Lieberman Pushing Gay Rights

Seamax ^ | 4/1/2003 | Carla Santander

[Hugenot]

Senator Joseph Lieberman, is seeking liberal support in his quest to become the Democrat's nominee for 2004 by seeking to expand civil rights protections for homosexuals.

The LA Times reports that the Connecticut Democrat said he soon would introduce legislation guaranteeing health, retirement and other benefits to the domestic partners of gay federal employees.

"When gay and lesbian Americans choose a partner, they deserve the respect of the law," Lieberman told the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism at a conference on Capitol Hill.

Lieberman also pledged to sponsor a bill that would provide benefits to the domestic partners of gay federal employees and to push for legislation barring discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation.

Lieberman faces opposition from some liberals over his frequent public references to his religious faith.

Likewise, his work with President Bush and Senate Republicans to draft legislation increasing government partnerships with faith-based religious charities has not endeared him to liberals.

Lieberman has also aroused the ire of the Left by supporting war with Iraq.

"He's got to figure out where he is going to go to get the activist base of this party engaged," said Bob Borosage, co-director of the Campaign for America's future. "He has made his name as the conservative on social issues, but is moving a different way."

One of Lieberman's aids stated that he was "not trying to hide" conservative views but believed that most Democrats are unaware of his liberal convictions on issues such as gay rights.

[Dante3]

IMHO Liberman's only "convictions" deal with what is good for him. He has taken far too many contradictory positions to give even a clue of what, if anything, he stands for.

[IronJack]

benefits to the domestic partners of gay federal employees.

Now the taxpayers are supposed to foot the bill for the partners of perverts. Normally, one's sexual preferences are none of my business. But this makes it the business of every American who pays taxes.

[The Red Zone]

Never underestimate the power of a continual whine, logic be damned.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

I'd guess this is part of a deliberate strategy by Lieberman to appeal to liberal Dems. He knows that he has alienated many of them with his support for the war, so he tries to compensate by bending over backwards with his support for gay rights.

[Pearls Before Swine]

I'd guess this is part of a deliberate strategy by Lieberman to appeal to liberal Dems. He knows that he has alienated many of them with his support for the war, so he tries to compensate by bending over backwards with his support for gay rights.

You mean bending over frontwards, I believe.

[American in Israel]

Since most homosexual relationships last less than six months, which partner gets the free retirement? The one that was in bed or the 27 that were in bed in the few years they work before they died from aids?

[Mariposaman]

Great, now they want to legalize homosexual gym teachers. Lather up with Lava kids!

[DaBroasta]

"Lieberman faces opposition from some liberals over his frequent public references to his religious faith."

LIEberman's 'faith' runs as deep as Sadaam's--for both of them, religion is nothing more than a tool for manipulating useful idiots. Calling Joe LIEberman 'religous' is blasphemy. Of course, the gyrations LIEberman goes through probably could be construed as religious fanatism when viewed by these liberal pagan heathens.

[LoneGOPinCT]

Excellent. The more LIEberman is perceived as moving further to the left the better. Of course, those of us that know him know that he is already there.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

Lieberman is out of step with America. America took a right turn and he's still living in the socialist communist ideas of BC. Ewww!

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Sometimes I toss a few softballs out there, just to let my fellow FReepers have the fun of hitting them out of the park.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Sometimes I toss a few softballs out there, just to let my fellow FReepers have the fun of hitting them out of the park.

Thanks for setting the batting practice machine on "slow."

[mabelkitty]

Separation of church and state??

How can this be legal?

Can we sue to withold our tax money as conscientous observors?

[governsleastgovernsbest]

I save my chin music for the other side!

[LurkedLongEnough]

You mean bending over frontwards, I believe.

*burst out laughing (BOL)

[Remedy]

"When gay and lesbian Americans choose a partner, they deserve the respect of the law,"

Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 US 186 (1986) The Constitution does not confer a fundamental right upon homosexuals to engage in sodomy. None of the fundamental rights announced in this Court's prior cases involving family relationships, marriage, or procreation bear any resemblance to the right asserted in this case. And any claim that those cases stand for the proposition that any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults is constitutionally insulated from state proscription is unsupportable.

BURGER, C.J., Concurring Opinion Decisions of individuals relating to homosexual conduct have been subject to state intervention throughout the history of Western civilization. Condemnation of those practices is firmly rooted in Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards. Homosexual sodomy was a capital crime under Roman law…. During the English Reformation, when powers of the ecclesiastical courts were transferred to the King's Courts, the first English statute criminalizing sodomy was passed…. Blackstone described "the infamous crime against nature" as an offense of "deeper malignity" than rape, a heinous act "the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature," and "a crime not fit to be named." W. Blackstone, Commentaries . The common law of England, including its prohibition of sodomy, became the received law of Georgia and the other Colonies. In 1816, the Georgia Legislature passed the statute at issue here, and that statute has been continuously in force in one form or another since that time. To hold that the act of homosexual sodomy is somehow protected as a fundamental right would be to cast aside millennia of moral teaching.

This is essentially not a question of personal "preferences," but rather of the legislative authority of the State. I find nothing in the Constitution depriving a State of the power to enact the statute challenged here.

Thomas Jefferson on Sodomy Sect. XIV. Whosoever shall be guilty of rape, polygamy, or sodomy* with a man or woman, shall be punished; if a man, by castration, a woman, by boring through the cartilage of her nose a hole of one half inch in diameter at the least. Peterson, Merrill D. "Crimes and Punishments" Thomas Jefferson: Writings Public Papers (Literary Classics of the United States, Inc. 1984) pp. 355, 356.

Hundreds rally for '10 Commandments judge' The effort is in response to the Alabama high court's unanimous decision to reject a lesbian mother's child custody petition. Moore wrote a separate concurring opinion, repudiating homosexuality on religious grounds, calling it "abhorrent, immoral, detestable, a crime against nature, and a violation of the laws of nature and of nature's God."

[grumple]

POLITICAL WEDGE ISSUE ALERT!!!

The LA Times reports that the Connecticut Democrat said he soon would introduce legislation guaranteeing health, retirement and other benefits to the domestic partners of gay federal employees - this is already in place, the wording of the article just misleads the reader that a Democrat is going to do something for a homo.

"When gay and lesbian Americans choose a partner, they deserve the respect of the law," Lieberman told the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism at a conference on Capitol Hill. - this is already in place, the wording of the article just misleads the reader that a Democrat is going to do something for a homo. This is as if to say when normal Americans choose...they don't??

Lieberman also pledged to sponsor a bill that would provide benefits to the domestic partners of gay federal employees and to push for legislation barring discrimination in employment based on sexual orientation. - this is already in place, the wording of the article just misleads the reader that a Democrat is going to do something for a homo.
He refers to legislation barring discrimination...BUT he's only discriminating this to gay FEDERAL employees. You private company homos can go to hell...

How many laws are already on the books outlining discrimination in the workplace regardless of sex, race blah blah blah...?? Come on Joe! You must think were pretty stupid. Fortunately for you, some are...

The article should have read...Joe Lieberman is
re-introducing legislation that is designed to engage the homosexual community in to voting Democrat...but only if you are a federal worker. The rest is just pure pap.

Discrimination...for the people, of the people...but by the Government...

[Salman]

In a way, this makes a lot of sense politically. Lieberman has a reputation within his party of being a "conservative". This tends to offset that without modifying his other positions.

[WaveThatFlag]

So Joe, are you always Jewish, or only when it is politicall convenient?

" 'Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.' " -Leviticus 18:22