The Gay Mafia --God help us if this is our future

[AFTiger 282]

California is proposing to ban members of the Boy Scouts of America (BSA) from serving as judges because the Boy Scouts do not allow gay troop leaders, The Daily Caller has learned.

In a move with major legal implications, The California Supreme Court Advisory Committee on The Code of Judicial Ethics has proposed to classify the Boy Scouts as practicing “invidious discrimination” against gays, which would end the group’s exemption to anti-discriminatory ethics rules and would prohibit judges from being affiliated with the group.

“The Committee’s invitation ignores the fact that the change also encompasses other youth organizations whose membership is limited on the basis of gender, e.g., the Girl Scouts, as well as the military, which continues to practice ‘discrimination’ on the basis of gender,” wrote Catherine Short, legal director of the pro-life group Life Legal Defense Foundation, in a letter to the Committee obtained by TheDC that predicts possible implications for pro-life judges in the future.

“Perhaps this is not an unintended consequence,” wrote Short.

“This proposed amendment has as its overtly-stated purpose the branding of the BSA as an organization whose members must be assumed to be biased and thus unfit for the bench. The Committee states that ‘eliminating the exemption… would enhance public confidence in the impartiality of the judiciary,’” Short said.

“On the contrary, by promoting a hierarchy of politically-favored ‘victim’ status through pointlessly impugning the integrity of members of a venerable American institution, the proposed Amendment will communicate to the public that judges are being told by the California Supreme Court what to think, whom they may associate with, and what are permissible opinions to hold, and that only those who toe the line will be allowed to sit on the bench. The public can hardly expect impartiality from the judiciary in such a climate of intolerance,” Short wrote.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2014/04/21/california-proposes-to-ban-judges-affiliated-with-the-boy-scouts-because-the-group-doesnt-allow-gay-troop-leaders/#ixzz2zWlBzAv0

[autigeremt 6,970]

So much for the big tent of the progressive movement......

[TheBlueVue 177]

So much for the big tent of the progressive movement......

The "big tent" has always been just big enough to cover every voter who agrees with then on every issue but too small to accommodate even ONE voice of dissent. The ironies of progressive liberalism abound.

[japantiger 4,077]

God won't help us if we don't care enough to help ourselves.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Progressives like to pitch the notion that they changed their moniker from "liberal" because the GOP had done such a good job making it into a pejorative. The real reason is that they don't really hold liberal values anymore. They are just as fundamentalist as the far right wingers they despise.

[AURaptor 1,137]

This is what we , as a society, get when we kowtow to the demands of the race hustlers like Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton. Acquiesce and give up ground, simply to avoid bad PR. Even if it's totally unfounded. Well, guess what ? Lesson learned, by others now.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Progressives like to pitch the notion that they changed their moniker from "liberal" because the GOP had done such a good job making it into a pejorative. The real reason is that they don't really hold liberal values anymore. They are just as fundamentalist as the far right wingers they despise.

They may be equally fundamentalist but the left is far more toxic. Those on the far right believe the government should listen to the people and be held accountable to higher fiscal standards of common sense. They don't engage in the politics of personal destruction which is the stock and trade of the far left. Let us not forget, that when the far right was against simply issuing Obama yet another blank check to avoid surpassing the debt ceiling, those on the left called them jihadists with bombs strapped to their chests trying to exact a ransom from the american people with a gun aimed at their head. This is SOP for those on the left because they cannot win a debate of the facts and they know it.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

Progressives like to pitch the notion that they changed their moniker from "liberal" because the GOP had done such a good job making it into a pejorative. The real reason is that they don't really hold liberal values anymore. They are just as fundamentalist as the far right wingers they despise.

They may be equally fundamentalist but the left is far more toxic. Those on the far right believe the government should listen to the people and be held accountable to higher fiscal standards of common sense. They don't engage in the politics of personal destruction which is the stock and trade of the far left. Let us not forget, that when the far right was against simply issuing Obama yet another blank check to avoid surpassing the debt ceiling, those on the left called them jihadists with bombs strapped to their chests trying to exact a ransom from the american people with a gun aimed at their head. This is SOP for those on the left because they cannot win a debate of the facts and they know it.

I was thinking more of the far left/far right continuum with regard to social values rather than fiscal views. The truth is, most people are much less hardcore on their fiscal views than they are on their social ones. Usually it's the right that gets accused of being inflexible and voting only on social issues, but the truth of the matter is, the left is just as guilty. They claim to vote on fiscal and foreign policy but the real non-starter for any Democratic candidate are his or her positions on matters such as abortion. You might manage to be a pro-life Democrat in the Deep South or in heavily Catholic areas, but you are dead in the water as a national candidate if you're opposed to abortion. And you can now add the gay marriage litmus test to the list.

[DKW 86 7,726]

Progressives like to pitch the notion that they changed their moniker from "liberal" because the GOP had done such a good job making it into a pejorative. The real reason is that they don't really hold liberal values anymore. They are just as fundamentalist as the far right wingers they despise.

They may be equally fundamentalist but the left is far more toxic. Those on the far right believe the government should listen to the people and be held accountable to higher fiscal standards of common sense. They don't engage in the politics of personal destruction which is the stock and trade of the far left. Let us not forget, that when the far right was against simply issuing Obama yet another blank check to avoid surpassing the debt ceiling, those on the left called them jihadists with bombs strapped to their chests trying to exact a ransom from the american people with a gun aimed at their head. This is SOP for those on the left because they cannot win a debate of the facts and they know it.

Got to disagree here. It is the stock and trade of both sides. The Right Fundies were for years destroying people for their past. Jane Fonda, Timothy Leary, Bill Clinton, The Birther Movement, Governor Moonbeam...lol

The Left, they are out to destroy anyone they see in their way as well. As soon as Christie started to poll well for 2016 he was the "obsession to the point of ruin" for MSNBC. Their ratings have cratered during BridgeGate. Bush43 and the obsession to destroy him in everyway, even digging up decades old police reports and claiming he and Laura were murderers, etc.

The "Politics of Personal Destruction" come from the two fathers of it all, Alinsky and Atwater. They were as ruthless as they could get and it drove at least one to repent in his dying days because he saw the damage he had to done to people and to the political system.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Progressives like to pitch the notion that they changed their moniker from "liberal" because the GOP had done such a good job making it into a pejorative. The real reason is that they don't really hold liberal values anymore. They are just as fundamentalist as the far right wingers they despise.

They may be equally fundamentalist but the left is far more toxic. Those on the far right believe the government should listen to the people and be held accountable to higher fiscal standards of common sense. They don't engage in the politics of personal destruction which is the stock and trade of the far left. Let us not forget, that when the far right was against simply issuing Obama yet another blank check to avoid surpassing the debt ceiling, those on the left called them jihadists with bombs strapped to their chests trying to exact a ransom from the american people with a gun aimed at their head. This is SOP for those on the left because they cannot win a debate of the facts and they know it.

I was thinking more of the far left/far right continuum with regard to social values rather than fiscal views. The truth is, most people are much less hardcore on their fiscal views than they are on their social ones. Usually it's the right that gets accused of being inflexible and voting only on social issues, but the truth of the matter is, the left is just as guilty. They claim to vote on fiscal and foreign policy but the real non-starter for any Democratic candidate are his or her positions on matters such as abortion. You might manage to be a pro-life Democrat in the Deep South or in heavily Catholic areas, but you are dead in the water as a national candidate if you're opposed to abortion. And you can now add the gay marriage litmus test to the list.

Progressives like to pitch the notion that they changed their moniker from "liberal" because the GOP had done such a good job making it into a pejorative. The real reason is that they don't really hold liberal values anymore. They are just as fundamentalist as the far right wingers they despise.

They may be equally fundamentalist but the left is far more toxic. Those on the far right believe the government should listen to the people and be held accountable to higher fiscal standards of common sense. They don't engage in the politics of personal destruction which is the stock and trade of the far left. Let us not forget, that when the far right was against simply issuing Obama yet another blank check to avoid surpassing the debt ceiling, those on the left called them jihadists with bombs strapped to their chests trying to exact a ransom from the american people with a gun aimed at their head. This is SOP for those on the left because they cannot win a debate of the facts and they know it.

I was thinking more of the far left/far right continuum with regard to social values rather than fiscal views. The truth is, most people are much less hardcore on their fiscal views than they are on their social ones. Usually it's the right that gets accused of being inflexible and voting only on social issues, but the truth of the matter is, the left is just as guilty. They claim to vote on fiscal and foreign policy but the real non-starter for any Democratic candidate are his or her positions on matters such as abortion. You might manage to be a pro-life Democrat in the Deep South or in heavily Catholic areas, but you are dead in the water as a national candidate if you're opposed to abortion. And you can now add the gay marriage litmus test to the list.

Gotcha and as much as I agree I also thinks is down right sad that social issues of gay marriage and abortion have become such important driving forces. I have never cast a vote based on social issues and I am as conservative as they come. The toxicity of the rhetoric from the left concerning those issues is arguably the most toxic of any I have ever seen. There are other more important considerations, especially now, in my view such as actually having a foreign policy as well as addressing the lowest labor force participation rate in 50 years with policies that encourage expansion, not to mention a budgetary policy that is lays a pathway to stop raising taxes and increasing the deficit at the same time which is completely unsustainable and down right suicidal.

[TheBlueVue 177]

Progressives like to pitch the notion that they changed their moniker from "liberal" because the GOP had done such a good job making it into a pejorative. The real reason is that they don't really hold liberal values anymore. They are just as fundamentalist as the far right wingers they despise.

They may be equally fundamentalist but the left is far more toxic. Those on the far right believe the government should listen to the people and be held accountable to higher fiscal standards of common sense. They don't engage in the politics of personal destruction which is the stock and trade of the far left. Let us not forget, that when the far right was against simply issuing Obama yet another blank check to avoid surpassing the debt ceiling, those on the left called them jihadists with bombs strapped to their chests trying to exact a ransom from the american people with a gun aimed at their head. This is SOP for those on the left because they cannot win a debate of the facts and they know it.

Got to disagree here. It is the stock and trade of both sides. The Right Fundies were for years destroying people for their past. Jane Fonda, Timothy Leary, Bill Clinton, The Birther Movement, Governor Moonbeam...lol

The Left, they are out to destroy anyone they see in their way as well. As soon as Christie started to poll well for 2016 he was the "obsession to the point of ruin" for MSNBC. Their ratings have cratered during BridgeGate. Bush43 and the obsession to destroy him in everyway, even digging up decades old police reports and claiming he and Laura were murderers, etc.

The "Politics of Personal Destruction" come from the two fathers of it all, Alinsky and Atwater. They were as ruthless as they could get and it drove at least one to repent in his dying days because he saw the damage he had to done to people and to the political system.

Just dont see the rhetoric from the right being nearly as toxic. Of course, they both attack but, i see the attacks from the left being FAR more personal and toxic especially in the last 5 years. No problem here, agree to disagree.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

I think more people vote that way than you think. Because there are many approaches or combinations of approaches, originating from right, left and in between that could address a lot of those fiscal problems. But fiscal issues and even foreign policy approaches are nuanced and sometimes hard to fully grasp by the average voter. But what they do understand is what they believe to be morally right or wrong. They understand whether they believe that it's wrong to kill an innocent child in the womb or whether they see "reproductive freedom" as a moral good. And so they vote. They understand what they think about gay marriage and whether allowing it has implications for other areas of life such as religious freedom or whether such implications are a distant second to the right for people to marry whomever they choose. And based on such things, they vote. Because at least they are confident of what they think about that thing. Most people, left or right wing, simply don't take a social libertarian approach to voting like you do, nor do they even think it's the right approach to the matter.

[TheBlueVue 177]

"Most people, left or right wing, simply don't take a social libertarian approach to voting like you do, nor do they even think it's the right approach to the matter."

I would say that's probably true. It seems quite odd that a vote for President of the United States, what has historically been the most powerful position on the planet, would be cast on the back of gay marriage which according to LGBT estimates affects less than 4% of the population. I have no idea how many people have abortions but, in my view, its silly to base a vote on that. Its not like abortion is going to be banned. I have a hard time coming to grips with the idea that it is OK if a baby is delivered but then a change of mind is experienced at the time of delivery, that it's the mother's right to have it clubbed to death which is clearly an exaggeration but not by that much. Its unconscionable that people would vote simply on the back of late term abortion but that's obviously just how I see the world.

[TitanTiger 20,708]

"Most people, left or right wing, simply don't take a social libertarian approach to voting like you do, nor do they even think it's the right approach to the matter."

I would say that's probably true. It seems quite odd that a vote for President of the United States, what has historically been the most powerful position on the planet, would be cast on the back of gay marriage which according to LGBT estimates affects less than 4% of the population. I have no idea how many people have abortions but, in my view, its silly to base a vote on that. Its not like abortion is going to be banned. I have a hard time coming to grips with the idea that it is OK if a baby is delivered but then a change of mind is experienced at the time of delivery, that it's the mother's right to have it clubbed to death which is clearly an exaggeration but not by that much. Its unconscionable that people would vote simply on the back of late term abortion but that's obviously just how I see the world.

Because people not only see the issue itself, but see the issue as an overall indicator of one's values.

As I said, some see the gay marriage issue as being more than just two people wanting to marry. It has larger implications and doesn't just affect the two people getting hitched. There are religious freedom and civil rights issues at play. So it doesn't just involve the 4% of the population you mention. Hell, the thing that started this very thread was a move in CA to not allow people who belong to a private organization that doesn't allow openly gay people in leadership positions to ever be a judge. We just got through Mozilla, under enormous pressure from gay activist groups, forcing out a CEO who'd once donated $1000 to a Prop 8 campaign. It obviously goes beyond just the LBGT population.

As far as abortion, there are over 1 million babies aborted every year in the US. If you believe it to be a human being with the inalienable right not to be killed, then it's sort of hard to just "not vote on that."

Do you really not understand why folks, when confronted with fiscal and foreign policy matters that are difficult to sometimes understand or that they believe might have several approaches that are valid, would end up voting over certain social issues?

[TheBlueVue 177]

"Do you really not understand why folks, when confronted with fiscal and foreign policy matters that are difficult to sometimes understand or that they believe might have several approaches that are valid, would end up voting over certain social issues? "

No I dont understand it especially right now when it seems the future of the country that I grew up loving hangs in the balance. I do understand there is a movement afoot to destroy all traditional values that made this country great. The problem I see with that is they propose nothing to replace them but simply choose to hide their ambitions under the veil of freedom speech and religion. Frankly, I don't see any connection of religious freedom to gay marriage. In fact, I see it quite differently. In my world marriage is a religious institution and is defined between one man and one woman. I can understand voting against gay marriage as a policy matter because I would say it perverts the institution as it was conceived at its inception. I have a hard time understanding why anyone would cast a vote using that as THE reason for the vote when there are so many more serious and pressing issues that could conceivably affect the country's survival that I would argue take a precedent

Splitting hairs over same sex marriage is a symptom of more serious problems. The greatest threat to a republic comes from within. When people are more consumed with that than the really serious problems we face as a nation, I would tend to believe that reflects a selfishness that portrays a culture in rapid descent, but again, Im not trying to sell you. I am being honest about my personal views.

If a candidate embraced the Constitution and proposed a fiscal policy, a pro-business policy, energy policy, an environmental policy that reflected some sanity, foreign policy, regulatory policy, trade policy among other important issues that best served America, I wouldn't give a flying fig what his thoughts about gay marriage or abortion were.