Bad news: Support for California's anti-gay marriage Prop 8 is picking up steam:
Likely California voters overall now favor passage of Proposition 8 by a five-point margin, 47 percent to 42 percent. Ironically, a CBS 5 poll eleven days prior found a five-point margin in favor of the measure's opponents.
One reason is the success of this anti-gay marriage ad showing San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom proclaiming same-sex marriage is here to stay "whether you like it or not."
It's not lost yet, but this is bad news, especially since the parallel Obama surge isn't counteracting Prop 8's growing support. It's quite possible Obama will be the next president, but that all three anti-gay marriage state initiatives (California, Florida and Arizona) will pass. Given that most of the national LGBT activist groups have made the election of Obama their number 1 priority, with the lion's share of their efforts aimed at getting out the vote, for Obama, and raising money, for Obama, a loss in California (especially, since it will roll back marriage equality) will be telling.
But then again, the beltway LGBTers chose to focus their efforts on electing Kerry/Edwards four years ago (even though Kerry/Edwards supported state amendments to ban gay marriage), and they seem to have learned nothing. Okay, that's probably unfair. Since their goal is maximizing their own power and influence in a hoped-for Democratic administration, from their viewpoint their priorities make perfect sense, for them.
More. Reader Casey submitted this telling comment:
"[A]s somebody who has been working against Prop. 8 since months before the ruling went down, raising money, recruiting volunteers, educating voters and praying desperate prayers, I don't want to hear [another commenter's] nonsense about "we only have two viable choices." I've spent years listening to gays talk about how gay issues are the most important thing to vote on, that my status as a Republican is an abomination because the Democrats are so much better on gay issues... and yet, here we are, in the fight of our political lives to defend our right to marry in the largest state of the nation-the ULTIMATE gay issue-and those same gays are MIA, too busy giving their time, energy and money to Obama to do what needs to be done in CA.
"Being behind in the polls wasn't inevitable-we were ahead for a long time-but now the fact that their side has out fund-raised us by $10 million, the fact that they can call on thousands of committed people to go door to door when we can barely get bodies to our phone banks, and yes, the fact that they just want it more than we do is proving out, and now they're ahead, with another ad coming down the pipe that's going to hit us in the throat. Yeah, I said it-they want it more-and if that doesn't change, tangibly, now, we're going to lose this thing.
"Gays have a third choice in 2008; say to hell with the presidential election-Obama is no savior for the gays, and McCain no threat-and get 100% behind the No on 8 campaign. But no-our national organizations had to pretend the presidential election mattered for us this year, and for that, we might just all pay dearly, for a long time to come."
Furthermore. Reader Jake responds to those who charge that criticizing the decision to focus national LGBT resources and labor on electing Obama reflects a pre-emptive blaming of President Obama for Prop 8's passage:
I'm thinking that there will be far more anti-gay blacks and Hispanics coming to the polls this year to advance the "change we've been waiting for" because of the get out the vote efforts of Obama/Biden and the California, Arizona and Florida's Democratic party. I'm kind of surprised that you don't think that's possible.
25 Comments for “California Warning Sign”
posted by ETJB on
I think that Steve’s comnents represent a divorce fron the political reality.
The law on the books ensure that we only have two viable choices. Since it does matter who sits in the White House, in terms of gay rights, many LGBT people are supporting the lessor of the two viable evils.
Do you want them to support the worst of the two viable evils? Then you need to be a convincing case for doing so.
Most polled Americans still strongly oppose legal recognition of same-sex marriage, and that is why most State ballot initiatives on the topic win.
The Arizona ballot measure lost, primarily because it became seen as an attack on straight people who had DP benifits.
It is harder to do what in the other States. Where you have no legal recognition for same-sex couples or you having some thing like civil unions, that do not really apply to opposite sex couples.
Their are certainly gay Democrats AND gay Republicans who uncriticially support their party and its candidates out of foolishness or because they are hoping for a nice career in government or as a lobbyist.
Yet, I know many gay Democrats and Republicans where that is certainly NOT the case. Many of them have been involved in the efforts to oppose these State ballot measures.
posted by Casey on
ETJB, as somebody who has been working against Prop. 8 since months before the ruling went down, raising money, recruiting volunteers, educating voters and praying desperate prayers, I don’t want to hear your nonsense about “we only have two viable choices.” I’ve spent years listening to gays talk about how gay issues are the most important thing to vote on, that my status as a Republican is an abomination because the Democrats are so much better on gay issues… and yet, here we are, in the fight of our political lives to defend our right to marry in the largest state of the nation – the ULTIMATE gay issue – and those same gays are MIA, too busy giving their time, energy and money to Obama to do what needs to be done in CA.
Being behind in the polls wasn’t inevitable – we were ahead for a long time – but now the fact that their side has out fund-raised us by $10 million, the fact that they can call on thousands of committed people to go door to door when we can barely get bodies to our phone banks, and yes, the fact that they just want it more than we do is proving out, and now they’re ahead, with another ad coming down the pipe that’s going to hit us in the throat. Yeah, I said it – they want it more – and if that doesn’t change, tangibly, now, we’re going to lose this thing.
Gays have a third choice in 2008; say to hell with the presidential election – Obama is no savior for the gays, and McCain no threat – and get 100% behind the No on 8 campaign. But no – our national organizations had to pretend the presidential election mattered for us this year, and for that, we might just all pay dearly, for a long time to come.
posted by ETJB on
Casey;
You may not like to hear it. Heck, I am not really happy about have only two viable choices. As much as you and I both dislike it, that is the way, often the intent, that the laws on the book work. If we want more viable choices then we need to change our laws, if not our constitution.
Funding is a critical issue in any campaign or ballot measure. Yet, it is not the only thing. Poll after poll after poll shows that the majority of Americans oppose legal recognition of same-sex marriage.
That is probably not going to radically change within the span of one election cycle. We won in Arizona, but that is because the circumstances were right (i.e. we made it about straight couples losing their DP). We won in Minnesota, prevented a ballot measure, because the state courts had rejected lawsuits on the subject. Neither plan would work in California.
Personal insults are rarely an effective tool in getting people to support your candidate or cause. I know many LGBT people who are funding or helping out with the California fight. I also know many more LGBT people who are not really in a position to help out with any causes or candidates.
The status of the federal courts is a big issue because it will outlast any particular election cycle. I know a lot of LGBT voters, their friends and family, who either do not have health insurance or cannot afford much. Who are worried about losing their homes or their jobs.
I have not met anyone who claims that Obama is anyone’s “savior”. Yet, he is clearly much better on gay rights issues then McCain, who I have heard talked about in that type of manner, who consistently opposes gay rights, even when it has tri-partisan support, and supports anti-gay judges. McCain is hardly the devil (or a savior), but to say that he is, “no threat” is just foolishness.
posted by Casey on
Ooh, scary Republican nominated judges! I’d be terrified, really I would, if I didn’t know that there is absolutely no serious movement to overturn Lawrence or to recriminalize sodomy, and that gays have little to fear from conservative judicial appointees. Gay issues are being fought out on the state level, not in the federal courts – but even if they were, liberal judges aren’t always our friends.
It?s amazing how short our community?s memory can be. We forget that it was Justice Kennedy, nominated by none other than Ronald Reagan, who authored both Lawrence v. Texas (overturning sodomy laws) and Romer v. Evans, which invalidated a viciously antigay state constitutional amendment on the grounds that animus against a minority group can never be a legitimate state interest. We forget that on the state level, it took a Massachusetts court led by a GOP-nominated Chief Justice to give us marriage equality for the first time in American history, and a conservative California Supreme Court (6 out of 7 of whom are Republicans, with another Reagan nominee as Chief Justice) to legalize same-sex marriage in the largest state in the union. And nobody ever remembers that in the New Jersey marriage case which ruled that the legislature could settle for civil unions, there were three justices, nominated by GOP Governor Christine Todd Whitman, who dissented on the grounds that separate institutions were not equal. If just one of Governor Jim ?I am a gay American? McGreevey?s three nominees had ruled differently, marriage equality would be the law of the land in New Jersey today. Honestly, if you’re going to scare me into viewing a McCain presidency with a Democratic Congress as some kind of threat, you’re going to have to do better than that.
On the other hand, it is absolutely telling that on the very day that it comes out that No on 8 is behind both in the polls and in cash, Joe Biden is in West Hollywood, raking in money from our community, days after declaring his opposition to marriage equality. http://www.wilshireandwashington.com/2008/10/biden-to-la.html That’s the sort of foolishness that makes my blood boil, and that is going to cost us dearly.
posted by ETJB on
Um, the justices who opposed Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans, were conservative justices. To say that it does not really matter who McCain would likely nominate is just silly.
If McCain had endorsed the type of moderate ot socially liberal-libertarian justices you mentioned, then you might have a good argument.
He has made it clear that he supports appointing judges to the federal courts that tend to oppose two out of the three major gay rights cases.
Biden and Obama support civil unions. For many gay Americans that is a heck of a lot better then the deal being offered by McCain-Palin.
posted by Casey on
Again, I note that McCain would be counter-balanced by a strongly democratic Congress – so really, how much does it matter who McCain suggested would be his model judge (note, he did not say Scalia or Thomas, but rather Justice Roberts, who is more moderate than either of those two) when the political reality is that he would be forced to nominate a justice more in the lines of Kennedy or O’Connor (who also wrote a concurrence for the Lawrence decision premised on equal protection rights)?
Look, I understand that you’ll probably never support any Republican candidate – but can you at least deal in reality in trying to come up with your excuses. As to Obama’s support for civil unions, show me evidence that he would ever seriously consider spending that kind of political capital in a risk on behalf of the gays, and we’ll talk. I don’t see any reason to believe that a candidate who emphasized the need to have a big tent that included the ex-gay point of view (when it helped shore up his religious bona fides in South Carolina) would ever take a risk for us. Mark my words – if Obama is elected, we will not see federal civil unions during his presidency. Anybody who tells you otherwise is deluding themselves.
posted by Carl on
Casey, the problem is that most of the judges who made the rulings you mentioned were appointed by governors who were exceptions to the Republican rule. They were social moderates. Today’s GOP “moderate” governor is like Arnold, who may oppose Prop 8, but puts more political focus on vetoing a bill for Harvey Milk Day. In the case of Anthony Kennedy, he was the only 1 of 3 Reagan appointees, as far as I can tell, who has consistently (with the exception of the Boy Scouts case) voted in favor of gay rights. O’Connor took about 15 years to moderate her views, and Scalia never has. That leaves us with 2 George HW Bush appointees, one of whom is on our side and the other who always rules against us, and 2 George W Bush appointees who have never had to rule on gay rights cases. Clinton’s 2 appointees have usually been on our side, even though Clinton himself was no great shakes on gay issues.
I don’t put much emphasis on what the political reality is supposed to be because McCain has not followed any political reality in his campaign. We also have to try to figure out who Sarah Palin would pick as a judge if she were President, and personally, I really don’t want to put that much power in her hands.
I guess that’s my biggest question, Casey. Do you trust Sarah Palin enough to decide the future of gay rights? Because if she gets sway over the Supreme Court, then those sodomy cases, anti-discrimination cases, etc. will eventually filter their way up to the Supreme Court, and we’ll probably see a lot more push for a revival of sodomy laws on a state-by-state basis in hopes of pushing them up to the federal courts.
I really don’t know how she feels on anything. That, more than any great support for Obama, influences my vote this election season.
I also don’t think that national gay groups focusing on the Presidential race is why Prop 8 is gaining more support. California is not a liberal state, and this amendment is a simple amendment to ban gay marriage. To many straight people, that’s no big question in their mind. The only reason the Arizona amendment failed in 2006 was because of how far-reaching it was, and even that failure was an exception to the rule.
The more that various gay factions finger-point about which other gay faction is responsible, the more that anti-gay groups continue to obtain and consolidate power.
posted by Casey on
It’s called “advice and consent” – it’s not optional. Any judge that President McCain (or Palin) seeks to nominate to the Supreme Court would have to go through it, and one hopes that a strongly Democratic congress would shut down any anti-gay radical (which is really what it would take to open the door to sodomy laws again… honestly, there is NO driving desire anywhere in the country to put those back on the books, and the belief that there is just shows how out of touch with reality some commenters are). Unless, of course, you don’t believe the Democrats would oppose an anti-gay radical judge… if so, then there’s an entirely different problem to talk about here.
posted by Carl on
A strongly Democratic Congress let Clarence Thomas through.
We don’t even know how long Congress will remain Democratic. It was only a few years ago that people said the Republicans would have control of Congress until at least 2012.
Radicals don’t always wear their opinions on their chest. I really do not trust Sarah Palin – or the current version of Sen. McCain – enough to give them this power over us. Not after the past 8 years of extreme social conservatives becoming the power base of their party on every level of government. Gays got lucky that some justices like John Paul Stevens have turned out to have such long lifespans. They got lucky that Anthony Kennedy and David Souter weren’t what the GOP had expected him to be. I just don’t trust that our luck won’t run out. Doesn’t mean I trust Obama, or that I expect him to be anything more than mediocre on gay issues. If McCain had chosen a running mate who I did not find frightening, if he’d not run the campaign he’s run, then my vote might be up in the air.
As for a lack of desire to bring sodomy laws back…that desire will kick up again soon when the far right know they have the courts on their side. Besides, if the best we can say about a McCain/Palin administration is sodomy laws may not come back, then we’ve got a long way to go.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
So now the prospective passage of Prop 8 is Obama’s fault? Steve, I am sorry, but you should be embarrassed to post such nonsense. Most of us multi-task all the time. Whoever one supports for president, one still has to eat, work, go to the bathroom, and pay one’s bills. There is no conceivable reason why people cannot support Obama AND help fight against Prop 8. I have given to the No on 8 battle and encouraged others to do so. I am renewing that effort. If people have been complacent on Prop 8, that cannot remotely be blamed either on Obama or on enthusiasm for him. There ought to be some decent limit on partisan sniping.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
Incidentally, the http://www.lgbtforobama.com/ website week before last published my column titled “Stay and Fight,” in which I provide the URLs of the campaigns against the anti-gay ballot initiatives in Arizona, California, and Florida:
http://www.lgbtforobama.com/907
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Well, Stephen, King Richard has spoken and declared that you are wrong -even if he’s joined the ranks of coward with Barney Frank.
Your point that all our “gay-friendly” gayDemocrat types may actually be working for the passage of anti-gay marriage proposals isn’t a new notion. And it’s well proven fact.
In Michigan in 2004, the last time our “gay-friendly” gayDemocrats here worked to get a Democrat team elected, they actually ended up helping pass Michigan’s FMA… 61-39%. Of course, the Democrats and all the “allied victimhood groups” that Democrats normally bring to fight were AWOL and MIA in our civil rights fight in 04… but they sure expected gayDemocrats to turn up the heat and produce for Kerry-Edwards.
And the usual cowardly crowd of anti-religion, anti-social gayLefties made the same stupid comments that Newsom made… and it killed our effort to defeat the Michigan FMA just like it may be doing in CA, AZ and FL.
King Richard & his sockpuppet pal ETJB knows, despite their silly attempts to the contrary, that the effort to draw voters to the polls for Obama –especially inner city black church-going voters– will likley help pass the FMAs… black church going voters are 79-21% in favor of FMAs and almost as rabidly anti-gay as they are anti-white and anti-police. (Please see Rev Wright as an example of anti-gay, anti-white bigotry in overdrive)
I guess the only silver lining is that Obama and his corruption cronies are using ACORN to gin-up those registered voter numbers and those registrations are being tossed faster than you can say “Classic Chicago Voter Fraud Goes National”.
When are we going to acknowledge that our gayLeft leaders are selling the gay civil rights out to the Democrat Masta? Oh, I see, maybe after another 3 FMAs pass? Like the 11 FMAs in 2004 weren’t enough?
We’ve got lots of cowards in the gay civil rights movement… guys like Barney Frank who make all gays look sleazy and easily corrupted by sex and refuse to stand up and be held to account —and gayLeft mouthpieces like King Richard & ET who shill & apologize for da’ Masta.
If the ballot proposals pass, I hope other moderate gay civil rights activists in the respective states will take some time on Nov 5th to search out the cowards in our gay community who sold us down the river, again.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
I think that Newsom was a fool for saying that. But that is hardly a good reason for determining one’s vote. The merits on such a serious issue ought to trump a politician’s rhetoric.
As to MM’s repeated reference to cowards, it’s good to see him openly using Bill O’Reilly’s talking points. Let’s say that everyone who disagrees with MM is totallly wrong; but what in the world does cowardice have to do with it? Oh, don’t bother, MM. We have seen enough outpourings from your fevered brain.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
Well, taking a page from the “PrincessPriya Primer for Prissy Commenters”, King Richard again misses the point, the match and set. Rather cast about accusations & try to mislead IGF readers instead of discussing the merits of your silly positions?
Coward, my gay liege, is what I would call gayLeft types like you who continue to carry the Masta’s waterpail EVEN IF IT MEANS that an anti-gay, pro-FMA ballot proposal passes because the candidate you support drags anti-gay voters to the polling station.
Now tilt all you want at these windmills of truth, don quixote, but the simple fact remains: the gay civil rights movement gets squat from your insistence that BarryO is the new gay messiah –and we may likely lose 3 more states to pro-FMA forces who also support your candidate. And you, my gay liege, gets to gnaw on table scraps from the Masta’s Table IF he cons enough Americans to get elected.
I guess for cowardly gays like Barney Frank and you, you’d rather hazard gay civil rights into the dumpster than admit you’re wrong… again.
It’s why I wrote:
“When are we going to acknowledge that our gayLeft leaders are selling the gay civil rights out to the Democrat Masta? Oh, I see, maybe after another 3 FMAs pass? Like the 11 FMAs in 2004 weren’t enough?
We’ve got lots of cowards in the gay civil rights movement… guys like Barney Frank who make all gays look sleazy and easily corrupted by sex and refuse to stand up and be held to account —and gayLeft mouthpieces like King Richard & ET who shill & apologize for da’ Masta.
If the ballot proposals pass, I hope other moderate gay civil rights activists in the respective states will take some time on Nov 5th to search out the cowards in our gay community who sold us down the river, again.”
Coward, King Richard. Coward. If the shoe fits… the Emperor must have found some of his clothes, eh?
posted by Michigan-Matt on
King Richard still misses the point with this one: “There is no conceivable reason why people cannot support Obama AND help fight against Prop 8. I have given to the No on 8 battle and encouraged others to do so. I am renewing that effort. If people have been complacent on Prop 8, that cannot remotely be blamed either on Obama or on enthusiasm for him. There ought to be some decent limit on partisan sniping.”
Nice try to spin away and divert Stephen’s rightly placed emphasis on one fact, King Richard. No one contended that the problem is voting for Obama and voting against the FMA proposals.
That was your attempt at spin.
The issue is that gayLefties like you, in your all-out support of the new gay messiah and his party of cronies, will bring voters to the polls who will likely help pass the pro-FMA, anti-gay proposals.
You’ve effectively prostituted the gay civil rights movement AGAIN in order to gain some small partisan advantage for the party you expect all gays to also swear unquestioning allegiance as you have done.
Nice try to spin it into something like two wrongs make a right… but in this case, supporting BarryO -who is solidly against gay marriage because of his religious beliefs- will likely help pass anti-gay proposals and you embrace that end result just like you embraced the racially bigoted, homophobic Rev Wright.
Like all good Democrats, you too are confident the ends justify the means… morality be damned.
posted by jake on
richard j rosendall asks “So now the prospective passage of Prop 8 is Obama’s fault?”
i’m thinking that there will be far more anti-gay blacks and hispanics coming to the polls this year to advance the “change we’ve been waiting for” because of the get out the vote efforts of obama/biden and california, arizona and florida’s democratic party
i’m kind of surprised that you don’t think that’s possible, mr rosendell
(by the way, i think your recent switch from allowing comments below your threads to no longer allowing discussion or disagreement isn’t good for you or for this forum)
pps> and it’s cowardly, as well
posted by Brian Miller on
So now the prospective passage of Prop 8 is Obama’s fault?
Yes, although it’s more the fault of his ardent supporters in the Democrat Party.
They’ve been selling Joe DOMA-Votin’ Biden and Barry “Marriage is between one man and one woman” Obama as “the perfect pro-gay choice” forever and ever.
They’ve allowed anti-gay sentiment expressed by those candidates — including campaigns with notorious homophobes — to go completely uncriticized.
Anybody who DID criticize Obama, Biden and Clinton homophobia was eviscerated for “setting back the movement.”
So now homophobia on marriage is generally acceptable. After over a decade of apologia for the Democrats, LGBT politicos have created lots of perceived credibility around the “I’m not anti-gay, but gay marriage is wrong and should be illegal” position.
We’re now seeing that in all three states with a serious anti-gay marriage ballot proposition.
And since Democrats know they can take gay votes for granted no matter what, they’re taking no risks to stop the anti-gay side. Why do so? If the anti-gay amendments pass, Democrats can smack down the uppity queers and tell them that if they want ANYTHING — even mere crumbs — they’ll have to donate hundreds of millions of more votes and campaign dollars on top of the ones they’ve already provided.
This, folks, is a sign of weakness in the face of what should be strength — not the other way around.
posted by Brian Miller on
your recent switch from allowing comments below your threads to no longer allowing discussion or disagreement isn’t good for you or for this forum
But it is par for the course for the self-appointed Queer Commentariat these days.
From Sullivan on the hard right to Rosendall on the hard left, commentary and criticism is bad, bad, bad. We exist solely to imbibe their received wisdom from on high. Or something.
posted by ETJB on
“Yes, although it’s more the fault of his ardent supporters in the Democrat Party.”
The fault lies not within the stars, but in ourselves…
I have never seen any “gay-left-activist” — which seems to be anyone who has any disagrements with or dissident against any Republican or conservative — claim that Obama or Biden were “perfect” on LGBT-rights issues. Such a statement would be a bold face, not to mention incredibly silly, lie.
Yet, I have seen many Republicans and conservatives lie here at the IGF and in my other dealings with them. Some, but not all. People who argue that it makes no difference, for gay people, who wins the presidential election. That McCain-Palin does not pose any threat to gay rights and who are gearing up to wage war on Iran, to liberate gays, but cannot be too bothered with the fate of gays in liberated Iraq. Or who believe that choice is good, as long as its their choice.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ET phones home this nonsense: “Yet, I have seen many Republicans and conservatives lie here at the IGF and in my other dealings with them.”
Wow, that’s pretty rich coming from a guy who, using the former sockpuppet name “RichardII”, screamed about GOPers and conservatives being “racist”, “bigoted”, “anti-gay” and when discovered he was lying or an incredible facile dupe, ran for the cover and never supposedly returned… until you crafted or resurrected this new personae of ETJB.
Personae, as in a mask crafted for deception.
And you can call anyone a liar? I get the Princess doing it as a matter of course because she’s having a red pad day… but you, ET? The guy who raises sockpuppet artistry and intellectual dishonesty as the new tools of the gayLeft… oh, I mean independent.
No, the problem isn’t with gayGOPers or even gayConservatives… the problem is with guys like you who claim “political independence” in order to gain some advantage of non-bias in the discussion but are misleading others for a purpose… the problem is with gayLeft voices who continue to sell out their gaybrethern and the gay civil rights movement to the Democrats –who have repeatedly displayed that they care not if gays are screwed by the voters, state after bloody state.
The fault lies clearly in our gayLeft and gayDemocrat voices -here and elsewhere- who screw gay civil rights because da’ Democrat Masta needs the gayVoting block.
Nice try at being the gayLeft’s apologist, ET. It ain’t working for you, though.
posted by ETJB on
Michigan Matt once again offers the absurd lie, which makes no sense, that I am “Richard II”.
He also claims that “ETJB” is some how a new identity for me or to the IGF message board. It is not.
posted by Michigan-Matt on
ETJB, let’s look at the evidence?
a-1) RichardII exits stage left in disgrace after flaming many on grounds which turned out to be punked and faked… ETJB turn up after a brief respite, able to cite an obscure comment out of a hundred plus threads which references RichardII’s pet issue?
a-2) ETJB entered and began his disambualtion of RichardII’s remains by trying to pin me as RichardII -how crafty, eh?
b) RichardII and ETJB love to claim they are political “independents”, when it’s clear from their position on the issues they are symbiotic with gayDemocrats here and use the “independent” label to secure unwarranted legitmacy of non-bias.
c) RichardII and ETJB both claim that the root of all evil in our political culture is the two party system… if only a third party could escape the shackles of servitude wrought by all the cooperative and conspiratorial actors seeking to protect the two parties… third parties would arise like a Phoenix from the ashes.
d) RichardII and ETJB have the exact, equally banal habits of stating the most obvious in any argument and then expecting all to grant their pedestrian observations the status of great pearls of wisdom.
e) RichardII opined that he was, alternatively, a science teacher, a college professor of history, a PR expert with a webpage, a writer, a political activist working on “several major campaigns” and a seasoned social worker… let’s see, ETJB is a constitutional scholar (hey, if BarryO can claim it, anyone ought to be able to), a writer, a journalist, a gay activist, an editor who works for Advocate, etc. (Even tho’ ETJB doesn’t know the difference between bipartisan and nonpartisan, doesn’t know the difference bewteen judical review and jurisdiction, doesn’t know that Roe V Wade is settled law, etc).
f) Both RichardII and ETJB defend King Richard to a fault.
g) and the most similar trait: neither ETJB or RichardII can admit they were wrong. Never. Not once. And they each had 6 times where their mouth clearly was writing checks their brains couldn’t cash.
Nawh, ETJB couldn’t be RichardII.
Care to amend that statement, ET/RichardII?
posted by Priya Lynn on
Casey said “Gays have a third choice in 2008; say to hell with the presidential election – Obama is no savior for the gays, and McCain no threat”.
Please, spare us. Mccain has promised to appoint viciously anti-gay judges like Scalia and Roberts who’ve voted against equal rights for gays every time. Obama will appoint reasonable judges. A mccain presidency will be a disaster for LGBTs. You’re not going to convince any rational LGBTs that they’re just as well off with Mccain as Obama.
Casey said “how much does it matter who McCain suggested would be his model judge (note, he did not say Scalia or Thomas, but rather Justice Roberts”.
You’ve got that wrong Casey, he did say Scalia. Note in this page in the fourth paragrah:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=11558
Obama said he’d repeal DOMA, Mccain said he’d keep it. Combine that with the anti-gay judges Mccain would appoint and LGBTs are far, far better off with Obama. Go ahead and try to shoot yourself in the foot if you want, most LGBTs aren’t that stupid.
posted by Priya Lynn on
I see by the insult Michigan matt directed at me he’s still stinging from my exposure of his false claim that books aren’t banned due to “validation of the “gay lifestyle”” when in reality the gay affirming book “And Tango Makes Three” is number one on the ALA’s most challenged book list.
Michigan Matt’s also bitter because his senile old man’s getting his butt kicked by Obama. The latest average of national polls has Obama leading by 7.6%.
Its going to be a landslide!
posted by Priya Lynn on
Here’s the link to that latest average of polls:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/general_election_mccain_vs_obama-225.html