Gay Marriage / Gay Rights

[Ski at 1SKY6]

You spelled Mock wrong. You're gonna get it from Duchess now.

Hi Ramseycat, Thanks for that. I have this android and it thinks it knows better what I mean to say. No matter how carefully I reread the sentence I type when I put the period at its end, the android corrects it. It is especially contrary sometimes.

[crash]

I'm not old, compared to Duchess (She's 132 and looks like a wildebeest), I don't know any Micks and Inception was a shit movie.

Oh and I hate skiing.

[sally]

The one time I went skiing I spent most of my time freezing my ass off while sitting in the cold snow waiting for someone to help me up. It really wasn't my cup of tea either.

[Duchess]

I'm not old, compared to Duchess (She's 132 and looks like a wildebeest)

Show some respect for your elder, whippersnapper.

[HairOfTheDog]

Exercising its freedom of speech, Planting Peace has erected a billboard in Kim Davis' hometown of Morehead, Kentucky.



Planting Peace is the non-profit organization behind The Equality House, the rainbow building that sits in direct opposition to the Westboro Baptist Church compound.

"The intent of this billboard is to expose how the anti-LGBT movement is selective in what rules to follow and how they choose to define 'traditional' institutions or values," Aaron Jackson, president of Planting Peace, told The Huffington Post.

"It's important and relevant to call this out, because the actions of Kim Davis and the messages from the anti-LGBTQ movement are not simply about a political or religious debate. There are LGBT youth across the world who are taking their lives at an alarming rate because of these messages from society that make them feel broken or less than. We have to meet hate with love, intolerance with compassion. Our message to our LGBT youth is simple: You are loved, valued, supported, and beautiful. There is nothing wrong with you, and we will stand by you. You are not alone."

Full story: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/kim-...295e3653f0
-------------------------------------------------

This is probably the first time that the Westboro Baptist Church and Planting Peace have been on the same side of the fence -- both view Kim Davis negatively. The WBC sees her as a sinful religious hypocrite, and Planting Peace views her as a bigot using religion as a transparent excuse to force her bigotry onto others.

[Maggot]

I have to say there are better ways to voice her dis-satisfaction with the supreme court. She could have just scribbled an unreadable "Mickey Mouse" on the license and gone home with that satisfaction at the end of the day.

[Duchess]

That ridiculous twat has filed another appeal asking the courts for another delay in issuing marriage licenses.

[Maggot]

Right or wrong she is only exercising her legal rights. Much like many politicians do.

[Carsman]

The "Donald" needs to talk to her!

[HairOfTheDog]

President Barack Obama on Friday nominated Eric K. Fanning ^ to be secretary of the Army, which could make him the first openly gay secretary of a U.S. military branch.

The U.S. Senate must confirm Fanning before he can lead the Army.

"Eric brings many years of proven experience and exceptional leadership to this new role," the President said in a statement. "I am grateful for his commitment to our men and women in uniform, and I am confident he will help lead America's Soldiers with distinction."

This historic move is one of many steps the Obama administration has taken to advance the rights of the LGBT community in the armed forces. In 2010, the President signed a law ending the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that prohibited gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military, and earlier this year, the President moved to allow those who identify as transgender to openly serve as well.

Fanning has served as acting under secretary of the Army since June, and before that, served as chief of staff to Secretary of Defense Ash Carter. Fanning also served as under secretary of the Air Force and deputy undersecretary of the Navy.

Story: http://edition.cnn.com/2015/09/18/politi...index.html

-------------------------------------------

Gay rights and equality have advanced enough in the last couple of years that it seems a little weird to me (in a good way) that Fanning's sexual orientation is even part of the story.

[Duchess]

Will there be an uproar over this? You know how some of those people can be.

[Maggot]

Has he ever even been in the service? gay or not that makes a difference to me.

[Duchess]

Has he ever even been in the service? gay or not that makes a difference to me.

It makes a difference to me too and according to the NY Times the answer is no. He's a civilian.

Mr. Fanning has been the acting under secretary of the Army as the current secretary, John McHugh, prepares to leave his post. Mr. Fanning’s Defense Department jobs have spanned the services: He has served as Air Force under secretary, deputy under secretary of the Navy and deputy chief management officer of the Navy.

“I can’t think of any civilian with more experience with the services, having served in senior positions in all three,” said Derek Chollet, a former assistant defense secretary. “He understands all of their unique cultures and processes.”

Story

[HairOfTheDog]

It makes a difference to me too and according to the NY Times the answer is no. He's a civilian.

Why does it make a difference to you, Duchess?

I'm just curious. He has years of experience administrating for the military, which is what the Secretary position also entails. His predecessor didn't serve either.

Did it make a difference to you that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, neither of whom served in the military, were both elected as Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces of the U.S.?

[Duchess]

I'm just curious. He has years of experience administrating for the military, which is what the Secretary position also entails.

Did it make a difference to you that Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, neither of whom served in the military, were both elected as Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces of the U.S.?

Your last sentence relates to how I was going to answer your curiosity. I've always thought that if a President was going to take our country into a war then he probably should have served in the military. Whenever I've voiced that opinion I get told we haven't been to war in many years. I'd like to know a President had experienced that, it was always my thought that he wouldn't be so quick to want to do it.

[HairOfTheDog]

The opposite has apparently proven to be true.

[Duchess]

I was wrong but it's still what I think. I want a President to experience first hand what war is like if he's going to call for it. I understand that's not realistic.

[HairOfTheDog]

I was wrong but it's still what I think. I want a President to experience first hand what war is like if he's going to call for it. I understand that's not realistic.

I don't share the same view on this one.

But, personally, I don't think your preference is wrong, Duchess.

Your options to meet you preference are limited though. Hillary's obviously not an ideal presidential option for you in 2016; Biden neither. The only 2016 candidates who meet your preference are (Republican) Lindsey Graham and (Democrat) Jim Webb. (Republican) Rick Perry would have qualified, but he's out.

[Maggot]

There have been plenty of Presidents that were in the service. It makes a difference, especially if a President refuses to listen to military commanders in time of war because of political correctness. The removal of MacArthur by Truman comes to mind. Had he continued into North Korea he would have stopped todays issues, but Truman was afraid of Chinese retribution and the fact that MacArthur ran his mouth a lot. Europe pressured Truman who was not very popular towards the end of his Presidency.
History repeats itself often it seems.

[HairOfTheDog]

The last U.S. President who actually served in combat was Bush Sr,, who fought for the U.S. back in the mid 1940s.

Personally, living in the here and now, I'd rather have a President who is adept at choosing key post leaders with the right direct experience to manage their staffs in today's world (including militarily) than a President who is war-experienced but deficient in other qualifications.

A well-rounded, top-notch leader is by far a bigger asset to the country than a leader who served in combat but doesn't have the essential appointment, delegation, political, diplomatic, and economic savvy to run the nation efficiently in times of both peace and war, in my opinion.

I wouldn't vote for Graham or Webb simply because they're the only two candidates in the running who've actively served.

(And, it makes no difference to me whether key post leaders are straight, bi, homosexual, asexual...so long as they're well-qualified and focused on getting the job done.)