Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

West Point's First Gay Wedding Slammed By Pat Robertson

"General Douglas MacArthur, rolling over in his grave," Robertson proclaimed. "What have they done to our cherished institution?"

Video:

by Anonymousreply 7312/11/2012

When one has to evoke the name of a man who has had no relevance in America for the last 60 years, then you know you dont have much of an argument.

by Anonymousreply 112/03/2012

Pat Robertson never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.

In this case, Robertson failed to join the 21st century and stop his bigoted, homophobic and discriminatory language toward Americans who have just as much right to be treated equally as he and followers do.

by Anonymousreply 212/03/2012

MacArthur was career military when only gays were in the military.

by Anonymousreply 312/03/2012

Pat Robertson's military service consisted of being the liquor officer in Japan during the Korean War.

Cherish my ass.

by Anonymousreply 412/03/2012

R4. Great investigative journalism! Robertson is an asshole.

In 1948, the draft was reinstated and Robertson was given the option of joining the Marine Corps or being drafted into the army; he opted for the first.

In his words, "We did long, grueling marches to toughen the men, plus refresher training in firearms and bayonet combat." In the same year, he transferred to Korea, "I ended up at the headquarters command of the First Marine Division," says Robertson. "The Division was in combat in the hot and dusty, then bitterly cold portion of North Korea just above the 38th Parallel later identified as the 'Punchbowl' and 'Heartbreak Ridge.' For that service in the Korean War, the Marine Corps awarded me three battle stars for 'action against the enemy.'"

However, former Republican Congressman Paul "Pete" McCloskey, Jr., who served with Robertson in Korea, wrote a public letter which said that Robertson was actually spared combat duty when his powerful father, a U.S. Senator, intervened on his behalf, and that Robertson spent most of his time in an office in Japan. According to McCloskey, his time in the service was not in combat but as the "liquor officer" responsible for keeping the officers' clubs supplied with liquor. Robertson filed a $35 million libel suit against McCloskey in 1986. He dropped the case in 1988, before it came to trial and paid McCloskey's court costs.

by Anonymousreply 512/03/2012

MacArthur would have loved to have participated in a gay marriage himself.

"Eldergays never die," he once said, "they just slowly fade away."

by Anonymousreply 712/03/2012

It's troubling that a military school would follow the laws of the nation and the State of New York?

Yes, it's a nightmare.

by Anonymousreply 812/03/2012

R6 is apparently unaware that the military welcomes gays now.

by Anonymousreply 912/03/2012

r6 doesn't get it. The US military has committed to the change of policy and they don't fuck around. It's a beautiful thing to see in action. They were a driving force in racial integration as well.

by Anonymousreply 1112/03/2012

R6. Cheap publicity? STFU. The media covered it. DADT no longer exists. It's news. Deal with it.

And your family's ties to West Point don't supercede those who got married--and their families.

by Anonymousreply 1212/03/2012

And when exactly did they integrate races and sexes? Their "legacy" has a few blemishes on it, but this same-sex wedding is not one of them.

Wake up and smell the orange blossoms.

by Anonymousreply 1312/03/2012

Here's what r6 said forty years ago:

[quote]You have to admit it is strange. I have family ties to West Point and it is a very valued and respected institution in our family. Why they would submit to this sort of cheap publicity is beyond me. This is a school that is looked up to by so many people. It's troubling that they would allow two African-Americans to marry.

by Anonymousreply 1412/03/2012

I thought MacArthur was a cross-dresser who sired a gay son.

by Anonymousreply 1512/04/2012

MacArthur wore makeup, I'm told.

by Anonymousreply 1612/04/2012

Oh how I so look forward to one day being able to say the phrase "Pat Robertson, rolling over in his grave."

by Anonymousreply 1712/04/2012

[quote]General Douglas MacArthur, rolling over in his grave

It's a new era. It's a new military. He's presenting hole.

by Anonymousreply 1812/04/2012

R6 No one give a fuck about your family ties. The only respected institution in your family I can see is being a grade A douche-bag.

by Anonymousreply 1912/04/2012

Robertson also said Robert E Lee is spinning in his grave now too because of this. Seriously, we are supposed to care that some long dead traitor is offended?

by Anonymousreply 2012/04/2012

Oh, yeah, like MacArthur is such a great role model.

by Anonymousreply 2112/04/2012

When did Christianity become the religion that attacked disfavored minorities with debilitating diseases?

"Christianity" has become synonymous with hate, judgmental in-group/out-group small-mindedness, and reactionary politics. I can't even hear the word without thinking of this sort of petty cruelty.

I'm sure good Christians are probably out there somewhere, but they're being AWFULLY quiet about this sort of thing and have been for a long time.

by Anonymousreply 2212/04/2012

Just DIE, Pat, you're past due.

by Anonymousreply 2312/04/2012

[quote]West Point's First Gay Wedding Slammed By Pat Robertson

And in other news, the sun rose in the east and set in the west.

by Anonymousreply 2412/04/2012

[quote]You have to admit it is strange.

No, actually, we don't. In fact, it's the opposite of "strange." When the military ended discrimination, they ended *all* discrimination. This is the natural, and expected, outcome of ending such discrimination.

[quote]I have family ties to West Point and it is a very valued and respected institution in our family.

And it's even more valued and respected today because it no longer engages in pointless discrimination.

[quote]Why they would submit to this sort of cheap publicity is beyond me.

Probably because the couple asked them, just as have other couples who got married there. This isn't rocket science.

[quote]This is a school that is looked up to by so many people.

And now you have one more reason to look up to it.

[quote]It's troubling that they would allow this.

Only if you're a bigot or a moron. But I repeat myself.

by Anonymousreply 2512/04/2012

[quote] I have family ties to West Point and it is a very valued and respected institution in our family.

Translation: I was there as a cadet, got thrown out for getting caught sucking another cadet's cock, and my family money helped hush it up.

by Anonymousreply 2612/04/2012

Aside from being an obvious troll, why would r6 feel that you would "have to admit it is strange"? There's nothing strange or cheap about it.

by Anonymousreply 2712/04/2012

R28 Boo friggin hoo

by Anonymousreply 2912/04/2012

...not surprisingly the Salvation Army defender is all over this thread defending Pat Robertson...

by Anonymousreply 3012/04/2012

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the links to nutty sites so we can ridicule them has attracted the nutbags to come here.

On the positive side, we get to watch them fume and meltdown as society progresses.

by Anonymousreply 3112/04/2012

I looked around the web but couldn't find anything -- I wondered what happened when the first black graduate married in the Cadet Chapel.

by Anonymousreply 3312/04/2012

[quote]We certainly are living in confusing times.

Speak for yourself.

by Anonymousreply 3412/04/2012

confusing?

Only to homophobes.

by Anonymousreply 3512/04/2012

This THREAD is confusing times. Where did these bigots come from? R32, R28, R6, this is only troubling news to people who are not comfortable with their masculinity and sexuality. West Point has a history of being MASCULINE, and for some reason you believes this contradicts the concept of masculinity to you.

Masculinity to me means being comfortable enough about who you are to not give a flying fuck how someone loves another person. And any hetero person who is truly hetero should be comfortable enough with their own sexuality to not complain about other people's sex lives.

I firmly believe that homophobia was, is and will continue to come from the inside of one's self as one tries to supress one's own dark secrets.

Homophobia = Deeply closeted

by Anonymousreply 3612/04/2012

Looks kind of ugly to me.

Now this is a beautiful chapel. And guess what, Maryland just voted for gay marriage! So now we can have weddings in the Naval Academy Chapel.

by Anonymousreply 3712/04/2012

[quote]This is sacrilegious.

Two people in love, getting married, and devoting the rest of their lives to each other is now sacrilegious?

by Anonymousreply 3812/04/2012

Wasn't General MacArthur's only son Arthur MacArthur ( I kid ya not) a notorious drag queen in 60's NYC?

by Anonymousreply 3912/04/2012

sure

by Anonymousreply 4012/05/2012

MacArthur's dad was also named Arthur MacArthur.

by Anonymousreply 4112/05/2012

It is not sacreligious number one, and number two West Point is a secular institution with no religion.

by Anonymousreply 4212/05/2012

amen!

by Anonymousreply 4312/05/2012

rPat Robertson is a Republican.

by Anonymousreply 4412/05/2012

I think it's awesome that Virgina, a state that's twice voted for a liberal northern black man from chicago, is Robertsons home.

by Anonymousreply 4512/05/2012

Pat Robertson's dad was a segregation Democrat.

by Anonymousreply 4612/05/2012

The segregation Democrats ran like scalded dogs to the open arms of the Republican party when Democrat Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights laws.

by Anonymousreply 4712/05/2012

Who was also I think Chairman of the Armed Services Committee in the Senate, so Pat had military ties even before Dad bought him a radio station down at Hampton Roads.

by Anonymousreply 4812/05/2012

I wonder what the reaction was when the graduate was the first black alum to marry a white woman?

Or the first white woman alum to marry a black man?

Or a black grad and a white grad marrying each other?

No press that I can find.

by Anonymousreply 4912/05/2012

R50 Sorry, but whatever feelings gramps has is not good enough to stop progress. Some old guy's feelings are hurt? Too fucking bad.

by Anonymousreply 5112/05/2012

r50, We were noting that Pat Robertson used a bad example. He tried to save his argument by later saying Robert E. Lee would be rolling over in his grave, but that too is false as Lee was a gentleman and always followed orders.

Pat should have said Patton, who was a big blowhard and regularly led down the primrose path by his betters.

by Anonymousreply 5212/05/2012

No, r50. No one should support r6 because that poster's opinion is idiotic. Hate to break it to ya, but no matter how you try to sugar coat it, trying to justify depriving an entire group of their civil rights IS evil.

Sadly, you missed the entire point of the MacArthur posts. It was not to injure his reputation.

by Anonymousreply 5312/05/2012

My gay best friend and I (I'm also a gay male) opened a bottle of champagne when Falwell and Reagan died, and we're going to do the same when this shitstain finally croaks.

by Anonymousreply 5412/05/2012

[quote]At least one person should support [R6] here.

Why? It was a dumb thing to write.

[quote]All of the name-calling and meanness that followed his statement is evidence that this stuff is moving too fast

Oh, garbage. We're talking about fundamental civil rights, basic fairness. If you are "troubled" by this, the problem is on your side, not ours.

[quote]and without consideration for the feelings of not-evil old-fashioned people.

See, here's the thing: when it comes to my fundamental civil rights, I don't consider anyone's "feelings," nor will you be able to come up with a reason why I should.

And that's assuming that R6 isn't a garden-variety troll.

by Anonymousreply 5512/05/2012

[quote]All of the name-calling and meanness that followed his statement is evidence that this stuff is moving too fast and without consideration for the feelings of not-evil old-fashioned people. Like your still alive grandfather who served.

Seriously,r50? Denying citizens their civil rights is a lesser evil than making (some) old people feel bad? About something that does not actually affect their lives in any way?

Besided, not all old people—not even all old people who served in the military—are retrogressive. Perhaps instead of urging us slow down on this issue you should be urging us to hurry the fuck up for the benefit of those old people who would love to dance at their gay children's and grandchildren's weddings before they die. There are some out there, you know.

by Anonymousreply 5712/05/2012

[quote]You guys do not get it and never will.

Oh, we get it. We just don't agree.

[quote]FUNDAMENTAL CIVIL RIGHTS. Horseshit.

Sorry, but marriage is, in fact, a fundamental civil right, as acknowledged by the U.S. Supreme Court on more than one occasion.

[quote]It takes longer than 20 years to develop a FUNDAMENTAL CIVIL RIGHT.

Nobody is talking about "develop[ing]" a civil right. The civil right is there, whether you like it or not. We are entitled to that right, again, whether you like it or not. And we will do whatever it takes to fight for that right, just as have other minority groups throughout history.

[quote]A majority of the people alive today remember a time when homosexuality was something not spoken about.

So? That changes nothing. Gay men and women existed and were entitled to their fundamental civil rights then, just as they are now.

[quote]Most of them are not evil, but they certainly do not identify with us.

Again, so? That does not give them the right to take away or block my fundamental civil rights.

[quote]For the most shrill posters here, do you have any remote idea just how massive a social change gay marriage is?

Yup. We know exactly how big a change it is. We've lived through the past few decades, just as you have. That doesn't change a damn thing.

[quote]Give the world a chance to take it in.

See, here's the thing: the best way to do that is to do what we have done, to push for same-sex marriage everywhere. What caused public opinion to change was seeing the happiness of loving couples who had been together for decades finally being allowed to marry. And seeing that the horror stories from opponents just didn't come true. If we adopted your approach, we wouldn't have same-sex marriage anywhere. Public opinion has changed precisely because of the actions we have taken.

[quote]There are people I love who are sincerely very accepting of homosexuality but who just aren't quite "there" on marriage.

So? I don't give a damn whether they are "there" or not. My fundamental rights trump their discomfort. And when I see a loving couple, committed to one another, blocked from formalizing their relationship because someone else isn't quite "there," I have only one thing to say those who would stand in their way: "Fuck you."

[quote]I understand and accept that and don't want them to die in a grease fire.

Frankly, I don't care whether they die in a grease fire or not. I want them to acknowledge my fundamental civil rights or get the hell out of the way. And if they, or you, think I'm "moving too fast," well that's just too damn bad.

One of the first people to marry in Seattle today was 85 years old; her partner is 77. They've been together for 35 years. Go ahead: you tell them you want them to not get married today because you want to "give the world a chance to take it in." That you think they shouldn't have this fundamental civil right because people you love "just aren't quite 'there'."

[quote]I also understand that I am very much in the minority here

You're in the minority everywhere in the U.S., thankfully, largely due to the efforts of people like us. And that minority is shrinking every year. What R6 wrote was stupid, bigoted, and indefensible. Your attempts to defend it are equally stupid and equally indefensible. Deal with it.

by Anonymousreply 6012/06/2012

Oh, and R59, did you actually read the article about this event? Quoting:

The two have been together for 17 years. They had a civil commitment ceremony that didn't carry any legal force in 1999 and had long hoped to formally tie the knot. The way was cleared last year, when New York legalized same-sex marriage and President Barack Obama lifted the "Don't ask, don't tell" policy prohibiting openly gay people from serving in the military.

....

Cadet Chapel was a more-than-adequate second choice, she said.

"It has a tremendous history, and it is beautiful. That's where I first heard and said the cadet prayer," Fulton said, referring to the invocation that says, "Make us to choose the harder right instead of the easier wrong, and never to be content with a half-truth when the whole can be won."

[That last sentence says it all, R59.]

by Anonymousreply 6112/06/2012

i.

love.

paul.

by Anonymousreply 6212/06/2012

R6, did any of your family members ever participate in the countless rapes that go unreported every year?

by Anonymousreply 6312/06/2012

[quote]You guys do not get it and never will. FUNDAMENTAL CIVIL RIGHTS. Horseshit. It takes longer than 20 years to develop a FUNDAMENTAL CIVIL RIGHT.

A civil right is a civil right, something you are supposed to be guaranteed by virtue of your citizenship in this country, not something that needs to be "developed." Gay Americans have been denied the right to marry their partners for 236 years now; I think we've waited long enough.

[quote] A majority of the people alive today remember a time when homosexuality was something not spoken about. Most of them are not evil, but they certainly do not identify with us.

Um .... so what? Why does everyone need to identify with us before we can exercise our civil rights? There are plenty of people and groups in this country with whom I don't identify in the least, but that doesn't mean I want to deny them their fundamental rights as citizens, or that I think they should just shut up and stop exercising their rights out of deference to me and my sensibilities. My feelings are not more important than someone else's rights, nor are your socially conservative loved ones' feelings more important than gay Americans' rights.

[quote] For the most shrill posters here, do you have any remote idea just how massive a social change gay marriage is? Give the world a chance to take it in.

What does this even mean? Do you know what's going to help people get used to the idea of gay marriage? Seeing gay people get married around them, and realizing that gay marriage really isn't affecting their own lives at all, nor harming society at large. If gays don't keep marrying, and don't keep working to extend marriage rights to more states, there's really nothing for the world to "take in."

[quote]There are people I love who are sincerely very accepting of homosexuality but who just aren't quite "there" on marriage. I understand and accept that and don't want them to die in a grease fire.

That's fine. No one is suggesting that you should stop loving these people or start wishing them ill. But you can't expect their feelings to take precedence over other Americans' rights.

I mean really, what is your argument here? Gay people shouldn't marry their partners in the venues of their choosing because your dear, lovely Uncle Bob in Peoria will feel upset about it? Surely you can see that that's not very compelling ...

As the African-American Civil Right Movement amply demonstrated, extending civil rights to a group who has historically been denied is always going to upset and piss off some people. That's not a reason it shouldn't be done.

by Anonymousreply 6412/06/2012

[quote]We are making a mistake by pushing this in the face of the straights.

Why?

[quote] There is not nearly the love and support out there that we think.

So what? I don't know that you're right about this, but even if you are, so what? Why should we hold off on gay marriage--which is indeed a fundamental civil right--just because a lot of straight people might not love and support it? What exactly do you imagine happening as the result of gay marriage that is SO bad that we'd be better off just forgetting about it for the time being?

by Anonymousreply 6612/07/2012

PS, I'm not just harassing you, r59, I'm genuinely interested in what your thought process is on this. It's hard for me to see you as anything but a gay Uncle Tom—one of those who has kinda-sorta made his peace with being gay, but doesn't really feel too happy about it, and knows in his heart that he's lesser than straight people and needs to stay in his place and not upset them. Naturally, that type gets uncomfortable and sometimes outright angry when other gays march around acting like they are just as good as straight people.

If that's not you, well, I would like to know what DOES drive you to say that we shouldn't push so hard for gay marriage.

by Anonymousreply 6712/07/2012

[quote]Gay marriage as a "Fundamental Civil Right" is new.

No it's not. We've been making this point for nearly 20 years. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that marriage is a fundamental civil right. And that is the point that we have been making, both in legal filings and in discussions like this. It is a right that has been denied us and that we have to fight for but it is a fundamental right, nonetheless.

[quote]We are making a mistake by pushing this in the face of the straights.

Nonsense. Support for same-sex marriage has climbed every year for the past dozen years or so, largely because we have been fighting for it and have made it a reality in state after state. Repeating what I wrote above: What caused public opinion to change was seeing the happiness of loving couples who had been together for decades finally being allowed to marry. And seeing that the horror stories from opponents just didn't come true. If we adopted your approach, we wouldn't have same-sex marriage anywhere. Public opinion has changed precisely because of the actions we have taken.

[quote]There is not nearly the love and support out there that we think.

The results of the various referendums in the 2012 election proves you wrong. The fact that a Presidential candidate and party ran on a platform of support for same-sex marriage and won proves you wrong.

by Anonymousreply 6812/07/2012

Thank you Paul.

by Anonymousreply 6912/07/2012

I agree - thank you Paul

by Anonymousreply 7012/07/2012

I still say more women are pro-gay these days because they need a gay best friend to bitch about their boyfriend with and shop/lunch/carry bags. Men are pro-gay to get pussy. Not complicated.

by Anonymousreply 7112/07/2012

[quote]Men are pro-gay to get pussy.

There is actually something to that. I remember reading about a year ago (I think it was in the New Yorker) how straight guys now ratchet down on the anti-gay speech because so many homophobes were in the news after being exposed as secretly gay. People are catching on: if you go around saying bad shit about gay people, chances are you are gay yourself.

by Anonymousreply 7212/07/2012

Take a look at the photos at the link of the marriage celebrations in Seattle. As noted above: Go ahead: you tell them you want them to not get married today because you want to "give the world a chance to take it in." That you think they shouldn't have this fundamental civil right because people you love "just aren't quite 'there'."

by Anonymousreply 7312/11/2012
Loading
Need more help? Click Here.