I used to be against gays in the military till I met a gay guy who was a fantastic fighter!

I hope you didn’t find that out the hard way Jester.

Good for the Presbyterians and for the Navy, and boos to those conservative congressjerks. They have so much to answer for and it’s growing.

Nicole, why is it ok to bash conservatives here, but not liberals?

No bashing here — what do you mean?

cough*cough

Since when are liberals not bashed around here?

Too funny, Nicole. You honestly didn’t see nnmns’ first post on this thread?

Conservatives seem to have a very broad definition of what it means to bash them.

Ah, I thought you meant the post was bashing conservatives.

As for the comments section, my general policy has been to allow political opinions here, as long as they remain relevant to the post and do not personally attack other comments.

Having said that, let’s get back on topic now.

Okay. I have some questions. Shouldn’t a gay wedding ceremony count as religious expression, therefore making it protected by the First Amendment? Also, did the conservatives really think this situation would never come up?

Ok. I see. So as long as it’s bashing conservative congress members and not Obama then it’s on topic and perfectly ok. That’s fair.

The post talks about opposition from conservative members of Congress. Therefore, it’s on topic. (Stop whining.)

Somebody has the gall to point out the obvious, repeated political bias of this blog and you call it whining? I seem to remember at least one post here in the not-too-distant past about the president where I was chastised for pointing out his anti-conservative religious views. Yet if anyone uses the phrase “conservative congressjerks” it gets completely excused and written off as being “on topic”. Double standards in the mainstream media? Say it ain’t so!

I’m just a moron in his pajamas. But I expected more than this from an educated, experienced professional journalist such as yourself.

Obama is a Muslim terrorist who wants to euthanize your grandma. There, a conservative viewpoint. Could someone answer my questions now?

a gay wedding ceremony is an oxymoron.

If that’s how you’re going to address me, Mordred, then it isn’t even worth my effort to reply.

Robert C: “a gay wedding ceremony is an oxymoron.”

Why?

I tried to have a conversation, Jester. But you didn’t want that. You just wanted to complain about how much of a victim you think you are. Fine by me. I’ll answer my questions myself.

“Shouldn’t a gay wedding ceremony count as religious expression, therefore making it protected by the First Amendment?”

Well, Mordred, that would require the government to recognize anything that’s not “gays are a threat to human civilization”-type Christianity as a real religion.

“Also, did the conservatives really think this situation would never come up?

Of course they knew it would come up. They just waited until it actually did so they could make the gay soldiers out to be extremists who needed to be put in their place. (This is my opinion. Obviously I don’t know what they think.)

“Is what I’m doing right now rude and immature?” Probably.

“Do I care?” At this point, not really.

Jester, stop whining.

This whole persecution complex of conservative “Christ”ianity is annoying. One guy gets put up 2000 years ago because of his belief system (which challenged the regional authority and got him branded as a terrorist), and now, every time you don’t get EVERY SINGLE THING going the way you want it to, someone is metaphorically ripping out your fingernails and shoving them under your eyeballs.

After a couple millenia letting that mindset rule the western world (and try to do so for the rest of the planet), I think it’s time as a species we finally grow up and recognize that EVERYONE is HUMAN and deserving of the SAME rights and respect.

No special privileges to preserve bigotry regardless of how much fun it was historically. Period.
And before you ask, No, I will not tolerate your intolerance of me.

Jester stop rattling the dingbats, it interfers with my WiFi.

Mordred08,

Let me answer one of those questions …

“Shouldn’t a gay wedding ceremony count as religious expression, therefore making it protected by the First Amendment?”

Um, no. Not necessarily. Not all wedding ceremonies are “religious”. People seem to forget that there is such a thing as civil marriage. It’s one that doesn’t take place in a church (or mosque, temple, synagogue, tabernacle, etc.) and not presided over by a clergy person. Why assume the people getting married are expressing their ‘religious’ faith?

And, they should be “protected” by the Equal Protections Clause, not to mention the inalienable right to the pursuit of happiness. They may not be religious in nature, but that’s no valid reason not to permit them – in the civil arena (as well as in any religion that wishes to perform them).

Hope that helped.

N.B. No conservatives were bashed in the making of this post.

@ Robert C.

“a gay wedding ceremony is an oxymoron.”

Nonsense. Mine sure wasn’t. I thought you were gay yourself. If and when you choose to marry the person you love, I’m sure you’ll feel differently.

My apologies, GOP. I didn’t consider the issue of civil ceremonies. America’s discrimination towards non-religious people is another problem that needs to be dealt with. However, I think my point is still valid as far as religious ceremonies go, as many LGBTs do consider themselves Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc. (I don’t pretend to understand why.)

Now that I think about it, thanks to Clinton’s “Defense” of Marriage Act, the ceremonies won’t be legally binding, anyway. So why is Congress up in arms over it? Because there’s a large group of Americans who see them as heroes fighting back against the gay menace, even the part that risks life and limb for so they can persecute in peace.