Secretary Of State Nominee Mike Pompeo Says He Continues To Oppose Gay Marriage

  • metta

    Posts: 44238

    Apr 12, 2018 6:46 PM GMT
    Secretary Of State Nominee Mike Pompeo Says He Continues To Oppose Gay Marriage

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/secretary-state-nominee-mike-pompeo-182353689.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 12, 2018 9:34 PM GMT
    Of course he opposes gay marriage. He's part of the Trump Administration. DUH!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 13, 2018 12:48 AM GMT
    Issues like Gay Marriage and Abortion are ultimately issues of conscience. Should we now quiz every government employee and demand they publicly assert support for gay marriage, abortion, anti-gun control and a whole host of other issues before deeming them worthy of a job? Where do we draw the line? It's fine when we insist they agree with everything we believe but what happens when the next government doesn't share our beliefs?
    Is freedom of speech only for the people we like? If only some of us have it then no one does.
    The real question is "Are you able to perform the function of your job without your personal views adversely affecting it?" That Kim lady, who refused to issue marriage licenses, was clearly unable to fulfill her job. The CIA Director has asserted he is willing to let his personal beliefs not stop him from treating all employees fairly. Absent contradictory evidence we should take him at his word. Not everyone in Washington is a dishonourable liar and a schmuck.
  • jockjoy

    Posts: 175

    Apr 13, 2018 1:59 AM GMT
    What a freak show. How many Democrats are seriously considering whether or not to confirm Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State?
    Probably none, zero. They know in advance that they will goosestep and vote "no," as usual.
    So why waste everyone’s time asking questions? Camera time? Posturing?
    That could explain Cory Booker, who probably has no interest in serious foreign policy questions. He's fantasizing about being the next maobama.
    Obviously Pompeo will follow the law, as he has at the CIA.
    Well may one wonder why capable, talented men like Pompeo subject themselves to questioning by grandstanding politicians.
    What kind of person would Cory Booker vote for as Secretary of State? Probably his bff Bob Menendez (D NJ), recently on trial for corruption.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 13, 2018 2:12 AM GMT
    So I guess Hillary still opposes Transgender and Bisexual Marriage:



    Liberals, which of your politicians are supporting bisexual marriage which is a marriage between 3 people of different sexes?

    Liberals, where is your support for the "C" community:

    7973900562_f2f6ee5163_z.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 13, 2018 8:28 AM GMT
    Art_Deco saidOf course he opposes gay marriage. He's part of the Trump Administration. DUH!

    Well you've been in no rush to marry your boyfriend.
    Do you oppose it too? Being a bisexual with two ex-wives!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 13, 2018 8:34 AM GMT
    mx5guynj saidSo I guess Hillary still opposes Transgender and Bisexual Marriage:



    Liberals, which of your politicians are supporting bisexual marriage which is a marriage between 3 people of different sexes?

    Liberals, where is your support for the "C" community:

    7973900562_f2f6ee5163_z.jpg

    Like Obama she was never our friend. They simply wanted the Pink Vote.
    Yet the Libtards and Dumbocrats project that contempt for Gay Marriage onto Trump and his administration.
  • outdoorsmuscl...

    Posts: 2321

    Apr 13, 2018 12:32 PM GMT
    Mike Pompeo thinks gay sex is a ‘perversion’

    Booker asked him: ‘Do you believe that gay sex is a perversion? Yes or no?’

    Evangelical Christian Pompeo, who said America had ‘endorsed perversion and called it an alternative lifestyle’ began to reply, saying ‘Senator, if I can?’

    But Sen. Booker cut across him, repeating: ‘Yes or no? Do you believe gay sex is a perversion, ’cause it’s what you said here in one of your speeches.
    http://www.wnd.com/2018/04/dem-senator-badgers-pompeo-is-gay-sex-a-perversion/
  • bro4bro

    Posts: 2051

    Apr 13, 2018 3:34 PM GMT
    Opposition to same sex marriage is an explicit part of the Republican party platform at the national level, as well as every state platform I've checked. So, of course it's no surprise that a Republican politician opposes same sex marriage. Do you think he'd publicly go against his own party, and still be nominated for Secretary of State?

    [url]https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL%5b1%5d-ben_1468872234.pdf[/url]

    In other news, the Pope is Catholic...
  • StevenKal

    Posts: 170

    Apr 13, 2018 6:08 PM GMT
    Haters gonna hate!
  • metta

    Posts: 44238

    Apr 14, 2018 1:40 AM GMT
    Booker Grills Pompeo On Hating Gays And Muslims

  • metta

    Posts: 44238

    Apr 14, 2018 1:49 AM GMT
    Rand Paul EMBARRASSES Trump Pick Mike Pompeo

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2018 12:01 PM GMT
    Art_Deco saidOf course he opposes gay marriage. He's part of the Trump Administration. DUH!

    Yet Trump is more pro gay, than Obama and Hillary ever was.
    haters are always gonna hate.
  • outdoorsmuscl...

    Posts: 2321

    Apr 14, 2018 12:20 PM GMT
    It’s Official: Donald Trump Is The Most Anti-LGBTQ President In U.S. History
    Measured by both actions and outcomes, it’s a fact that is now undeniable.


    This will be startling only to those who bought the terrible narrative of some of our most influential political reporters, who throughout the 2016 campaign told us Donald Trump was “more accepting on gay issues” than most Republicans. But it is now undeniable: Donald Trump is the most anti-LGBTQ president in U.S. history.

    How do we measure that? By actions? By outcomes? Or by thoughts and beliefs?

    Let’s start with the last one. It’s just plain stupid to measure whether or not a politician is anti-LGBTQ by his or her personal beliefs. These really don’t matter. In fact, trying to gauge what Trump actually believed using superficial markers is what had much of the media fall into a trap in 2016, claiming he was more pro-LGBTQ―simply because he’s from New York, knew and did business with openly gay people, and said nice things about “LGBTQ” people now and then― rather than looking at whom Trump was making political promises to.

    As veteran lesbian journalist Kerry Eleveld pointed out in July:

    [D]uring Trump’s candidacy, mainstream reporters applied a distinctly 2008 political mindset to a Republican candidate who, on the surface perhaps, sounded different. Nice talk was good enough, even revolutionary, as they framed it. They didn’t bother to look at the obvious train wreck in the making when, for instance, Trump made anti-gay crusader Mike Pence his choice for VP or promised right-wing conservatives he would nominate Supreme Court justices to overturn the landmark Obergefell ruling.

    I’ve noted before that just as Trump is from New York and knew queer people, Ronald Reagan was from Hollywood and had many gay friends too, including the legendary actor Rock Hudson.

    And that brings us to outcomes. Reagan, no matter his personal beliefs (or his friendships), allowed thousands to die due to his negligence on HIV and AIDS, refusing to fund research and programs and not even uttering the word “AIDS” for years while the epidemic exploded. He cruelly did this in the face of people pleading for help, and amid activist demands for action. And that was because he pandered to the exact same constituency in the base of the GOP to whom Trump is now genuflecting: white evangelicals.

    If outcomes were the only measure, Reagan might be the most anti-LGBTQ president in history simply based on the catastrophe of mass suffering and death that AIDS neglect created. But overt actions, in addition to willful negligence, count as well. And frighteningly, the outcome of Donald Trump’s presidency has yet to be even remotely measured regarding harm it will cause to millions of LGBTQ people now and in the future. Trump has only been in office for a little less than eight months and yet, as hard as this may be to believe, the pro-active anti-LGBTQ measures he’s originated and enacted are greater in number and depth than those taken by Reagan, George H.W. Bush, George W. Bush and all other presidents ― during their entire terms, combined.

    George H.W. Bush largely continued Reagan’s negligence regarding HIV but did sign the Americans With Disabilities Act, protecting people with HIV from discrimination. Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, and “don’t ask, don’t tell” but advanced AIDS research and treatment, saving many lives. He signed orders ending discrimination based on sexual orientation in the federal government and ushered in a pro-gay era in politics, routinely speaking about gay people in his speeches. (The anti-gay bills he signed were in fact forced on him by Republicans in response to his pro-gay actions, even if he refused to stand up to them.)

    George W. Bush, in the run-up to his re-election campaign in 2004, cynically backed a federal marriage amendment, but it never had a chance of passing ― and he knew that. A hostile action for sure, but a terrible outcome was never realized. And unlike Trump, Bush didn’t repeal any of the pro-gay actions taken by President Clinton, leaving executive orders in place.

    Trump on the other hand has allowed his vice president, Mike Pence, and his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, among others, to push a virulent, unchecked anti-LGBTQ agenda. Throughout the government, programs that LGBTQ people are affected by are being cut or neglected. Six top AIDS experts resigned from Trump’s HIV/AIDS advisory panel in June, explaining that he just “doesn’t care,” and expressing great concern that progress at stopping the epidemic will be rolled back.

    The Justice Department has filed briefs in both a federal appeals court case, promoting outright discrimination against gay, lesbian and bisexual workers, and in a Supreme Court case, seeking to allow gay and lesbian couples to be discriminated against in public accommodations. The brief in the Supreme Court case, as Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern sums it up, basically posits that “homophobia deserves special respect under the law.”

    That case, in which a Colorado baker seeks the right to turn away gay customers (which is discrimination that is banned under state law), is at the high court most likely because Neil Gorsuch, whom Trump put on the court, provided the fourth vote to take the case. Gorsuch, a “religious liberty” fanatic, is hellbent on carving out exemptions allowing LGBTQ people to be discriminated against. And he’s already taken on marriage equality, encouraging lower courts to challenge Obergefell and helping to fulfill a promise by Trump to evangelicals.

    Trump’s ban on transgender people already serving openly and honorably in the military is especially cruel. It is the first time a president is actually taking away a right granted for queer people by a previous president ― and removing an entire group already serving in the armed forces for no other reason than pure animus against that group.

    Add on to that the withdrawal of guidance to schools on treatment of transgender students and the education secretary’s vow to give federal funds to schools even if they discriminate against LGBTQ students or describe them as sinful, sick or perverted. And throw in the number of instances in which references to “LGBTQ” people have been scrubbed from government programs ― from protecting “LGBTQ youth” against sex trafficking to collecting data on LGBTQ elderly people.

    What you have is more hostile measures and actions meant to erase, vilify and deeply harm LGBTQ people than ever before enacted. The repercussions for millions of gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people of every race and age group ― for years to come ― are unfathomable and, right now, incalculable.

    A few days after the 2016 election last November I wrote, “The Mike Pence (Donald Trump) Assault On LGBTQ Equality Is Already Underway.” Some people mocked that piece as alarmist but as I wrote, “It’s only a matter of time before we know the full magnitude.”

    It’s clear, both by his actions and the outcomes of them which will only increase exponentially, that Trump is already the most anti-LGBTQ president in U.S. history. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/its-official-donald-trump-is-the-most-anti-lgbtq-president-in-us-history_us_59b7ea66e4b09be4165832ce
  • outdoorsmuscl...

    Posts: 2321

    Apr 14, 2018 1:33 PM GMT
    Booker: Pompeo Shouldn’t Lead State Dept. Because He Doesn’t ‘Love the People’

    Sen. Cory Booker (D., N.J.) announced in dramatic fashion Friday his intent not to vote to confirm Mike Pompeo as secretary of state.

    In a Facebook post, Booker noted Pompeo’s "troubling record" on "women’s health" and other issues before focusing his statement on the meaning of love as it relates to Pompeo's view of gay relationships. The senator ultimately concluded that Pompeo’s moral beliefs make him unsuitable to be secretary of state.

    "I believe you can’t lead the people if you don’t love the people," Booker’s statement began.

    http://freebeacon.com/politics/booker-pompeo-shouldnt-lead-state-dept-because-he-doesnt-love-the-people/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2018 2:03 PM GMT
    But the Senate will still confirm Pompeo as Secretary of State. Because Republicans control the Senate. And they have no choice, since a Party motto is "Party Before People".

    To vote against Pompeo's confirmation would end their Senate careers, as the Party drops their support & money from dissenters. And we all know that career politicians are fixated on remaining in elected office, first and foremost, and to leave Congress as millonaires if they aren't already are. Concerns for ordinary people and this country's best interests are way down on their list of priorities.

    Regrettably some Dems are like this, too, but the majority are less venal and self-serving than almost all Republicans. Screwing others seems to be how Republicans rise to promience. And the American people are a rich market to be squeezed.
  • PennsyGuy

    Posts: 1612

    Apr 14, 2018 2:20 PM GMT
    Secretary Of State Nominee Mike Pompeo Says He Continues To Oppose Gay Marriage

    So did Obama, but you all voted for him anyway. It's all about party first with you lefties.
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 20929

    Apr 14, 2018 4:28 PM GMT
    Pompeo is supremely qualified to be Sec of State. He has had a stellar career in public service and in the military. His feelings on gay marriage should have no significance whatsoever on his ability to do this job. Cory Booker asking him how he feels about "gay sex" was incredibly inappropriate and an embarrassment. It was a cringe-worthy moment that only served to make Booker look utterly ridiculous.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2018 7:17 PM GMT
    CBC Radio broadcast senator Booker grilling Pompeo nationally in Canada and I can't help but wonder if Canadians hearing it reacted differently from Anericans, if only because Senator Booker came across as so incredibly rude. He constantly interrupted Pompeo to the point where I would have publicly called him out for it if it was me.

    The chutzpah in demanding an answer, interrupting the given answer three words in and then decrying that the person isn't answering the question is stunning.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 14, 2018 9:05 PM GMT
    YVRguy saidCBC Radio broadcast senator Booker grilling Pompeo nationally in Canada and I can't help but wonder if Canadians hearing it reacted differently from Anericans, if only because Senator Booker came across as so incredibly rude. He constantly interrupted Pompeo to the point where I would have publicly called him out for it if it was me.

    The chutzpah in demanding an answer, interrupting the given answer three words in and then decrying that the person isn't answering the question is stunning.


    Not all stunning to us - rather refreshing. Maybe it's because you Canadians are so polite - even to politicians. And if you think that questioning was rough, wait until we have the torture lady at the CIA up for confirmation. The US Senate only maintains a weak facade of politeness - Historically, confrontations have been quite heated (even involving physical attacks). I would appreciate it if a lot more of our senators acted like Brooker in questioning at confirmation hearings. Ask a simple question, and the politician tries to evade, or answer something else. If it's a yes or no question, and the politician refuses to answer, and starts to go off an a tangent - The senator SHOULD cut him off, and insist on his answering the question. I remember the hearings on the confirmation of sleazy racist Sessions - he was allowed to skate on all his answers, and ran out the clock, so the Democrats never could get straight answers.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 15, 2018 2:10 AM GMT
    Wouldn't it be better to simply threaten the perdon with a charge of contempt if they give a non-answer?

    I don't get the clock running out thing, either. Make the Senators work overtime into the evening like every other professional, if the job at hand isn't done. I've certainly had to put on an all-nighter in my career. I doubt I'm the only person ever faced with that.
  • outdoorsmuscl...

    Posts: 2321

    Apr 15, 2018 12:44 PM GMT

    Pompeo is not qualified to be Secretary of State .... CIA, Defense yes but not Secretary of State .... his bigoted narrow view of the world tarnished by his military service ...disqualify him.... to represent The United States
    Nikki Haley would be a better choice.


    McCaskill has noted that while the CIA position is narrowly-defined, the job of Secretary of State is “much broader in terms of policy considerations that are represented on behalf of our country.”

    Other vulnerable Democrats running in red states said they too would wait for Pompeo’s appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Thursday to make up their minds.


    Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said he’s “left it completely open,” adding, “I want to see his testimony before the committee.”
    Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va. a foreign relations committee member who voted for Pompeo for CIA director, told reporters he has “serious concerns” about the nominee’s suitability for the new position.

    “I just want to understand his temperament,” Kaine said. “I don’t see a lot of evidence about diplomacy, so I want to get that,” he said.

    Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who also voted to confirm Pompeo for the CIA, said Tuesday she’s made up her mind, but declined to say how she will vote.

    Liberal activists have pressured Senate Democrats to block Pompeo’s nomination, citing his support for expanding mass surveillance programs and defense of the CIA’s past use of torture.

    MoveOn.org and other groups have urged members to call their senators and have held protests with moving billboards outside offices, including Feinstein's, said Ben Wikler, the group's Washington director.

    "It speaks to the extremity of Pompeo's views and record that a guy who was was confirmed by 66 votes at this point is a profoundly embattled Secretary of State nominee," Wikler said.

    The group plans to hold a protest at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday night ahead of Pompeo's appearance at the committee.

    Foreign Relations Committee chairman Bob Corker, R-Tenn., who wouldn’t say how he would vote on Pompeo, said he believes fewer Democrats will vote for Pompeo to replace Rex Tillerson, who Trump fired by Twitter last month.

    “I think much of it will have to do with (Pompeo’s) response to some of the policy issues and then whether the other side of the aisle turns this into a proxy on overall Trump foreign policy,” Corker said. “There were a number of people who supported him as CIA director who may look at this a little differently because you’re actually advising the president on policy...I think some of the frustrations that Democrats have with the president might affect how they vote.”

    Paul, the only Republican to vote against Pompeo for CIA director and a committee member, has pledged to do what he can to block Pompeo, citing the nominee criticism of a congressional report on the CIA’s past use of torture.

    Paul said Pompeo called the senators who voted to release the report “quintessentially at odds with [their] duty to [their] country.” Paul said he “couldn’t disagree more” and said that “in the years following 9/11, we let fear get the better of our responsibility to liberty.”

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/congress/article208502024.html#storylink=cpy


    YVRguy saidWouldn't it be better to simply threaten the perdon with a charge of contempt if they give a non-answer?

    I don't get the clock running out thing, either. Make the Senators work overtime into the evening like every other professional, if the job at hand isn't done. I've certainly had to put on an all-nighter in my career. I doubt I'm the only person ever faced with that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 15, 2018 7:48 PM GMT
    PennsyGuy saidSecretary Of State Nominee Mike Pompeo Says He Continues To Oppose Gay Marriage

    So did Obama, but you all voted for him anyway. It's all about party first with you lefties.

    Amen.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Apr 15, 2018 9:03 PM GMT
    YVRguy saidWouldn't it be better to simply threaten the perdon with a charge of contempt if they give a non-answer?

    I don't get the clock running out thing, either. Make the Senators work overtime into the evening like every other professional, if the job at hand isn't done. I've certainly had to put on an all-nighter in my career. I doubt I'm the only person ever faced with that.


    Perhaps politics are so much more civilized in Canada . Remember, this is a political process - they are not in court. There is nothing rational or "fair" about the process. It is mostly theatre. Pompeo (one of the sleazier politicians among the republicans) is viewed as the enemy, so he will not be entitled to "respectful" questioning by the democrats in committee. And since the republicans are in control of all congressional committees, they of course would not agree to any contempt citations against republican witnesses, no matter if they were extremely contemptuous. Also, the chairman of a committee is in total control of which witnesses can be called to testify, and how much time is allotted for questioning. So, the republicans allotted a short time to question Sessions (and to each questioner), and so, when the time was up - well, it was simply up. So Sessions, by taking all the time in his answers by equivocating or answering questions that weren't asked, used up the democrats' time for questioning, and got to escape without really providing any answers. (Also, in Sessions' confirmation hearing, Senator Warren was actually ordered by the chairman to leave the hearing when she insisted on reading an old letter from Martin Luther King's widow, which reported on Sessions' racist history as an official in S. Carolina. The republicans were not about to allow any damning testimony to get on the record. She, of course, left the chambers, and continued to read the letter to the TV crews. So the public learned about his racist behavior, but the committee officially did not.)