Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« More Bad News For McCain | Gov. Debate Drinking Game »

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Can We Get a “No on Prop 8” From You, Senator Obama?

posted by on September 20 at 15:29 PM

Yes, you’re opposed. But a nice, clear, loud emphatic “no” would be nice. NYT:

Could Senator Barack Obama’s popularity among black voters hurt gay couples in California who want to marry?

That is the concern of opponents of Proposition 8, a measure on the November ballot that would amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage, which was legalized in May by the State Supreme Court.

Mr. Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, is against the measure. But opponents of the proposed ban worry that many black voters, enthused by Mr. Obama’s candidacy but traditionally conservative on issues involving homosexuality, could pour into voting stations in record numbers to punch the Obama ticket—and then cast a vote for Proposition 8.

RSS icon Comments


Nobody cares about gays other than gays and people who have gay friends. Don't ruin this election. You'll get what you want when he's won.

Posted by Medical Calculator | September 20, 2008 3:44 PM

Yes but wouldn't a loud emphatic no immediately go on TV ads for McCain in every swing state??

Interesting study, says Obama loses six points due to racism:

Posted by PC | September 20, 2008 3:45 PM

No Dan. He needs to get elected. I myself am in a civil union here in Europe and cannot sponsor my German partner to live with me in the states. Of course I want full and equal marriage (in the US and EU), but please try to have some perspective.

One hand: Gay marriage approval in California (if his endorsement even helps).

Other hand: Gay marriage used as an October wedge issue against Obama, McCain wins, exacerbates our current economic collapse, take us to war with Iran and nuclear Pakistan, McCain dies, Palin leads a concurrent war with Russia, at least two new right-wing Supreme Court justices, the overturning of Roe v. Wade AND gay marriage in California to boot.


Posted by Judith | September 20, 2008 3:47 PM

What @3 said.

Posted by David | September 20, 2008 3:58 PM

He's not running for the President of Seattle. Let him get elected before you start supporting behavior that gives the Repubs exactly what they want: A wedge issue. McCain knows that if the election stays focused on the issues, he loses. If it's about culture wars and personality, he wins. Even McCain's campaign manager said that this election is not about the issues. Give it a rest for forty days, will ya?

Posted by jesus! | September 20, 2008 3:59 PM

Obama's expressed opposition to Prop 8 since July. And it might not hurt him much -- Prop 8's decreasing steadily in popularity. The list of Prop 8 opponents is long, and even includes the NAACP -- if you're interested, I'm compiling a list of its opponents here:

They include:

- A majority of Californian voters
- Democrats and Republicans
- The Governor and numerous Mayors
- A majority of legislators, including the Senate President and Assembly Speaker, Barbara Boxer, and Diane Feinstein
- School boards, City councils, County officials
- The California Psychological Association
- Numerous Mormons, Episcopalians, Jews, Methodists, Unitarian Universalists, Quakers, and the United Church of Christ

Posted by mattymatt | September 20, 2008 4:27 PM

@5: If Savage (or any of us dudes) had to "give it a rest for forty days," he'd be pitching a tent from RedmOUnd to Chilliwack.

Posted by rob | September 20, 2008 4:28 PM

"Nobody cares about gays other than gays and people who have gay friends."

So only 90-99% of people care about gays?

Works for me!

Posted by whatevernevermind | September 20, 2008 5:41 PM

I sort of like Judith's world vision, total world war, women enslaved to Right wing reproduction Nazis, economic collapse, and Judges that are like the Biblical judges of olde all because Gay-America wants to be treated equally. (Judith sweet heart lay off that German beer). WOW once again we don't realize how much power Gay-Americans have to dictate world events, and just from wanting one man to take a stand on marriage. WOW.

Posted by Sargon Bighorn | September 20, 2008 5:51 PM

What a surprise, gays putting their agenda before the rest of the country.

Did you not learn anything from Ohio in 2004?

The entire country isn't ready for gay marriage. Obama NEEDS to win. So don't drag him into this.

The ban is losing by 18 points. Isn't that enough? Obama is only up by minuscule amounts in swing states.

Posted by selfish | September 20, 2008 6:37 PM

YEAH Dan how TRAGIG and THREATENING that blacks participating in an election is going to be off the charts!!!

Racist, much? Nice work preparing to make blacks the scapegoats if the ban prevails.

Do you not realize by calling for Obama to take a stronger more visible stand you're playing right into the GOP's manipulative hands.

We all want gay marriage. Strategy matters. Hysteria like this does not. McCain Supreme Court nominees WILL set you back decades.

You stick to sex advice, the rest of us will work on your rights. You're NOT HELPING.

Posted by it's called strategy | September 20, 2008 6:52 PM

@1. "Nobody cares about gays other than gays and people who have gay friends."

I'll have to disagree with you on that point.

I do have gay friends, but even if I didn't, I still would vote NO on Prop 8 because I don't want to live in a state (or a country) where discrimination is acceptable and institutionalized. I'm also Pro-Choice, although I'm in my 40s and unlikely to have to face making that decision anymore, I'll continue to fight for the rights of my daughter and other women who may have to. Again, it's about the kind of country I want to call home. So I actually do care about other people and the issues that affect them, even if those issues don't directly affect me. Freedom means freedom for every citizen. Live and let live and we may just find some peace.

Posted by Laurie in SF | September 20, 2008 6:55 PM

I think very few of these comments are coming from Gay-Americans. It's sort of like White people telling Black folks to shut up about civil rights and wait for the White folk to make it all right. GULP!

Posted by Sargon Bighorn | September 20, 2008 6:56 PM

So a statement from Obama will be enough to convince black voters to support gay marriage?

You think that would be enough?

Why, because he's black and they're black? So they'll just listen to whatever he says?

They're all "his people," right? His "folks?" His "kind"

I think your logic is a bit tainted by your racism here. Black voters oppose gay marriage for reasons Obama isn't about to change 50 days before the election.

Posted by you are racist | September 20, 2008 6:58 PM

Just let the man get elected!

Posted by CP | September 20, 2008 7:05 PM

what is the difference, again, between being publicly opposed to prop 8 and making a statement against it?

Posted by josh | September 20, 2008 7:28 PM

Gay marriage will become a central issue in the 2008 presidential elections along with Iraq and the economy, former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell predicted this morning at a press briefing hosted by the Family Research Council, a conservative Christian group.

"I don't think you get to 270 electoral votes by being on the wrong side of this issue," said Blackwell, adding that gay marriage is particularly important to socially conservative Latino voters, as well as working-class white and black voters.

Blackwell said a recent court decision that legalized gay marriage in California will shift the "narrative" of the 2008 elections, from a focus on war and the economy to "redeeming the culture." Gay marriage opponents are attempting put a constitutional amendment on California's ballot in November that would overturn the ruling.

"This is not an isolated California situation," said Blackwell, who predicted gay people from Ohio will get married in California and seek marriage-related benefits upon their return, even though Ohio voters adopted a constitutional amendment in 2004 that rejected same-sex marriage.

Posted by McG | September 20, 2008 7:32 PM

@17, no one takes anything Blackwell takes seriously, not even the people in Ohio anymore. Blackwell's an ass, an idiot, and needs to be sedated for the rest of his life.

Posted by Leslie N. | September 20, 2008 8:11 PM

Oh no, it's far too risky for an African American to make a statement in support of equal protections.

If he were to do something like that, no one would elect him.

After all, no one wants to vote for a black man that understands American history.

How dare you put the country at risk, Dan? Our next President should know better than voice a position in support of the Constitution.

Now, go to your place, Dan. The good of SLOG readers want you to take your son and your "boyfriend" (or whatever you want to call him) and be obedient. Don't assume you have the right to stand up for yourself.

The closet is waiting for you, Dan.

Step in.

Posted by patrick | September 20, 2008 8:56 PM

I can't see gay marriage playing a central role in this election, similar to how it did in 2004. The economy is worse, just about everything else is. Sure, there are those in the social conservative - evangelical set who always intend to make social issues central, but I feel that there's more people outside of that who are concerned with the economy, energy prices and the war this time around. This homo is. I'll wait. That's how low the state of this country is in my eyes. Of course, I hope Prop 8 is defeated.

Posted by Deacon Seattle | September 20, 2008 9:08 PM

Abortion and gay rights are right-wing wedge issues. Having either of these be a central issue in the campaign would play into the hand of Evangelicals.

Anyone who is pro-gay marriage and is pushing that issue NOW, yet still blames Nader for the outcome of the 2000 election, is a hypocrite.

Posted by Mahtli69 | September 20, 2008 9:13 PM

I mean really, Dan. If Obama makes another statement against Prop 8 his supporters might have to defend his position.

You wouldn't want heterosexuals (or uncle Tom gays) to have to defend the constitutional rights of homosexuals, would you?

They can't do that and still cling to their ignorance of the issue of marriage equality. Lets face it, there are some idiots in this thread that are patently uninformed (if they are on the level).

Like #1: "You'll get what you want when he's won."

Oh, really? Don't you mean that YOU will get what YOU want? It would be too difficult for YOU to stand up for the rights of minority, eh? You would have to risk your own comfort to have integrity...a real patriot.

Posted by patrick | September 20, 2008 9:28 PM

Let's see, the percentage of AAs in CA is extremely low. The latest polls show that it isn't even close to passing. You guys need to stop hyperventilating. Besides, just because Obama emphatically tells AAs in CA to vote against it, doesn't mean that they will listen.

As a gay black man, my experiences in the two communities are interesting. I am out to my family, and spend time trying to change how AAs view gays. However, I encounter so much racism in the gay community, whether I'm here in Seattle or in SF and elsewhere.

Why are gays so interested in having AAs vote when it favors their interest, but not remotely interested in the well-being of AAs? And we all know that there are some gays who would never vote for Obama because he is AA.

I'm glad that he is on record for opposing it. I'm also heartened to know that he is working through the AA churches to change how AAs view us. I just wish we take the time to learn what is happening before spouting off.

Posted by Fitz | September 20, 2008 10:25 PM

The polls show a slight advantage to the opposition but what the polls don't reveal is the likelihood of voters to show up on election day.

The supporters of Prop 8 are hard-core bigots and will make an effort to show up on election day.

The opposition is comprised of many people like the ones that have commented here - people that say they are tolerant (a patronizing turd if ever there was one) of the gays but can't be relied upon to follow up their "support" with an appearance at the voting booth.

It's the gay version of the Bradley effect - heterosexual Democrats that wring their hands over the constitution when wire tapping is the topic of conversation but when due process, equal protections or full faith and credit issues are raised for LGBTs their hands are cool and dry.

Impressive...real profiles in courage.

Posted by patrick | September 21, 2008 12:19 AM

Patrick, you are incorrect. The poll of likely voters show a clear majority is opposed to Prop 8. 55% oppose, 38% support. It is highly unlikely and improbable that there would be enough newly registered voters who oppose it to make this thing pass. Since you are so concerned, I hope you are doing all you can to defeat the measure, instead of spending your time whining on blogs.

Posted by Gay man in San Diego | September 21, 2008 9:06 AM

It's the gay version of the Bradley effect - heterosexual Democrats that wring their hands over the constitution when wire tapping is the topic of conversation but when due process, equal protections or full faith and credit issues are raised for LGBTs their hands are cool and dry.

Kind of like Obama himself.

Posted by Tracy | September 21, 2008 9:17 AM

Well, Gay man in San Diego, I am happy there is some optimism out there, but it isn't shared by everybody.

I attended an organizational event sponsored by NCLR where Kate Kendall told the audience (mostly attorneys she was organizing for money and phone banking) that the fund raising is skewed in favor of the opposition and the polling is deceiving.

Then I read this excerpt from the ACLU at Pams House Blend:

"What the Field Poll and some other polls like it suggest is that we are getting most of those conflicted voters right now. But it doesn't tell us that we've completely convinced them — just that at the moment they are resolving the conflict our way. That may well reflect the fact that almost all of the news coverage so far has been positive, and the other side hasn't even begun to hit yet on television.

But they are going to start hitting soon. We made a great television ad buy early on. But they have now bought a week ahead of us. More ominously, they're now out-fundraising us significantly. They've taken in over $16 million compared to our $11 million (and they only pulled ahead after Labor Day). And the stuff is pouring in, mostly in $1,000, $2,500 and $5,000 chunks, mostly driven by the Mormon church."

One of the reasons I even bother posting comments at blogs to out of state "sympathizers" is to try to get support. Most of the support for Prop 8 comes from out of state. We can't rely merely upon the shallow kindness of heteros in CA to do the right thing. I live in SF where the Prop is likely to fail. Kendall suggested blogs as a way to get support.

I hope YOU are doing more than reading positive news reports and assuming that everyone else is going to come through for you and that it's all gonna be ok.

There is no reason to assume that is the case.

Did you read the comments that precede mine in this post?

Posted by patrick | September 21, 2008 9:42 AM

Yes, Patrick, I've read all of the comments. And I am not living in some "positive" bubble. I am in red SD County after all. We're busy raising funds and organizing. And I've donated, and will continue to donate to this and other causes that I'm passionate about.

You seem to be very angry, and your messages appear to belittle out of staters and heteros will not lead to donations to help defeat Prop 8. Perhaps if you'd change your tone, you can win more donations and support.

Posted by Gay man in San Diego | September 21, 2008 10:08 AM

Yeah, maybe that's true GmiSD. I am angry and frustrated and I feel threatened. It seems counter productive in our f-ed up culture of selling messages and courting public opinion that instead of trying to appeal to the kindness of strangers, I would instead opt for expressing my discontent.

I guess that is why I'm not sitting alongside Kate Kendall and others that have done extensive focus group testing to develop a measured and cautious and strategic way to address the voters that are willing to allow my citizenship to be the subject of a popularity contest.

I don't have the stomach for PR spoon feeding. This is not a new topic of conversation, this marriage business. People that have willfully remained ambivalent about it do not deserve my compassion and condescension to gently urge them to consider being tolerant of my citizenship. I'll leave the patronizing to the professionals, thanks.

I do not believe that lulling these half-witted compassionate conservatives into thinking that a defeat is likely is going to produce the number of votes necessary to help make the defeat a reality.

Just wait until October 1 when the television is overloaded with ads that don't address the dilemma honestly, yet do a convincing job of telling the fearful and mindless that Prop 8 is not a bad thing to do to people. We can't wait until October 15 to see new poll results and THEN begin to ask voters why they are stupid enough to vote in favor of shitting all over constitutional protections.

At least I'm not waiting for that to happen. I'm sick of trying to manipulate people into taking on the responsibility of understanding why this matters.

Read the decision of the CA Supreme Court, people. It might be difficult, but maybe you will learn something. I know that is alot to ask.

I will say this, you have just convinced me to give another $100 of my left over student loan money to EQCA. I did manage to extract nearly $1500 out of friends/family that donated to EQCA as wedding gifts instead of giving me and my husband ugly dishes or a fucking fry pan.

Posted by patrick | September 21, 2008 10:52 AM

i agree with 14. afro-americans will vote for obama AND for prop 8, even if he takes a stronger stance against it.

Posted by ellarosa | September 21, 2008 11:11 AM

Maybe it would be helpful for Obama to speak about how this year is the 140th anniversary of the ratification of the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

It only took the US approximately 100 years to live up to the promise of the amendment.

Which Americans are willing to water down the importance of this achievement by voting for an amendment that would place limitation on the application of equal protections?

Has America returned to the days where it was acceptable to identify groups of individuals that could be excluded from full citizenship?

That is what this debate is about. You all can talk about marriage and racism until you are blue in the face. The idea that a majority population can declare a minority group to be exempt from equal consideration is precisely what Prop 8 is all about.

It has already happened in dozens of states...and every time it comes up the Democrats are too afraid to be seen as defenders of an unpopular minority group.

What good has it done them?

Has it helped?

Posted by patrick | September 21, 2008 11:41 AM

Patrick, thank god there are smarter, more rational, strategic political minds working to advance your rights.

Because you, sir, are an idiot. Simply being right doesn't mean you get justice. The sooner you realize that the better off you'll be.

Posted by hopeless | September 21, 2008 12:01 PM

Happy Fall.

1. Real clear electoral map shows Florida and IN moving from McCain column into tossup, giving Obama electoral lead for first time in what, about 2 weeks?

2. Today Obama said he blames greed and irresponsibility on Wall STreet and in Washington. Now we're talking. Like I said a few days ago, he needs to talk mroe about greed and corruption and freakin' blame someone, not just vague, anonymous "failed policies of the past." I'm hopeful he'll continue to talk about greeedmeisters on Wall St. and among GOP ranks in DC (really, please drop the "we're all to blame" high minded bipartisan schtick) and tie it to corruption AND move that to talking about govt. is needed to ensure everyone against the biggest risks when market can't do it.

Focusing on "we need a new spirit of unity and shared purpose" was so bleh. Saying McCain is "fundamentally a deregulator" is bleh and goes over heads of swing voters.

Greed. Irresponsibility. Hopefully, "corruption." Now those're narratives a Wall Mart Mom fearing foreclosure can grab on to.

OR, as W. Churchill would say, on to which a WallMart Mom can grab.

For 40 years GOP demonized Dems (portraying Dem policies as evil, immoral, greedy, irresponsible, not just "wrong") -- we have a lot of catching up to do.

Unity (for ending greed and irresponsibility and restoring American dream) y'all --

PS: freedom for pitbulls, calling for more regulation and tax-payer borne costs to prevent their vicious attacks, when this won't even work too well, is a really good example of a "free market" in dog breeds that is a total failure and scam (it socializes costs (death), giving the pit bull owners a freebie, thus is greed and irresponsibility run amok, a market gone "wild" as Obama said today referring to the finance market). Pit bulls ought to be banned for being too risky; the "market" in dog breeds needs that kind of strong regulation -- so the "market" doesn't run "wild."

Favoring "freedom to own pit bulls" is simply greed and irreponsibility.

Pls. make a note of it "mr. e."

Posted by PC | September 21, 2008 12:09 PM

I get it, hopeless. I need to right AND I need to kiss your ass.

THAT's the American way, eh?

Posted by patrick | September 21, 2008 12:13 PM

I'm not asking you to kiss my ass. I'm asking you to stop acting in a way that's counterproductive. My rights are at stake here as well and I don't need a naive fool like you messing them up. Your "help" is not appreciated.

Posted by hopeless | September 21, 2008 1:27 PM

What exactly am I doing that is counter productive?

How am I naive?

What is the correct way to defend myself against Mormons with money and heteros that are too scared/ignorant/complicit to advocate for my citizenship?

Posted by patrick | September 21, 2008 1:30 PM

As a former Hillary Clinton supporter who saw my candidate eviscerated for being insufficiently pro-LBGT (and for her husband's record being insufficiently pro-LBGT), I find this entire thread deeply, though unintentionally, hilarious.

YOU got YOUR candidate. Get on the fucking bus and get this election won. We will have time to divy up the spoils of victory in two months.

Posted by Big Sven | September 21, 2008 2:03 PM

She is insufficient.

Her husband was/is/always will be a raging asshole.

Obama isn't MY candidate - he is the one that collected the most delegates of the Democratic Party.

The spoils of victory that supposedly come with the Democrats in November - assuming substantial coattails - remain to be seen.

This post deals with an issue that has long been all talk and no action on the part of Democrats - with a history of disappointments and back peddling and compromise. Frankly, it hardly matters at all which politician won and that is true no matter what the topic would be.

Both of them are full of cautious words that contradict their knowledge of constitutional matters.

Posted by patrick | September 21, 2008 2:25 PM

39: Yes, make an election about competent administration into an ideological crusade. That will take you far in life.

Posted by Jay | September 21, 2008 4:22 PM

patrick is the reason gays will continually be outside the margins; politics is about give and take, not gay segregation and utopic gay ghettos, which from every post i've ever read is what he wants.

why so bitter patrick?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | September 21, 2008 4:49 PM

Why, Bellevue?

Because I have to share this planet with stupid people. And I have to count on the kindness of those idiots to vote no on Prop 8 in CA by tricking them into approving of me, not because the proposition is corrupt and unAmerican.

What give and take is in Prop 8 that I'm not seeing? Are there any different sex couples being propped up for a popularity contest every 2 / 4 years?

I don't recall ever saying anything about living in a ghetto. It's odd that you would make that claim about me considering that usually I am accused of being too eager to assimilate into the mainstream by being so vocal about this issue. That is the position of the gays on the margin you pretend to know so much about.

They refuse to look at segregation like Prop 8 as a constitutional issue just as much as the chicken shits that hide behind the apron of the Democratic Party do.

Have you forgotten who puts these measures on the ballot all the time? It's not same sex couples asking the knuckle dragging cowards of America to understand constitutional principle. Heterosexuals are responsible for making you people have to think about equality and choose to do the right thing, and you know what - you don't.

You are all too willing to allow the constitution to be pissed on because it makes you too uncomfortable to defend our families.

Want this issue to go away? Start defending us. Do what it takes to kill Prop 8. Help California maintain the integrity of the Supreme Court decision that the Washington State court avoided.

If Prop 8 goes down the electorate, the courts and the legislature will have stood up for us. Obama can't even repeat his opposition in public. What more do you want us to do?

We aren't going away.

Posted by patrick | September 21, 2008 5:31 PM

i'm doing my part to defeat prop 8 monetarily, why do you assume that no hetero is? remember that heterosexuals are the voting majority and most oppose prop 8 in california. why don't you understand that?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | September 21, 2008 6:27 PM

Why don't I understand that heteros are doing what you can?

Let's see here...these are comments from people responding to a post from Dan Savage at his newspaper:

Comment #1:

"Nobody cares about gays other than gays and people who have gay friends. Don't ruin this election. You'll get what you want when he's won."

Comment #2:

"Yes but wouldn't a loud emphatic no immediately go on TV ads for McCain in every swing state??"

Comment #3:


Comment #5:

"Give it a rest for forty days, will ya?"

Comment #10:

"What a surprise, gays putting their agenda before the rest of the country.

Did you not learn anything from Ohio in 2004?

...don't drag him into this."

Get it yet?

I think your record is unreliable.

Posted by patrick | September 21, 2008 6:49 PM

patrick, do you think a flaming, promiscuous, nelly fag is an accurate representation of all homosexuals? seriously, take a few people that are tired of the constant strutting of gay issues out when it's a known fact at least half the country aren't down with it and thusly potentially sabotaging a superior candidate isn't going to win any affection.

it's not that theyre against you, theyre against trying to pigeon hole a candidate into your position when it isn't popular. it isn't right but thats the political landscape and your righteousness and ignorance of it won't yield any benefits to gay people.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | September 21, 2008 7:45 PM

Do you think this is a popular concept:

"Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Ever heard of that? It is Section 1 from the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Do I think it is fair to stereotype a minority group? No.

Do I think that it is a fair assumption to make that people with nothing to lose - like heterosexuals that enjoy no restrictions on divorce and remarriage whether offspring are produced or not - allow the citizenship of a minority group be put to a vote and are completely comfortable with those citizens being marginalized?

Do I think I should just suck up your ambivalence and ignorance of the effect of constitutional amendments on me and my family and my friends - because it's not popular???

Are you out of your fucking mind?

Have you for one fucking minute tried to put your feet in my shoes?

You have presented yourself as an ultimate in selfish prickhood.

Do you even have a slight awareness of what you are asking me to do?

Posted by patrick | September 21, 2008 8:54 PM

you're right patrick, i'm voting for mccain because obama won't take a strong enough stand for you.

Posted by Bellevue Ave | September 21, 2008 10:05 PM

And there we go....the cop out.

Thanks for not disappointing me.

Enjoy your citizenship. You can count on me to stand up for you when it's your turn.


Posted by patrick | September 21, 2008 10:37 PM

no seriously patrick, what are you suggesting? see, in all your rage and anger you haven't stated what the endgame is here. should we not vote for obama because he wont appease you?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | September 21, 2008 10:56 PM

News flash:

I was in Utah and their daily newspapers have ads encouraging all "right-thinking" religious folks to send money to the Yes on Prop 8 side.

Whining for Obama won't help you.

Sending YOUR money YOURSELF and asking YOUR friends and YOUR relatives in California to vote NO will.


Not whines.

Posted by Will in Seattle | September 21, 2008 10:57 PM

and why do you bore us with your impotent rage instead of tackling people who don't want to treat you as an equal? is it easier to attack those who wont fight back?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | September 21, 2008 11:00 PM

Aw for fuck's sake--we lost 2004 on "values" issues. Let's not make the same mistake.

I'm gay and I'm getting the vapors thinking about a McCain presidency and the Supreme Court.

Get...Obama...elected. THEN we can worry about gay rights.

Ideology helps no one when we're sitting in bars drinking our political loss away. Let Democrats get the presidency and then we can worry about doing what's right. In a flawed, two party-system who will treat gays fairer: Republicans or Democrats?

Please think in increments and not absolutes.

Posted by Lawrence in NYC | September 22, 2008 3:03 AM

I guess I am deluding myself.

You dolts will cling to the leg of Democrats like a humping poodle even after they give away all of our money to Wall Street.

Just like they did with Iraq.

Just like the Patriot Act.

It keeps happening and you let it happen.

The Democratic Party has been taken over by Republicans.

Posted by patrick | September 22, 2008 7:17 AM

Not sure that this is a particularly productive conversation to be engaging in... but FOR THE RECORD, "gay marriage" didn't really affect the polls in 2004, despite the hype in the media.

There's plenty of evidence that states voted for marriage amendments and for Kerry or smaller regions that voted against amendments but for Bush. Not unlike the high number of folks here in Washington that voted pro-Kerry, pro-Rossi.

And while it's certainly true that marriage amendments turned out the arch-conservative voters to the polls, the media hype didn't talk much about the tidal wave of young voters who turned out in the largest numbers since the voting age was lowered to 18.

Posted by Mickymse | September 22, 2008 8:30 AM
Posted by cityeric | September 22, 2008 9:45 AM

Comments Closed

Comments are closed on this post.