Will Gay Marriage Help McCain?
Now that same-sex love is legal in California, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, should Obama brace for a ballot backlash?
In February 2004, San Francisco mayor Gavin Newsom began officiating same-sex weddings on the steps of City Hall. Over the next month, more than 4,000 couples tied the knot in defiance of a state referendum that had banned gay marriage in California in 2000. Newsom says he challenged the law out of a sense of "moral obligation." But his move awakened a sense of moral outrage among Republicans, who raced to put anti-gay-marriage initiatives on the ballot in 11 states. After John Kerry lost in November, some Democrats suggested that the specter of gay marriage had thrown the contest to George W. Bush. "I believe it did energize a very conservative vote," Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said immediately after the election. "It gave them a position to rally around. The whole issue has just been too much, too fast, too soon."
Now that the California Supreme Court has legalized gay marriage, should Barack Obama brace for another round of backlash at the ballot box? Bill Whalen, a Republican media consultant and a research fellow at Stanford's Hoover Institution, describes gay marriage as a "gift" to John McCain. The California ruling is "going to make people mad," says Carrie Gordon Earll, a policy analyst for Focus on the Family. Both predict that Christian conservatives in California, Florida, and Arizona will flock to the polls to back constitutional amendments that ban gay marriage. They also expect voters in other states to think twice about voting for an Illinois senator who supports the California ruling and says he wants to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act, which would open the door for married gay couples to sue for legal recognition in any state.
However, for many Americans, gay marriage may not seem as frightening as it did four short years ago. "You have a country that is evolving pretty quickly on these issues," argues Chris Lehane, former communications director for the Kerry campaign. It's not just the popularity of shows like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy. Anti-discrimination laws have afforded gays a new degree of safety and visibility in the workplace and acclimated more straights to the idea of same-sex relationships. While 63 percent of Americans opposed legalizing gay marriage four years ago, recently 63 percent told USA Today that same-sex marriage should be "strictly a private decision."
To be sure, the gop strategy isn't about reversing trends, but mobilizing the base. Unlike Bush in 2004, McCain could have a hard time prodding social conservatives to the polls, and gay marriage just might help. John Stemberger, an attorney who's the lead backer of the Florida ban, says conservatives in the swing state "feel like there is something they can really get behind." Yet it's unclear that this will translate into votes for McCain. This month, 55 percent of Florida voters said they supported the ban; only 46 percent said they'd vote for McCain. Pastor Roland Comellas of the New Testament Worship Center in Tampa supports the measure, "but we're more concerned about the economy," he says. Last year, Florida's moderate Republican governor, Charlie Crist, moved to yank his state party's funding for the measure and proclaimed himself "a live-and-let-live kind of guy."
The tacit support for gays by prominent Republicans such as Crist and California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger plus the recent defeat of anti-gay-marriage amendments in Iowa and Indiana suggest that opposition to gay marriage may no longer be a slam dunk for the gop. "McCain has gone to such pains to try to distance himself from Bush and to make clear that he represents a different kind of politics that he's ultimately going to be forced to address this," Lehane says. "Either he waffles on it, which just irritates everyone; he takes the conservative position, which undermines his brand; or he takes a more open-minded, progressive view of the world, and he really hurts his base. What worked great in 2004 doesn't work so well in 2008."
Both McCain and Obama have said that marriage should be "between a man and a woman" and that the states should decide the issue for themselves. But McCain voted for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, and in 2006 he campaigned for an unsuccessful gay marriage ban in Arizona. He also says he supports the California anti-gay-marriage initiative. According to Focus on the Family's Earll, McCain's record will resonate in the 27 states whose constitutional bans could be overturned by Obama-appointed "activist judges."
But even if a Democratic Congress repealed the Defense of Marriage Act, the review of state laws would still fall to the Supreme Court. As a result, some conservatives say they no longer see the spread of gay marriage as the imminent threat they did in 2004. "I think Virginians feel very confident about our situation for the most part," says Victoria Cobb, president of the Family Foundation of Virginia, which pushed through a gay marriage ban in 2006, "and so we are more focused on other issues." In other words, recent victories in rolling back gay marriage may make it less of an issue in 2008.
Still, opinions of gay marriage are volatile. Throughout the summer the California gay marriage ban had trailed in the polls, only to leap ahead by 10 points early this month after attack ads painted the legalization of gay marriage as dictatorial and intrusive. The most striking flip was among young voters. Typically stalwart supporters of gay marriage, they now favor banning it by a 14-point margin, according to the poll, which was conducted by SurveyUSA on October 6th and has a 4 percent margin of error.
Yet young voters are notoriously difficult to poll, making the larger trend more instructive: in 1996 support for gay marriage among the under-30 set stood at 42 percent, in 2004 at 46 percent, and in May of this year at 52 percent, according to the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. In the long run, "the issue breaks along generational lines," notes Whalen. Take for example Pete Knight, the Republican state senator who wrote California's gay marriage ban. His son, David, married his partner in San Francisco in 2004. This year, Whalen says, Obama might bring out enough young voters to uphold gay marriage in California. (Obama is expected to beat McCain in the state by a double-digit margin.)
Plus, it's not even a sure thing that gay marriage sank the Dems in 2004. Kerry pollster Mark Mellman has found that anti-gay-marriage ballot initiatives didn't boost voter turnout for either party. Moreover, political scientists at mit found that Bush's share of the 2004 vote increased in most battleground states, but not the three that had gay marriage bans on the ballot. Stephen Ansolabehere, one of the study's authors, concludes that the gay marriage referenda may have given Kerry a bump. "That suggests there might even be some sort of backlash against this kind of politics," he notes.
During last month's vice presidential debate, the GOP took a less confrontational tack. Sarah Palin cited no differences from Joe Biden gay rights and even sought to temper her opposition to gay marriage with a shout out to her "very dear friends who do not agree with me on this issue." The GOP’s more conciliatory approach indicates that gay marriage might soon play very differently. "Five years from now, ten years from now," predicts Lehane, "you are going to have a bunch of people trying to explain their hypocrisy on this."
For the time being, however, mayor Newsom’s more aggressive support for gay marriage remains ahead of its time—if not in substance, than at least in style. After the California Supreme Court upheld gay marriage this year, the exultant mayor and soon-to-be gubernatorial candidate mocked his adversaries in speech on the steps of city hall. Later edited and re-broadcast by gay marriage foes as a highly effective attack ad, his words will prove famously prescient or famously premature: "It's inevitable, this door's wide open now, it’s gonna happen, whether you like it or not," Newsom said of gay marriage. "This is the future, and it's now."
Editor's note: An earlier version of this story ran in the September/October 2008 issue of Mother Jones.
Page 1 of 1 
Those chicks in the photo are hot! How could they be lesbians?
It's a sad state when people insist that some of their fellow citizens must be second class citizens and it becomes a political issue. It's reality on the ground but when will our country take the Constitution to heart. This needs to go the Supreme court so that they will have to decide to federally mandate that everyone has equal rights. And take this issue right out of politics and put it where it belongs, as a matter of justice.
It is an interesting idea that the rush to push through equal marriage may have caused a backlash that Republicans were able to exploit ... but it still feels so dirty - as if a group of people saw a chance for equality, were punished with bans on that equality, and then blamed for facilitating four more years of Bush. Seems a little simplistic and easy ... "Oh, if those gays had just dealt with it for a little while longer..."
Hopefully this is a non-issue in 2008, which I know is asking a lot because the issue of equal marriage is emotional for both sides.
The sub-title, "Now that same sex love is legal..." is blatantly incorrect. Same sex love was already legal--now same sex marriage is legal in CA (and MA and CT). It should be the CT legislature that passes laws, not an activist court. Even better is the CA decision to let the people vote on the issue (although who knows if the court would permit the people to decide if they vote to not permit same sex marriage). This should be decided by the legislature (if not the people directly), not by a bare majority of the supremes.
Part of what I think is driving the decline in anti-gay feelings is the fact that those people realize they've been used.
It's the old fool me once thing. My father though signed a petition in FL to get a gay marriage ban on the ballot. I called him on it, told him it was wrong of him.
Why? Because his only son has been in a relationship with another man for 16 years now. Don't we deserve the same protections covered by marriage?
I won't stand for being a second class citizen. It's why today I wrote both my state Speaker of the House and President of the Senate calling them obstinate [deleted]s.
I did this because if a certain divorce challenge is brought before the RI Supreme Court on the equal protection clause of our Constitution (Article 1, Section 2) it will invalidate the Family Court Act as well as grant marriage equality.
I can't wait for the legislature to go back into session in January.
Overall, the gay population is too smart to fall for what is obvious pandering by McSame. His campaign is in a serious tailspin and everyone knows it.
Gay marriage will always be an issue until "Dems" and "liberals" stand up and accept it as a basic right. As long as clinton's mantra of "don't ask don't tell" lives on, and as long as old man biden opposes it, and obama does not address it, it will keep popping up and biting them in the arse. Newsom has done the right thing, Nader has done the right thing - accept it as fact and make it a non-issue. Only then will people recognize republicans as the hypocrites the are (Case in point: Pete Knight, the Republican state senator who wrote California's gay marriage ban. His son, David, married his partner in San Francisco in 2004.) and we will all be free to move on as a healthy society.
It was easy for the GOP to use gay marriage as a wedge issue in 2000 and 2004 but I don't think it will be effective this time around. We didn't have anywhere near the kinds of financial problems facing us then as we do now. As Mahr would say "this elections too important to vote BBQ"
Hey. I'm 73 and I voted against the anti-Gay Marriage amendment here in Arizona (on an early ballot). But then again, when I ran for Queens Borough President in NYC in 1969, I had the Gay Activist endorsement (and I'm heterosexual).
Hopefully with people like Ellen DeGeneres and Jay Leno speaking out the ban in California, others will see it isn't the end of the world as some would hasve us believe.
It helps the mentally challenged wing of the GOP by giving them another "issue" to talk about. These are the same people who send out emails about II Corinthians and all that talking snake BS.
So while they sit around at rallies yelling "KILL HIM" and "TERRORIST" and all the other circle jerk stuff they do, now they can add "GAY SYMPATHIZER". They'll have to come up with something else, it will probably be "[deleted] LOVER" or something equally offensive.
My, what a lovely country we have here. The guy on the next computer to me is in the midst of getting Irish citizenship. I hadn't thought of that, I'm thinking more along the lines of Canadian.
-Wexler
El tiempo ahora esta! No espere! Canada necesita su voz! Hasta luego.
y Marriage Help McCain?
I don’t know but those two on the leader-board are sure hotties!
The institution of marriage was designed (primarily) to protect women from abandonment and especially to protect mutual children from the same. Also to protect societies institutions, such as the Church and the external welfare system (whatever there was) from picking up the tab.
You will note that gay marriage did not become a serious political football until gays began to be allowed to lawfully adopt and gay women began (regularly) conceiving children.
On the other hand, the bible-thumpers have a very big problem with their position because there is NOTHING in any of the three so called “monotheistic” scriptures (Jewish, Christian or Muslim) which prohibits two women from having an intimate relationship. The scriptures specifically refer to a man with a man. The religious right has either been lying to us or displaying their not atypical ignorance. But how is such a dichotomy to be handled? The accurate biblical laws can not be selectively enforced. Doing so would yield an abundance of gay women and a lower number of gay men. The net effect of that would be an unnatural shortage of strait women. This is the primary reason why the religious institutions have glazed over this bold distinction. It can’t work and is also conflicted with other tenants of the same religions. (It also promotes war because what would this abundance of single strait guys do—except join the army?)
But I digress.
Bottom line is that I personally feel that a sexual aversion to the opposite sex is a birth defect. Their systems are cross-wired and this is not a natural bi-product of nature. Reviewing other species, while there is gay sex, I have never heard of any species (other then humans) where the animal is completely gay. Am I wrong on this?
Having said that, even as a birth-defect, the effected population should have some level of parity. But I do not believe that absolute parity is either needed or appropriate. In my view, Gays should not be demanding to be straits in every imaginable way. They should be content with a separate designation of civil-unions and if a child becomes involved, add on a legal addendum which defines the rights of the children and the couple.
OK, I’ll say it . . . You know what annoys me? The public has figures like Rosy and Ellen who’s career has been to mush their gayness in our strait faces. Then, at the very same time, this group wishes to remain anonymous. May God only forbid that we bring up the subject . . .
Regarding McCain: Naaaaaahhhh
"Bottom line is that I personally feel that a sexual aversion to the opposite sex is a birth defect. Their systems are cross-wired and this is not a natural bi-product of nature. Reviewing other species, while there is gay sex, I have never heard of any species (other then humans) where the animal is completely gay. Am I wrong on this?"
Yeah, you're wrong. On the whole thing.
Calling "gay" a "birth defect" is a mental disorder. Heard any talking snakes lately?
-Wexler
Wexler:
Yet you do not mention even one example of a fully gay non-human animal.
Why am I not surprized? Could it be because you all all opinions and no facts and even fewer examples?
"Talking snakes"? That's your example of a gay animal? Who's got the mental disorder?
Strait married people have our own issues such as unwanted pregancies. When gays are subjected to those, I will reconsider my conclusion that there should be no absolute parity between the groups.
Your baseless P.C. insults will neither convince me and I suggest the same is probably true for other bloggers.
PS>
Medical science officialy considers identical twins as birth-defected. Such twins can be fully functional, with 160-IQs, able to run a four minute mile and the ability to reproduce without artificial means.
"Your baseless P.C. insults will neither convince me and I suggest the same is probably true for other bloggers."
You flatter yourself. I had no intention of convincing you of anything. You can't reason with morons.
Have a nice, fear-filled, superstitious, hateful day.
-Wexler
Wexler:
You wrote:
"You can't reason with morons."
and
"Have a nice, fear-filled, superstitious, hateful day."
No pertainant points. No addressing of my legnthy observations. In fact, no points whatsoever. Just a continuation of your habitual insults. Nothing 'moronic' there . . .not.
Fact is, you've got it exactly backwards.
Have a nice, fear-filled, superstitious, hateful life.
Wexler also wrote:
"The guy on the next computer to me is in the midst of getting Irish citizenship. I hadn't thought of that, I'm thinking more along the lines of Canadian."
Are you sure you qualify? I would suggest you try and gain a passport from the chimpanzee kingdom.
Hey, Stein...
Hitler believed that homosexuality was a eugenics issue, too.
Do you also believe in killing them?
Just curious, since you seem to have chosen a "Germanic" name.
As a McCain voter, you must be very proud of his intolerance on this and many other issues, such as religion, race, and others.
-Wexler
Wexler:
You flaunt your name because it gives you an air of being educated but in reality, you don't have two working brain cells to rub together.
Trollstein is a parody on Emanuel Goldstein from Orwell. It's connotation is Yiddish, not German.
I do not know what Hitler believed on the subject but I can assume that whatever you assert is likely factually incorrect.
I explained in great detail exactly what I believe, namely, civil unions, not marriages. Please enlighten the readers with your limitless knowledge, did Hitler believe in civil unions for Gays?
Lastly, your only other assumption is also wrong. I have been advocating for Obama on this (and other blogs) for about a year. Before that I was (briefly) number-2 guy in my state for Kerry (2004) and before that I turned down an invitation to be on the “Steering Committee” for Al Gore (2000) and before that, I co-founded the Green party in this state and (in 1991 and 1992) I was the senior person in this state for Bill Clinton.
And you?
Troll boy...
You finally said something that made sense.
You're a number-2 guy.
I get it.
You need to get out more, even if it's just to try the Google.
-Wexler
PS to the guru...
Before I posted here I was a spaceman, a cowboy, and a secret agent.
That's the cool thing about the Internets, you get to be everything you want! Oh, I left out world-famous brain surgeon.
-Wexler
Wexler wrote:
"Before I posted here I was a spaceman, a cowboy, and a secret agent."
Spaceman I believe. In fact, I think that description is still valid.
Perhaps you would like to bet $100,000.00 that my earlier claims are accurate. I wouldn't mind taking next year off and living off your money.
Never claim to know more about someone (who you never met) then they know. There were actually a few other things I did not bother to mention in my last post. You, on the other hand have no such accomplishments which does not surprise me in the slightest. What's really amazing is that some people such as yourself come to a forum where their views are generally shared, and think that makes them some sort of 'master of ceremonies'. You may be impressing people who are idealistically akin to you but even that is not entirely likely.
As for myself, I spend my blog time on URLs which are typically opposed to my views because that way I accomplish something. You might have noticed that the hostility level against Israel has gone way down on this site since I began opposing the status quo about 6 months ago. That is not unusual. But inevitably this strategy yields a few brain-dead bloggers who attack me personally and mis quote my statements and make ridiculous comparisons. Sound like anyone you know? Amazing that you have no compunction mis quoting statements made a few paragraphs above yours. As if you are not only a master of ceremonies but a master of reality. Now, with a few keystrokes you think you can reconfigure my past—that you know nothing of? Get bent.
Troll...
I just got a phone call from your Mom.
She says that now that you've worked for the destruction of John Kerry, founded the state Green party, proven that gayness is a birth defect, solved the anti-Israel sentiment on this blog and in the world in general, and made a complete idiot out of William W. Wexler, it's time to take your meds and go to bed.
You'll have a busy day tomorrow, proving everyone else wrong and yourself right while solving world hunger and mankind's unreasonable fear of talking snakes.
G'night, sparky.
-Wexler
If there is truth in the seemingly reliable rumor currently circulating, concerning the sexual orientation and partnered status of a prominent member of McCain's permanent staff, he and his surrogates would be wise not to touch this as a campaign issue.
William W. Wexler:
I'll go along with everything you said except for one correction:
William W. Wexler made an idiot of William W. Wexler.
Dianne Feinstein is a disgrace to Democratic Women
Can gay marriage help McCain?
With whom?
Troll...
thanks for posting that. I just won $20 from the guy on the next computer.
Some people are really predictable.
-Wexler
Hey Willy,
Do we have to sic the management on you. You just may be breaking the rules. Tsk, tsk.
Can I also surmise from your posts that you are doing so from a library? Keep it legit, no porn now.
Just sayin...
I knew it was you all along, "Jimmy", you have a certain style.
No prob... consider it done.
-Wexler
First, this is not a case of second class citizenship, as a neurotic LGBT individual is apt to characterize having coped throughout adolescent and adult life by engaging in passive-aggressive and histrionic behavior. The goal is to address the antisocial behavior of the APA(s) and ABA in their blatant attempts to normalize neurotic behavior and its associated paraphilias without the benefit of empirical analysis to support their position using gay marriage and civil unions as a means to knowingly promote the placement of children in "borderline"(LGBT)caretaker environments, regardless of the gender or its socioeconomic status. Such professional behavior can be considered no less than unethical, if not criminal behavior by neurotic legal and medical professionals. When push comes to shove in a courtroom setting, the LGBT professionals will back down if arguments are presented in terms familiar to the APA(s) and the ABA.
I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GAY MARRIAGE. IT COMPLETELY ALTERS THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE. HOWEVER I DO BELIEVE IN THE SAME TYPE OF BENEFITS FOR CIVIL UNIONS. I BELIEVE THAT HOMO-SEXUALS SHOULD HAVE EQUAL RIGHTS, BUT MARRIAGE IS A DECISION UP TO THE STATES.
Why in God's name does some state Supreme Court have to always choose the weeks preceding a national election to issue a major decision on gay rights? As an appellate lawyer, I know they can issue decisions whenever they wish. I agree with the rulings extending the plain meaning of equal protection of the law, but I disagree with the necessity of forcing it into the frontline of the public consciousness when there are such dire problems facing each and everyone of us which should dictate the outcome of the election. I know, I'm not gay, and to those who are no other issue is more dire, and I do appreciate that, but I don't think it does service to the cause to risk forcing it as a frontline issue in such a critically important election. I know the courts, not the parties make these timing choices, and I wonder at their motives, and the internal compromises which drive them, but please, if we're as politically tone deaf as the Republicans, we'll suffer their same fate sooner than we ought, or can afford.
GAY MARRIAGE AND BEING GAY IN GENERAL IS NOT ONLY MORALLY WRONG, IT'S SCIENTIFICALLY WRONG. WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME A HOMSEXUAL COUPLE HAD A CHILD THEY CREATED TOGETHER? EXACTLY. GAY MARRIAGE WILL BE THE END OF HUMANITY BECAUSE IT LACKS THE ABILITY TO PROCREATE.
Honestly, if gay marriage is the most important issue for you in this bad economy you are an idiot. I mean, really who cares. If gays want to get married and be misreable like the rest of us, then fine. I do think marriage is between a man and a woman, but letting gays marry is not a threat to your marriage. Blaming gay marriage is just a scapegoat for your own marital issues.
You'll get yourself in trouble every time calling homosexuality a "birth defect." Not that I think you're wrong...but the gays get very militant when you throw it in their face. They known homosexuality has to be at least partially genetic. And advances in genetic analysis make it probable that the genetic condition that causes homosexuality will be able to be diagnosed and fixed in the womb. Expect this to be a reality in less than 20 years. And when it is, you're going to see the gays screaming about how wrong it is to "fix" the problem. But parents won't listen to them. They will want children that can grow up normal and give them grandchildren.
As a gay married man in California, I'd like to apologize to all my liberal friends for being such a source of anxiety for you, considering my basic civil rights are "too much, too fast, too soon." Maybe we ought to put our relationships on hold until the polls show a healthy support of my rights. That way you won't have to lose sleep over any of this. Again, really sorry my rights throw a wrench into your plans.
Homosexuality is indeed scientific and natural. It's been documented in thousands of species of animals and has been around humans since they first evolved.
Can someone tell these people that the world is facing overpopulation issues which could threaten our basic natural resources. What's that? Gays can't conceive? Thank Jesus, there's still hope!
Meanwhile, all these daughters of conservatives are getting knocked up at 16 and being forced to keep the baby. *tsk tsk*, haven't heard of condoms, dear? Here's the number to the nearest branch of Planned Parenthood.
This whole 'gays are wrong because they can't have kids' is absurd. I think almost 7 Billion people on the Earth is enough right now, isn't it? We could stand to have a negative birth rate for a few years (Not that it will happen, of course).
How can a court "legalize" anything. To be legalized, requires a law. The MOST a court can do is affirm or deny a law legal standing. The article proves - point positive - that radical courts are redefining America - and the dictionary - to fit their inane positions. The purpose of a marriage is to create the nucleus of a family. 2 people of the same gender are UNABLE to create a family. Case Closed.
Tony...
Thanks for the post and the reality check.
-Wexler
Wexler is simply put, a fool! The issue liberals point out is tolerance but it is not about conservatives' tolerating anything. It is about a demonic spirit that is present in our society. Specifically it is about homosexuals who have an evil spirit in them. I realize you don't really understand where I am coming from but regardless, at least I can say you heard the truth from someone.
Damn Moseley, that's pretty good. You make up the delusion in your mind that every gay person is a demon (I believe Clay Aiken has his own Satanic church up in San Fran.) and then you feel no guilt when you discriminate against them!
The lengths humans will go, it never ceases to amaze~
Pie-Kun...
Watch out, here comes another barrage from the talking snake crowd.
All religion is codified superstition. The GOP has learned how to manipulate that superstition, which is rampant and in my opinion out of control in what is supposedly the most advanced nation on earth.
It's sickening, it really is.
-Wexler
Just think, when the comprehensive history of Civil Rights are written, we had liberals push for the end of slavery, liberals push for women's suffrage, liberals push for segregation ... then a gutless generation of hand-wringing liberals who were too afraid to come right out and stand up for gay marriage because it wasn't quite winning in the polls.
Fortunately this generation's kids will be the ones who right this wrong, but the cowardice displayed by far too many on our team in this generation is to the entire progressive movement's eternal shame.
Gay Marriage could help McCain. If he can get Barack to divorce Michelle and marry him instead, I'd say that's his best bet to living in the White House.
eruth:
I fully realize that an open airing of ideas is often met with severe and unwarranted counter-reaction (just read a few posts above). In order to reason any situation it is usually helpful to begin with background and use the process of deductive elimination to arrive at a logical conclusion. It may not be the only possible logical conclusion but that is how ideas evolve, not through base insults (which is too often the reaction).
For most of the C.E., homosexuality was considered aborant behavior, being done to directly attack God and his institutions. Modern thought has done much to do away with that common perception. While the religious fundamentalists still believe it, nonetheless, today there are gay clergy in some venues. As early as 100 years ago, such might have have caused civil unrest, lynchings and church burnings. Anyway, while many people (including Gays) are in agreement as to what homosexuality is NOT, there is no agreement as to what Homosexuality is. And that is where I budded-in. To the Gay community, it is absolutely nothing. It is like being left-handed. Except scientists will affirm that left-handedness is not nothing. Lefties have a different skill-set as right handed people. How many gay men do you know who can't cook? Pleaseeeee. The worst of them cook on par with average straits. Compair just the two groupings of men and the dispartity is huge. While many of the world's best chefs are men, the average strait man is barely capible of microwaving.
Anyway, if anyone can explain to me what homosexuality is, and not include the concept of a cross-wiring, I would be happy to listen. So far, we hear no such suggestions. Just a summary dismissal of any suggestions.
If you would like to know why strait people have concerns, just watch this psycho--who is demanding that congress make all public venues build a third gender bathroom, namely, "none-of-the-above gender".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1vJaM1j7v4
(warning--language and general depravity)
Hey you stinkin republicans
Obama will win and you know it....
Thanks for the goddamn mess again....
So go to HELL....
thank you and i enjoy being a stinkin republican. i love making messes.
my friend is larry craig....
The year that the gay marriage ban passed in Virginia, they also elected progressive Democrat Jim Webb into the Senate. The ban passed with 57% of the vote and there is no way that could happen if it wasn't at least relatively popular across party lines.
And yes, it broke my heart that the cradle of democracy has become a hotbed of discrimination.
