Thus spake the candidates:
Though the candidates came down on opposite sides of the California initiative that would ban gay marriage, both stressed that they opposed same-sex marriage. Obama called marriage "a sacred union," drawing applause when he added, "God is in the mix."
Sen. McCain, despite his praiseworthy opposition to the anti-gay federal marriage amendment (on which Sen. Obama was mostly silent), gets demerits for supporting the California anti-gay initiative. But really, wouldn't an objective observer have deep doubts about both, rather than singling one out for near-reverential praise and the other for abject demonization?
More. Reader "Timothy" writes (in response to our Aug. 17 post):
I have noticed during this political season that some purportedly gay websites have dedicated themselves to be anti-McCain sites. They aren't even as pro-Obama as they are anti-McCain.
And I would have to say that about 80% of the time the attacks on McCain have nothing whatsoever to do with sexual orientation or gay equality whatsoever.
At times the accusations are so far-fetched that if anyone made similar accusations against a gay person many of us would be horrified at the blatant homophobia. It really does go into the hatred category.
And I have to wonder why.
While I don't think McCain is particularly supportive of the gay community and while I think that he "doesn't get it" sometimes, the guy is certainly not a homophobe. He's not even an anti-gay opportunist like Bush, who probably isn't a hater either but is willing to sell out principle for political gain (in my opinion).
He's just some politician who gets nervous around gay questions and wishes he didn't have to address the issue at all. I may not vote for him (I'm waiting for the two Veep picks to decide) but he's not a heinous villian.
And really McCain's gay positions are not all that far from Obama's. If McCain were a Democrat, he'd fall into the "acceptable" category - though there would be some concern over his bumbling of the adoption issue and I think he's flat wrong on DADT (his position is to rely on the advice of the military leaders).
So why the hate?
All I can conclude is that McCain is completely and entirely evil without a single redeaming quality because he has an R in the parentheses after his name.
I think that nails it.
70 Comments for “Saddleback”
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Stephen, it seems to me that one has to factor in character and the trust factor in weighing anything either candidate says –or his spinmysters.
McCain surprised me at Saddleback by going on to state that he opposed a federal marriage amendment and it should be decided on a state-by-state basis. I think that won Kerry the gayLeft endorsement, no?
And then, the surprise. McCain the maverick said, if a federal judge decided to legislate from the bench and declare SSM to be a right for all in the US, he would support a constitutional amendment to preserve marriage as BarryO sees it… 1 man, 1 woman. That position fits with McCain’s policy preference for local decisionmaking (states reserve the right to legislate on marriage laws) and his preference for checking judicial activist liberal judges. Made sense. Was consistent. We can trust the reinforcing data on his legislative record.
Chekcing a legislative record on BarryO is problematic.
I get the sense that BarryO’s position is taken in order to pander to the religious white leaders and their congregation in the pews (he already has the black church solidly behind him –almost as tight as the gayLeft vote)… frankly, because he has little record to check, it’s hard to know if he’s telling us the truth or just telling us something to get a vote or two.
But does it make a difference? I guess gay voters don’t have anywhere else to go because that’s what our fabled leaders have been telling us all along… it’s the Democrats and BarryO or nothing.
posted by tristram on
?Sen. McCain, despite his praiseworthy opposition to the anti-gay federal marriage amendment (on which Sen. Obama was mostly silent), gets demerits for supporting the California anti-gay initiative.?
Throughout this campaign, I have not heard McCains say anything about gays that wouldn?t make Sally Kern or Rick Santorum jump with joy. Oh yeah, he opposed the FMA because ?federalism? is one of his bedrock principles. But now at Saddleback, he?s going to toss out federalism if it works for gays – local control unless the ‘locals’ want to allow their gays to marry. And even when he opposed the FMA, he supported a draconian anti-everything amendment in his home state. And he?s on record as supporting the AZ, CA and FL amendments this year.
Adoption by gays? First thing that pops out of his mouth, in effect – ?No way.? Only later do ?his people? (if Ellen can have ?people,? so can JM) ?clarify? their candidate?s ?plain talk.?
Contracts? Sure, sign a contract with your partner and then hire a good lawyer. When one of you is in the emergency room – send the lawyer to court for an injuction to let the other walk through the door.
Judges? All up and down the federal bench, and especially replacements for those two aging liberals whose names he quickly spat out at Saddleback (along with two younger liberals) – he promises someone who passes the AFA litmus test and who ?won?t legislate from the bench.? Translate the ?plain talk? – someone who?ll give us a majority to overturn ?Roe v. Wade? and why not ?Lawrence v. Texas? while we?re at it.
As a guy who voted Republican in every election in which I was eligible to vote (starting with a vote for Barry Goldwater who would puke to hear McCain sucking up to the theofascist priests and preachers) – until 2004 when GWB&Co. finally opened my eyes – even if I believed all of National Review?s dire warnings about Obama?s economic and foreign policy shortcomings, I could not imagine voting for McCain given the likely consequences for gay Americans of a McCain victory.
posted by jason on
Obama’s position is for repeal of DOMA, against any marriage bans on the federal or state level (as he made clear in his statement of May 15, 2008), and for civil unions at the state level.
McCain is against repeal of DOMA, for any marriage ban at the state level (including the one that failed in his home state of Arizona in 2006), against a federal marriage amendment (with certain limits, as he explained at Saddleback), against civil unions, and for allowing gay couples to “enter legal agreements.”
It’s true that Obama was nearly incoherent when explaining his tortured stance on same-sex marriage at Saddleback. But his position essentially adds up to supporting civil unions as a floor, and allowing marriage as a ceiling. We can pretty much assume that in the future McCain will never sell gay Americans out on this issue, because he already has. Obama has left the door open with equivocating phrases about marriage being between “a man and a woman,” and for that he should be challenged on the issue.
But it’s quite easy–objectively speaking–to see which senator is advocating the policies most favorable to gay couples with regard to marriage and partnership rights. I don’t think that stating as much qualifies as either “near reverential praise” for Obama or “abject demonization” of McCain, so it’s hard to grapple with those elements of your post. You have a thing for straw men arguments, don’t you, Stephen?
posted by Mark on
Stephen just has a thing for post after post that knocks the Democrats and praises the Republicans. It’s the most annoyingly partisan column of this supposedly “Independent” Gay Forum.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Mark and jason show the true nature of the gayLeft in our midst… anyone who disagrees with the gayLeft orthodoxy, burn ’em as a witch.
Go ahead guys, grab Stephen and toss a few fagot bundles on the fire… there’s nothing like a sacrificial lamb to quiet the contarian voices in our culture, no?
But I love the rationalizations here from the gayDemocrats… BarryO didn’t say what we need to hear, he doesn’t have a record we can rely on or reference… but he’s better than any GOPer (because he’s a Democrat without results, without record and beyond reproach).
posted by Richard II on
Kerry got the endorsement of the HRC because he supported more gay rights legislation, then the only viable alternative; Bush.
Mcain has opposed just about every single gay rights proposal or initiative that has come his way. He is not really much of a ‘maverick’ when it comes to gay rights.
Obama has supported us on several gay rights issues; both in words and in
legislation.
Public opinion –and election law — the way it is, means that neither candidate is going to be perfect, but one clearly is going to be more supportive then the other.
As an Independent I am perfectly willing to vote for the Democrat or the Republican. But they have to be willing to offer me something in the great electoral marketplace of ideas.
Gay Republicans rarely seem interested in making the case for Mcain as much as they seem to want to call people who do not worship him a member of the ‘gayleft’ or someone who hates God, Country, Apple Pie and Little Itsy Bitsy kittens…
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
It is possible to prefer Obama to McCain on gay issues (although I have a lot more issues than that) without engaging in either hagiography or demonization.
Obama’s positions on gay issues are by no means perfect. They are, however, measurably better than McCain’s. Obama favors repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, for example. And despite his opposition to civil marriage equality, he supports granting equal federal rights and responsibilities (of which there are over 1100) to people in civil unions. McCain does indeed deserve credit for his states’ rights stance in opposition to FMA. But McCain’s support for statewide anti-gay initiatives, and Obama’s opposition to them (which makes him better than Kerry, BTW), shows Obama to be better from a gay-rights viewpoint. No hagiography nor demonization required.
Gay issues aside, Obama shows himself to be more thoughtful and open-minded, while McCain prefers sloganeering and macho posturing.
Regarding MM’s constant references to “gayLeft,” I would love to know what is leftist about gay couples wanting to seal their mutual commitment legally in civil marriage, or about the desire of gay people to serve their country in the military. These are inherently conservative impulses. By contrast, the signatories of the 2006 “Beyond Marriage” manifesto, a document I eviscerated in an article republished here on IGF, are indeed leftists. But everyone MM disagrees with is not on that account a leftist, no matter how often he repeats the claim.
posted by Mark on
Michigan-Matt,
I’m not part of the “gayLeft.” You’ll notice I was objecting to the partisan nature of Stephen’s post. I detest any article that is blatantly partisan, which is why I frequent this site (and why I so often dislike Stephen’s posts). You shouldn’t be so quick to label everyone you disagree with as “gayLeft” (whatever that means).
Second, you seem to know nothing about Obama’s record with the LGBT (you refer to a lack of record and/or results). This probably won’t satisfy you, but here’s an article where you can learn more: http://www.advocate.com/issue_story_ektid59219.asp
Try substituting McCain for Obama in that article and you’ll see why many believe the two candidates are literally generations apart on issues important to the LGBT population. I’m not sure McCain can even say “gay” without cringing.
posted by Mack on
Erf? Why shouldn’t one candidate get praise for refusing to impose his religious bigotry on the body politic while his opponent wants to impose religious tests to civil ceremonies?
And where does the phrase ‘reverential’ come from? Is there a cult somewhere declaring one particular candidate as the potential second coming?
Oh, wait, there is, I suppose, the case of the other candidate’s campaign spreading the meme that Senator Obama is really the Antichrist. Is that what you mean by ‘reverential’?
Because, it’s not how I would use the word.
Cheers.
posted by AModerateGay on
Stephen knocks McCain like this: “Sen. McCain….gets demerits for supporting the California anti-gay initiative.” Mark calls that “post after post that knocks the Democrats and praises the Republican”. I don’t get it. Last time I checked, McCain was the Republican guy, right? So Stephen just knocked a Republican.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Moderate gay, Miller is suggesting the two candidates are equal, that an objective observer would “have deep doubts about both”. That’s giving underserved praise to the Republican, no way is Mccain even remotely equal to Obama on equal rights for gays, essentially Miller is “praising the republican and knocking the Democrat” by suggesting they are at all equal.
posted by Thanks Savage on
From Obama’s Open Letter to Gay Americans: “I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)?a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether.”
And Google “obama doma” if you want to see how exercised the religious right is about Obama’s “threat” to repeal DOMA. McCain is a typical GOP’er on this issue. McCain hates homosexuals and the threat we pose to his marriage. Old Chipmunk Cheeks is a good OLD Republican…baiting the hook with queer Americans and laughing at the evangelicals for swallowing the hook. Be Proud gay Republicans, there is a special place in Hell for you.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Mark, maybe you should lose the gayLeft attitude if you don’t want to be tagged as a gayLefty. Sort of sounds like our resident Richard2 who continues to post like an exclusive gayDemocrat while milking the “independent” label for whatever intellectual cover is needed as an unbiased, independent observer. Yeah, right, that’s the ticket.
Mark, I think the “reverential” line comes from BarryO’s own silly mis-speak that “we’re the One we’ve been waiting for” which gets tons of airplay.
You know it has nothing to do with some religious whack jobs on a cult ranch claiming BarryO is the new antiChrist. Really, but you go ahead and take a dig at religion too here… it’s great sport for the gayLeft.
By the way, “savage” picked an apt handle. Phew, blistering gayDemocrat seems riled his boi isn’t pulling double digit leads right now… next up: scare gays with “internment camps”.
posted by Richard II on
MM;
I am an Independent. Growing up in my many years, I have been a Republican, a Democrat, and have had some minor ties to Greens and Libertarians. Until I came around to disdaining party involvement in general.
Independent means that I do not affiliate with ANY political party. That I am willing to vote for a candidate (irrespective of party) and that I have little patience for partisan spin.
Mark, maybe you should lose the gayLeft attitude if you don’t want to be tagged as a gayLefty. Sort of sounds like our resident Richard2 who continues to post like an exclusive gayDemocrat while milking the “independent” label for whatever intellectual cover is needed as an unbiased, independent observer. Yeah, right, that’s the ticket.
Mark, I think the “reverential” line comes from BarryO’s own silly mis-speak that “we’re the One we’ve been waiting for” which gets tons of airplay.
You know it has nothing to do with some religious whack jobs on a cult ranch claiming BarryO is the new antiChrist. Really, but you go ahead and take a dig at religion too here… it’s great sport for the gayLeft.
By the way, “savage” picked an apt handle. Phew, blistering gayDemocrat seems riled his boi isn’t pulling double digit leads right now… next up: scare gays with “internment camps”.
posted by jake on
i don’t know why the democrats here say mccain is against gay marriage when he came out in support of gay marriage back in the spring 06 on chris matthews tv show
you can find mccain’s unequivocal, if inelegant, statement on youtube.com
mccain has also said that it is a state issue as all marriage laws ought to be and i agree with him that it should be decided based on popular elections and not judicial fiat
our gay civil rights movement is a whole lot more than the gay marriage advocates would have us believe
to them, that’s their biggest goal but for me and my partner we’d like to have insurance benefits, end of life decisions, adoption options and other things far more important to us than gay marriage delivered by a judge’s decision
i think we could have some of those things before we’ll ever get gay marriage past a majority of voters in the states because not everyone is a guilt-ridden as massachusetts or california
i am troubled by obama’s continued insistance that marriage is an institution reserved for heterosexuals but supports lesser forms of gay unions and other gay equality issues
it seems he’s playing to both sides and our side isn’t holding his feet to the fire like we do mccain
character matters in politics and obama is failing the basic test on gay marriage but still our democrat gays project obama as being pro-gay
if we all listened to the democrats here, then the choice in november is a slamdunk and obama gets our vote
but then we would have been duped again by democrat voting gays who will do anything to stop independent gays from breaking ranks
sorry if that’s too strong a language here for some but its what i think
would the bleating sheep of the democratic party quit trying to make obama out to be so, so, so much better than mccain?
never, they’re here to capture votes no matter what they have to say or do to get there and they can still say with a poker face that republicans are bad for using gay marriage to win an election
they do it here over and over again
jake
posted by AGAIN, FOR THOSE IN THE BACK on
From Obama’s Open Letter to Gay Americans: “I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA)?a position I have held since before arriving in the U.S. Senate. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether.”
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
jake wrote, “i don’t know why the democrats here say mccain is against gay marriage when he came out in support of gay marriage back in the spring 06 on chris matthews tv show”
Could you give us the specific quote? What I do know is that McCain, while he opposed the Federal Marriage Amendment on states’-rights grounds, endorsed the 2006 Arizona anti-gay ballot measure and taped two commercials in support of it. And he supports Prop 8 in California this year.
It is fairly easy for Steve to knock down the people who simply demonize McCain; it would be nice if he acknowledged (A) that there are Obama supporters who do not demonize McCain, and who give him credit where due on our issues (however small it may be); and (B) that McCain has repeatedly insisted that Obama puts his ambition ahead of the national interest; and (C) that Steve disapproves of B and agrees that B amounts to a charge of treason. The fact is that McCain is widely perceived to have “won” the battle in the last few weeks because of the success of his character assassination against Obama. So it is disingenuous to write as if the main offenders are those on the Democratic side, although I am quick to note that yes, of course there are people going too far on the Dem side.
If you go through the list of gay issues point for point Obama (who of course I think is wrong on SSM) is clearly better than McCain. Come on, Steve, I just cited something that you know I care very much about on which I disagree with Obama; so there is no way you see this as hagiography. How fair is it to take note only of the most unreasonable Democrats and then generalized based on them, while ignoring more reasonable voices?
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Here’s one entirely good and admirable thing about John McCain: Several years ago he was instrumental in overturning a provision (which had been attached to the Defense Authorization Bill) that required the discharge of HIV-positive servicemembers. McCain said unequivocally that men and women who had served their country honorably deserved better than this, and worked with the Human Rights Campaign to overturn the ban. He was successful. I even heard Barney Frank acknowledge this, though some years later I had to remind him of it.
Now, who among the Obama-bashers wants to respond in a similar spirit?
posted by avee on
What Obama says on the campaign trail, and what he’ll do, are different things (see posting on Gov. O’Malley). Obama has NO RECORD of action for gay legal equality, just campaign rhetoric. That and $3.50 will buy you a cup of latte.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
avee wrote, “Obama has NO RECORD of action for gay legal equality, just campaign rhetoric.”
Not true. He supported gay rights legislation in the Illinois state senate, for one thing. And if I look up his gay-related votes in the U.S. Senate, are you saying they’ll all turn out to be abstentions or votes on the anti-gay side? There was at least a vote on the FMA where I expect he voted on our side. Come on, stop this typical partisan-campaign-mode denial of any credit whatsoever to the candidate you oppose. I just showed the proper spirit by citing something good about a candidate I do not support. Would it really kill you to restrain just a little your impulse to caricature?
posted by Priya Lynn on
68% of LGBT voters plan to vote for Obama versus 10% for Mccain:
http://www.365gay.com/news/082008-obama-gay-voters/
There’s a reason Obama is prefered 7 to 1 and it isn’t because LGBTs have falsely been lead to believe Obama is much better on LGBT equality. If as the republicans here disingenously claim the two candidates were equal there’d be roughly an even split between the two as there is with the heterosexual population. Most LGBTs aren’t stupid.
posted by PAY ATTENTION AVEE on
Barrack Obama’s Letter to Gay Americans:
As an African-American man, a child of an interracial marriage, a committed scholar, attorney and activist who works to protect the Bill of Rights, I am sensitive to the struggle for civil rights. As a state Senator, I have taken on the issue of civil rights for the LGBT community as if they were my own struggle because I believe strongly that the infringement of rights for any one group eventually endangers the rights enjoyed under law by the entire population. Since 1996, I have been the sponsor or a chief co-sponsor of measures to expand civil liberties for the LGBT community including hate-crimes legislation, adoption rights and the extension of basic civil rights to protect LGBT persons from discrimination in housing, public accommodations, employment and credit.
Today, I am a candidate for the U.S. Senate. Unlike any of my opponents, I have a legislative track record. No one has to guess about what I will do in Washington. My record makes it very clear. I will be an unapologetic voice for civil rights in the U.S. Senate.
For the record, I opposed DOMA [ the Defense of Marriage Act ] in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying. This is an effort to demonize people for political advantage, and should be resisted … .
When Members of Congress passed DOMA, they were not interested in strengthening family values or protecting civil liberties. They were only interested in perpetuating division and affirming a wedge issue. …
Despite my own feelings about an abhorrent law, the realities of modern politics persist. While the repeal of DOMA is essential, the unfortunate truth is that it is unlikely with Mr. Bush in the White House and Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress. …
We must be careful to keep our eyes on the prize?equal rights for every American. We must continue to fight for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. We must vigorously expand hate-crime legislation and be vigilant about how these laws are enforced. We must continue to expand adoption rights to make them consistent and seamless throughout all 50 states, and we must repeal the ?Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? military policy.
I know how important the issue of equal rights is to the LGBT community. I share your sense of urgency. If I am elected U.S. Senator, you can be confident that my colleagues in the Senate and the President will know my position.
posted by avee on
Yes, it’s RHETORIC. What are his legislative accomplishments? Do you even know the difference?
posted by OK, YOU NEXT on
Barack Obama was a co-sponsor of the Matthew Shepard Act (Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act,) an enhancement to federal hate crime legislation that would include crimes motivated by sexual orientation. McCain (who has gone as far as to condemn homosexuality and homosexuals) stood with anti-gay President Bush and did not support the bill.
Barack Obama has stated that he would like to expand the Employment Non-Discrimination Act to cover sexual orientation. Obama also sponsored additional employment non-discrimination legislation while he was a state senator.
To the disappointment of most homosexual Americans, Obama does not fully support “gay marriage.” Obama does support civil unions, and has repeatedly stated that he supports repealing the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). McCain voted ?yes? on DOMA and still supports that bigoted and hateful decision.
As could be expected from pro-Civil Rights Obama, he supports federal benefits for same-sex couples, expansion of the Family and Medical Leave Act to same-sex couples and their children, and has been repeatedly quoted as saying that social security should pay benefits to surviving same-sex partners.
Obama supports “gay adoption,” McCain has voiced opinion against it.
Your turn, Avee. Put up or shut the fuck up.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
To the disappointment of most homosexual Americans, Obama does not fully support “gay marriage.”
Of course, according to gay liberals, anyone who does not support gay marriage — especially if they do so for religious reasons, like stating that it is a “sacred union” between man and woman — is a hater and a homophobe who believes gays are second-class citizens.
Hence, since Obama meets that qualification, he is a hater and a homophobe.
Unless, of course, gay and lesbian liberals here would like to state publicly that they fully accept bans on gay marriage based on religious belief and discrimination against gays — when practiced by their Democrat masters, of course.
Meanwhile, as for “hate crimes”, there are already laws in place that allow for the criminal prosecution and punishment of those who assault and murder people, gay or straight. Furthermore, as for “nondiscrimination” laws, gay and lesbian people have exactly the same protection against discrimination as do straight people.
posted by Pat on
Unless, of course, gay and lesbian liberals here would like to state publicly that they fully accept bans on gay marriage based on religious belief and discrimination against gays — when practiced by their Democrat masters, of course.
Not necessary when one understand the concept of the lesser of two evils. I’m not sure why the “based on religious belief” is necessary here. Someone on the wrong side of an issue is wrong no matter what excuse they use. Most people here agree that Obama is wrong on the issue of same sex marriage. But most also recognize the reality that, even in 2008, political leaders are not always ready to do the right thing. I don’t know whether or not Obama or McCain personally support same sex marriage. It doesn’t matter, since neither of them exhibit real leadership. So now it comes down to what they publicly advocate. Obama supports repealing DOMA, McCain doesn’t. Obama supports civil unions, McCain doesn’t. So if one advocates same sex marriage, and sees that neither candidate supports it, one needs to look at whose policies would more likely lead to supporting same sex marriage in the future.
posted by Richard II on
“Of course, according to gay liberals, anyone who does not support gay marriage — especially if they do so for religious reasons, like stating that it is a “sacred union” between man and woman — is a hater and a homophobe who believes gays are second-class citizens.”
Well, that is just plain silly. They may simply be doing what most of their voters think. Also I suspect that most, ‘liberals’ would probably tell you that opposing gay marriage but supporting civil unions is probably better then opposing gay marriage and civil unions.
As for hate crime laws. Well, some people support them and some people oppose them. Most LGBT people, I suspect, support them.
Given the level of senitivity demonstrated by some of the gay conservatives here about King, I avoid diving into hate crime laws here and now.
You said: gay and lesbian people have exactly the same protection against discrimination as do straight people.
Now, this is a total boldface lie.
Their is much more prejudice against people for being gay, then for being straight. So the social protection will not be the same.
Perhaps you are like those libertarians who want to abolish the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Avee, I hope you recognize that a legislator’s votes in the legislature on legislation are not rhetoric but actions. If you do recognize that, why the selectivity in responding to others’ posts? Did you think we would be too dim to notice?
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
They may simply be doing what most of their voters think.
Ah, but gay and lesbian liberals call that “pandering to the base” when Republicans do it and claim that it is craven, cowardly, and homophobic.
Hence, since Obama is doing that, he is craven, cowardly, and homophobic.
Unless, of course, gay and lesbian liberals here would like to state publicly that they fully accept politicians “pandering to the base” — when practiced by their Democrat masters, of course.
Their is much more prejudice against people for being gay, then for being straight. So the social protection will not be the same.
Unfortunately, gay and lesbian liberals say that writing social prohibitions into law is “theocratic” and involves one group of people forcing their beliefs on others unfairly.
Unless, of course, gay and lesbian liberals would like to state publicly that they are perfectly fine with legislating morality and forcing others to accept their belief system — when they do it.
Perhaps you are like those libertarians who want to abolish the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Ah yes, as is typical of a desperate Obama supporter, they play the “You’re a racist” card.
Tell me, Richard II; which is more racist, a person who treats others equally regardless of skin color, or a person who believes that people of a different skin color are inherently “disadvantaged”, cannot be expected to meet the same competencies as white people, and thus believes that they should be given preferential treatment based on their skin color?
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 allegedly prohibits discrimination on the basis of skin color. However, as quotas, preferential treatment based on skin color and gender in government contracts, and affirmative action demonstrate, all the law does is to promote discrimination against white males and substitute skin color for actual objective measures of competency.
That attitude is what leads to the beliefs and actions of a person like Obama supporter and endorsee Kwame Kilpatrick, who does the following:
Det. Brian White, a sheriff’s officer assigned to the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office, said Kilpatrick threw him off the porch of a home owned by Kilpatrick’s sister Ayanna. The mayor shouted obscenities and racial remarks, White told the court.
White went to the front door of Ayanna Kilpatrick’s home with his partner, Joanne Kinney, looking for Bobby Ferguson. Ayanna Kilpatrick is married to Daniel Ferguson, Bobby Ferguson’s relative.
“He grabbed me and threw me,” White testified, adding that Kilpatrick was irate. Under cross-examination he said he was thrown into a collision with Kinney.
White also testified the mayor shouted at Kinney: “How can a black woman be riding in a car with a man named White?”……….
Kinney also took the stand. She had been a former Detroit homicide cop. She confirmed White’s story that the mayor pushed White and launched into a tirade.
“He was irate,” she said. She also recalled how Kilpatrick, whom she had never met before, told her: “You are a black woman with a man with the last name White … You should be ashamed of yourself.”
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
ND30 makes some good points. I for one am not at all sorry that the public embarrassment named Kwame Kilpatrick isn’t being allowed to go to Denver for the convention. I have a feeling that Obama is as happy as I am about that. I imagine that one of Obama’s prayers is, “Oh God, save me from my supporters.”
posted by jake on
richard j rosendall asks for a link to be provided for his review of mccains support for gay marriage ceremonies
it can be easily found on youtube as i wrote above
rosendall, after the manner you’ve treated people in these commentary sections, i don’t think you deserve any consideration or respect in being assisted
to me you are exactly what some here have shown you to be
you are a condescending snippy presumptive snob and i won’t have anything to do with you as long as you persist in personal attacks on IGF readers
to me you are like a islamic facist who is on a jihad only for you the religion is Sen Obama and heaven is when you’ve faked out enough voters to buy that snake oil you’re selling
posted by jake on
whoever the sockpuppet is named “pay attention avee” and other creative names, the sheppard bill was cosponsored by over 217 other legislators, mr obama was merely one legilsator who only had to have staff tell the author he would be a cosponsor for that wonderously pro-gay feat to have occured
tell us, did obama fight his own party’s leadership in the senate to have the bill or amendment reconsidered immediately or did it die in the senate and house again?
also if you read Obama’s letter to gay americans, you will note the letter’s content shows it to be written while he was still a state senator in illinois
gays have a right to know what he’s done since then for gay rights
no, not what’s he’s said he would like to do for gays if we’d just follow him to the polls
saying you’d vote for something and actually having a record of voting for something are two different things
now, please tell us what sen obama has actually done for gays while serving in congress
and for that matter, tell us what the democratic-controlled congress has done for gays in the last 2 years of majority control?
posted by Priya Lynn on
I see Jake, its “what have you done for me lately” – you’re funny.
As to what the Democtratic controlled congress has done for gays, pass ENDA and prevent the Republicans from passing a federal amendment banning equal marriage for same sex couples.
posted by Richard II on
The simple reality is that most elected officials are not going to endorse gay marriage, while voters — especially their constituents are opposed to it.
The major difference is that some politicans are willing to support some measure of equity, while others are not.
Given public opinion and our current electoral system, this is how things work.
Any incumbent is going to make his or her own decisions — in the US — based on a combination of factors; party values, personal values, voter’s values and ‘good of the nation’ values.
I am not sure who I will vote for, but everything that I have read says that Obama supports some measure of legal equity, while McCain does not.
Social and legal protection, norms and values are oftentimes going to be different.
People are more likely going to want to discriminate against someone because they are gay, then straight. That is a basic social reality.
Legally, sexual orientation based discrimination may or may not be illegal depending on the circumstances.
I am not a Obama supporter. As an Independent I am still undecided about who I will support.
I have heard this type of criticism before, mostly from Libertarians. If that you the philosophy that you want to defend we can certainly debate it.
As a person of color, who grew up in a rather modest (to be polite) family I have to say that their is a relationship between race and class in America and that affirmative action attempts to deal with.
At any rate their is a big difference between anti-discrimination laws and affirmative action based laws.
I really not sure what the article about some fool is suppose to prove. Yeah, their are some crazy people out their; Republicans, Democrats, black and white, men and women.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
The differnce between Jake and PriyaLynn is that Jake asks for some results or a record to reference, not easy-made promises of the hour as PrincessPryiaLynn is content to suckor.
The last group of Democrats who controlled the White House left there in 2000 with the senior policy advisor saying “We kept all the promises we intended to keep”.
For PrincessPriyaLynn, it’s all about giving over the gayVote to the Democrats. Delivering the vote just like NRA lobby is supposed to do for GOPers… no less corrupt, no less shameful.
And PrincessPriyaLynn, you might want to reference something other than the butt you’re sitting on… Republican Chris Shays’ bill didn’t pass the Senate (yet).
Did you have something else in mind about proving that the Democrat-controlled Congress did something for gays?
Yeah, I didn’t think so.
At least you didn’t stupidly contend that BarryO’s “embrace” of gays as a cosponsor of the failed Sheppard bill/amendment was something to crow about.
posted by Priya Lynn on
There, there Matt, I know reality bothers you but don’t let it get to you too much. One day they’ll have a pill to cure you of your Republican sickness. In the meantime you’ll just have to hide from the fact that in general Democrats like Obama are helpful to gay equality while republicans like Mccain want to push gays back into the closet. You know the closet Matt, that’s where gays like you are the happiest. It must trouble you that the vast majority of LGBTs are smart enough to prefer Obama to Mccain and no matter how you lie and spin you can’t change that. Poor baby.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Remember Matt, when ENDA passed the house 200 Democrats voted for it versus 35 Republicans. That’s pretty typical and no matter how you and Northdallass whine and try to portray the Republican exceptions to discrimination as typical we all know the reality. When it comes to votes for gay equality there will be 6 Democrats in favour for every Republican.
posted by Priya Lynn on
And on the anti-gay Federal Marriage ammendment 40 Democrats voted against it versus 2 in favour and 7 Republicans voted against it versus 46 in favour. My count might not be exact, you can double check here:
http://www.hrc.org/voteno/files/060607_FMAvote.pdf
Once again its clear that in general Democrats favour gay equality and Republicans oppose it. No matter how LGBT republicans whine, lie and spin the truth of the matter is readily apparent and that’s why 7 out of 8 LGBTs prefer Obama. Most LGBTs aren’t stupid.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
No worries, Matt. Priya Lynn fully supports and endorses marriage bans and discrimination against gays in the workplace as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when the Democrats do it. She even endorses and supports pandering to religion when Obama does it, and fully endorses his view that marriage is a “sacred union” that gays will profane.
posted by AModerateGay on
Priya Lynn said, “Miller is “praising the republican and knocking the Democrat” by suggesting they are at all equal.” But praising X and knocking Y -isn’t- suggesting they are equal, it’s praising X and knocking Y. Likewise, suggesting X and Y are equal, -isn’t- praising one and knocking the other, it’s suggesting they are equal. So which is it? Have Stephen’s words praised one candidate while knocking the other, or have they suggested they’re equal? Can’t be both.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
PrincessPriyaLynn proves that, just like King Richard Rosendall has proven amply before her, gay liberals love to toss out unfounded, unsubstantiated lies and hope that no one calls them to task.
And when called to task, just like PrincessPriyaLynn, they jump on their high horse and start clucking away with personal attacks upon those who would dare question their misleading statements.
PrincessPriyaLynn, we’re not really interested in what you think; facts and the truth matter and you’re in short supply on those in the regard of defending the lackluster support gays have received from the Democrat-controlled Congress.
And, may I say, we’re also not interested in you taking a page out of King Richard’s liberal elitist playbook and smearing all those who dare question your divine right to determine reality for gays.
What you said was that the Democrat-controlled Congress had passed ENDA and that was a good reason for gays to continue to support them.
Of course, they didn’t do anything of the sort.
Just like the oft’ placed BarryO “Letter to My Gay Slaves” piece wasn’t even current but has been promoted here as proof that BarryO loves gays, even though he won’t give in on gay marriage and his position is no different than Sen McCain’s.
The problem is, PrincessPriyaLynn, when you can’t bring valid facts to the debate, your gay liberal tactic is to turn ugly and smear. Was that something you learned from the other gay liberal thugs on IGF?
And while we’re on the topic of Saddleback, it seems to me that our gay liberal elitist political leaders in California may be commiting political hari-kiri on gay marriage by helping BarryO turnout more black voters who will likely stick it to gays and vote against gay marriage.
What strange bedfellows those gay liberal elitists make for “our benefit”… sliding into the rack for another rear-entry just to get the promise of telephone call tomorrow morning and some sweet nothings in our collective ear whilst shafted.
Got any other proof about those great Democrats in control of Congress helping advance gay civil rights?
Didn’t think so, PrincessPriyaLynn. Maybe it’s best if you just stick to your well-practiced games of smear, personal attack and relentless bile.
Heck, King Richard has made it a past-time and sport equal to Catholic- and religion-bashing amongst some gays.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
NDXXX writes: “No worries, Matt. Priya Lynn fully supports and endorses marriage bans and discrimination against gays in the workplace as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when the Democrats do it. She even endorses and supports pandering to religion when Obama does it, and fully endorses his view that marriage is a “sacred union” that gays will profane.”
It seems to me that PrincessPriyaLynn has a big problem -like most gayDemocrats still trying to sell the snake oil that BarryO and the Democrat Party deserve the gay vote.
It’s all about promises… and little real action.
Gays in Michigan found that to be true when we battled against titanic odds to defeat an anti-gay marriage Constitutional amendment. It was an all-or-nothing moment and the Michigan Democrats couldn’t be bothered.
When the blacks’ ox was being gored two years later, presto shazaam, Democrat Party types out in force to fight the whitey bigots taking away affirmative action.
It’s the same old story… just like it was when SlickWilly was in office… the Democrat Party will promise gays anything to get the vote on Election Day and then forget the promise on Inauguration Day.
Same old story. And PrincessPriyaLynn, like all good gayDemocrats in the past, will not hold THEIR leaders accountable.
At least gay GOPers don’t go into the process expecting to be whored out for the vote… but then, it’s about character and experience and leadership for them and issues far greater than just the Politics of VictimHood.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Northdallass said “Priya Lynn fully supports and endorses marriage bans and discrimination against gays in the workplace as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” when the Democrats do it. She even endorses and supports pandering to religion when Obama does it, and fully endorses his view that marriage is a “sacred union” that gays will profane.”
Why didn’t you present evidence of that?, Wait, that’s right, you can’t because you’re a liar. What is the truth is that you passionately defended pedophelia and deviant sex at June 19, 2007, 4:02pm in this thread:
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31277.html?success=1#comments
That’s why no one would be surprised if you had an eight year old chained up in your basement to molest.
Michigan matt said “PrincessPriyaLynn proves that, just like King Richard Rosendall has proven amply before her, gay liberals love to toss out unfounded, unsubstantiated lies and hope that no one calls them to task.”.
LOL, you’re pathetic matt. Check it yourself, the vast majority of Democrats opposed the DMA, the vast majority of Republicans supported it:
http://www.hrc.org/voteno/files/060607_FMAvote.pdf
The vast majority of Democrats supported ENDA, the vast majority of Republicans voted against it:
http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=14845
And for good measure the vast majority of Democrats supported the Matthew Sheppard Act and the vast majority of Republicans opposed it:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00350
Matt, you’re the one without any facts and yet you tell the obvious lie that Republicans are just as good on gay issues as Democrats. Obviously NOT the case, obviously the Democrats in general are gay supportive and the Republicans in general are anti-gay.
Any way, I’m done with you liars, this is just too easy, like shooting fish in a barrel.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Why didn’t you present evidence of that?
Because, Priya, getting you to deny that anything of the sort ever happened first is much more effective in demonstrating your veracity — or lack thereof.
Gay and lesbian liberals fully endorsed and supported politicians who supported state constitutional amendments, the FMA, and discrimination against gays in the workplace as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”. Since you have never once criticized that, you have never stated that gay and lesbian organizations like the Human Rights Campaign who endorse such things are wrong, and you insist that Democrats are pro-gay and gay-supportive, it should be obvious that you fully support and endorse such behavior as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
Furthermore, you yourself have stated that Obama’s beliefs and actions — which would include his opposition to gay marriage, his support and endorsement of religious beliefs, and his fusion of the two in his statement that marriage is a “sacred union” that should be denied to gays — are pro-gay and gay-supportive, and that you fully support and endorse Obama.
What is the truth is that you passionately defended pedophelia and deviant sex at June 19, 2007, 4:02pm in this thread:
Which, if everyone will note, starts off with this post containing this statement:
After all, if you should not be deprived of the right to marry whomever you want to have sex with, then that would also argue against restrictions on polygamy, incest, or child marriage.
Furthermore, since the other argument is that reproduction should not be a consideration in marriage, there’s no grounds to ban polygamy on the basis of confusing children, incest on the basis of producing genetic defects in children or throwing off inter-family relationships, and child marriage on the basis of intellectual and physical immaturity of the child AND the effect on any potential offspring.
And finally, there is nothing magic about the number 2; if anything, it is a religion-based constraint on marriage, and therefore, according to the gay left, should have no validity in making policy.
Understand the point? In my opinion, Beyond Marriage is just acknowledging the obvious; once you remove the right of the state to regulate marriage, you open the door for all these other possibilities.
The other thing that was interesting that came out in that discussion was the leftist ACLU’s view that “criminal and civil laws prohibiting or penalizing the practice of plural marriage violate constitutional protections of freedom of expression and association, freedom of religion, and privacy for personal relationships among consenting adults”.
posted by Richard II on
Once again, gay partisans sin their own tangled web and its up to an Independent to set things right. Yet, while anyone listen.
When someone talks about a candidate being, “pro-gay” or “gay-friendly” they are doing so within the obvious context of imperfect candidates within our imperfect two party system.
A candidate who is perfect on LGBT-right is probably not going to win many elections or even win many major party primaries.
Regretfully, non-major party candidates are legally forced to set in the back of the electoral bus.
I would love to talk about how the ‘bus’ can be rebuilt, but until it is, what the Greens, Libertarians or Socialists thing about gay rights matters little.
This means that we may see some serious and electable candidates who support some LGBT-rights issues, but not others; based on their personal beliefs, or that of their party or their constituents or an interest group.
Their will also be candidates who will oppose just about every LGBT-rights issue for similar reasons.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Northdallass said “Furthermore, you yourself have stated that Obama’s beliefs and actions — which would include his opposition to gay marriage, his support and endorsement of religious beliefs, and his fusion of the two in his statement that marriage is a “sacred union” that should be denied to gays — are pro-gay and gay-supportive, and that you fully support and endorse Obama.”.
Once again I never said that. You failed to quote me saying that because you’re a liar.
posted by Priya Lynn on
And for the record, as Richard II said Obama isn’t perfect on gay equality, but he’s considerably better than Mccain. To suggest I fully support and endorse him or think all his beliefs and actions are pro-gay is a lie.
And as I quoted Northdallass above he
As to the claim that I have “never” criticized “the HRC, gay and lesbian liberals who fully endorsed and supported politicians who supported state constitutional amendments, the FMA, and discrimination against gays in the workplace as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” I condemn them if they supported such politicians and the Republican candidates weren’t worse on the issues, which I highly doubt given Northdallass’s typical spin and lies.
And as I showed in the post before last Northdallass HAS stated that he FULLY endorses and supports pedophelia, incest, and polygamy.
posted by Pat on
Priya Lynn, I don’t believe NDT stated that he endorses and supports pedophilia or implied that, at least not in the post that is referred to.
It appears the argument that NDT is making that if two men or two women are allowed to marry, then the same argument would apply for polygamy, incest, and marriage with children (which, by the way, is still allowed in many states for some reason, in some cases as young as 14).
Since NDT does not support same sex marriage, it appears from his argument that he also doesn’t support incest, polygamy, and pedophilia.
I personally support same sex marriage. But even if I didn’t, I totally disagree with NDT’s argument. I personally do not equate same sex relationships with polygamy, incest, or pedophilia. As such, I (and a huge majority of Americans) do not believe those relationships should not have any government recognition. Further, there are compelling reasons for those relationships to be discouraged. On the other hand, there is no compelling reason to discourage homosexual relationships. In fact, just as we encourage straight persons to pursue marriage, we should do the same for lesbians and gay men.
I’m not sure why NDT appears to put same sex marriage on par with marriage between immediate relatives, polygamy, and marriage between adults and children, because as far as I know, NDT does support those who choose to enter homosexual relationships, but does not support persons who engage in incest, pedophilia, or persons having simultaneous multiple partners. He’ll have to explain what appears to be an inconsistency, if he chooses.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Pat you’re welcome to your opinion, but Northdallass was clear and unequivocal about adults marrying children, close relatives marrying, and polygamy:
“Randi, but all of your statements are discriminatory. It should not be automatically assumed that children are incapable of consent; that’s age discrimination. It should not be automatically assumed that being related to someone prevents you from giving informed consent; that’s discrimination on the basis of lineage or family. It should not be automatically assumed that all multiple marriages are exploitive; that’s discrimination based on assumptions about private lifestyle decisions…your attitude that people should not be allowed to marry their preferred sexual partner or partners is unconstitutional”
Interesting how you choose to defend him given his clear statements but that you don’t defend me when he claims without evidence that I fully support and endorse state constitutional amendments against marrage, the FMA, discrimination against gays in the workplace, or Obama’s “opposition to gay marriage, his support and endorsement of religious beliefs, and his fusion of the two in his statement that marriage is a “sacred union” that should be denied to gays”.
While Northdallass may have on some rare occaision (you’ve presented no proof of it) claimed to support those who enter into gay relationships, his constant opposition to gays, their relationships, and his claims that “most gays are deviants” makes it clear at best he’s paid lip service to that and in no way really supports gays.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
To suggest I fully support and endorse him or think all his beliefs and actions are pro-gay is a lie.
I condemn them if they supported such politicians and the Republican candidates weren’t worse on the issues
And there we see the point of Priya Lynn; it’s not the positions people support, it’s their political affiliation. Hence, she and her fellow gay liberals fully endorse and support as “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive” FMA supporters, state constitutional amendment supporters, people who discriminate against gays in the workplace, and religious people like Obama who insist that marriage is a “sacred union” that should be denied to gays — as long as they’re not Republicans.
Meanwhile, since Priya wants to quote, let the full quote be visible.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Northdallass said “And there we see the point of Priya Lynn; it’s not the positions people support, it’s their political affiliation”.
They don’t come much more ignorant than you. Of course you didn’t come by it honestly, you’re willfully stupid, the kind of stupid one can’t come by naturally – you’ve had to work at it. Review what I said:
“I condemn them if they supported such politicians and the Republican candidates weren’t worse on the issues”.
That means I support the ones who are better on the issues – my support is conditional on who was better. Supporting the ones who “weren’t worse” is the same as supporting the one’s who “are better”, you see? Of course you don’t, you’re willfully blind.
Once again to point out the obvious (to all except the willfully stupid like Northdallass):
The vast majority of Democrats opposed the DMA, the vast majority of Republicans supported it:
http://www.hrc.org/voteno/files/060607_FMAvote.pdf
The vast majority of Democrats supported ENDA, the vast majority of Republicans voted against it:
http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=14845
The vast majority of Democrats supported the Matthew Sheppard Act and the vast majority of Republicans opposed it:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00350
Of course despite that Northdallass fully supports and endorses the Republicans that made these votes – because he opposes gays.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
That means I support the ones who are better on the issues – my support is conditional on who was better.
But of course, Priya, as we’ve already seen, liberal gays and lesbians like yourself support and endorse candidates who support state constitutional amendments, the FMA, workplace discrimination against gays, and claiming that marriage is a “sacred union” that gays should be denied.
Again, it’s not the positions you oppose; it’s the political affiliation of the person stating it. That is made obvious by the fact that you are not blasting Obama for being hateful and homophobic by stating that marriage is a “sacred union” that should be denied to gays, even though you do if Republicans allegedly say it. That is made obvious by your endorsement of FMA supporters. That is made obvious by your support and endorsement of the Democrat Party, which is currently on trial for workplace discrimination.
If you truly support these things, you would condemn people regardless of their political affiliation — and you would ask why the Democrat Party keeps putting forward these candidates. But, as we see, you continually make excuses for your Democrat masters carrying out behavior that you claim you oppose if Republicans support it.
And as for “opposing gays”, Priya, gay and straight people currently have exactly the same legal protections against workplace discrimination and exactly the same prosecution rules regardless of sexual orientation.
The problem here is that being gay has been usurped by people like you, Bonnie Bleskachek, Jim McGreevey, parents who take children to sex fairs, supporters of pedophilia and polygamy, and others who use their sexual orientation as an excuse for irresponsible and criminal behavior. If you could only take responsibility for your antisocial activity rather than trying to claim your sexual orientation made you do it, life would be much easier for gays.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Shorter Northdallass: “blah blah, blah, I’m a stupid moron and I just make up stuff and claim people believe it, blah blah blah, most gays are deviants”
posted by Priya Lynn on
And speaking of supporters of pedophilia and polygamy, when I opposed pedophilic, incestuous and polygamous marriage Northdallass attacked me and defended those perversions:
“Randi, but all of your statements are discriminatory. It should not be automatically assumed that children are incapable of consent; that’s age discrimination. It should not be automatically assumed that being related to someone prevents you from giving informed consent; that’s discrimination on the basis of lineage or family. It should not be automatically assumed that all multiple marriages are exploitive; that’s discrimination based on assumptions about private lifestyle decisions…your attitude that people should not be allowed to marry their preferred sexual partner or partners is unconstitutional”
posted by Michigan-Matt on
PrincessPriyaLynn, I see you still can’t admit you’re wrong and accept the fact that your rush to defend the Savior BarryO and all CongressionalDemocrats (and gayLefties who have sold our community out to the Democrats) is both wrong-headed and inaccurate.
I said that Sen McCain’s position of reserving marriage as a union between one man, one woman AND his position that marriage laws are best left to the states is EXACTLY the position of your Savior BarryO.
Further, that the gayLeft agenda -promoted by gayDemocrats who have political sympathies for other non-gay policies of the Democrat Party- has as their #1 goal the expansion of marriage equality to gays.
So, on your own self-promoted gay issue of the greatest importance facing the Free World, establishment of gay marriage, your candidate and the GOP’s candidate are no different. Why a simple heads-up comparison eludes you is clear: you’re so deep into the gayLeft defense of all things Democrat you can’t be bothered with the truth… hence, calling everyone a liar (did you get that personalist disorder from Charles Wilson?) while lying the most, yourself.
Yet, you stoop to carrying the gayLeft’s waterpail and smear McCain, smear GOPers and smear anyone who tries to make you face your own worst demon: BarryO and McCain are no different on the #1 issue to your side.
I’d think if you really believed that McCain and the GOP were so bad, and BarryO is perfectly in sync with them on the #1 issue, why would you continue to pimp for da’ Masta?
Simple, because your political sympathies on non-gay issues rest with the Democrats.
Now, what was that silly statement of your about the Democrats passing ENDA?
Oh yeah, you were wrong on that one too.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Michigan matt, I have no idea who Barry O is so I don’t know what you’re talking about.
You said “Now, what was that silly statement of your about the Democrats passing ENDA?”
Nothing silly about it just the facts, check it out for yourself:
The vast majority of Democrats supported ENDA, the vast majority of Republicans voted against it:
http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=14845
The vast majority of Democrats opposed the DMA, the vast majority of Republicans supported it:
http://www.hrc.org/voteno/files/060607_FMAvote.pdf
The vast majority of Democrats supported the Matthew Sheppard Act and the vast majority of Republicans opposed it:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00350
As to me being “wrong about that one too” – what kind of an idiot are you? The facts speak for themselves, clearly your statement that “the Republicans are as good on the issues as the Democrats” is false. You and Northdallass are almost unbelievably stupid if you think you can fool anyone with such blatant lies when you’ve been obviously and undeniably refuted. Its like you think you can tell people the sky is pink and by the power of your personality you think people are going to believe you. Sheesh, give it up already.
posted by Richard II on
When someone calls a candidate, ‘gay-friendly’ or ‘pro-gay’ they are probably claiming that they support certain LGBT rights issues or at least more then the other viable candidate.
Likewise, people who opposed the State ‘sodomy’ laws were probably really saying that they opposed them as they applied to private, adult and consensual sexual relations.
In terms of gay rights, let us look at the two viable presidential candidates;
Obama generally supports gay rights issues except when it comes to same-sex marriage. On that last point he is ok with giving same-sex couples a seperate, but equal civil union.
McCain generally opposes gay rights issues, including same-sex marriage and adoption and does not seem that same-sex couples shouuld have any degree of legal equity and he wants to appoint judges who loath Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas.
Based on these facts, it is clear that Obama is better on gay rights issues then McCain. To suggest otherwise is to claim (1) the facts are wrong or (2) to reject certain gay rights issues as gay rights issues.
PrincessPriyaLynn, I see you still can’t admit you’re wrong and accept the fact that your rush to defend the Savior BarryO and all CongressionalDemocrats (and gayLefties who have sold our community out to the Democrats) is both wrong-headed and inaccurate.
I said that Sen McCain’s position of reserving marriage as a union between one man, one woman AND his position that marriage laws are best left to the states is EXACTLY the position of your Savior BarryO.
Further, that the gayLeft agenda -promoted by gayDemocrats who have political sympathies for other non-gay policies of the Democrat Party- has as their #1 goal the expansion of marriage equality to gays.
So, on your own self-promoted gay issue of the greatest importance facing the Free World, establishment of gay marriage, your candidate and the GOP’s candidate are no different. Why a simple heads-up comparison eludes you is clear: you’re so deep into the gayLeft defense of all things Democrat you can’t be bothered with the truth… hence, calling everyone a liar (did you get that personalist disorder from Charles Wilson?) while lying the most, yourself.
Yet, you stoop to carrying the gayLeft’s waterpail and smear McCain, smear GOPers and smear anyone who tries to make you face your own worst demon: BarryO and McCain are no different on the #1 issue to your side.
I’d think if you really believed that McCain and the GOP were so bad, and BarryO is perfectly in sync with them on the #1 issue, why would you continue to pimp for da’ Masta?
Simple, because your political sympathies on non-gay issues rest with the Democrats.
Now, what was that silly statement of your about the Democrats passing ENDA?
Oh yeah, you were wrong on that one too.
Priya Lynn | August 25, 2008, 12:18pm | #
Michigan matt, I have no idea who Barry O is so I don’t know what you’re talking about.
You said “Now, what was that silly statement of your about the Democrats passing ENDA?”
Nothing silly about it just the facts, check it out for yourself:
The vast majority of Democrats supported ENDA, the vast majority of Republicans voted against it:
http://www.washblade.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=14845
The vast majority of Democrats opposed the DMA, the vast majority of Republicans supported it:
http://www.hrc.org/voteno/files/060607_FMAvote.pdf
The vast majority of Democrats supported the Matthew Sheppard Act and the vast majority of Republicans opposed it:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00350
As to me being “wrong about that one too” – what kind of an idiot are you? The facts speak for themselves, clearly your statement that “the Republicans are as good on the issues as the Democrats” is false. You and Northdallass are almost unbelievably stupid if you think you can fool anyone with such blatant lies when you’ve been obviously and undeniably refuted. Its like you think you can tell people the sky is pink and by the power of your personality you think people are going to believe you. Sheesh, give it up already.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
When someone calls a candidate, ‘gay-friendly’ or ‘pro-gay’ they are probably claiming that they support certain LGBT rights issues or at least more then the other viable candidate.
Which is a rather-weaselly way of explaining why behavior on the part of Democrat Party members that would be condemned if they were Republican is “pro-gay” and “gay-supportive”.
Meanwhile, Priya Lynn still hasn’t explained why, if she opposes the FMA, if she opposes state constitutional amendments, if she opposes workplace discrimination, and if she opposes candidates who say that marriage is a “sacred union” and use religion to deny gays what she claims are rights…..why she continually endorses, supports, and makes excuses for Democrats who do it.
Simply put, Priya Lynn does not think the FMA or state constitutional amendments are discriminatory when a Democrat supports it. She does not think workplace discrimination is wrong when a Democrat does it. She does not believe religious objections and opposition to gay marriage are wrong when a Democrat does it.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Northdallass said “Priya Lynn still hasn’t explained why, if she opposes the FMA, if she opposes state constitutional amendments, if she opposes workplace discrimination, and if she opposes candidates who say that marriage is a “sacred union” and use religion to deny gays what she claims are rights…..why she continually endorses, supports, and makes excuses for Democrats who do it.”.
I explained to you earlier, I condemn those supporting such democrats assuming the alternative republicans weren’t worse on the issues than them.
For example Obama may say marriage is a sacred union and I oppose that but the competing Republican, Mccain, is demonstrably worse so I support Obama as the lesser of two evils. Obama supports repeal of the oxymoronically named “Defense” of Marriage Act, Mccain does not. Obama supports repeal of “don’t ask don’t tell”, Mccain does not. Obama opposes the attempt in California to ban equal marriage, Mccain supports it. Obama supports civil unions with all the rights of marriage, Mccain thinks gays should be “allowed to enter contracts”. You’re suggestion that LGBTS should prefer Mccain over Obama because Obama is anti-gay is laughable. You and Michigan Matt can shoot yourselves in the foot if you so desire but the vast majority of LGBTs aren’t going to.
LGBTs prefer Obama over Mccain 7 to 1:
http://www.365gay.com/news/082008-obama-gay-voters/
There’s a reason for that – most LGBTs aren’t stupid.
posted by Priya Lynn on
I rest my case (again). Northdallass and Michigan matt can have the last word to repeat their pathetic lies, they aren’t convincing anyone.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
PrincessPriyaLynn whines “Michigan matt, I have no idea who Barry O (what a hoot, you are a real princess sleeping on the pea) is so I don’t know what you’re talking about. You said “Now, what was that silly statement of your about the Democrats passing ENDA?” Nothing silly about it just the facts, check it out for yourself”
Wrong again, Princess… that would make three times you missed the answer and it just goes to show everyone here that when a gayLeftist secular bigot like you is held accountable, you’ll spin and twist more than SlickWilly at deposition. But then, that’s kind of an art form around IGF for gayLefties.
You said that the Democrat-controlled Congress helped out gays by passing ENDA; I said you were wrong, they hadn’t passed it because Democrat leadership tossed gay civil rights under the bus as soon as it came time for gayDemocrats to hold their leaders accountable. That was a NancyP and HarrygReid decision, Princess.
Wow, NDXXX is right when he says for PriyaLynn and the gayDemocrats it’s ok to smear GOPers for turning their backs on civil rights, but when gayDemocrats do it… it’s party on, dude!
No wonder, PrincessPriyaLynn, you have a reputation around here as the #1 tool of the Democrats. I know, you’re just selling that good ol’ gay brethern’s vote to the Democrat masta’.
I should have guessed you’d have trouble even grasping a simple point made in fair rebuttal to your sweeping endorsement of the pro-gay Democrat leaders in the Congress. You couldn’t do anything but that or else that red-faced head of yours would implode.
FOr the record Princess, McCain and BarryO are both in favor of restricting marriage to 1 man, 1 woman and both believe that each state should continue to determine its own marriage laws.
Identical stands on the #1 gayLeft agenda item for the last three years.
But, gays still must vote and trust that the Democrat masta’ will free us from our civil bondage? Yeah. The only bonds that are on gays right now are the ones our gayLeft brethern have put us in by aligning our interests soley (and souly) to the Democrat Party.
Keep on spinning it PrincessPriyaLynn… someday, someone, somewhere will ask you to dance with all that spinning.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I explained to you earlier, I condemn those supporting such democrats assuming the alternative republicans weren’t worse on the issues than them.
Of course, that’s Priya Lynn’s excuse for her supporting and endorsing FMA supporters, state constitutional amendment supporters, those who discriminate against gays in the workplace, and those who claim marriage is a “sacred union” and thus oppose gay marriage.
Then again, as we already know, Priya Lynn’s positions change with whatever the Democrat does — such as her support of someone who, by virtue of his religious belief, she previously claimed supported “murder” and “torture”.
posted by Pat on
It seems like we’re all talking past each other, because everyone’s post is being misinterpreted, either intentionally, or otherwise. These are what I believe to be the facts.
1. Obama and McCain, on the same sex marriage issue, have the same position.
2. Related to the same sex marriage issue, Obama has the more pro-gay stance than McCain, as Obama does support federal civil unions in which same sex couples have the same rights as married couples while McCain does not support civil unions; Obama favors repealing DOMA while McCain doesn’t; Obama is against the California amendment while McCain supports it.
3. Obama favors repealing DADT, allowing lesbians and gay men to serve openly in the military, while McCain opposes it.
4. If the above is correct, then unless one regards same sex marriage as the only relevant issue, that Obama is more pro-gay than McCain.
5. As important an issue as same sex marriage is, there are other important gay rights issues. Careful: no resorting to your perceptions of what others are saying or thinking.
6. On the votes for FMA, DADT, DOMA, and ENDA, a much higher percentage of Democrats in Congress voted for the pro-gay position than the Republicans. I think we can stipulate that Clinton signed DADT and DOMA, and ENDA hasn’t passed both houses.
7. If a Democrat is anti-gay on several positions, it is wrong to say that this person is pro-gay or gay supportive.
8. If a Democrat is anti-gay on some issues, but the Republican opponent is anti-gay on the same issues and anti-gay on others as well, then it is correct to say that the Democrat is better on gay rights than his opponent, or (better yet) to say that the Democrat is less anti-gay than his opponent.
9. If #8 is the case, it is wrong to say that the Democrat is pro gay or gay supportive, simply because he is better than his opponent. If no other candidates are viable, it still may be better to vote for the Democrat, but by making it clear that his anti-gay views should be criticized, and any support for this candidate is based on the fact that his opponent’s record on gay rights is even worse.
10. That persons such as Bonnie Bleskavich, Jim Greevey, and parents who bring children to sex fairs are bad people.
Does anybody disagree with these statements? If so, I would be interested in hearing what is wrong.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Pat, here’s the real problem with your new Ten Step Program. (Aside from the fact that you provided no links to prove each of your points is accurate)
We have been discussing the clear fact that on the issue of gay marriage, both BarryO and McCain think marriage should be between one man and one woman. Additionally, both candidates feel the issue is best decided on a state-by-state level. (You seem to agree to that premise by your statements in #1 but then claim other points later in the “New Improved Ten Step Program” that dispute you really agree with your own statement.)
McCain thinks it is wrong for gay marriage to be advanced by judicial fiat alone and wants the people of the individual states to determine the issue by a vote –perfectly in keeping with GOP values of local decisionmaking. It’s why he voted for DOMA but did not (as you leave off) vote for the FMA and stood as a maverick against his GOP caucus by not voting for the FMA to come to the Senate floor. DOMA, of course, is all about protecting the long-established tradition of self-determination by states on marital laws… it is a rightly decided state issue, not a federal one. DOMA isn’t anti-gay; that’s more poppycock from the gayLeft agenda spindawgs. DOMA doesn’t stop states from enabling gay marriage; it stops other states from being held hostage by those more liberal states and overpowered by precedents set by the slim liberal majorities in those states. DOMA was and is all about protecting LOCAL decisionmaking in individual states.
BarryO, aside from agreeing with McCain on gay marriage, is perfectly willing to pull a page readily from the litigate-it-to-death tradition of his profession and let judges legislate from the bench on gay civil rights and tons, tons of other issues. It’s why he’s cool on the CA decision -judges know better & best, even if some of those judges were pesky GOPers. That’s in sync with Democrat Party elitist values of the past who think the voters can’t be trusted… same old, same old.
You err when going the extra step and claiming that because of DOMA and DADT, the Star of Our Gay Savior (BarryO) rises in the east and shines more brightly.
DOMA and DADT are irrelevant. We were talking about there being no -that’s NO- difference between BarryO’s and McCain’s position on gay marriage. DOMA ain’t in the picture. DADT ain’t in the picture. And, as PrincessPriyaLyn well knows, ENDA can’t be in the picture ’cause, except in her special little reality, it hasn’t passed yet.
We do agree, however, that gay marriage is the undisputed, #1 issue for the gayLeft and gayDemocrats. I think for gayGOPers and gayModerates, it is likely less important and there’s a stronger interest in advancing a more direct route to the benefits of marriage by creating civil unions and letting the “pure marriage” loggerhead contestants continue their senseless, ceaseless fighting across the canyons of values that separate them.
McCain and BarryO are no different on gay marriage.
In fact, McCain-the-Maverick, has argued that if gay couples want a civil ceremony validated by the state, he’s not against it. And his outspoken, clearly demonstrated record of moderation on public policy issues over the past 20 years shows that he would probably be inclined to extend federal benefits to gay couples who are partners in a civil union.
The problem of sorting gets dicey when one asks “what’s the record” and “can we trust the promises” each candidate is making… BarryO takes positions on lots of issues for which he hasn’t had to vote… or even demonstrate a little bit of leadership.
Like when NancyP and HarrygReid killed the ENDA amendment this summer and BarryO was just too busy to rally his Democrat Party and prove he was our “Savior”.
And you have to seriously wonder about all the gayApologists here who are offering that BarryO is better on gay issues even though there isn’t much of a record for gays to bank on… and perish the thought that just because BarryO hung around a anti-gay & racially bigoted ministers when it was convenient, it doesn’t mean anything now.
For gayDemocrats it all comes down to promises, promises.
Remember it was SlickWilly –the last Democrat Prez the gayDemocrats told us was “one of us” and supportive of our issues in order to get gays to vote for him– he signed DADT and DOMA and never reversed the AIDS/HIV exclusionary provision in our immigration law.
A law we would have never had if the far gayLeft hadn’t pushed American leaders over the Edge of Reason with their ceaseless, senseless antagonistic rhetoric.
Of course, it was SlickWilly’s administration who said “We kept all the promises we intended to keep” while stealing all the “W”‘s off the keyboards in the White House.
You should have stopped at #1 and that would have made your New Improved Ten Step Program a much easier vehicle to cure the rabid, unreasonable gayDemocrats here.
But thye’d have to be ready to accept the cure and, as we all know, to force a 10 Step Program down any addict’s throat will fail; they have to be willing to admit they are in need, first.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Pat, there should have been a wink after the first sentence. Sorry.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
PrincessPriyaLynn claims “As to what the Democtratic controlled congress has done for gays, pass ENDA and prevent the Republicans from passing a federal amendment banning equal marriage for same sex couples.”
Two points for you Princess.
First, ENDA didn’t pass the Congress. To steal your oft’ used line: “I guess you lied”.
Second, McCain-the-Maverick was one of those GOPers who voted against the FMA. Want to apologize for smearing all Republicans –or you can just say “The Princess isn’t smarter than a 5th Grader” and we’d all get the point.
posted by Pat on
Matt, thanks for your response. I guess I wasn’t clear and/or failed to make my point in the first question. For that question, I was only talking their stance on gay marriage, and that’s it. Nothing about civil unions, or anything else related to marriage. They both have said that marriage is between a man and a woman. So on that issue, I agree they are the same. We apparently disagree that this should be the stopping point in the discussion. As such, I believe it is important to look at the issues related to same sex marriage, and other gay rights issues. I maintain they have different stands on issues relating to same sex marriage.
Perhaps in the future, these other issues relating to marriage will be insignificant, but I don’t believe that to be the case now. For example, Obama has stated that he supports civil unions with the same rights as marriage. McCain still supports DOMA. So when states like Massachusetts, California, and perhaps New Jersey and New York soon, have same sex marriage, right now, they only have the rights and privileges of the state, none of the federal ones. This would continue to be the case under McCain. With federally recognized civil unions, then it’s just a matter of whether the states want to call it a marriage or a civil unions. But those couples would have the same federal rights and privileges as any married couple.
With respect to FMA, Obama and McCain both voted against it, so they are the same on that issue. But I was focusing on Congress here, and I don’t think it’s irrelevant. Republicans by a wide margin clearly wanted FMA. On that basis alone, I can almost understand it if one votes blindly for a Democrat (although I still oppose those doing so).
On ENDA, again a much larger percentage of Democrats support it, while Republicans don’t. Of course, one can argue the relevance since it didn’t pass. And one can argue about the need for ENDA. But those who support ENDA, and view that as important would most likely want to elect a President who would push it and not veto it, and certainly elect congressman who would vote for it.
But I agree with your points about Pelosi and Reid. I’ve never been a big fan of either beforehand, but their leadership, in my view, has been awful.
And your point about the candidates’ records and questioning if they will keep their gay rights stances is valid. Obama may not bother pushing federally recognized civil unions, or McCain may surprise us and become more pro-gay. Who knows?
And yes, Clinton is responsible for signing DADT, DOMA, and the HIV exclusion law. While ten years later, I’m glad to see Bush reverse the law, he has not done so with DOMA and DADT. In fact, on DOMA, he was intent to going much further with it. I’m assuming that neither Obama or McCain want to turn back the clock on the HIV exclusion law, and if that’s the case, they would be the same regarding that position.
My ten points were not intended to be a cure for either side. I was just looking to see if we at least agreed on what I believe are the facts, whether or not what relevance one believes each of these ten points have.
Then at that point, one can say that even though that point is true, explain why it is not relevant, why an approach is better despite the facts, etc.
posted by Pat on
BarryO, aside from agreeing with McCain on gay marriage, is perfectly willing to pull a page readily from the litigate-it-to-death tradition of his profession and let judges legislate from the bench on gay civil rights and tons, tons of other issues. It’s why he’s cool on the CA decision -judges know better & best, even if some of those judges were pesky GOPers. That’s in sync with Democrat Party elitist values of the past who think the voters can’t be trusted… same old, same old.
Matt, I’m not sure what power McCain would have over Obama in preventing litigation, other than perhaps his leadership in saying that such litigation shouldn’t happen. But since the potential litigants are not on the same side as McCain on the marriage issue, I don’t believe McCain will be convincing these persons to stop litigating. Just like if you were being bullied by someone, and his friend approves of you being bullied. You believe you have a means to defend yourself but the friend advises against it, you’re probably not going to follow this friend’s advice.
I also prefer the legislative route as well. But persons do have a right to petition the courts. And at appropriate times the judges or justices do have to decide on the constitutionality of an issue, such as same sex marriage. So what is a judge to do if he honestly believes that banning same sex marriage is really unconstitutional? If he fails to decide accordingly and leaves it up to the legislature, then that action is just as activist as a judge who believes banning same sex marriage is constitutional for decides otherwise.
Matt, I think it was you who said that judges tend to follow the pulse of the people (or something along those lines) when they make their decisions. If that was you, I recall disagreeing with you at that time. I’m beginning to agree more with that view. For example, if same sex marriage went to the California Supreme Court 20 years ago, even if it had the same composition, I’m fairly convinced it would have been voted down unanimously.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Pat, I’m kind of scratching my head on your point about McCain and his impact on litigation strategies of the gayleft…
I wrote that one of the values of liberals and Democrats is that they are perfectly ok with judges legislating from the bench.
Another point was on gay marriage, that Obama and McCain are identical on two important points: 1) it’s a union between 1 man, 1 woman (I don’t agree) and 2) it’s best left to the states where marriage laws are a reserved power under our Constitution. It’s why McCain-the-Maverick wouldn’t vote with his GOP caucus and move the FMA to the floor.
Leaving that aside, when you ask “So what is a judge to do if he honestly believes that banning same sex marriage is really unconstitutional?”
He or she or they are to document the reasons they hold it’s unconstitutional and decide the case on the law… not on personal preferences or what beliefs a judge carries into chambers with him/her/them. When AJustScalia speaks about this “setting aside” fundamental principle of a good judge, he physically moves his cupped hands from in front of his body to a point off to the far side and stretchs his arms and torso to show how far those personal beliefs should be moved away from the decision at hand.
Former Michigan Democrat Senator Don Reigle once said that he was glad SCOTUS overreached itself, legislated from the bench and decided Roe v Wade. As a member of Congress, he was happy it was off his plate. Democrats do embrace judges legislating from the bench… on gay civil rights, on stopping oil refineries from being built, on school busing, etc.
I have written that judges are influenced by a variety of non-legal, non-precedent issues and –to the extent possible– should isolate their decision from those forces and decide it based on the law at hand. Are they immune from societal pressures? Heck no, but they should be.
It’s why SCOTUS could decide, against strong MSM bias in the reporting and opinions on the editorial pages, that Bush2000 indeed won Florida and that the FLA judges overstepped their role.
On your point about McCain and Obama being the same on FMA –as you say and I say, they both voted against it. However, McCain-the-Maverick had to decide to buck his caucus and stake out a position that was NOT in sync with his Party… Obama had to take no such “leadership” or “conscience” position for gay rights or states rights. Yet, the gayLeft continues to claim BarryO is better for gays… and his record fails to prove it convincingly to anyone but those who HOPE he’ll be better than SlickWilly when it comes to gay civil rights.
We’ll probably continue to disagree as to whether DOMA is an anti-gay provision or not. I don’t see it that way; I see it as a mechanism to protect states from a superimposition of policies from other states’ with far different constituencies. Imagine if gays in all the other states were forced to accept Mississippi’s policy on gay marriage?
By preserving (under DOMA) the right of each state to decide the issue on their own, we may be helping our gay civil rights movement by making us work harder to secure full civil rights at the ballot box, not just from the pen of an activist judge.
Finally, the biggest difference between McCain-the-Maverick and BarryO on gay marriage comes from the seeming disconnect BarryO has to engage to posit that he believes a marriage is 1 man, 1 woman.
BarryO is one of the most liberal Senators in the Democrat Party –in a long, long time. One would think his attitude toward gay marriage would be to say it’s cool, go do it, that’s equality first and foremost.
But he doesn’t and has never explained, even while attending a very liberal black activist church like Trinity and even while embracing very liberal, anti-American bomb-throwers like his buddy Bill Ayers, why he believes marriage ought to be reserved for heteros only. And, our gayDemocrats and BarryO’supporters just give him a pass. No need to explain.
He’s explained a lot since he has such a feeble record of legislative accomplishment. For instance, he explained in Saddleback that, for him, determining when life begins is beyond his “pay grade” and dodged the question nicely. Smooth, slick even.
Why would he continue to fail to explain why his fairly liberal gay rights position takes a fast, unexpected detour around gay marriage? Is he like most black church-going voters, a tad close to homophobia?
I think it’s because BarryO’s pandering to the religiousRight and black, church-going voters. It is such a violent disconnect from all the other very, very, very liberal positions BarryO’s espoused on civil rights… it begs for attention like a sore thumb… and sticks out like one, too.
DADT is immaterial to the discussion of gay marriage. And frankly, I think McCain as Prez would move to repeal DADT if the military command requested it. McCain has been there; he’s done that and as he points out, served honorably with gay men and women.
I think gay civil rights will get more accomplished by having McCain as Prez than we would with BarryO as Prez… who was it who said the Vulcans have a saying; “Only Nixon could go to China”?
It kind of fits here… we may get more from McCain than BarryO and all his appearingly pro-gay positioning.
I’d be happy to let you, Pat, have the last word, since you asked for comments.
posted by Pat on
Thanks, Matt. I don’t have much more to add here.
I get what you’re saying about Democrats and liberals being okay with judges legislating from the bench. I’m just pointing out that if McCain is president, that is not going to stop people from trying to use the courts.
Also, I do appreciate that McCain did buck his party on a gay rights position. In that respect I would say that McCain is much more pro-gay in relation to his party than Obama is. But it still doesn’t change what appears to me, that Obama is more pro-gay overall than McCain.
And I agree with you that there is pandering on the part of Obama. The Democratic leadership apparently believes that a candidate endorsing same sex marriage is not electable. I also believe there is pandering on the part of McCain in that I think he is more pro-gay than his public stance on gay rights issues. However, I am happy to see that both McCain and Obama appeared to have rejected the likes of Robertson, LaBarbera, Dobson, and others like them.