Another completely factual and historically accurate article from Laurie Higgins. The entirety of the blame for the failure of the VA can be be laid at the feet of President Obama and the gay community. Problem solved. Case closed. Except, it isn't.

The reality is, the roots of the VA's current problems stretch back decades prior to Obama taking office. Kennedy's decision to use Agent Orange in Vietnam started a decades-long health catastrophe for US troops - it is still, to this day, flooding the VA with hundreds of thousands of claims. The VA has been broken for decades, and every president since Nixon has failed to get it truly fixed. Conservatives, who seem to have zero self-awareness, launched the disastrous wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, sending 2.3 million soldiers into harm's way over a decade. With more than 970,000 of those soldiers filing disability claims, the Bush-era wars overwhelmed the VA. I realize Obama has been in office for 6 years but, before him, Reagan was in office for 8 years, Bush Sr. for 4, Clinton for 8, and GW Bush for 8 years. None of them seemed to be able to repair the VA. So, it's clearly solely Obama's fault.

Today's conservatives don't seem all that interested in creating any solutions. When something is wrong with the system, their first instinct is never finding a fix or offering an alternative. Their go-to is, "How can we pin this one on Obama?" And, for homophobes like Laurie Higgins, if the homosexual community can somehow be erroneously added to the mix, well, that's just gravy!

What a silly thing to say. Nowhere in the text of my piece did I claim that "entirety of the blame for the failure of the VA can be laid at the feet of President Obama and the gay community." It is the kind of reading I expect from polemicists, however.
I pointed out that Obama announced seven years ago that he would spend every hour of every day for the next four years fixing a VA that he knew had serious problems. Instead, he has said and done next to nothing, and evidence suggests the problems have worsened.
In the meantime, he has expended time, effort, and hot air fulfilling the desires of a constituency that actually matters to him---one that has more money and more political power than veterans. He reveals through his words and actions what really matters to him.
I said nothing whatsoever about the culpability of homosexuals for the VA scandal. I actually believe they had nothing to do with it.
I shouldn't have to say this but for the obtuse among us I will reiterate what should be obvious: Believing that homoerotic activity is immoral no more constitutes a "phobia" or hatred of persons than does believing that polyamory or consensual adult incest is immoral constitute a "phobia" or hatred of those who believe differently and live lives in accordance with those beliefs.
Of course, it serves the strategic purposes of "progressives" to argue that this one moral belief--unlike all others--constitutes hatred, but their strategic machinations don't make their claims true.

So, you've never equated defeating the "evil" LGBT rights movement with defeating slavery and Naziism? And, you've never stated that marriage equality will also lead to incestuous marriages and plural marriages? Whether or not you care to admit it, and I rarely use this term, you are a homophobe and your incendiary rhetoric breeds homophobia.
And, in this article, by implying that Obama has "chosen homosexuals over veterans" (some of whom are, no doubt, homosexuals), you are indirectly placing some of the blame for the VA scandal at the feet of the homosexual community. If, as you say, you "believe they had nothing to do with it," why even mention the gay community at all? And, as Dan has mentioned, you completely ignore the fact that Obama has tried to address the VA situation but, as usual, has been repeatedly blocked by Republicans.

My references to Nazism came in two articles that compared the rationalizations the German Evangelical Church offered to justify their cowardly failure to address the actions of the Nazi regime to the rationalizations church leaders today offer today to justify their cowardly silence in the face of the movement to normalize homosexual activity. I have never argued that homoeroticism or homoerotic identity politics are as grave a moral offense as eugenics. But the attempt to eradicate moral disapproval of body and soul-destroying activity is certainly no small moral matter.

You can read more on my position in regard to this issue here: http://illinoisfamily.org/h...
You are absolutely correct: The spanking new definition of marriage that the Left has concocted makes the legalization of plural marriage and incestuous marriage not merely possible, but inevitable. Once the culture buys the notion that marriage is solely about who loves whom and that marriage has no inherent connection to sexual complementarity, there remains no rational justification for prohibiting five people of assorted sexes or two brothers who love each other from "marrying." Ideas have consequences.

You claim to know that I am a homophobe (isn't that "name-calling"?). Without knowing me, you are certain that I hate and fear those who hold different moral beliefs than I do. This is the kind of presumptuousness and/or deceit that pervades the homosexuality-affirming movement.
Perhaps you hate and fear those whose moral beliefs and life choices you find problematic, but most people (myself included) are fully capable of enjoying the company of, admiring the good qualities of, and even loving those who hold radically different moral views than they do. Most people in our diverse world do it every day. Apparently homosexual activists and their ideological allies are unable to do that and then project their modus operandi on everyone else.
I find your use of the adjective "incendiary" interesting. Perhaps I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that comments you find "incendiary" should not be spoken. You seem to be suggesting that the quality of "incendiariness" renders the expression of ideas somehow inappropriate. So, all you have to do to silence dissenters is call them "homophobes" and "incendiary" and voila, you win.
Well, this may come as a surprise, but I find your views and comments both incendiary, foolish, destructive, and hateful.
Finally, I mentioned homosexuals in my article because my argument, my thesis, if you will, is that Obama has demonstrated where his priorities lie through his plethora of homosexuality-affirming activities. I made a point which is not dissimilar from the point Newsweek made when they named Obama the first "gay president," adorning him with a rainbow-colored "gaylo."
If Obama had been working on securing better care for veterans with the same vigor and commitment he demonstrates in fulfilling the desires of homosexual activists, our vets would be in a better position. As it stands now, Obama has facilitated the diminution of rights for conservative people of faith and an increase in suffering for children.

In the 17 states that currently offer marriage equality, none of your fear-mongering arguments have come true. Massachusetts recently celebrated the 10-year anniversary of marriage equality. Still no legalized incestuous marriages or plural marriages. No one marrying children or animals, either. How is that so?
I don't need to "know you" personally to figure out that you are a homophobe (and again, it is a term I rarely use). All I have to do is read your theses and listen to your rhetoric. You practically wrote the user's manual for "incendiary, foolish, destructive and hateful."
Expression of ideas is something that I cherish and appreciate. You are free to express whatever ideas you like. It works both ways, however. You can't expect to not be challenged on your nonsense. Stop being such a drama queen.

How am I a drama queen? What does that even mean? And for someone who aligns himself with the "no name-calling" crowd, you certainly engage in a lot of name-calling.

I never mentioned marriages to children or animals, so I'm not sure why you're asking me about those forms of perversion.

As to why there are no legalized incestuous or plural marriages yet in MA, it's easy to explain. Radical cultural change rarely happens quickly. In fact, most pundits on the political left and right have remarked on the astonishing speed with which same-sex faux-marriage has been effected (thanks largely to a handful of feckless judges), and it's been 45 years since the Stonewall riots.

That said, my understanding is that there are already cases working through both Canadian and American courts pertaining to plural marriage, and the arguments being used are the same arguments used by proponents of legalized same-sex "marriage."

Finally, when did I ever suggest I shouldn't be challenged? You "progressives" seem to create mythical arguments from your own fertile imaginations and/or you fail to read what I've actually written and/or you're just dishonest.
It's homosexual activists who seem to feel that their ontological and moral arguments should not be challenged. Hence the de facto censorship of resources by conservative scholars in public middle and high schools on issues pertaining to homosexuality and gender confusion.

How are you a drama queen? "Obama has facilitated the diminution of rights for conservative people of faith and an increase in suffering for children." For decades, conservative people of faith had free rein to malign, slander, disparage and control any person or group or people with whom they took exception, based simply on their religious beliefs. It reached its peak with Anita Bryant in the 1970's. She went a little too far, and the inevitable backlash started. However, your rights have not been diminished. You are still free to say whatever you please, although you believe you should be able to do so with total impunity. And, your freedom to practice your religion is still protected. The gay community finally acquired the means, resources and voice to challenge some of your lies, and the cries of Christian victimization and persecution commenced. That's being a drama queen. You have lost nothing and marriage equality takes NOTHING away from you. As far as Obama "facilitating an increase in suffering for children," you'll have to be more specific.
I will credit you this: In a rare moment of slight humility you stated, "Perhaps I'm wrong, but you seem to be implying that comments you find 'incendiary' should not be spoken." And, you couldn't have been more wrong. I don't ever want you to stop saying exactly what you have been saying. Despite what you think, you are your own worst enemy. But do, please, continue with your writing and speaking.
Again, none of the fear-mongering arguments have come true in the 17 states that currently offer marriage equality. I have a very difficult time believing Americans will accept incestuous or plural marriages. Then again, of course, I never thought I would see legalized same-sex marriage in my lifetime. So, I guess I really can't rule out anything.
By the way, as a side note, and I am being completely sincere: I am thrilled that you even responded to my post. I just think that's rather awesome, and I wanted to thank you.

So, if my claims about what is true and good, or my analysis of the recent past or prognostications about the future render me a "drama queen, " what do your claims, analyses, and prognostications render you? You know, claims like "For decades, conservative people of faith had free rein to malign, slander, disparage and control any person or group or people with whom they took exception, based simply on their religious beliefs."
Not all conservative people of faith "maligned, slandered, disparaged or controlled those with whom they took exception--unless by malign, slander, disparage and control you include expressing moral propositions with which some may disagree.
And it is not just conservative people of faith who have maligned, slandered, disparaged, or controlled others. Atheists and agnostics have done so too. Astonishingly, homosexuals have and do too. Neither the Left nor the Right, neither the religious nor the irreligious have a monopoly on sin.
But neither past nor current nor future sin justifies robbing children of mothers or fathers. Neither past nor current nor future sin justifies robbing people of their First Amendment rights. Christians, Muslims, and Orthodox Jews should have the right not to use their labors in the service of a ceremony that mocks marriage and offends God. No Christian has refused to serve homosexuals. Christians have refused participation in an unholy ceremony.
If Americans can accept the most radical redefinition of marriage in the history of the world (i.e., same-sex "marriage"), there is no doubt that they will accept plural marriage, which is not only far less radical but has existed and still exists. And polyamorists are pushing for it.
Incestuous marriages will take longer, but homosexual activists have already laid the intellectual groundwork that makes the jettisoning of the criterion relating to blood kinship ineluctable.
Gotta go...

Only your side has a long history of using the law to harm gay people. Gay people have not been pushing laws that target Christians for harm.

You can't remove the incest restriciton without facilitating child abuse.

The number restriction is an entirely different argument, and because polygamy has a long history, we know the long list of problems that are inherent in that system.

Your belief removal of the restriciton on gender requires removal of any other restriciton, is irrational, as they are entirely different restrictions.

Walt, I forgot to ask you two questions:
Why shouldn't two brothers be permitted to marry?
Why shouldn't three, four, or five people of assorted sexes be permitted to marry?

I'm not sure why you would even feel the need to ask me either question. I'm not here to advocate for or against incestuous marriage or polygamy. You mentioned them, not me. Neither one affects me. I'm only speaking about same-sex marriage - a union between two consenting, non-related adults.

So, you refuse to answer? Virtually every time I have asked a "progressive" those questions, they refuse to answer. I submit that they and you refuse to answer because you can't.
The reason I asked is that if marriage is solely constituted by the presence of love, why should it be limited to two people or unrelated people? Aren't you being hateful, bigoted, provincial incestophobic and polyphobic? Who are you to deny brothers who love each other the right to marry? What possible reason could you have for limiting marriage to two people. If you're willing to jettison the single most enduring marital criterion (i.e., sexual complementarity), why not allow close relatives to jettison the criterion regarding blood kinship and why not allow polyamorists to jettison the criterion regarding numbers of partners?
Ideas have consequences. The fanciful notion that marriage is wholly unrelated to sexual complementarity has implications not just for homosexuals.
So, again, why jettison only the criterion that homosexuals don't like, while retaining the criteria that polyamorists and those in love with their sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, aunts, or uncles don't like. Remember, according to your side, marriage is solely constituted by love.

"Aren't you being hateful, bigoted, provincial incestophobic and polyphobic?"
No, you are. Again, you brought it up, not me.

" Who are you to deny brothers who love each other the right to marry?"
How am I doing that? I never said they shouldn't be able to marry.

As I said, I have no interest in advocating for or against incestuous or polygamous marriages. Neither dynamic concerns me in the least and I have zero interest in policing what other consenting adults do in their private lives. You are the one who seems fixated. The bottom line is, I don't decide who should have the right to marry, nor do I want the responsibility of doing so. All the gay community can do is pursue our goals through the proper legal channels and present a logical, fact-based argument supporting our position. Anyone else (two brothers, three or more people) would have to do the same. It's up to the legal system to decide the outcome. I can live with that.

So, the only people whose Opinions are "consequential" are those seeking to change the legal definition of marriage? The opinions of those who seek to preserve it are "inconsequential"? Do you apply that principle to all laws?
The fact that you couldn't care less if marriage is sexually complementary, or reserved for only two partners, or reserved for those who are not closely related by blood, and the fact that you evidently think marriage is solely about "what consenting adults do in their private lives" reveals your complete ignorance of the critical role marriage plays as a public institution.
If marriage has nothing to do with sexual complementarity, nothing inherently to do with children, and nothing to do with the public good, why the heck is the government involved at all?

There is no reason to believe opposite sex couples will stop getting married and having children where the gender restriction has been removed.

Government is involved because marriage is a fundamental right of all persons.

Clearly, you and I will never agree on this and, quite frankly, I am tired of arguing with you. You keep repeating your talking points over and over as if that will somehow make them true. I know that works with your side, but not with mine. You want me to talk about incest and polygamy, which I am not going to do, because the subject at hand is homosexuality. One thing has nothing to do with the other(s). You believe there can be no sexual complementarity between two men or two women. I happen to disagree. Regardless, it's really not up to you to decide that for anyone else. For someone like me, who has zero interest in children (as do quite a few heterosexual married couples) that particular argument is insignificant. And, you have yet to prove how same-sex marriage adds nothing to the public good. It certainly doesn't take anything away from it.
Why is the government involved? Most likely because there are at least 1,138 tangible benefits, protections, rights and responsibilities that marriage brings couples and their children, many of which cannot be secured through private agreement or via lawyers - and that's just at the federal level. The denial of marriage to couples and their children makes a substantial impact on every area of life, and it's unfair.
Thanks again for the exchange.

You can't remove the incest restriction without encouraging child abuse. Waiting till they reach the legal age does not protect children from being groomed to become a servant/spouse once they are old enough.

Polygamy is an entirely different legal arrangement and social structure as well, which favors the rich, removing the choice for others. 2=2 regardless of gender. But only 2=2. 100 is something entirely different.

I hope you know I'm not advocating the removal of the prohibition of close blood relatives marrying. But the logic of the homosexual argument that the government should not be allowed to prohibit those who love each other from marrying leads necessarily to the jettisoning of the blood kinship criterion. And remember, homosexuals are building their argument too on the proposition that marriage has nothing inherently to do with children, so they can't then say they want to prohibit incestuous marriages because incestuous marriages harm children.
In addition, society would need to provide scads of soft science research (the new god of the Left) proving conclusively that the legalization of incestuous unions between consenting adult harms children. If the Left can't see that intentionally denying children a mother or father harms children and violates their rights, they're not going to be able to see how two adult brothers marrying will harm children.
I'm not sure what your point is with regard to your arithmetic equations, but I wasn't referring to just polygamy. Rather, I was referring to plural unions, which can be 2 men and 2 women.

Again, you can't remove the restriciton on close blood relatives, without removing well documented protections against child abuse. Nearly half of all child abuse is in the home already. If those abusers knew they could groom a child from birth to become their spouse as soon as they become adults, you would encourage and facilitate abuse which already takes place. Regardless of gender, removal of the restriction on incest, would facilitate child abuse.

Your belief same sex couples raising children is abuse, denies reality as well as the science. Children can do just as well with same sex parents, and having opposite sex parents is no guarantee they will be free from abuse, as Child Protective Services across the country demonstrate daily. The most important variable is the relationship between parent and child, not the gender of the parent.

Removal of the number restricition is an entirely different question, as you demonstrate. No one knows what the rules would be, but it is clear, it requires an entirely different legal structure and social structure as well. Only 2=2. Anything else is something entirely different legally and socially as well. Yet removal of the gender restriction did not change any of the laws that determine what marriage means legally to couples.

Wow. Just...wow. You did not comprehend a single word Laurie said, did you?

Wow, Laurie. It was a good article. People get so entrenched in their worldviews, and so indoctrinated, that they will no longer listen. Hang in there and well done.

Thanks so much, donawyo. It's very kind of you to take the time to offer a word of encouragement and support.

As a veteran and coming from a family of veterans, I can attest to the incompetency of the VA. My grandfather dies in the VA hospital in Dallas due to overt neglect. This is a problem that has been in the face of multiple presidents without action being taken. Now that the failures of the VA have come to light, the resident bigots of this great nation have decided to lay these problems soley at the feet of our current president and go even further as to blame it on homosexuals. These people will go any lengths in order to further their anti gay agenda. It only goes to show the hypocrisy of them being called christians. Pathetic and sad.

They also ignore that it is the Republicans who have opposed and stopped legislation that would have addressed the problems at the VA.

They stopped horrible legislation attached by demonrats to the bills that could have solved the problems at the VA. To quote the demonrats, pass a clean bill. In other words, a bill that does not have totally unrelated amendments and attachments.

You make a false comparison in your attempt to stigmatize gay people.

The appointments of gay people are appointments he would have had to make anyway. The small amount of time required would have been required, regardless of sexual orientation of the appointees.

You also ingnore the fact Obama has tried to address the situation but has been blocked in his efforts by the republicans.

You chose to ignore every word between, "Although" and "won't."

Glad to see you care so much about veterans (as do I). Unfortunately your care for vets obviously ends if they are gay whereas I wish to see all vets treated the same regardless f their sexual orientation.

Does it really matter where the "blame" lies? I'm sure there's plenty to go around!! What matters is that President Obama said he would fix it and he hasn't. One more lie that he told the American people. Although it is just one of many, so we shouldn't expect anything less. Our veterans deserve better from all of us than just finger pointing. When did that solve anything? Commentors before me blame the Conservatives. Yes, President Obama is big on that too. He said he would unify this country and all he had done is drive us further apart. He tells Republicans and Conservatives "This is what I want done. Are you going to do it with me?" When they say no, he throws a fit and says, "Look, those lousy Republicans/Conservatives won't work with me." President Obama's idea of working together is "My way or the Highway" and "If you don't do it my way, I'm going to whine and cry and stomp my feet and bully you until you do." That's not working together that's tyrannical. Yes, Republicans need to come up with solutions. There are some and there are true Republicans who have some, it's just that the establishment (fake) Republicans don't want to come up with solutions. They want to do whatever the Democrats want, which we've seen doesn't work. (Everyone enjoy ObamaCare and get ready to start dying. But I know that doesn't bother Democrats because they believe in overpopulation anyway and want people to die. Unless, of course, it's their children or spouse or themselves.) Currently we don't have two parties. We have the Democrats and the Democrats in training. Of course, the Democrats in Training are a little slower in getting things done but don't worry. They're being trained well. They'll catch up soon enough.

The reality is, gay people have alway formed relationsips and are going to continue to form relationships. The question then becomes, are we going to accept reality and encourage strong, committed relationships around the shared values of family, committment, and responsibility, with the help of friends, family, and the government, or is it in the best interest of society to make laws that attack and demean such relationships, causing unjustified harm to those couples and their children.

The values of love, commitment, family and community are not a threat. It is the values of hate, violence, intimidation and control, that we need to work against. As Justice Kennedy wrote about the founding fathers: "They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress." Laws that treat gay people differently than straight people are laws that only serve to oppress.

"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies." ( American Anthropological Association)