One's opinion is irrelevant. One's actions are not.

If he just wanted to hate gay people, that would be his right. Instead, he wants to legislate against the LGBT community for religious reasons. Your religious beliefs have no place in politics.

Also, there is no gay "lifestyle." There is just life, and some of us happen to love people of the same sex. What someone does for fun or entertainment has nothing to do with his or her sexual orientation.

The reason his wife had an affair is because he's gay

Applause Sefanoiacono from Texas. GREAT POST!

Freedom of speech does not entitle anyone to assault someone else. Why is it the peace loving libs are always throwing things, "Occupying" places, and otherwise engaging in activities which would ordinarily be considered crimes?

Violence is the last refuge of a weak argument.

Thank you, 44special.

As the proud parent of a brilliant, hilarious, beautiful gay daughter, the aunt of two gay nieces, and the confidante of many gay friends, I have no doubt that sexual orientation is rooted in DNA.

As a straight woman who believes in birth control and women's right to choose our own reproductive destiny (and no, a-holes, I've never had an abortion, so stick your eyeballs back in your heads), I have no fondness for any bullying weasel who would use the Bible to justify turning Western women into burqa babes who have to walk ten paces behind the menfolk. No thanks, Jethro.

You have to wonder why the likes of Santorum and his scared, bigoted followers are so fascinated by what other people do with their sex lives. Where there's an obsession, there's usually something deeply twisted.

surviving name one thing jesus said about the gays? unless you are jewish in which case there are many the old testament is full of crazy "laws"

Doug you are an idiot point blank oohhh he threw glitter on me thats a crime arrest him obviously its not a crime or else im sure he would have been arrested and not forced by a bunch of brainwashed cowards to leave. why is it always the ignorant who vote and send young innocent people who have been taught and know in thier gut that killing is bad but are then retrained to go kill other innocent people,(the main reason when people come back from wars they are mentally @!$%#ed up for life) which crimes and laws are they breaking the laws in our constitution which is supreme law in America no matter what you idiots want to believe or the laws written by rich people to continue to take advantage of innocent people and their families to be able to keep hold on their power over the will of the people. Violence is the last refuge which i do agree with and thats why when the ows movement gets serious im gonna feel bad for anybody that wants to try to hold a line in front of them for some rich idiot who is ordering them to break Their constitutional rights because they will be part of the innocent retrained to kill the innocent. When the @!$%# hits the fan my advice to you is to stay out of the way unless you want to get ran over. Look at any ancient civilization what do you think it wasnt the exact same as it is today the money hungry so called powerfull people taking advantage of the innocent hard working people of the land. and the innocent hard working people having to stand up for what they know is right and correct the wrongs untill the same situation eventually comes back into play. which is why they say it is easy to know the future because all you have to do is look in the past because history repeats itself over and over.

Doug-1071701

Freedom of speech does not entitle anyone to assault someone else. Why is it the peace loving libs are always throwing things, "Occupying" places, and otherwise engaging in activities which would ordinarily be considered crimes?

Why is it that people who throw around the word “Assault” online in blogs have no idea what they are talking about or the legal definition behind the word, Doug? Intent to cause harm Doug… that is harm with something like a knife or gun, or even a blunt object, something that can actually cause damage and fear. The only way glitter could harm you and be called “Assault” is if someone threatened to drop a whole crate full on you Doug, and even then it would be considered a blunt object.

Hand full of glitter constitutes Assault… ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

Take down cathy-

Throwing anything onto anyone does constitute "assault". I'm sure Santorum could've preferred charges but realizes that as a Presidential candidate it would look silly and ridiculous for him to do so. But I wouldn't recommend to anyone to adopt "glitter bombing" as a lifestyle. And I agree with those who stated that if something similar had been done to President Obama, many of the same people defending this mope would be up in arms. And in closing, 1) don't do it to me and 2) supporting "free speech" means that you support the rights of people with whom you disagree vehmently.

Yes, Santorum is entitled to his opinion however his opinion should be his alone and not forced down everyone else's throats. He is free to worship and believe any way he wants too but he doesn't have the right to force his beliefs on the rest of us.

In certain countries around the world, they throw ACID instead of glitter. It is extremely childish to throw anything, pie what have you on anyone. It is an assault as far as I care and in my younger days they perp would have got a severe @ss woppin.

Don't worry. It don't matter whichever New World Order BANKSTER clown gits elected. This administration has set the next administration the legal groundwork to revoke ALL our freedoms. In 2013 we will be ruled by either a resurrected Stalin or Hitler. In da end BOTH suck and the crony corporate fascist will continue to consolidate their wealth and we will have only da poe and da ELITES.

ENJOY your red/blue game. End result da same. LOL!

Just like that GAY judge in California, used his GAY RIGHTS opnion to over turn a LAW that was VOTED on by everyone in the state to outlaw GAY MARRIAGE. Legislating from the bench is just as bad as what you are accusing Ricky of, except he doesnt have to put it through any legislation like Ricky, he just says what he wants and poof, its ok, funny how you dont whine about the unfairness of that. and BTW read the definition of assult. I have no issues with rights, gay, black, white or otherwise, but we are a Constitutional Republic. We have laws and a way of doing things. Throwing fits and temper tantrums because people dont believe the way you do does not let you get your way, just as any child with a decent parent. The way it works is if you feel one way you find and support someone who believes the way you do and support them, not attack everyone who does not believe your way, which funny enough is exactly what the attackers are accusing the people they attack of, when was the last time you saw a Republican Canidate glitter bomb anything? Bombing another country is a diffrent story.

Human rights should not be voted on.

The whole glitter thing? Beat the hell out of the thrower.

Go die in a hole rick. If you have a problem with gay people's personal business it's either because you're a religious, delusional moron who needs to be told what to do by a bunch of child molesters who just want your money or because you know, no matter how much you deny it, deep down in your heart there's that ever-present, undeniable urge to blow that guy across the street and you're too much of coward to face it. Pathetic..

Being gay is nothing but a disease for weak minded, weak willed people, and faggots that glitter bomb presidential candidates should be tased and hauled off to some secret facility and had the @!$%# scared out of them. I am sure it wouldn't take much. The disrespectful pukes use tactics such as these because they are scared they are in the minority opinion, and they think they should have the right to force their opinion on others but the others don't have the right to have an opinion that is contrary to theirs. There whole lifestyle is one big contradiction and in my opinion they are too confused to be listened to.

Wow, such hate from such an enlightened bunch. "He can't tell us what to do." "He can't legislate what we do." "We'll show him".

When Gay marriage is placed on the ballot and defeated, the libs go right to the courts to get the vote over turned. Has this even happened when it passed? (BTW, it's never passed in a State) So, how the bloody heck to you suppose that any legislation any Conservative would ever try to put in place ever get through the overwhelming liberal courts? But this is all just BS anyway. The real story if the conduct of the moron who threw the glitter.

What this Occu-punk did was assault, nothing more, and he should be charged as such. You can get all in a wad over Santorum's politics if you wish, but this is a CRIME, but will hardly be treated as such. The media will make a hero out of this criminal and morons will sit his trial to acquit him. The Occu-punks can throw feces and urine at cops, defecate on police cars, have sexual assaults happen in their camps, have health departments try to close them down for rats and unhealthy food preparation, have arrests for drugs, yet to the libs, they are saints and should be allowed to "protest" all they want (as long as it is against Conservatives).

Funny how speech is only allowed to be free and unfiltered when it agrees with Libs.

And TakeDownCathy: reference your belief this was not assault, from Wiki:

"Simple assault can be distinguished without the intent of injury upon another person. The violation of one's personal space or touching in a way the victim deemed inappropriate can be simple assault. " (my bold)

bob the reasoning behind your theories is false namely because voting has been known to be controlled by big money not the ignorant who keep yelling go vote when it has been proved over and over voting is rigged.

Rlquall,

Throwing anything onto anyone does constitute "assault".

Show me where it says this in the law, or is this just your opinion?

Mac-101,

It is an assault as far as I care and in my younger days they perp would have got a severe @ss woppin.

Now see Mac here actually admits that it is only his opinion that throwing glitter in someone face is assault, and then he admits that it is he that would actually commit the criminal offence of Battery against said person throwing the glitter. At the end of the day, it would be Mac in the slammer and not the glitter perp.

azcot,

Being gay is nothing but a disease for weak minded, weak willed people, and faggots that glitter bomb presidential candidates should be tased and hauled off to some secret facility and had the @!$%# scared out of them.

I wish you could say this in public to a group of gay people directly, though I doubt you even know what gay people are really like and would be unable to identify anyone that is gay except for the stereotypical television version. You seem to be the one here that is confused and contradictory. You state your opinion about gay people like it is fact and from personal experience, but I assume you are straight. So please explain to us how you know what being gay is all about and how many years you have lived as a gay man?

In da ole days Glitter boy would have got a severe assbeatin by the dudes security and thrown out in da alley. No cops, no charges, no mess, no cost to da tax payer. That's how it used to work. America has been pussified. Don't worry, when da economy completely collapses into the new AMERIKA you'll see a much different one. LOL!

Mac-101,

So you are an advocate of violence and criminal behavior?

gamer - What a interesting slant on life you have. Might I suggest that you put the controller down, grow up, get a job and move out of your parents basement?

If you are so worried about voting being rigged, then you must support the voting ID laws passed in so many states to prevent voter fraud. If this is so, you must be an outcast at the Occu-punk encampments. Where will you go to toss your feces now?

You're right about the money in the election process though. Maybe the Obama Re-election Campaign should divert some of the millions wasted on massive rallies (ala Germany in the 30's) and support the "poor" rather then spend all that money on dressing up the First Family? Could he actually get by without the support from "fat cats" he condemns so readily that mindlessly send him so many millions of dollars to prop up his failed administration? But then you would not have "the ignorant" behind him chanting "change" and his name over and over and over and over.....without the first idea about who they are supporting

Takedowncathy I have 2 friends and a cousin that are gay and I tell them this all the time. I am not gay because I have a little better grip on reality, and I would happily tell a group my opinion at anytime. I would not however humiliate and assault them individually in public.

azcot,

however

you would

humiliate and assault them

here on the web in vine posts by telling them they are diseased. Seems pretty disrespectful and pathetic. Certainly shows the strength of your character. How weak minded of you.

What makes you think we have to accept the queers? What makes them special that we should show tolerance for them when they are so intolerant as to assault a candidate who does not support their disgusting agenda?

Fred4Congress,

What makes you think we have to accept the queers?

Liberty!

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this.

And

What makes them special that we should show tolerance for them when they are so intolerant as to assault a candidate who does not support their disgusting agenda?

The actions of one ass-hat do not represent all people of any one group, especially a group that is as enormously diverse as the individuals that consider themselves as LBGT. Furthermore, no one is looking to be treated as special in the LBGT group. It is only people like you that want special treatment. You want to segregate Liberty for yourself and people that fit into a specific mold of your opinion, and that my friend is Un-American. It IS something that would make Hitler proud.

Also, please explain, what agenda? I am not privy to this agenda you speak. I would be very interested in hearing more about it.

If they do not want to be treated special, them why don't they give birth to their own children naturally by themselves as a couple like me and my whife have instead of having to adopt every child or go for outside sources for fertilization?

If they have no agenda, why does their lifestyle have to be taught in schools? It is an unnatural lifestyle and you know it. This is where you use the moronic argument of homosexuality existing in the wild. I have a news flash for you; we are supposed to be above the level of every other living creature and should not be using the lower forms of life to define our actions.

Being gay is not a Constitutional right. It was frowned upon in the first days and it would not be accepted today if it was not for too many people either taking the immoral road or people being afraid of the "homophobe" or "bigot" labels being put on them. I am afraid of no such thing. Homoisexuality is wrong. Homosexuality is unnatural. Homosexuality is repulsive to moral people. I do not have to like homosexuality; I just have to respect the people who practice the disgusting lifestyle the same way I have to respect everyone else. That is biblical. However, I do not have to accept the lifestyle. I am still in the knowledge that every homosexual in the military is breaking the law. DADT was a policy; it was not the law. The law that makes it unacceptable to be in the military if you are gay is still in existence.

As for your rhetoric about making Hitler proud, perhaps your tal;king points and hot buttons garner you points in fairy-land, but in the real world they are nothing more than insults and distractions, which do nothing to bolster your argument. Perhpas the queers should show more tolerance to heterosexuals who preach the Word, including the parts wherein it is clarified that homosexuality is wrong. You do not believe in the Bible? No surprise there. However, for argument sake, if you do not believe in the Bible, then you do not believe in Creationism. Therefore, you must believe in evolution. If you believe in evolution, then please explain how queers are supposed to procreate in order to keep their kind going. Simply put, they can't; they need to adopt or use artificial means to get pregnant. Then, they must indoctrinate a new generation to keep homosexuality viable. That is part of the agenda you play stupid to.

Wow, you are brain washed. Good for you.

If they do not want to be treated special, them why don't they give birth to their own children naturally by themselves as a couple like me and my whife have instead of having to adopt every child or go for outside sources for fertilization?

Why do so many heterosexuals utilize fertility clinics, surrogates, adoption services, etc? Why? It’s unnatural!

why does their lifestyle have to be taught in schools?

This implies that every single homosexual lives exactly the same life as one another. Do you as a heterosexual live exactly the same life as every other heterosexual in the world? Do you live the same lifestyle as a straight Muslim? A straight Communist? A straight Nigerian? You must since you state that homosexuals live a “lifestyle” that you have predetermined, so since you believe this to be true, then all straight people must live exactly the same lifestyle, right?

This is where you use the moronic argument of homosexuality existing in the wild.

Thank you for speaking for me. I would not make this argument. I would say that homosexuality has existed throughout human history, which predates anything you have brought to the table as evidence in this discussion.

Being gay is not a Constitutional right.

Neither is being straight. So what is your point?

It was frowned upon in the first days

Where do you get your history books? One of those southern-let’s-rewrite-history states like Texas? There are many examples throughout history that show the contrary, one specifically stating that homosexuality was a gift from the gods.

That is biblical.

It is biblical only when you cherry-pick passages and twist their meaning to suit your own needs and desires, this is a sin in itself, while at the same time wanting one specific bible to be treated special over all others so you can push your agenda. Yeah sure, that will go over real well in the Afterlife. Good luck, wouldn’t want to be you.

The law that makes it unacceptable to be in the military if you are gay is still in existence.

Really? Cite a source. Show us proof! My grandfather, a WWII POW would tell you if you have the balls to say it, then you should have the balls to back it up with proof!

Perhaps the queers should show more tolerance to heterosexuals who preach the Word, including the parts wherein it is clarified that homosexuality is wrong.

I hate to tell you this, obviously you have no clue, but many homosexuals belong to churches and follow The Bible. And I also hate to tell you that nowhere in The Bible is homosexuality clarified at all. It is not mentioned once in any passage.

You do not believe in the Bible? No surprise there.

Excuse me again for your ability to speak for me. The one thing I can tell you here is that I certainly do not believe in your bible rewrite. And don’t you dare tell me that your bible is not a rewrite since I am sure it is written in English, and I hate to tell you but English did not exist when Jesus was alive.

However, for argument sake, if you do not believe in the Bible, then you do not believe in Creationism. Therefore, you must believe in evolution. If you believe in evolution, then please explain how queers are supposed to procreate in order to keep their kind going.

If we were to have the evolution debate, then we would have to discuss survival of the species, and survival of the species did not occur by pairs of heterosexuals living in solitude away from each other. Human beings survived by living in groups with each individual fulfilling a role that added to the group’s ability for survival. If you think the only role needed for survival is to reproduce, then you are extremely shortsighted.

As with today’s society, it takes many different types of individuals to make a society succeed, and the more diverse the better for survival. Who is to say that homosexuals did not have an important role in helping the human species proliferate and thrive? And that it is now imbedded in the genetic sequence of human beings for a certain percentage to always turn out gay for the greater good of the whole.

I'm right, you are wrong. There is no more to be had on this discussion. Homosexuality is a sin. It states so very clearly in the Bible. You do not have to accept that. We all sin. Of course, in order to be saved we must repent from those sins. I am not going to debate with someone who has her indoctrinated answers all sorted out for her. Our God says it is a sin, so it is. If you wish to defend the sin instead of learning the truth, so be it. However, just because you do not believe it is a sin does not mean it is not, just as sitting on a train track does not make the oncoming train a fallacy just because you say so. Unfortunately, just like that train, it may be too late by the time you realize you were wrong.

By the way, many bad people go to church; Adolph Hitler went to church; Pedophile priests go to church; going to church does not make you right in the eyes of man or God. That was a terrible argument for the gay LIFESTYLE.

Doesn't seem you read, or could respond to, most of what I said. All I seem to have left you with was resorting to your Bible thumping, and even that was lame.

it may be too late by the time you realize you were wrong.

Exactly what I said about you.

LIFESTYLE.

If you keep saying this, then it is proof that you have attraction to the same sex, since only a person that is equally attracted to both men and women would think that it is a lifestyle. This says way more about you than anything.

Didn't seem you have the balls to come up with some proof on your claims about the military either.

indoctrinated answers

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.... That is too funny!

While I don't support Santorum and strongly oppose his "social conservative" policies, I don't support the "right" of people to assault those they disagree with. This does absolutely nothing to support their cause, it only makes many who might be sympathetic want nothing to do with them.

I'm sorry Cathy, but as a Christian minister and father of 5 children, I do not need to clarify my "Bible-thumping" to you. Also, I have posted the exact enumeration of the law pertaining to homosecuals in the military before; perhaps you can do a little research and enlighten yourself with true fact instead of indoctrination. However, given your lack of initiative and your apparent inability to function on the level of the intellectually average, I will provide for you the exact law, ahich is still in affect at this time, and which was last updated January 7, 2011, merely one year ago.

UNITED STATES CODES, TITLE 10, SUBTITLE A, PART 2, CHAPTER 37 ,

§ 654. Policy concerning homosexuality in the armed forces

How Current is This?

(a) Findings.— Congress makes the following findings:
(1)Section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States commits exclusively to the Congress the powers to raise and support armies, provide and maintain a Navy, and make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces.
(2)There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.
(3)Pursuant to the powers conferred by section 8 of article I of the Constitution of the United States, it lies within the discretion of the Congress to establish qualifications for and conditions of service in the armed forces.
(4)The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise.
(5)The conduct of military operations requires members of the armed forces to make extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.
(6)Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion.
(7)One of the most critical elements in combat capability is unit cohesion, that is, the bonds of trust among individual service members that make the combat effectiveness of a military unit greater than the sum of the combat effectiveness of the individual unit members.
(8)Military life is fundamentally different from civilian life in that—
(A)the extraordinary responsibilities of the armed forces, the unique conditions of military service, and the critical role of unit cohesion, require that the military community, while subject to civilian control, exist as a specialized society; and
(B)the military society is characterized by its own laws, rules, customs, and traditions, including numerous restrictions on personal behavior, that would not be acceptable in civilian society.

(9)The standards of conduct for members of the armed forces regulate a member’s life for 24 hours each day beginning at the moment the member enters military status and not ending until that person is discharged or otherwise separated from the armed forces.
(10)Those standards of conduct, including the Uniform Code of Military Justice, apply to a member of the armed forces at all times that the member has a military status, whether the member is on base or off base, and whether the member is on duty or off duty.
(11)The pervasive application of the standards of conduct is necessary because members of the armed forces must be ready at all times for worldwide deployment to a combat environment.
(12)The worldwide deployment of United States military forces, the international responsibilities of the United States, and the potential for involvement of the armed forces in actual combat routinely make it necessary for members of the armed forces involuntarily to accept living conditions and working conditions that are often spartan, primitive, and characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.
(13)The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a longstanding element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service.
(14)The armed forces must maintain personnel policies that exclude persons whose presence in the armed forces would create an unacceptable risk to the armed forces’ high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.
(15)The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability.

(b) Policy.— A member of the armed forces shall be separated from the armed forces under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense if one or more of the following findings is made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations:
(1)That the member has engaged in, attempted to engage in, or solicited another to engage in a homosexual act or acts unless there are further findings, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in such regulations, that the member has demonstrated that—
(A)such conduct is a departure from the member’s usual and customary behavior;
(B)such conduct, under all the circumstances, is unlikely to recur;
(C)such conduct was not accomplished by use of force, coercion, or intimidation;
(D)under the particular circumstances of the case, the member’s continued presence in the armed forces is consistent with the interests of the armed forces in proper discipline, good order, and morale; and
(E)the member does not have a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts.

(2)That the member has stated that he or she is a homosexual or bisexual, or words to that effect, unless there is a further finding, made and approved in accordance with procedures set forth in the regulations, that the member has demonstrated that he or she is not a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts.
(3)That the member has married or attempted to marry a person known to be of the same biological sex.

(c) Entry Standards and Documents.—
(1)The Secretary of Defense shall ensure that the standards for enlistment and appointment of members of the armed forces reflect the policies set forth in subsection (b).
(2)The documents used to effectuate the enlistment or appointment of a person as a member of the armed forces shall set forth the provisions of subsection (b).

(d) Required Briefings.— The briefings that members of the armed forces receive upon entry into the armed forces and periodically thereafter under section 937 of this title (article 137 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice) shall include a detailed explanation of the applicable laws and regulations governing sexual conduct by members of the armed forces, including the policies prescribed under subsection (b).
(e) Rule of Construction.— Nothing in subsection (b) shall be construed to require that a member of the armed forces be processed for separation from the armed forces when a determination is made in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense that—
(1)the member engaged in conduct or made statements for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service; and
(2)separation of the member would not be in the best interest of the armed forces.

(f) Definitions.— In this section:
(1)The term “homosexual” means a person, regardless of sex, who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual acts, and includes the terms “gay” and “lesbian”.
(2)The term “bisexual” means a person who engages in, attempts to engage in, has a propensity to engage in, or intends to engage in homosexual and heterosexual acts.
(3)The term “homosexual act” means—
(A)any bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires; and
(B)any bodily contact which a reasonable person would understand to demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in an act described in subparagraph (A).

Does this make it clear enough for you? If you really wish to go on with a "BIBLE THUMPING" debate, I am happy and very prepared to accommodate you.

So finally, the answer is NO, WE DO NOT HAVE TO TOLERATE THE GAY LIFESTYLE, and what they did was not a contituionally protected right, it was assault.

Fred4Congress,

You are misinformed. Section 654 of title 10, United States Code, was repealed by H.R. 2965 and S. 4023 by vote of Congress and signed into law by President Obama on December 22, 2010.

The repeal act was certified by Congress and the end of D.A.D.T. became official on September 20, 2011.

S 4023 PCS

Calendar No. 688

111th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 4023

To provide for the repeal of the Department of Defense policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces known as ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

December 10, 2010

Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Ms. COLLINS, Mrs. LINCOLN, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. REID, Mr. FRANKEN, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. COONS, Mr. KERRY, Mr. DODD, Mr. AKAKA, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mrs. BOXER, Mr. UDALL of New Mexico, Mr. BENNET, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mrs. HAGAN, Mr. SCHUMER, Ms. MIKULSKI, Ms. CANTWELL, Mr. CASEY, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. FEINGOLD, Ms. LANDRIEU, Ms. STABENOW, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. KOHL, and Mr. DORGAN) introduced the following bill; which was read the first time

December 13, 2010

Read the second time and placed on the calendar

A BILL

To provide for the repeal of the Department of Defense policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces known as ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Repeal Act of 2010’.

SEC. 2. DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE POLICY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY IN THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) Comprehensive Review on the Implementation of a Repeal of 10 U.S.C. 654-

(1) IN GENERAL- On March 2, 2010, the Secretary of Defense issued a memorandum directing the Comprehensive Review on the Implementation of a Repeal of 10 U.S.C. 654 (section 654 of title 10, United States Code).

(2) OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF REVIEW- The Terms of Reference accompanying the Secretary’s memorandum established the following objectives and scope of the ordered review:

(A) Determine any impacts to military readiness, military effectiveness and unit cohesion, recruiting/retention, and family readiness that may result from repeal of the law and recommend any actions that should be taken in light of such impacts.

(B) Determine leadership, guidance, and training on standards of conduct and new policies.

(C) Determine appropriate changes to existing policies and regulations, including but not limited to issues regarding personnel management, leadership and training, facilities, investigations, and benefits.

(D) Recommend appropriate changes (if any) to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

(E) Monitor and evaluate existing legislative proposals to repeal 10 U.S.C. 654 and proposals that may be introduced in the Congress during the period of the review.

(F) Assure appropriate ways to monitor the workforce climate and military effectiveness that support successful follow-through on implementation.

(G) Evaluate the issues raised in ongoing litigation involving 10 U.S.C. 654.

(b) Effective Date- The amendments made by subsection (f) shall take effect 60 days after the date on which the last of the following occurs:

(1) The Secretary of Defense has received the report required by the memorandum of the Secretary referred to in subsection (a).

(2) The President transmits to the congressional defense committees a written certification, signed by the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stating each of the following:

(A) That the President, the Secretary of Defense, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff have considered the recommendations contained in the report and the report’s proposed plan of action.

(B) That the Department of Defense has prepared the necessary policies and regulations to exercise the discretion provided by the amendments made by subsection (f).

(C) That the implementation of necessary policies and regulations pursuant to the discretion provided by the amendments made by subsection (f) is consistent with the standards of military readiness, military effectiveness, unit cohesion, and recruiting and retention of the Armed Forces.

(c) No Immediate Effect on Current Policy- Section 654 of title 10, United States Code, shall remain in effect until such time that all of the requirements and certifications required by subsection (b) are met. If these requirements and certifications are not met, section 654 of title 10, United States Code, shall remain in effect.

(d) Benefits- Nothing in this section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to require the furnishing of benefits in violation of section 7 of title 1, United States Code (relating to the definitions of ‘marriage’ and ‘spouse’ and referred to as the ‘Defense of Marriage Act’).

(e) No Private Cause of Action- Nothing in this section, or the amendments made by this section, shall be construed to create a private cause of action.

(f) Treatment of 1993 Policy-

(1) TITLE 10- Upon the effective date established by subsection (b), chapter 37 of title 10, United States Code, is amended--

(A) by striking section 654; and

(B) in the table of sections at the beginning of such chapter, by striking the item relating to section 654.

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT- Upon the effective date established by subsection (b), section 571 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (10 U.S.C. 654 note) is amended by striking subsections (b), (c), and (d).

Calendar No. 688

111th CONGRESS

2d Session

S. 4023

A BILL

To provide for the repeal of the Department of Defense policy concerning homosexuality in the Armed Forces known as ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’.

Fred4Congress,

Furthermore, you need to look up the definition of assault. In order to prove assault, you need to show both intent to cause bodily harm and the threat to cause bodily harm.

You can cry assault all you want, but any judge that would consider glitter as causing grave bodily harm would be laughed off the bench.

This by no means shows that I support such actions as throwing glitter in someone’s face; it merely shows I actually have an understanding of the law, which seems to have escaped you.

Can we please quit bringing up a book thats over 2000 years old and focus on today? Or should I bring up bible quotes about there being more than one god (Psalms 82) or stoning those who speak out against god (Leviticus 24:15). Don't think that because there's a "New" testimate, that all the rules somehow changed, in that Jesus is quoted as saying in Matthew 5:17 "Think not that I come to destroy the law or the prophets; I come not to destroy, but to fulfill." Really, are we even reading the same book here?

The Bible thought slavery was ok, but the United States has banned it. Why? Because as a civilized nation, the nation finally decided that everyone has rights. Don't Ask, Don't Tell was a bandaid fix for Clinton to address the concern for gays and lesbians in the military. Congress finally deemed that we as a civilized nation, could finally accept that gays and lesbians should not be barred and prosecuted from military service simply on grounds of their sexual orientation. It was repealed last year, which means it's ok for gays and lesbians, and even bisexuals to be in the Armed Forces. Can't wait until DOMA gets repealed, so we, the nation, can finally move on from this entire thing and press on into the 21st century.

I would have to say the biggest thing ruining our government isn't gays or lesbians, but religion. Religion should have no place in governing the laws of society, except only when the laws of society repress religion.

Couldn't have happened to a more deserving person.

Sure would have preferred it was @!$%# thrown at oBAMa for murdering our nation.

You are so right....in this country - we should be allowed to physically assault everyone we disagree with.....next time I see you union loving...PETA supporting left out....I'm gonna belt one of you...can't wait....you opened the door....now defend yourself Keith Obermann wannabe

Gosh, Gilbertct, throwing glitter at someone is a physical assault? It's litigious people like you that make it so you can't even drink a cup of coffee without the restaurant having to warn you about it being hot! People in this country have to grow up a bit and stop treating every single little thing touching them as "physical assault!" Maybe Santorum could have - *gasp!* - actually confronted the situation. Unlike his track record of ignoring things he doesn't like, such as ignoring a wheelchair-bound man with Muscular Dystrophy because he asked him an uncomfortable question about medical marijuana.

he's probably a gloryholer

And Santorum is a teabagger. Glitter bomb..to the point and funny. I guess it is better than a shoe being thrown at you.

The bearded bum in the picture looks like the type of loser I used to deal with when I worked bar security (although he was probably crappin' his Pampers back in those days), usually as a result of confusing their size with being right in a drunken argument. No way it is acceptable to assault those you disagree with, drunk or sober, and any douche bag that does needs to be shown the door, ASAP !!

Santorum represents much of what I despise about so called conservatives, but just because he's almost always on the wrong side of an issue doesn't mean it justifies this form of abuse.

ziiinnnggg

How can anyone call sexual deviancy and baby killing a right?

"fairy" glitter.

Bubba,

To them YOU are the sexual deviant. What happens between two people is their business. I dont like PDA strait gay bi espc. if it is beast or pedi. People do what they are going to do with other consenting adults, and so long as I dont have to see it, their business. A small kiss or holding hands is not PDA BTW, just dont linger and grope.

As for baby killing, I am not a woman, I can not get pregnate, why would I ever thing I have the right to tell someoen what they can or cant do with their body. Why dont you try to stop tatoos, body piercing, breast augmentations, horrid plastic surgery. Because the body belongs to them, as adults, it is their right.

Doctor: Oh my goodness! What happened?

Santorum: Someone threw glitter on me and it really hurt my feelings after I said disparaging things about them and their children in the face of a society that causes LGBT kids to kill themselves!

Someone rush him to a hospital, ASAP.

What if it was toxic glitter? Santorum's likely afraid it will make him gay if he comes into contact with it.

Candidates don't have a secret service detail...unless they request one...like Spermin' Herman Cain

What happened! I can answer that. People are realizing that Santorum is a political whore and nothing more.

Wanting to impose his religious beliefs on everyone through law indicates just how bad a President he would make. That not leadership; that's the Christian Taliban Movement trying to overthrow the freedoms the gay community has worked and are working so hard to achieve.

Between Obama and the Republicans, except Ron Paul, we need the Independents to field a real leader to run for President so the American people have a choice other than another political 1%er the two parties are putting forward.

They should be fired for this before someone really does harm a candidate.

Yeah...because you never know when the glitter might go up his nose and cause him to blow his brains out.

John q is showing his rethug wimpness. SS not doing their job -- over glitter. Who's the butt of the joke now - U

To classify glitter as an amping up to more dangerous events -- Would that mean the moron Rethug rednecks carrying guns to the venues where Obama is speaking? Those morons should have their balls hacked off. I'd volunteer for free to do it.

That you consider this a SS issue -- tells me your devoid of a brain. There's only air space between your ears. We'll be sure to report that when you appear at an Obama event -- SS will take you out and I don't mean to dinner.

You people have no clue. Don't know if there were any SS there, but if there were, then they did not do their job. Sure it was only glitter this time, but it could have been acid, poison, anthrax. Once it is thrown, there has been a failure.

Would you say that there had not been a failure if someone got close enough to the president and shot him with one of those toy guys that shoots the plastic balls? After all, it was only a toy.

john q, shall I remind you of other times where there were Secret Service members nearby when a President was assaulted?

John F. Kennedy - Killed by an assassin.

Gerald R. Ford - Two assassination attempts.

Ronald Reagan - One very public assassination attempt.

George W. Bush - Shoe thrown at him.

Those are only but a few over the years. The Secret Service are not Gods, they cannot stop every attempt at a President, much less a candidate. Also, as Wisconsin dad pointed out, candidates don't have a SS detail unless they request it.

Now I have to ask you. Would you rather have a candidate who shelters himself from others and only allows a select few to get close to him? Or would you rather have a candidate who embraces those who support him, allowing the constituency to get close enough to greet him? Yes, this was unacceptable behavior from someone claiming to be from the Occupy movement. However, if you'd get your head out of your a-- and bother to talk to some of those within the Occupy movement, you would find many who are very similar to yourself. Believe it or not, many within the movement ARE hardworking people who simply want to be able to earn a decent living for their families. Yes, there may be some that want "freebies", but they are the exception, not the rule. And while some may argue with me on this, there are also some within the Tea Party who also expect "freebies". They only expect different types of freebies while others would never have the maturity within themselves to admit it.

It's a shame you're blinded by only that which you want to see instead of opening your eyes and seeing the world around you. If you argue with this last comment, then you've proven my point.

"Secret Service Agents are a JOKE! They should be fired for this before someone really does harm a candidate. The protesters should not be able to get that close".. I agree John, S.S. agents haven't been worth spit since November 22, 1963. However, the only way to assure that a protester doesn't get close to any political delegate (which, I might add, is open season) we'd have to put them behind bullet proof glass (or jet-age plastic) to potentially protect them even from the Easter Bunny. Now wouldn't THAT be a hoot for all the Nations to see.. An untouchable g'ment... Wait a minute!.. uh, never mind. Maybe if we had the 'thought' police (no, too futuristic).. I got it! Why don't they just use youtube? I'd watch it.. They could do it in the privy of their own home.. People could choose which one they want to bore them.. No chance of protester harassment.. Wouldn't even cost half a shopping spree at Macy's. .

So Santorum does not have the same rights as everyone else in the country and yes glitter can damage one's eyes. Not so funny. My God have mercy on us all.

IT WAS NOT something else... and how can you compare this to what happen to Giffords, its not even in the same ballpark. Get a grip JRS.

If it was dangerous they would be held accountable. The proverbial pie in the face is nothing new, so quit your whining. You're just mad because they exposed the evangelicals bigotry. Well too bad, it needs to be exposed and ridiculed ever chance possible. You aint seen nothing yet.

Accountability is finally here. The youth arent going to be quiet. You are going to have it shoved right in your face everywhere. The free ride is over. The rest of us are fighting back, and we're not giving up until we win.

If you people want a theocracy, move to Iran.

The French throw eggs. Maybe that would be OK.

Are you mental?

It's glitter. Wasn't a gun.

But he throws his hate and bigotry in our faces all the time. To me, that's much more damaging than "toxic glitter" can ever be. He and his type are a cancer on this nation and a cure needs to be found ASAP. Just my opinion and if you don't like it, feel free to un-read it.

Well, Santorum wasn't tared and feathered even though he deserves to be for his comments about human beings he considers subhuman.

Its just hard to believe that this man is running for President.

Well they say what goes around, comes around. Wouldn't that be a twist of faith if one of his kids was gay?

JRS; reality check.

Geez, JRS, conservatives are the biggest crybabies in the world. Hurtsy feelingsy! Let the bullies get a dose of their own medicine. Besides, glitter is pretty.

For those that say I need a reality check, I would just offer this story that happened a few years ago. I am a scientist and also have been in the military. Protecting people from harm is something that I have had to think about and have been involved with so I do have experience in this.

A few years ago there was a prominent scientist, a psychologist, who was speaking at a scientific conference in California. At the conference, after speaking to a crowd of 500 people, he was taking questions after stepping off the stage. As he was answering questions, he felt a sharp pain in his leg and looked down and saw a knife handle sticking out of his leg. The rest of the knife was in his leg. The man who stabbed him was quickly wrestled to the ground by the crowd. The question then is...how did this happen?

It turns out that the man that stabbed him was from Japan. The man was mentally ill and claimed to hear voices. In Japan, he looked up on the internet about voices and found out there was a psychologist that was giving a speech at a conference in California. Somehow, the man then said that his "voices" told him that this psychologist had been the one that caused the voices in his head. So, the Japanese man bought a plane ticket and went to the conference specifically to ask the psychologist to make the voices stop. The day before the psychologist was stabbed, the man found the psychologist at the conference and ask him to make the voices in his head go away. The psychologist responded that he could not do that now and the man walked away. Later that night, the man's voices told him that he either must kill himself or stop the cause of the voices. So, the next day, after the psychologist gave his speech, the man came up to him attempting to stab him in the chest but at the last minute tripped with his knife and stabbed him in the leg instead.

My point is that while I know that sometimes there are cases where people have a legitimate complaint, prior to the incident, one has no way of knowing if the person is mentally deranged or just an angry person. Of course now, people say it is just glitter but if you saw someone running up to you ready to spray something in your face, how would you react? Would you allow glitter to be sprayed in your face? Or how about your children's face? How can you know in today's world that everything is harmless? Even at Black Friday in 2011, there was a case where a woman at a Walmart sprayed pepper spray at everyone in line so she could check out sooner.

I think that those that say I need a reality check need a reality check themselves. Today's world is not a friendly place...just look at 911...none of those people that got on those planes ever thought that anyone would do what they did. There are people out there that would like to do harm to our country. Or, if you want to look at history, just look to Robert Kennedy and what happened in his presidential race if you need some history to understand why this is more serious than you make it out to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy

Security of presidential candidates, no matter which party, is essential. Hindsight is 20/20.

This is the attitude that breaks down our personal freedoms. What if. What if. What if. JRS - Go get a TSA strip search you nut bag.

JRS-619990,

You really need to step back and take a good look at your argument. You are comparing a non-threatening object to actual weapons. While I do not agree with anyone throwing things in people’s faces, at least I understand the legal precedents behind this and what constitutes Assault and Battery. The guy with the knife in his leg suffered a Battery with a deadly weapon. They call these crimes different things for a reason, to avoid a system of government that treats all crimes with one punishment. But I suppose you would have us execute glitter throwers alongside the guy that shot Gabby?

JRS, in response to your first comment - if it HAD been laced with anthrax, it would have affected everyone there who would have been close enough to the incident, including the person who threw it.

On your second comment, there is absolutely no way you could protect a Presidential candidate 24/7. If I were to take your train of thought a step further, what would stop a person from driving to a candidates home and either setting fire to or bombing that home? Or shooting them from a distance (like a professional sharp-shooter)? Or even doing what you described concerning that Japanese man?

Anyone running for President knows there are chances something could happen. That is the chance they take running for office. You can "what if" all day long, but at the end of the day, it was glitter. Santorum wasn't harmed (well, perhaps mentally). It's called life. Do you protect yourself every minute of every day? Of course not, otherwise you'd never live in a society. You would barricade yourself away from everyone since you have absolutely no way of knowing who might harm you. I admit I don't find this incident funny but I'm not addressing it in horror like you are. You do need a reality check, meaning that in reality, NOTHING happened other than Santorum was covered with glitter.

Well said Cathy!!

Yes, let's think about Giffords...she lives in a state wherein concealed weapons are legal to carry. Also, with Ronald Reagan's "very public attempted" that was a time when Ronald Reagan refused to sign the Brady Bill. This would have prevented thousands and thousands of other lives being lost. The Brady Bill was originally introduced in 1987 and the NRA defeated it. Wow, talk about progress. Now, we have Congress Members being shot only 25 years later. Gee, who could have seen this coming?

Margo, we have a right to guns, not to attack people.

Does not matter if it is harmless or not. A bully is a bully.

Since everyone seems to be attacking me instead of the action...I will just add to the argument...and add fuel to the fire.

I was in the military and if I was put in charge of protecting someone and all of a sudden I saw someone pull something out or charge at them, there is no time to think about "hey, is that just glitter or is it something else?" My point is that if a Secret Service agent saw it was about to happen, the guy would be on the ground instantaneously. It is not a smart idea to glitter bomb someone.

Yes, it was glitter. But, you know that now after it happened. You cannot tell me that seconds before it happened, you would know definitely that is what it was. If an agent had seen it was going to happen and took the guy down, he would have every right to.

There are laws in this country. Now, assault with glitter might sound funny but technically, if I performed an action that makes you feel like you are about to receive bodily harm and no physical contact took place, I would be guilty of assault. If I just faked a punch and someone ducked and I never intended to hit them I could be charged with assault as it is written in the laws of this country.

All someone has to do to be guilty of assault in a court of law is to make someone fear something is about to happen to them. That is not me encroaching on personal freedom, those laws are already on the books. People should have the freedom to walk around in a world where they should not have to worry about something happening to them.

JRS-619990,

There are laws in this country. Now, assault with glitter might sound funny but technically, if I performed an action that makes you feel like you are about to receive bodily harm and no physical contact took place, I would be guilty of assault.

No, you would not be guilty of assault. Look up Mens rea... it is Latin for guilty mind. You have to prove intent in order to get an assault charge to stick. You said:

If I just faked a punch and someone ducked and I never intended to hit them I could be charged with assault as it is written in the laws of this country.

And this is false. If you never intended to hit them, then it is not assault under the criminal code of this country.

I am sorry you do not understand this. In order to prove assault, you have to prove both intent and fear of injury.

There is always a realistic fear when an unknown substance is being thrown on you. And there is a common-law sancticty of person which would cover this act. And faking a punch in order to intimidate (create a climate of fear) could conceivably be included.

I wouldn't want you as my defense attorney if your legal advice included, "Tell them it was really never your intent to actually connect with that punch." Guilty as charged! Next case.

Rlquall,

Thank you for speaking for me and assuming you know how I would defend a client in this matter. All that really did was enforce the idea that you do not know anything about the legal system of our great nation, or how a defense attorney would do his or her job.

Are you an actual attorney? Your knowledge of the UCMJ was actually quite impressive; still think that you are incredibly wrong about assault, but I am not an actual attorney (just more knowledgable about the law than the typical layman, I'd say; certainly more than our "friend" fred).

Thank you for the compliment.

As for defining assault, I was pointing out how it is defined in tort and criminal law. As for Military Criminal Law, I am not sure, but I do believe the same rules apply, which all stem from common law.

You are certainly correct about the UCMJ. Are you familiar with its origins? During WWII, millions of mainstream Americans with no previous connection the the military learned exactly how "arbitrary and caprcious" things could be under the old Articles of War which served as the basis for military discipine and led us to such triumphs of due process as the execution of Pvt. Slovik for desertion when it was overwhelmingly obvious that he was non compis mentis and probably had been even prior to his induction, and was also suffering from what would today probably be considered to be PTSD. The outcry led to the recodification which became the UCMJ, which came out six years after the end of WWII and in the midst of the Korean Conflict. It is a vast improvement over what came before, but still far less comprehensive in its protection of individual rights than would be appropriate for civilians.

Trust me...before the election....you will see more than the Occupiers doing better. The American uprising is coming. I'm geared up and have plenty of rations...you're right...this WILL be a long year

Glitter? It is just a gateway drug, soon they'll be tossing pies, maybe even the water ballons. MAKE THE VOILENCE STOP!!! LOL

WisconsinDad, congrats on the recall efforts so far. 1 million signatures! Great showing on all the other recalls too. The beginning of the end to the teabaggers.

@WisconsinDad, you are making us all wake up and pick up the shovel of freedom and use it. You probably have no idea how what you have accomplished has affected us all. You have fleshed out the evil and now you are about to defeat it. We must follow your lead or we do not deserve the freedom our forebears created for us.

As for this being a long year - it looks to be a longer year for GOP. For us it is a battle to win and win we will.

I salute you.

It wont hurt their cause. Anyone who would not like this, already doesnt like Occupy. The supporters will love this.

And this is no different than the pie in the face gag, its nothing new.

Throwing some harmless glitter on the man is nothing compared to the vicious demonizing Mr. Santorum throws at gays and lesbians each day.

Why is it that people who throw around the word “Assault” online in blogs have no idea what they are talking about or the legal definition behind the word?

WITH INTENT TO CAUSE FEAR OF PHYSICAL HARM

*Facepalm*

A hand full of glitter constitutes fear of physical harm…. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!

Locke Step, by your definition, a bird pooping on you would be considered assault. Rain or snow falling on your head would be considered assault. What if it had been packing peanuts, would that have been assault too? You are perverting the definition of assault in an attempt to persuade others to believe you are right, which I find pathetic.

Please tell me one thing. Who was physically hurt by this incident? Santorum's mental state perhaps, nothing more. I'm sure Rick is a big boy who can take care of himself when glitter is thrown on him.

TakedownCathy,

You enforced the term assault in this case.

If someone throws something in your face you will have fear of physical harm. You know NOW that it was glitter but not at the time of the throwing. so it was assault. It did not have to be harmful only appear that way.

Locke, the govt allowing banks to force the people to succumb to all the losses in the real estate bubble caused by the big banks hurts their cause. Our govt bailing out companies that are bankrupt hurts their cause. Laws passed with big money, ceos, and corporations hurts their cause and that of the judicial system. Voting which has been proved to be rigged many times hurts the cause of so called democracy.(though I believe it actually enforces the true meaning of democracy) The brainwashing that our country was built on democracy(soemthing that is controlled by big money holders) and not a REPUBLIC(based on the people) hurts their cause. tell me when you pledge allegiance to the flag is it for the REPUBLIC for which it stands or for the Democracy. This is standard knowlege yet where is your outcry against the known real crimes and not these so called fake crimes of throwing glitter on someone. You are scared of the very gov't so much that you will not stand up and fight for what is right well that is on your conscious not mine. Every man chooses his war to fight which side are you on.

If George Washington was alive today he would shoot every member of the political fiasco and the ceos on the white house lawn doubt me get educated shill.

not that i would condone that but we need to fix our system thats the point of the ows movement

If George Washington was alive today he would shoot every member of the political fiasco and the ceos on the white house lawn doubt me get educated shill.

Washington was pro business and was in business himself, he also owned slaves and did not emancipate them until after the death of his widow. He would have possibly assembled the members of a party and powerful business people to the Whitehouse but the meeting would more likely center on how to keep the rabble down and put them back in their place rather than finding ways to appease them , and certainly not involve executing the source of wealth in America. More than likely he would have been seen the occupy people as threat to our national security and had them arrested, removed and seen to it that they did not rise up again and if they did there would have been laws in place to stop them.

Kind of like the way they made it a federal crime for anarchists to enter the country after the Mc Kinnley assassination.

Agewithout wisdom,

You enforced the term assault in this case.

If someone throws something in your face you will have fear of physical harm. You know NOW that it was glitter but not at the time of the throwing. so it was assault. It did not have to be harmful only appear that way.

Yes you are right, Rick Santorum may have had a "fear of physical harm" at the point of this incident. But that is only one point in what is needed to commit or prove assault. Another step as part of assault is intent. What did the perpetrator intend to do as a result of their actions? Did they intend to cause physical harm? If they didn’t, then by definition they did not commit assault.

I didn’t make these rules. And as a United States of America citizen, you should know them. Please look up “Mens rea.”

I believe the glitter was a "physical and visual statement" in reference to the gay bashing by the Grand Old Party member.

If you think that throwing ANYTHING on ANYONE unsuspecting is either 1) free "speech" or 2) advances the debate you really are functioning at an immature, childish level. If someone had done this to a gay activist then they would doubtless be in custody under a high bond awaiting "hate crime" charges.

Perhaps your right, they could have thrown a SHOE at him.. Oh wait, that's what happened to Bush. My bad.

Ty

You can't discuss anything with religious zealots. There is only one way, their way and if you don't agree with them, they kill you.

History is full of violent examples of their actions towards other people who have different beliefs or life styles.

"what happened" Exactly. Did you catch how the christian?? extremists booed Ron Paul when he stated the Golden Rule? (As he stated "...we must treat others as we wish to be treated ourselves...")

That's always been one of the most radical policies ever expressed, and even today people don't really get it.

And, I will add, do you really want stuff thrown onto you when you least expect it?

thank you Kasey,for being a voice of reason in A Sea of the Toxic Sludge we call ignorance, and the Howling Dark we call fear.

I'm sick of people thinking that allowing gays to have their rights will somehow make people more or less gay. it wont change anything, in fact the more you make something taboo, the more people WANT to do something, it's just human nature to rebel.

Refusing..? Why ..who are You to instill your liberal beliefs on people who do NOT feel the same as you. Ignorance..? just look in the mirror ..follower, It's America Land of the free." Occupy This...losers.

Rich:

Is "refusing to catch up with the rest of us'" the phrase that so offends your feelings? History has demonstrated time and time again, greater justice for all trumps fear.

The occupiers are demonstrating in a silly, yes, but non-violent way, "shouting" as best they can, people who happen to be born differently deserve life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (or misery, if that is what you want) just like the rest of us.

Thankfully, it got our attention. Being older and quieter, I, like the rest of the "silent majority" just wait. I give the occupiers credit for demonstrating their youthful exuberance. I am waiting it out. They were bold enough to say something.

Without sounding silly, I am guessing that you don't know anyone who happens to have been born gay. News for all of us, they are "born that way," just like we can't explain why we are attracted to members of the opposite. It just happens to be.

Time will prove me right. Why fight so hard against it?

Rich, not unlike you forcing your right wing beliefs, eh?

Rich, please feel free to be as dumb and nasty as you wish, but don't expect a whole lot of people to like you or want to shrink before your majesty.

Rich, may I remind you that conservatives try to instill "their" beliefs on others who may not feel the same as they do. The marriage issue comes to mind. Heterosexuals for centuries have "instilled" their beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Now that those who happen to be of the same sex want to marry you're up in arms? You've proven how narrow-minded you are.

Those born centuries before us set up the rules, long before we were ever born. Does that make it right? Does it make sense to follow rules set up by people who knew less about human nature than we do today? I'm sure this is way beyond your comprehension level, which would also prove how simple-minded you are.

Hummm and liberal don't try to instill "their" beliefs? Perhaps you might not count the media that is controlled by the liberals. Ask yourself if that is not trying to control our citizens.

So it would be fine for our country to have Muslim theocracy, since the Constitution does not guarantee separation of church and state, in your warped interpretation-oh wait, you meant it would be fine to have a right wing nutbag Christian theocracy, didn't ya!

That clause has nothing to do with why the church is separated from politics. It is individual rights and freedoms that are guaranteed, and that is what is behind the separation of Church and State. You cant take away the freedoms and rights of others who think differently.

People have a right to NOT be christians, and NOT live by Christian morals. You can live by them IF YOU CHOOSE, but theres no way you will ever get me to live by them. It will be war first.

Stop spreading lies and misinformation. No, the phrase "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution, but it was first used by Thomas Jefferson. The intent of the Founding Fathers is quite clear and YOU are the "Perversionist".

Thomas Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in January 1, 1802:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church and State."

James Madison, perhaps the greatest supporter for separation of church and State, and whom many refer to as the father of the Constitution, also held similar views which he expressed in his letter to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822:

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

In 1785, Madison wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments:

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."

Preceding quotes were taken from the website earlyamerica.com, but these and many, many more quotes from our Founding Fathers can be found all over the net with a simple Google search.

There was an agreement between the churches and the government that if the churches would not put their noses in government, they would be tax exempt. Perhaps some of the churches should lose their tax exempt status. That form of welfare is a drag on local economies.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Aka you can practice it but you can't use it for making laws. First ammendment, try looking it up.

aeonwing - Please don't bother these people with facts - it just confuese and frustrates them. They much prefer their role as the Christian Taliban - and fail to see the irony in that.

Separation of Church and State is indeed a recognised position of law, legislated by the Supreme Court in 1947 (they borrowed the phrase from Jefferson and Locke) to define the original intent of the constitution. This county was founded by a people wishing to get away from a strong church-influenced goverment.

I do agree that no one is entitled to a free ride, however, your assuming these people don't have jobs. The rhetoric buzzing around about protesters is that they are jobless losers. Was your assumption based on the statement that most of them were college students and therefore must not have jobs. I have information for you, I worked a full time job and a part time job through my entire college career, not only did I work these jobs while in school, I excelled and was promoted. Most college students I knew worked while in college. This anti intellectualism and broad generalizations about people who go to college needs to end, its not like the way its portrayed in blockbuster hits.

If you think people need to earn a right to an opinion then I would like to add this stipulation, education (formal or non-formal) and completion of a minimum of 10 non-fiction books a year.

Mr:
What would you glitter bomb the Kenyan about? The Kenyan Thing? What exactly are you so angry about?

We are going through an "economic winter" and few are happy, except the 1%?

When do we talk about claiming this century for America?

Not trying to be personally mean or fussy about this, but the current crop of GOP Hopefuls spends way too much time looking through the rear view mirror, quoting long dead Reagan or some other nonsense.

Which GOP Candidate best reflects your values now, leading into the future? I would have voted for McCain in 2000 over Bush, but we got entangled into all sorts of stuff during his 2 term reign.

Here we are, coming out of this great recession? What are You hoping for in the next five years?

Why are you so passionate about shoving things up peoples rectums?

Hope that you are equally tired of quotes from the equally deceased FDR and JFK, Kasey. Will agree with you that it's the future that matters most. That's why I realized that Clinton and Gore had it sewed up in '92 -- the second that they played "Don't Stop" at the end of the convention. Obama has a great chance to win if he can convince people that he really had come to understand the future, and that blaming GWB (even for the stuff he deserves blame for) has grown really old, and that his attempt to replicate the 1930's by putting people to work through massive governmental employment schemes has pretty much fallen flat. Also, the GOP has to realize to have any chance that we aren't going back to Ike and the 1950's, despite the fact that there were lots of wonderful things about that era, or Reagan and the 1980's either for that matter. "Yesterday's gone," indeed, and the thought should dawn on BOTH SIDES (now).

How did that whole "Occupy Congress" thing go, I didnt hear much about it.

Since you insisted on posting what you said twice, and this IS America, please allow me to do so as well.

Rich, may I remind you that conservatives try to instill "their" beliefs on others who may not feel the same as they do. The marriage issue comes to mind. Heterosexuals for centuries have "instilled" their beliefs that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Now that those who happen to be of the same sex want to marry you're up in arms? You've proven how narrow-minded you are.

Those born centuries before us set up the rules, long before we were ever born. Does that make it right? Does it make sense to follow rules set up by people who knew less about human nature than we do today? I'm sure this is way beyond your comprehension level, which would also prove how simple-minded you are.

Another fat and useless member of society. .....

I believe in free speech and have no problem with same sex marriages. I think everyone should be able to marry whomever they want (as long as they're not children).

Protest all you want, but you show up knowing that you're not going to like what you hear. Do you see republican candidates showing up at the occupy movements and throwing things at protesters? No. Occupiers can say whatever they want to the american public via tv, twitter,the internet etc, but apparently conservatives can't do that. OWS wants the freedom to preach about what they believe in, but doesn't think anyone else with a dissenting opinion should be allowed to. Agree to disagree. Act your age. Rules apply to everyone.

Also, have you ever gotten glitter in your eye? It's a p.i.t.a. to get out and can scratch the eye itself.

Saying something ridiculous over and over again doesn't make it a reality.

Says the guy hiding behind his weapon...

All that from the one liner idiot!