Senior WH aide: 1996 Obama gay marriage questionnaire is a fake, even though Obama signed it

[Newsjock]

http://gay.americablog.com/2011/06/senior-white-house-aide-1996-obama-gay.html

Those are some fighting words from the Obama administration, and they're almost certainly an outright lie.

White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer told the Netroots Nation blog conference this morning that the Barack Obama never filled out the 1996 questionnaire, when he was running for the Illinois legislature, in which he averred that he supports gay marriage. The questionnaire - two questionnaires in fact - have been out there for years - 15 years in fact - and it has caused the President, who now claims to oppose marriage equality for gay couples, a good amount of heartburn as reporters, such as the Blade's Chris Johnson, keep asking the White House it.

This is the first time Obama has tried to question the questionnaires' authenticity. Both are fakes?

... So the President is now alleging that that signature is a forgery? And he only realized this today? Why didn't the White House tell anyone this version of events two years ago when Ben did this story? Or any time over the past 15 years that this story has been reported over and over again?

[MNBrewer]

1. Dan really stepped in it this time

and the stinky tracks lead right back to the White House

[Hassin Bin Sober]

2. Just like his handgun-ban questionnaire that was "filled out by a staffer"

[notadmblnd]

3. so if he is lying, will Dems force him to resign like they did Wiener??

[CrossChris]

8. After all, it wasn't the pics but that he "lied to our faces" that calls for resignation, right?

I really hope these recent stunts wake people up to push this admin to the left. I really do.

[KittyWampus]

16. This crap was brought up before Obama was even elected. Why the resurgence now?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

20. Because whoever released it wants the LGBT community believe that Obama is a homophobe. n/t

[Very_Boring_Name]

56. By definition, if you don't support gay marriage you ARE a homophobe

Just like somebody who doesn't support interracial marriage is a racist.

[Fearless]

70. +10000

[Zorra]

88. I can't think of any reasonable argument to dispute that. nt

[notadmblnd]

45. Really want to know my theory.

I could tell you- but then the moderators would have to kill me.

And just in case it didn't sound like it- my comment was sarcasm. I don't think Obama should be forced by Dems to resign over a lie like that, anymore than I supported AW's resigning from congress.

But I do wish our politicians would learn to say "none of your business" or "my private life is my business, not yours" instead of denying their actions or lying about them.

[Bluenorthwest]

76. Obama was not asked about HIS private life, you know.

Asked about the private lives of others, he apparently released a forged document of support, and later switched to the right wing view, and started saying that he thought gay people are not worthy of equal rights. The slanders are about others, the lies are about others.
Do you also feel that all straight politicians have a right to slander and lie about minorities? Really?

[KittyWampus]

80. Funny, this was brought up YEARS ago, but some guy decides to make an issue out of it again

and suddenly it's supposed to relevant? LOL!

It's so obvious, the manufactured outrage. And that's what this is.

[Bluenorthwest]

81. They never explained this in the past KW.

Since you keep pretending this should not be an issue, let us be very blunt. Either he lied on this survey, or he changed his mind. If he 'changed his mind' there would be a reason for that. What is the reason? I have never met one person who 'went back' from a human view to a dogmatic delusion. Have you?
The affectation of such a 'change' might be done to pander for votes from a specific group, if so an honest Christian would say just that. Some like Edwards launch into 'Sacred Marriage Chants' to cover up a personal behavior. Not that Obama could ever, ever, do such a thing, being a Christian, who would never even lie or put forth a forgery. Oh. Wait. Not one explanation of why he adopted Christian dogma is in anyway Christian in itself.
When some gas bag says his religion is the reason he holds prejudice against me, and that religion commands proactive exactitude and honesty in speech, I see a hypocrite, not a person of faith. Dig it. Jebus saith: Let your yes mean yes, and your no mean no, for anything else comes from evil. Tell me, how does one fit that verse in with 'signed it, did not mean it, changed his mind, maybe, for some reason, but when asked, no clarity, never any yes or no, it is all more than that, it all comes from evil, according to the teacher that is allegedly the reason for this bigotry in the first place, although the teacher said nothing against gay people, and although he did command absolute truth in communications, again and again, in no uncertain terms.
Hypocrisy and lies being used to slander a minority group in the name of a deity is news as long as they refuse to speak the truth, as commanded by their alleged 'messiah'.

[Bluenorthwest]

75. Because this Dan Character pulled out this new rap today

when asked to explain the 'change of mind'. That has NEVER been explained. I do not know even one person who has reverted to a prejudiced attitude after holding a better one. Some affect that sort of rhetoric to hide personal affairs, or to gain votes from religious haters, but Obama has never really said what his 'change' was about. Never. So Dan got asked again, and he calmly explained that they released forgeries, lies, and let those lies stand for 15 years as an act of Christianity.
Sorry, KW, this is news, and this is the second time I have explained it to you. You ask why, but you know why. Tacky, naff, etc.

[Zorra]

91. Kitty, I suggest you ask the WH Communications Director this question.

The question that was asked by the Kos was a legitimate question, and clearly, this "resurgence" is the result of the question never having been satisfactorily answered in the minds of a large number of people, particularly the LGBT community, a group of people for which same sex marriage is a very high priority.

Questions that are not clearly and honestly answered often tend to lead to messes like this.

However, there is a simple solution to this conundrum.

All the President has to do to make this go away forever is to clearly, publicly state that he supports equal rights under the Constitution for all American citizens, and that he completely, and unequivocally, supports same sex marriage because it is a right guaranteed by our Constitution.

He doesn't even have to say, if he believes that his religion requires him to believe that persons of the same sex having mutually consenting sexual relations with each other is somehow an offense to his god, that he personally believes that legalized same sex marriage is *moral*.

All he has to do is do the right thing, and acknowledge what is true, as is clearly defined by the Constitution.

The whole issue would then disappear faster than smoke in a hurricane.

Problem solved.
:)

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

4. As someone who has worked on campaigns before, I can assure you that some staffer

completed the questionnaire; it is signed by the official, but they really don't pay much attention to content because they don't think these questionnaires receive a lot of attention. And until now--when we have this guy named Barack Obama--all of sudden the questionnaires are important.

*rolling eyes*

[Hassin Bin Sober]

5. Give me a fucking break.

It was a letter to a fucking GAY NEWSPAPER.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

12. Apparently you can't read, can you?

I made it clear that these questionnaires are often filled out by staff. I didn't say that the offical (in this case, Barack Obama) *doesn't* sign. It is often the case that the official doesn't read these things; they don't care. They put their trust in the staff (typically a Legislative Assistant) to complete the survey.

[justiceischeap]

14. So you're implying that his supposed legislative aide stuck a knife in Obama's back

in reference to marriage equality, an issue that has been a hot button for years...I don't buy it.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

55. LOL. One of us can't read and it ain't me, baby.

You want me to believe Barack Obama, a Harvard Law graduate, couldn't read a fucking nine question form before signing it?

You want me to believe Barack Obama, in a letter to a gay newspaper, didn't at least PERUSE the part about gay fucking marriage?


Oh yeah, he was really fucking busy - RUNNING UNOPPOSED in a state senate dem primary race.

[Bluenorthwest]

79. That is one hell of an idiotic practice for anyone to have.

My policy is I do not care what I sign. How is that a good thing? Not that I believe your theory, but you paint Obama as a detached and easily duped greehorn. He did not care to give an honest answer when asked, although running for office with great ambition. Sick stuff.

[TheWraith]

9. I've filled out those questionnaires myself, complete with policy statements.

For a State Senate race, in fact. The reality is that they're intended to serve as a rough idea of a policy framework, and let the group submitting the questionnaire know if there are any absolute dealbreakers, but they're not expected to be wholly accurate on anything but the crucial issues.

[dsc]

11. really

This is like Kyl saying that the statement he gave wasn't intended to be factual. He said he was for same sex marriage.

[justiceischeap]

10. You know, I think it has less to do with "Barack Obama" than it does

with his stance on the issue and the issue itself. So, please stop with the eye rolling. If any President said at some point that he was for marriage equality and then said he was against it and then said his position was "evolving" and making a big deal about courting the gay community for donations, his past record would be looked into too.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

13. Still rolling my eyes...

I addressed this issue. If you can't understand how these things typically work, then that's your problem.

[justiceischeap]

I understand completely how you'd like to think this particular issue was addressed nt

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

17. Actually you're wrong. I support full, equal rights for LGBT. You don't know

shit about me and what my views are, so spare me the self-righteous indignation!

[justiceischeap]

24. Actually, I was moreso implying about Obama's ability to do no wrong.

I wasn't at all implying that you don't support LGBT*.* issues. Don't be so defensive.

[KittyWampus]

21. And I'd understand completely why some people want to revisit this after it's been out there for

YEARS.

[QC]

60. If you're not careful they'll get stuck that way

and then what will you do?

At least, that's what my mother always said.

[Bluenorthwest]

82. That is so out of touch with reality. Barack was running without

opposition, for a seat in the Illinois State House. Are you suggesting that unopposed state level candidates 'typically' fail to read the documents they sign, because they are so stunningly busy? What a load of crap. And even if some fool did that 'typically' it is not an excuse but a further shame. Only an idiot signs documents without reading them. Period. For a politician to endorse a statement such as that without regard for what it said would mean that politician has no regard for what is said in his name, and is willing to say anything or have anything said for him. Also, he'll sign any document his staff shoves at him to sign? Do you think he still does that as President, he'd be much busier than that unopposed state candidate guy.

[Name removed]

92. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dsc]

22. then he was an idiot

It is beyond absurd to think that taking a position in favor of legalizing same sex marriage back in 1996 wouldn't have attracted attention. I doubt that even 5% of politicians in that era took such a position. This isn't some non issue we are talking about here.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

28. You might be right. If it was a staffer, he/she may have thought that this was the position

that Obama really had. To be fair, I honestly believe that most Democratic politicians believe in full marriage equality but are afraid to admit it due to the fact that Americans are still not ready for this. However, as polls/surveys have clearly demonstated, now more than half of all Americans believe that gays/lesbians should be able to marry. It's a step in the right direction.

I wish that more sitting Democratic politicians would feel comfortable telling the truth and stop with this "I-support-civil-unions" bullshit copout.

[dsc]

35. The problem is he signed the survey

which means he kind of owns it. He should have just said that he changed his mind for whatever reason and leave it at that. Making up stories about it is just stupid. As to your other point, you probably are correct that it is more cowardice than actual belief but he has now stuck himself with this position. Barring one of his daughters announcing she is a lesbian or some brother or sister of either him or Michele doing so, he is likely stuck with this position for quite some time.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

40. I'll concede those points. n/t

[Unvanguard]

27. Yes, the Communications Director's words were probably literally true.

But the explanation doesn't address the real issues, which are (1) Why did whatever staffer who filled out the questionnaire think that Obama supported same-sex marriage (at a time when there'd be no reason to presume that even a liberal Democrat would), and (2) Why didn't Obama disavow the questionnaire on those grounds a long time ago? It's been around for a while.

It's hard to escape the suspicion that Obama "changed his mind" when it became politically convenient to do so.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

33. I'm going to be completely honest with you: The brother didn't read the damn thing.

Most of them don't. They simply don't think that these questionnaires see the light of day. That is the honest truth.

Still, if it's not the truth and Obama really does support gay marriage--I BELIEVE THAT HE TRULY DOES--then he should just come out (no pun intended) and admit it.

The truth is that most Democratic politicians are afraid. They are afraid that they'll lose on this issue.

You're right, however. 1996 was a politically charged year for the LGBT community. Remember President Clinton was running around the country campaigning on the fact that he signed DOMA into law.

[Unvanguard]

36. But that's the point. With DOMA receiving so much support among Democrats

why would Obama, or anyone on his campaign, say he supported same-sex marriage, unless he meant it?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

41. Because he probably really does mean it and too cowardly to admit it. n/t

[Unvanguard]

43. Then we're on the same page! n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

84. That would explain an oppostion to equality but not the suppport

followed by opposition. So cowardly that after 'admitting it' he took it back and said 'Now I don't support equal rights'? That is supremely craven. Self serving, and exploitative of good and innocent people.

[Unvanguard]

85. It's fairly typical political adjustment.

Politicians running for national office after serving at the state level quite routinely alter their positions.

[Bluenorthwest]

90. Actually it is rare to see a politician 'go backwards' like that.

And of course, when a person claims a high devotion to a religious faith which teaches strict truthfulness that person is under a different set of standards, according to that person. There is no command in his faith that says 'except for politicians, who have to lie'. In fact, it is the opposite, the greater your position, the greater your duty to be truthful.
The religion is the entire 'reason' for the discrimination. Yet he does not follow even the basic principles of speech. It might be typical, but that does not make it right, or excusable. It just makes him laughable.

[Bluenorthwest]

77. Crap and a truck load of it.

Even if such a thing were true, 'we don't care' is a shitty reason to lie, and lie for 15 years. You claim they typically sign documents without reading them? And that is supposed to make Obama look sharp, not foolish?
He lied on that thing to get votes. He lied to lie. Then they lied some more. Because they are Christians, oh, no, they are against equal rights because they are Christians, the lies just seem to be a hobby.

[midnight]

6. This women has clarified that the evolving of this issue,same sex marriages,

is less in step with civil rights than when Obama first started responding to this issue as a public servant...

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

15. This could be the case, too. But no one is in Obama's head and knows

exactly what he thinks. Perhaps he doesn't even know what he thinks.

[boston bean]

7. seems like the president has "devolved".....

What the hell kind of answer is "he's evolving"...

when he evolves, same sex marriage will be AOK? And not until then?

[KittyWampus]

18. Who the hell is bringing this up AGAIN? How many times does Obama have to discuss this crap?

It was brought up during the campaign. Why someone feels compelled to try and make something of it AGAIN, is beyond me. Unless they really just want to create problems and division on DU.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

31. It's not the answer on the original form. IT'S THE LIES (lol just wanted to say that)

[justiceischeap]

32. Unless this document is a fake...

then the LGBT*.* community that Obama is courting for money as we type, has a right to know why his position has changed. How does one go from supporting marriage equality to supporting civil unions that look exactly like a marriage but not called that, to "evolving" on the issue? As his lesbian constituent who voted for him and plans on voting for him again, I have a right to know.

[Prism]

19. *forehead slap*

They're just so clueless in regards to the LGBT community. Why would they say this now? Just as relations between the administration and the community are getting better, just as the President is prepared to fund-raise in front of the power gays for Pride month, just as the 2012 campaign season is gathering steam.

Why. Are. They. So. Tone. Deaf?!

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaagh.

It just boggles the mind.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

25. You said: "Why would they bring this up now just when relations between

the administration and the community are improving?

You answered your own question. It's called "depressing" the vote. If they can get the LGBT community angry at the president, then perhaps that community will go and vote Republican or stay home. They've been trying it with the Jewish American community. And certainly, they've been trying to divide black and Hispanic Americans.

[dsc]

29. this is no one's fault but the spokesman

All he had to say was I am not going to discuss those surveys. His position now is (whatever his position now is). But no, he instead told a foolish tale and it is biting him on the ass.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

38. True, that is. Maybe he should've just said "no comment" and left it at that...n/t

[Bluenorthwest]

83. His addition of false details spotlights the way the administration

feels we should be dealt with. They have no respect for us at all. I have asked for a clear explanation of these 'changes' for years now. The Grand Christian can not manage to speak his mind honestly, and it has been one lie or excuse or fairy tale after another.
When one claims to have a religious objection to anything, one should clearly be practicing the basics of that religion themselves. Hypocrisy is just hypocrisy. Affectation is affectation.

[Newsjock]

30. The LGBT community already *is* angry at the president

Perhaps the motivation is to get the president to do the right thing for basic equality. I strongly resent the implication that my motivation is to "depress" the Democratic vote or encourage a Republican vote, and you should know better.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

37. Nowhere did I imply that YOU are trying to depress the vote. The president's

enemies are trying to depress the vote.

As I understand it, there was an article that was just released that suggested relations between the White House and the LGBT community have improved. You don't speak for the entire community.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/14/obamas-relationship-with-gay-rights-advocates-2012_n_876671.html

I still don't understand why we are fighting on this issue. I am a straight woman who is strongly in support of civil rights for the LGBT community. I was raised by a gay man, for godssakes!!!

[Bluenorthwest]

89. My suggestion

If you desire to be supportive, I say go to your local PFLAG group and ask the other straight supporters how to excel at this stated objective of yours. Show them these threads. Ask them what they think. PFLAG is a group for friends and family of gay people, many who were raised by gay people would already be active members, so you will feel at home.
Seriously. If you mean what you claim, take the time to 'strongly support' via personal education and exposure to others who are advocates from the straight community. Go ask them, your direct peers, about the methods used here. I flat out challenge you to do so. Take your posts to a PFLAG meeting and let your own kind give you their point of view on them.

[KittyWampus]

39. LOL! Like the LGBT community is one big homogenous group, right?

[KittyWampus]

57. sorry for dupe.

[Prism]

48. But this is an unforced error

There were a lot of different evasions possible there, and the spokesman picked the most absurd one, one guaranteed to generate the maximum amount of attention because it was so ridiculous on its face.

Politically aware LGBTers have long known about the questionnaire, they voted for the President regardless, and I can't imagine very many caring enough to focus attention on it after all this time . . . except that bone-headed response by the spokesman. Just, yipes.

[justiceischeap]

26. Don't hurt your forehead, Prism. I think Obama has always supported marriage equality

I, in fact, believe he has been pandering on this issue and he doesn't want those he's been pandering to, to figure it out.

[Prism]

50. I think so too

But I think it's a very generalized support, one he doesn't have any strong personal feelings either way. Which makes that pandering rankle more. If he doesn't care very much, fine, but first do no harm, and too many politically calculated actions did precisely that.

At least this time, the harm he's doing is limited to his own administration's credibility.

[Bluebear]

71. Indeed, unless it hurts.

[Unvanguard]

34. Given the Administration's stance, the direct question puts them in a difficult position.

They can't say "Obama supports marriage equality and has always supported marriage equality", because they aren't ready for Obama to openly support same-sex marriage (for weak reasons) and they wouldn't want to suggest that he's been lying for the past few years. And they don't want to say "Obama changed his mind from a supporter to an opponent", which would hardly be more amenable to the LGBT community: it would contradict the whole narrative of "evolution" they're using to soften Obama's stance, presumably in preparation for an eventual change of heart.

So, given their background commitments, pretty much the only thing they can say is that the questionnaire wasn't reflective of Obama's genuine position in 1996. Undoubtedly they'd love for those questionnaires to go away, but they won't.

Obama's stance on same-sex marriage, at least since his DOMA decision if not before, has pretty clearly become untenable, and this is just another knot it forces him to tie himself into.

[Prism]

52. I agree

They've slowly but surely been backed into a corner, and incidents like this only highlight just how close and confined that corner has become and how little room left they have to maneuver.

[Unvanguard]

23. This explanation is decidedly bizarre.

It's quite possible he didn't write it himself, but unlikely he didn't at least review it---especially given how long it's been out without "correction."

The Communications Director's actual words are pretty evasive. The Administration seems very committed to not being pinned down on this issue.

[dennis4868]

42. I LOVE DU....

they love beating up on Obama...THEY JUST LOVE IT....and what we will get if they (and others like these DUers) don't stop....a repub in the WH....this is what happened in 1980 and it led to the REAGAN REVOLUTION which we are still paying the proce for today.....GO DU!

[Unvanguard]

44. I will vote for Obama in 2012.

I will campaign for him and donate to his campaign. I want him to win---very badly.

That doesn't change the fact that his stance on same-sex marriage has reached an untenable point of absurdity. Two things have brought it there. First, there has been a substantial public opinion shift from 2008 to 2011: Obama probably has very little to lose by endorsing same-sex marriage, and potentially much to gain among well-educated young independent voters who have drifted somewhat away from him. Second, Obama's own laudable steps toward gay and lesbian equality, chief among them his Administration's judgment that DOMA is unconstitutional and sexual orientation classifications deserve heightened scrutiny, has made his stance on this issue impossible: it's really hard to imagine any justification someone like Obama could offer that would remotely withstand heightened scrutiny, so by his own legal standard, his stance on same-sex marriage is contrary to the Constitution.

Couple those with the questionnaire, and his Communications Director's bizarre and evasive explanation for it, and the whole thing becomes so ridiculous as to be embarrassing. It's past time for the President to finish evolving.

[justiceischeap]

47. ^_^ This post.

Besides I think you imagine people on DU, who are the only people who see these messages really, are going to change their long held Democratic sensibilities when we criticize the President. I don't really think us bitching about the President's policies on DU is going to make other DU'ers go out and vote for Mittens or BatShit Crazy Bachmann.

Edited characters in title.

[bigwillq]

54. Good post.

:thumbsup:

[tishaLA]

66. Total agreement.

I said some of these things in the other thread, but you've said them better.

[RandomKoolzip]

86. Great post. In total agreement.

Time for Obama to shit or get off the pot.

[Prism]

46. Civil rights activism is "beating up" now?

The President has created for himself an impossible, illogical position on basic equality. The more evasive and triangulating he becomes, the more untenable his pretense.

By pointing out the increasing absurdity of the administration's stance on gay marriage, pressure is created for them to drop it.

That's how you move the ball forward.

You do want equality to move forward, yes?

[girl gone mad]

49. You think this amounts to "beating up on Obama"?

[bigwillq]

51. I hope you're not taking a message board that seriously.

Are you? :shrug:

Or do you just like to beat up on message boards!?!? :P :rofl:

[Bluenorthwest]

87. If you can not see the difference between slamming a policy

and 'beating up on' a person, you are lost to simplistic mindsets. Reagan was the arch enemy of the GLBT community, by the way. He was detested. Also detested, the 'moderate centrist Democrats' who declared themselves to be 'Reagan Democrats' and voted for that sick old bigot. To imply that the GLBT community did not exert huge efforts against Reagan, and his policies, not just near elections, but constantly throughout his administration, just makes a display of your own lack of historical knowledge. Most members of the straight community were uncaring and also unaware of the growing movements around them, including the push for health care reform. We were there, the straight community elected Reagan in spite of all of our efforts. Not sure why they were so foolish, those moderate centrists. But they were. Reagan Democrats. We called them Republicans.

[tekisui]

93. Leave Obama alone!!!! Criticism on DU is going to be the very cause

of a repug in the WH.

You vastly overstate the power of liberal criticism on DU.

[Ignis]

53. "Sure, I *signed* the check, but I didn't *read* it!"

:eyes:

[ecstatic]

58. What is the end game here?

Obama forced out, then what?

[Tesha]

62. Perhaps Democratic politicians will learn to stand up for what their constituents believe in?

I realize that would be a complete shock, but it just
might happen someday!

Tesha

[ecstatic]

63. Democratic politicians will be fine. Putting the GOP back in power

would only hurt all of us (those of us who aren't millionaires).

[justiceischeap]

64. Why does it have to be an either/or?

Why can't a Democratic politician stand up for equality, particularly when the majority of American's back said equality?

I'm getting quite tired of the "helping the gays" hurts us all meme.

[ecstatic]

65. That's not what I said, but OK

:eyes:

[justiceischeap]

67. What's end game? Obama pushed out?

:eyes:

[ecstatic]

69. I meant, what is the goal of bringing up something from 15 years ago?

What is the author of the article trying to accomplish by bringing that up?

[Tesha]

72. Perhaps to force Obama's position to "evolve" a little faster?

Did he not ask us to keep the pressure on him?

Tesha

[robcon]

59. I think Pfeiffer is lying. I don't know why he'd do that, though.

n/t

[Ramulux]

61. From what I hear

Dan Pfeiffer's nonsense has not gone over well with the people at NetRoots. He also wouldn't say that the white house would not raise the retirement age which has gotten people pretty pissed off. This dude is just making things worse for this administration.

[Unvanguard]

68. Update: White House backpedals (but remains evasive)

UPDATE @ 6:55 PM: This evening, the White House is distancing itself from Pfeiffer's comments, with spokesman Shin Inouye telling Metro Weekly, "Dan was not familiar with the history of the questionnaire that was brought up today, but the President's views are clear. He has long supported equal rights and benefits for gay and lesbian couples and since taking office he has signed into law the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, signed into law the Hate Crimes bill, made the decision not to defend section three of DOMA and expanded Federal benefits for same sex partners of Federal employees."

Inouye did not respond to a follow-up question asking whether the White House acknowledges that Obama did, in fact, sign the 1996 Outlines survey

Poliglot

[justiceischeap]

73. I can only infer from so much evasiveness and so little detail that he did

sign said survey. Otherwise, there'd be an unequivocal "No!"

[Bluenorthwest]

74. We are huge, giant, moral Christians, who release forged

documents, allow them to stand for a decade and a half, and lie about them the entire time, all because of our devotion to the man who said 'let your yes be yes and your no be no, for anything more comes from evil'. Good stuff. Good stuff indeed. Hypocrites and fakes and affected language of ritual applied to the ambition of one man. Good, good stuff, the very essence of Christianity, I am sure all DU Christians will agree that this, this is the faith in action, a lie, a slander, a betrayal and some bigotry, the way Obama is a Christian is the way all Christians are Christians. Which is 'not really'. Which is 'only when asked about teh gay'. Ask about Newt's marriage and it is called 'Sanctified by God' and apparently, Christians also 'believe' that. Tiffany's debt is a Sacrament, you see.
They hate love, they love hate.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.