Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Former Republican congressional staffer who helped write DOMA now lobbying for its repeal. Why yes, she was in denial about being gay when she wrote it, how did you guess?   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 133
    More: Interesting, DOMA, repeal  
•       •       •

4962 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Apr 2012 at 8:27 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



133 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-01 04:32:00 AM  
Seriously, at this point I'm convinced that there isn't a single anti-gay Republican who isn't writing and passing laws to try to wall off their own temptation.
 
2012-04-01 05:07:54 AM  
Lemme guess, she wants to get married now so it's time for a change?
I found it amusing that her father is a choir director.

rynthetyn: Seriously, at this point I'm convinced that there isn't a single anti-gay Republican who isn't writing and passing laws to try to wall off their own temptation.


Don't overlook the religious zealots, they're in the same boat.
 
2012-04-01 07:41:34 AM  
I used to be Republican, and always thought that DOMA was a sh*t law.

Reposted for relevance...

Top Ten Reasons to Make Gay Marriage Illegal

01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.

02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all like many of the principles on which this great country was founded; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of marriages like Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.

10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.



Leviticus 19:10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: I am the LORD your God.


Which seems to point to Yahweh being down with welfare and assisting folks in need.

Leviticus 19:14 Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumblingblock before the blind, but shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD.

Yahweh seems to be down with helping the handicapped too.

Leviticus 19:16 Thou shalt not go up and down as a talebearer among thy people: neither shalt thou stand against the blood of thy neighbour; I am the LORD.

So, apparently, lying and telling tales is not approved of, and that communities should stand together. Not just the pale people or the brown people, but all y'all's people...

Leviticus 19:17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thine heart: thou shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour, and not suffer sin upon him.

Guess wishing death and terribleness on your neighbors is out too. How many Democrats or Libertarians or Scientologist you think live in your neighborhoods?

Leviticus 19:18 Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.

Gee. Love thy neighbor. Nor on the children of your people. Whuddathunkit?

And, of course, there is something about immigrants that is completely ignored by the rabid Christian nationalists...

Leviticus 19:33 And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him.

Leviticus 19:34 But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.

Does that mean we can end this ridiculousness about trying to repeal the 14th Amendment, since Leviticus was down with that sort of thing LONG before the Founding Fathers or Lincoln?

Or if we have to throw out Leviticus as being outdated, does this mean we can toss out the whole hating the gheys thing too?

You can almost hear the gears grinding and popping in the audience...

Gay Lib. Now interestingly, here is an attempt by a hooked down and kind of persecuted minority to insist on their place rightfully, and their treatment rightfully, without it having anything to do with ethnic or religion or anything! It's really an exciting separate part of liberation. ...Sometimes we, if we're younger, we react to that in a way that we've been schooled. Then you kinda get your chops, and you get things okay and you understand and it's all right to be able to talk about that. Here's what I mean. The word "homosexual," many people who aren't in the position to having to decide this, they wonder:

"Is homosexuality... Is it normal? Is it natural? I ask you. Is it normal or natural? Is it unnatural and abnormal?"

Now those two words seem to revolve around it. Now let's look at those words for what they are...

"Natural." Hey. Means "according to nature." Is it according to nature? Well...probably not in the strictest sense because nature didn't presuppose it. Nature only gave us one set of sexual apparatus. A girl's got something for the guys, a guy's got something for the girls. As it is now, a homosexual is forced to "share" the apparatus that the opposite sex is using on this person. Certainly if nature was in command there'd have two sets of goodies. So nature was not ready. We leaped past nature again in our sociological development, way down the road ahead of nature.

Is it normal? Normal? Well what's "normal?" Well, let's see.. if you're standing in a room, stripped, and it's dark, and you're hugging a person and loving them and rubbing them up and down, and they're rubbing you, and you're rubbing together and suddenly the light goes on and it's the same sex, you've been trained to go

"AAIIIAUUGGGAIIIAEAAHHHHHHHH!"

But if felt okayy.... So maybe it was normal without being natural...
"
--George Carlin

Seriously. Who does it hurt? Your own church doesn't have to marry folks if you don't believe that homosexuals should be joined, but maybe you might want to lay off other ministries and faiths that do, and maybe the atheists as well who don't really care. Practice what you will in your own ministries, but leave other folks alone to theirs.

Practice your faith freely, but stop demanding that others stop practicing theirs...
 
2012-04-01 07:47:37 AM  
she wasn't in denial. she was getting paid.
 
2012-04-01 08:05:27 AM  

Hobodeluxe: she wasn't in denial. she was getting paid.


Which is sad as Hells.
 
2012-04-01 08:06:42 AM  

rynthetyn: Seriously, at this point I'm convinced that there isn't a single anti-gay Republican who isn't writing and passing laws to try to wall off their own temptation.


This.

I wonder when Rick "GAHHH No Pink Balls!" Santorum will come out of the closet.
 
2012-04-01 08:34:27 AM  

AbbeySomeone: Lemme guess, she wants to get married now so it's time for a change?
I found it amusing that her father is a choir director.

rynthetyn: Seriously, at this point I'm convinced that there isn't a single anti-gay Republican who isn't writing and passing laws to try to wall off their own temptation.

Don't overlook the religious zealots, they're in the same boat.


The number one reason a devout young catholic boy decides to become a priest.
 
2012-04-01 08:36:35 AM  
She'll have this licked in no time.
 
2012-04-01 08:41:06 AM  

hubiestubert: Leviticus


I am pretty sure Leviticus was not translated properly. Way too much do good to each other stuff in there! Needs more fire and brimstone.
 
2012-04-01 08:42:41 AM  
I have a hard time feeling bad for gay republicans who stay with the party like she is doing. It makes no sense to back the republicans when you can get a gay friendly democrat instead
 
2012-04-01 08:44:06 AM  
thisiswhywecanthavenicethings.jpg
 
2012-04-01 08:44:35 AM  

Hobodeluxe: she wasn't in denial. she was getting paid.


No, she was apparently engaged but confused about feelings she had over her previous same sex fling and it was only after her marriage broke up that she went to counseling and figured out that no matter how much she denies it, she bats for the other team.

She was pursuing her own interests when helping to write DOMA and she pursuing her own interests now that it's a hindrance for her. She had no problem helping limit the liberties of others but now that things have changed for her, she wants the rules changed so they no longer affect her. She hasn't had any sort of epiphany and she's still on board with the whole "fark the poor" party platform. She just doesn't like the "fark the gays" plank now because it personally affects her.
 
2012-04-01 08:45:21 AM  

hubiestubert: Leviticus 19:10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: ...


Supply-side Jesus frowns on your old-fashioned thinking.

t1.gstatic.com
 
2012-04-01 08:45:28 AM  
Is it Caturday at HuffPo? check the images in TFA, then refresh the page. More cats.
 
2012-04-01 08:46:03 AM  
O wait - it's Adblock doing it.

Damn, I am slow.
 
2012-04-01 08:47:19 AM  

hubiestubert: Leviticus


I noticed you left off the provisions against shellfish. I have to ask, are you in the pocket of Big Shrimp? Are you part of a pro-anthropoda agenda? Do you not understand that by not forbidding shellfish you are undermining the sanctity of traditional fish sticks?
 
2012-04-01 08:48:35 AM  

St_Francis_P: hubiestubert: Leviticus 19:10 And thou shalt not glean thy vineyard, neither shalt thou gather every grape of thy vineyard; thou shalt leave them for the poor and stranger: ...

Supply-side Jesus frowns on your old-fashioned thinking.

[t1.gstatic.com image 178x283]


Hey, Jesus came to fulfill the law, not abolish it, amiright?
 
2012-04-01 08:56:33 AM  
Do conservatives ever win in the end? Every generation, it's "This far and no further!", but the next generation (ha) backs off again.

/they take it in the end, but never win
 
2012-04-01 08:58:14 AM  

0Icky0: Do conservatives ever win in the end? Every generation, it's "This far and no further!", but the next generation (ha) backs off again.

/they take it in the end, but never win


From what they say, sometimes they get it rammed down their throats.
 
2012-04-01 09:03:02 AM  

roadkillontheweb: hubiestubert: Leviticus

I am pretty sure Leviticus was not translated properly. Way too much do good to each other stuff in there! Needs more fire and brimstone.


That's the thing that kills me about folks who scream about how God Hates F*gs! is that Moses came down with those big stone tablets with the Commandments. Direct communication with Jahweh. Laid it out. Thous shalt not steal. Thou shalt not kill. Thous shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not bear false witness.

Lying and Adultery. Laid out as Commandments. Those were in the Big 10 of THIS IS NOT PROPER BEHAVIOR AND THOU SHALT KNOCK OFF WITH IT.

Yet, we see folks constantly forgiven for lying and their adultery, even outright thieving, Hells, even supported for office.

Homosexuality is in the same boat with an All You Can Eat Shrimp Boil, and wearing poly-fiber blends, and THAT is INSTANT HELL AND DAMNATION, but not the whole take care of the strangers in your lands, take care of the handicapped, and the "suggestion" that we take care of the poor and destitute, those can be ignored because...I have no idea why those aren't promoted more.

Well, save that Leviticus is an excuse. It's an excuse to promote a brand of prejudice and nothing more. That folks who cling to this sort of belief have really not paid attention to their Biblical studies, and have taken their leaders' word on what passages mean, and not soused it out for themselves--which in Catholic doctrine, I can understand, but not the Protestants, who wanted to read the Bible on their own...

And you know, if that's how folks want to read these passages, and ignore the raft of "forgive, take care of the poor, take care of the lame, and maybe be kind to those around you" passages, that's fine, for within their own ministries. It's when folks demand that EVERYONE follow their doctrine, that I get a little tetchy. If for no other reason that my Methodist Grandma didn't agree with that doctrine, and my Buddhist tochis doesn't either. Teach what you will in your own church, and certainly don't marry gheys there if you don't want--but maybe stop insisting that EVERY OTHER FAITH AND MINISTRY FOLLOW THAT.

It's rude. And that was the one sin that my Grandma taught me was the basis of most others. Sin lay in hurting others, and rudeness is the first step to that...
 
2012-04-01 09:03:52 AM  
None of these things seemed particularly controversial to Lehman since, she says, nobody was even talking about gay marriage as a real possibility 16 years ago.

So when she helped write DOMA, nobody was talking about gay marriage? Wasn't that pretty much the whole farking point of that law?
 
2012-04-01 09:05:37 AM  

hubiestubert: the whole take care of the strangers in your lands, take care of the handicapped, and the "suggestion" that we take care of the poor and destitute, those can be ignored because...I have no idea why those aren't promoted more


$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

/Any further questions?
 
2012-04-01 09:06:38 AM  

St_Francis_P: 0Icky0: Do conservatives ever win in the end? Every generation, it's "This far and no further!", but the next generation (ha) backs off again.

/they take it in the end, but never win

From what they say, sometimes they get it rammed down their throats.


But they claim to have matters well in hand.
 
2012-04-01 09:12:08 AM  

Trapper439: St_Francis_P: 0Icky0: Do conservatives ever win in the end? Every generation, it's "This far and no further!", but the next generation (ha) backs off again.

/they take it in the end, but never win

From what they say, sometimes they get it rammed down their throats.

But they claim to have matters well in hand.


Ghey buttsecks!

/I'm not good at subtlety
 
2012-04-01 09:24:17 AM  
Lehman defended her party affiliation. "Am I supposed to embrace higher taxes because we're gay? Am I supposed to embrace big labor and additional regulatory authority because I'm gay? Then why the groupthink and the presumption if one is gay they should be in one political party?" she asked.

Who indeed would support the idea that if you're gay, then you're automatically unfit for the republican party? I've never heard anyone say that just because you're gay that you must also support other democratic planks. Well no one but the people who refuse to allow Log Cabin republicans to speak at republican events; I guess CPAC is controlled by a unioned sleeper cell of manchurian conservatives.
 
2012-04-01 09:32:18 AM  

Trapper439: St_Francis_P: 0Icky0: Do conservatives ever win in the end? Every generation, it's "This far and no further!", but the next generation (ha) backs off again.

/they take it in the end, but never win

From what they say, sometimes they get it rammed down their throats.

But they claim to have matters well in hand.


As society circles the rim. Never quite going over the brink but almost ff-uh yeah, just like that, don't stop.
 
2012-04-01 09:33:34 AM  
This is all backwards.

Once upon a time marriage was only for same sexes.

Letting the sexes intermarry opened up a whole Pandora's box.
 
2012-04-01 09:33:55 AM  
nana nana boo boo...stick your head in doo doo
 
2012-04-01 09:35:15 AM  

Karac: Lehman defended her party affiliation. "Am I supposed to embrace higher taxes because we're gay? Am I supposed to embrace big labor and additional regulatory authority because I'm gay? Then why the groupthink and the presumption if one is gay they should be in one political party?" she asked.

Who indeed would support the idea that if you're gay, then you're automatically unfit for the republican party? I've never heard anyone say that just because you're gay that you must also support other democratic planks. Well no one but the people who refuse to allow Log Cabin republicans to speak at republican events; I guess CPAC is controlled by a unioned sleeper cell of manchurian conservatives.




I don't know, I have a hard time taking ones opinion seriously when they join a political party that is very much hostile towards you and your lifestyle. I can understand not agreeing with every single platform of a party or supporting The Greater Good to your person detriment, but the Republicans by and large have a bullshiat platform whose acting policy just doesn't reflect its stated policy. It certainly doesn't help that being Anti-Gay Rights isn't some obscure platform of the Republicans either.

I'm not saying Vote Democrat, but you should probably find a less hostile party to join. (Ditto those who use "Small Government" as a reason to vote Republican)
 
2012-04-01 09:37:02 AM  

Doctor Funkenstein: Trapper439: St_Francis_P: 0Icky0: Do conservatives ever win in the end? Every generation, it's "This far and no further!", but the next generation (ha) backs off again.

/they take it in the end, but never win

From what they say, sometimes they get it rammed down their throats.

But they claim to have matters well in hand.

Ghey buttsecks!

/I'm not good at subtlety


Whoa, whoa. Not sure where you're going with that. These people are as anti-homo as they can be.
 
2012-04-01 09:43:50 AM  

Karac: None of these things seemed particularly controversial to Lehman since, she says, nobody was even talking about gay marriage as a real possibility 16 years ago.

So when she helped write DOMA, nobody was talking about gay marriage? Wasn't that pretty much the whole farking point of that law?


You know how Republicans are with that whole "pre-emptive strike" thing. Nobody was really talking about it yet, but there were rumblings and they had to nip it in the bud. Nip it in the bud.

i43.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-01 09:46:49 AM  

St_Francis_P: Whoa, whoa. Not sure where you're going with that. These people are as anti-homo as they can be.


api.ning.com
 
2012-04-01 09:53:33 AM  
No one ever said us gays couldn't be small-minded just like the straight folks out there:

FTA: "There was nobody married [in 1996], it wasn't allowed anywhere," Lehman recalls. "The view of gay people ... it wasn't Ellen [DeGeneres]. It wasn't Neil Patrick Harris. It was kinky sex and women riding around on motorcycles without shirts on. That was sort of the view that the community projected as well."

Yeah, bullshiat. Don't blame it on how you perceived the LGBT community at the time. You were in the closet, which was/is your right, but you also actively worked to curtail the rights of your fellow citizens.

Good work there, Lezzie McGuire.
 
2012-04-01 09:55:01 AM  

Karac: Lehman defended her party affiliation. "Am I supposed to embrace higher taxes because we're gay? Am I supposed to embrace big labor and additional regulatory authority because I'm gay? Then why the groupthink and the presumption if one is gay they should be in one political party?" she asked.


Yeah, Groupthink is sure stupid, only easily-led, gullible, lazy people would blindly follow a party they didn't agree with 100 percent! Ha! She sure showed us!
www.threadbombing.com

/reminds me of the anti-choice crusaders who have had abotions, but want to "make sure no other woman has to go through that."
 
2012-04-01 09:55:03 AM  

St_Francis_P: Doctor Funkenstein: Trapper439: St_Francis_P: 0Icky0: Do conservatives ever win in the end? Every generation, it's "This far and no further!", but the next generation (ha) backs off again.

/they take it in the end, but never win

From what they say, sometimes they get it rammed down their throats.

But they claim to have matters well in hand.

Ghey buttsecks!

/I'm not good at subtlety

Whoa, whoa. Not sure where you're going with that. These people are as anti-homo as they can be.


Well, they seem down with the 'behind closed doors, be ashamed of yourself, let's cruise the airport bathroom' brand of homosex. It's the 'open, I'd like to file a joint tax return with my partner' homosex they don't like.
 
2012-04-01 09:55:05 AM  
Republican Lesbian???????
 
2012-04-01 09:58:21 AM  
Miserable farking coont. Shiat like this makes me want to scream...

FTFA: "It wasn't people that you know, people that you work with, people just like everybody else."

Yes, actually, it was. You just couldn't see it through your bigot colored glasses, moran.

also FTFA: None of these things seemed particularly controversial to Lehman since, she says, nobody was even talking about gay marriage as a real possibility 16 years ago.

Then why the fark would there be a need for a law against it you stupid biatch?

It makes me sick to think that she'll benefit from progress made in the fight against her own bigotry. This is just further proof that laws like this aren't about what those that write them think is good for the country or even their constituents. They're about what they think is good for themselves.
Silly biatch was against gays (because she feared to admit to herself she was gay) so it must be outlawed. Now she's gay so it must be allowed. I wish there were a way to deny her without denying the entire gay community. She deserves her misery. Reap what you sow, and all that.
 
2012-04-01 09:59:14 AM  

Doctor Funkenstein:
Well, they seem down with the 'behind closed doors, be ashamed of yourself, let's cruise the airport bathroom' brand of homosex.


Not gay, not gay at all. Just some good old boys letting off steam.
 
2012-04-01 10:05:47 AM  

cmunic8r99: O wait - it's Adblock doing it.

Damn, I am slow.


I was wondering why huffpo was so much more interesting.
 
2012-04-01 10:07:13 AM  

turbidum: It was kinky sex and women riding around on motorcycles without shirts on.


Is she sure she's not talking about the Sturgis rally?
 
2012-04-01 10:22:03 AM  
Same reaction I had to Ken Mehlman - go fark yourself. It's not an excuse you asshole.
 
2012-04-01 10:27:51 AM  
Pretty typical. Republicans are always against something until they find out it affects them personally.
 
2012-04-01 10:31:09 AM  

skinink: She'll have this licked in no time.


Lick or get licked... It's win-win, really.
 
2012-04-01 10:31:35 AM  

DamnYankees: Same reaction I had to Ken Mehlman - go fark yourself. It's not an excuse you asshole.


That's fair.

That's a problem within the LGBT community, is that it's often hard to criticize folks for being asshats within the community, without it becoming about their sexuality. In NoHo, there is a gal who has questionable taste in girls. Specifically, she mentors a lot of girls. Very closely. Often dates them. Often girls with abusive backgrounds, and she hustles them into her home, and into her bed, and often at ages that are questionable, at best. The community tends to ignore that behavior, because they don't want to come down on a woman who is likewise a fundraiser, activist, and promotes a lot of bands and art projects.

The LGBT community will know when it has made real progress, when they can feel comfortable taking one of their own to task, in public, and in front of everyone. When the LGBT community can its own on bullsh*t and admit, "Yeah, he's an asshole/she's kind of a b*tch" then we'll see real progress. Not a "betrayer of the cause" but be able to admit, "Yeah, she's really not good people."
 
2012-04-01 10:35:09 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2012-04-01 10:38:15 AM  
What she needs is a symbol that says she's gay AND Republican.

www.simpsonspark.com
 
2012-04-01 10:38:32 AM  
That's just sad, really. Seriously, the most anti-gay people are always suppressing their own homosexuality.
 
2012-04-01 11:00:46 AM  

rynthetyn: Seriously, at this point I'm convinced that there isn't a single anti-gay Republican who isn't writing and passing laws to try to wall off their own temptation.


That isn't what invalidates their views or their arguments against homosexuality.

/their views and arguments are wrong, whatever their motives are.
 
2012-04-01 11:04:21 AM  

hubiestubert: Stuff I agree with...


why don't I have you favorited yet? green it is
 
2012-04-01 11:07:04 AM  
just wondering..

does gay homophobe take women?
 
Displayed 50 of 133 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report