.
SLDN had hoped this president would offer leadership, not give in to some throw away study or commission. The right approach would be a presidential working group that focuses solely on implementation and reports back to the president with recommendations within 90 days.
Posted by lloydletta at 7:44 PM
A few weeks ago, I was asked to testify as an expert witness. A former city council member in a small town in Minnesota attempted to use the domestic abuse courts to silence an online critic. Her complaint is located here. I have redacted plaintiff, defendent, court case number, and location of the court. The complaint is available here.
I feel this story is an important one to tell - because this affects bloggers beyond this particular case. If the plaintiff's effort was successful, it would set a chilling precident on freedom of speech.
I wrote the lawyer for the plaintiff asking: "Specifically, I'd like to know why she chose to make a stalking complaint, rather than writing to [the defendent] to complain about the offending posts first to see if something could be worked out, outside the courtroom. I also wish to know why she chose a criminal complaint, rather than a libel/slander suit. I've shown a few of my friends the complaint - and so far, all agree that "staring/glaring at a council meeting" is hardly stalking. If that was the case, everyone who has gone to council meetings, would need to be charged with stalking.
The plaintiff has a history of successfully silencing critics. A few years ago, a fellow city council member put up a website exposing her financial conflicts of interest. She reacted by suing for slander. The defendant in that case didn't have the resources to fight, so took the site down.
In the end the plaintiff's lawyer approached the defendent (my friend), asking to settle the case before going before the judge. The case ended up getting settled out of court.
Posted by lloydletta at 1:41 PM