At any rate, it’s a reminder that things could always be worse

By Philo, November 11 at 4:43 am #

And in fact gays do have the right to marry, so there is no constitutional abrogation here. 

Nor does the constitution define marriage (at least not until prop. 8).

Keep in mind the California Supreme Court majority opinion of May 15, 2008 (note last emphasis):

[U]nder this state’s Constitution, the constitutionally based right to marry properly must be understood to encompass the core set of basic substantive legal rights and attributes traditionally associated with marriage that are so integral to an individual’s liberty and personal autonomy that they may not be eliminated or abrogated by the Legislature or by the electorate through the statutory initiative process.

In re Marriage Cases, California Supreme Court, S147999
http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/archive/S147999.PDF

Gay marriage is not a civil rights issue.  It’s a marriage issue.  Marriage is an institution that is defined by society and is not a god given or civil right.  It is at society’s discretion as to how it recognizes marriage and if it deems marriage between a man and two women, a brother and sister, or a man and a man as detrimental to the secular institution of marriage then it has every right to disallow it in those cases.  Indeed - no one is preventing gays from getting married; just not to each other.  The black community clearly sees gay marriage as a moral issue as well, and this is likely what drove its vote plus it didn’t buy the “civil right” argument.  Unfortunately, the ridiculous nature of California’s direct governance by ballot means this issue will never be behind us.

I truly hope that you are right, Mr. Wicher, but I am not entirely convinced that African Americans will ever equate other’s struggles with their own, especially those of the GLBT community.

Prop. 22, which was nullified by the California Supreme Court, passed with 61% of those voting in March of 2000, or 4,618,673, with 38.65%, or 2,909,370 against, for a total voting of 7,528,042.

Prop. 8, which overturned the court’s decision, passed with 5,387,938/52.46%, to 4,883,460/47.54%, for a total of 10,271,398.

African Americans made up 10% of the voters November 4th, 2008, or 1,027,139.  They voted 70% in favor of Prop. 8, or 718,997 for.  The difference between yes and no votes was 504,471.  Clearly, the African American vote made the difference between passage or failure of Prop. 8, even without the Hispanic vote!

Here is a bitter diatribe by Jasmyne A. Cannick, a self-described African American lesbian “activist,” that declares on no uncertain terms that African Americans do not view equal rights for the GLBT community as equivalent to their civil rights issue:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-cannick8-2008nov08,0,3669070.story

She avers that the African American civil rights movement was church driven and is still identified with that community’s churches.  They do not appreciate a drive for equal rights that appears to be anti-church.  This is not going to be easily susceptible to “re-education.”  In order to get to a level of 70% of African American voters, as the Yes on Prop. 8 forces managed to do, you are not just talking about the older generations.

This is a cross-generational attitude on the part of the entire African American community.  The fact that an African American candidate was on the ballot undoubtedly did the same thing it did in other demographics:  It brought young voters to the polls.  Therefore, this is an issue that is not going to evolve by the deaths of the older generations of African Americans, as it may be evolving in other groups.  The current attacks in protests on churches, mostly verbal so far, thank goodness, merely reinforces the existing perception among the African Americans concerned with the issue that it is an anti-church movement and therefore antithetical to them.

By Blueboy1938, November 9 at 10:52 pm #

African Americans voted 70% in favor of Prop. 8.  Because Senator Obama was on the ballot, African Americans made up 10% of the voters, while their representation in the California population is 6.9%.

Fifty three percent of HIspanics voted in favor of Prop. 8., which was opposed by 55% of white voters.

If the measure passed by 52% and was opposed by 55% of white voters, where did the 7% margin come from?  There is only one conclusion:  Minorities (except Asians, who were split) who came out in record numbers to vote for Obama overwhelmingly supported Prop. 8, and that provided the margin of passage.

It is true that the No on 8 campaign did not do an adequate job of minority outreach and education on the issue.  However, there wasn’t much time, given the priorities of raising cash and volunteers.  Some assumptions were made that minorities would sympathize with another group’s plight.  That was not the case, because African Americans, at least, do not see equality for gays and lesbians as a civil rights issue.  It’s just that simple.
——————————————————————————-
Blueboy,

It’s not just that simple. It’s true that a majority of blacks and hispanics voted for Prop. 8, but the main point the Obama diarist was making is that these folks could have been educated to see it as a civil rights issue, but California political activists took things for granted, failed to do this and as a result were outsmarted by a bunch of damn Mormons. We are advised to redouble our efforts in this regard and that if we do so we can reverse this unfortunate result.

per cyrena: Any legislation that ELIMINATES RIGHTS is negative law, and generally unconstitutional,

Barack Obama, who knows something about law, would disagree with that. he thinks the constitution has TOO MUCH negative(ie it says what the government must not do certain things to people) and not enough positive rights.

Odd coincidence that he said this in an interview in California. Also strange that it sat there unreported for months. But thats another story.

per cyrena: and the passage of this unconstitutional legislation means that I’m far more afraid of my fellow citizens.

cyrena, there is a difference between asking others to tolerate something and asking them to approve of it. Which is how many people were reading the prop 8. Do you really feel threatened? I hope nobody wants to hurt anyone. I dont want to hurt anyone. Why isnt tolerance enough for a person to feel safe?

The Courts at least understand the Constitution. They’ve studied it long and hard.

Do you, cyrena, promise to stick by that statement above? I sure wouldnt. How quickly you will regret it, especially when you find the next case decided against your ideals.

If you stick to that line of defense, I will hold ya to it later! What else are friends for?

African Americans voted 70% in favor of Prop. 8.  Because Senator Obama was on the ballot, African Americans made up 10% of the voters, while their representation in the California population is 6.9%.

Fifty three percent of HIspanics voted in favor of Prop. 8., which was opposed by 55% of white voters.

If the measure passed by 52% and was opposed by 55% of white voters, where did the 7% margin come from?  There is only one conclusion:  Minorities (except Asians, who were split) who came out in record numbers to vote for Obama overwhelmingly supported Prop. 8, and that provided the margin of passage.

It is true that the No on 8 campaign did not do an adequate job of minority outreach and education on the issue.  However, there wasn’t much time, given the priorities of raising cash and volunteers.  Some assumptions were made that minorities would sympathize with another group’s plight.  That was not the case, because African Americans, at least, do not see equality for gays and lesbians as a civil rights issue.  It’s just that simple.

On Prop 8 posted on “This Week With Barack Obama”

First off, let’s talk about how this was sold to the public in California.

I lived in California for 10 years before returning back to the Midwest. This is a state that is forward thinking on every metric. If there is any state in the union which motto fits, “so goes California, so goes the nation”. Yes, it is California.

Proposition 8 was a failure on many levels. The most important failure was the lack of organization of those against the legislation to inform many Californians what was at stake.

Let me be clear here. It is not African-Americans fault that this legislation was passed and not defeated. Read this information of the break down here and get the statistical facts.

Selling Proposition 8 is the same as selling Barack Obama to this country. Folks must be informed about what this legislation entails and must understand that this is about the everyday man’s civil rights in this country. This was not explained.

Many on here must also see that the Hispanic community did not embrace this amendment either, and it is not their fault.

African-Americans more than anyone in this country fully understand one’s civil rights. If you allow the other side to define what this legislation is about, which was successful by the passing of this legislation, then something else happened.

We must commend the outside influences of the LDS (Mormons) for getting their message across, by powerful and divisive television ads and direct mail pieces. It was effective. They snatched the ball and ran with it, before opponents against this legislation had time to raise money and organize. That is what happened.

Now this is heading for the courts, as it should, but the larger picture should be this, “civil rights for gay Americans across this land.” And this battle must be won on the Supreme Court ground.

Bashing African-Americans, Hispanics and the many Whites who voted for this legislation does not amount to anything. This is a teaching lesson to those who opposed this legislation. Take nothing for granted, you must make the public understand that this is a civil rights issue and must make many move past what homosexuality is, just as we had to fight everyday with Americans to look past Barack Obama’s skin color and listen to what his agenda was. And many on this board KNOW this was not an easy task.

We have accomplished a lot of work together, now is not the time to point any fingers, especially when many of us did not donate money, time, or effort in making sure it was defeated.

If Barack Obama can become the first African-American President, this legislation can be defeated, at the ballot box or on the Supreme Court turf. We are the ones that must make a difference. Enough of the anger, time to get busy.

Just my 2 cents.

The arguments against gay marriage don’t hold up because the position is fundamentally false; it is something made up as a random cause through which to express homophobia and engage in gay-bashing.  It isn’t any of your business who is married and who is not; marriage is a secular cultural universal and does not have a basis in any religion, but outdates them and is a civic institution.  We will have marriage for everyone, we will have equal rights and a place in society, whether the mormons and other sick bigots like it or not, so you know where to shove your ballots!

Excellent point, Philo, that the issue has not been decided on the merits yet.  However, I still hold more faith that the same court that found a “fundamental right” will hear the argument that right cannot be taken away by a vote.  Hopefully, it would fall into the same category as slavery or the anti-interracial marriage decisions.  If they had been put to a vote, there’s every likelihood they would not have gone the way the court decided at the time, given the racist tenor of the times.  We shall see.

Back in July, the CA Supreme Court “denied, without comment” a petition for removal of Prop 8. (And this is apparently the standard way of doing things.) So there was no written opinion of the Court.

Here is one way to look at it: If Prop 8 had failed, the Court’s work would have been done, and they would not have to spend the months of work to come up with a written opinion in the matter.

They could reject the Nov 5 petition out of hand too, but somehow I’m not sure they will do that.

The Supreme Court heard that argument about a revision vs. an amendment prior to the vote and rejected it.  There may be some hope in raising it again, but I doubt it.  The conflict between having a “fundamental right” in the constitution taken away may be the only hope.

Since this Proposition did not take the proper course for an actual revision (vs. simple amendment) to the California constitution: first 2/3 of both of the two legislative bodies pass it and then it is sent on for a popular majority vote (rather it was just there by simple petition), I would be surprised if the CA Court did not strike it down. (A lawyer challenging the Proposition on CNN pointed this out.)

It is interesting that if the increased black vote led to acceptance of this proposition then can it be that those who were oppressed are now the oppressors?!

Ain’t that ironic!!!

Ozark Michael writes:

“…Some people who voted for the proposition 8 were driven to do so in order to correct the elitism of a court which presumed to redefine marriage for all the citizens of California….”

~~

Ozark Michael, you’re the second person I’ve heard from today, to make this argument, specifically about the ‘redefining’ of marriage. My sister tried to make the same claim. In her words, this is about ‘what marriage means’. So in other words, the word itself I guess, since she kept referring to the dictionary.

But, it’s a lame excuse, because the COURT did NOT redefine ‘marriage’. So, they didn’t ‘presume’ to do anything. The decision was written by a conservative (and probably republican) judge, but it has nothing to do with ideology, if one has even a clue to jurisprudence and other legal theory, including Constitutional Law. So the Supreme Court Justice was doing his job, which doesn’t involve deciding how to “define” marriage. You have to look to the dictionary for that, but the dictionary is not a guide to Jurisprudence.

In reality, it is the supporters of the proposition who are trying to exclusively define what ‘marriage’ should be for the entire population. And, whatever is not ‘THEIR’ understanding of marriage, is made illegal. BANNED! It’s like claiming a child whose parents were not married in a legally sanctioned status to be ‘illegitimate’. So in other words, the kid by virtue of being born, is born ‘against the law’. That’s what ‘illegitimate’ means. It means that a PERSON is ‘illegal’. How can that be? There is no such thing as a person being born illegal. It doesn’t square at all with the fundamentals of the Constitution, which is probably why the Conservative justices ruled as they did. If we want to stay pure to the Constitution, (and Conservatives do) then this was the only jurisprudential decision to make.

So, how did we get to that? We’ve got 51% of the voting population deciding that they should determine what marriage means for people that don’t even know, and are never likely to meet, and wouldn’t have any reason to know they were married if they did meet ‘em. WTF???? Why does anybody care who anybody else marries, unless it was somebody you wanted to marry yourself? Does it change THEIR understanding of what THEIR marriages mean? Why else would it matter? And enough to write it into the law, which is about as extreme as it gets!

Seriously..that’s what legal theorists know as BAD LAW, because it’s negative law. Any legislation that ELIMINATES RIGHTS is negative law, and generally unconstitutional, (specifically when the equal availability of these rights doesn’t infringe on the rights of anyone else.) It also reeks of the odious fumes of authoritarianism, and this bad law is sitting right on that slippery slope. This is really far more serious than I think most homophobes and other ideologues realize.

The irony continues Ozark Michael, and since we’ve talked at length before, I couldn’t agree with you more, about the slippery slope issue with what could happen next. The problem is that you’re afraid of the courts making the wrong decision, and the passage of this unconstitutional legislation means that I’m far more afraid of my fellow citizens. The Courts at least understand the Constitution. They’ve studied it long and hard.

By Blueboy1938, November 5 at 11:02 pm #

The difference is that you view gay marriage as a civil rights issue and I don’t.  Then it all comes down to which view prevails, and the passage of prop. 8 is the answer for now.

“I believe that there is a deeply rooted fear…that same sex couples will show up the dismal record of heterosexual marriage, with it’s 50% divorce rate. How does that statistic of failure, with its telling effect on millions of children of those crashed marriages, support the battle cry that “children need both a mother and a father”?”

Good theory, but not likely in my view.  While the number is higher than we’d like (which btw has steadily improved over the last 20 years and is now below 50%), it’s a fair concern that the gay community’s promotion of promiscuity would make its rates of infidelity (and, likely, divorce) much higher.

As to the hatred - many of us have gay friends.  We don’t hate them, and we don’t support gay marriage.  These do go together. 

As to the spending; anti prop. 8 forces spent equal millions.  And i’ll bet you’d have supported a proposition that modified the constitution to overturn a court decision that banned gay marriage.

There are few places in the United States where gay people can get married, but as the years go by there will be more. An important aspect of this future change is what mechanism ushers it in. the process matters!

To all of you who argue that gay marraige is a right which the court should mandate, i offer this:
Some people who voted for the proposition 8 were driven to do so in order to correct the elitism of a court which presumed to redefine marriage for all the citizens of California.

There is nothing wrong with wanting to change a definition or a law. There are ways to do it, but please do not desire so much power to be invested in the courts. You might create a majority of people who refuse it where it was only a minority who opposed you on the issue itself. Even if you succeed and give free reign for the court to decide what the law should be, the court will only too gladly use this power to redefine other things too, some of which you might not like and there wont be anything you can do about it.

“A Modest Proposal”  With apologies to Jonathan Swift.

Whereas marriage has been declared restricted to those who can “potentially” bear children by Prop. 8 according to pronouncements by its sponsors regarding its intent, and

Whereas divorce deprives children of parenting by both a mother and a father, as declared an essential adjunct of marriage by Prop. 8 sponsors, and

Whereas only unions which are acceptable to all religious institutions under their various rules and dogmas are valid, according to the implications of pro-Prop. 8 advertisements, for fear that otherwise said religious institution may lose tax exemption;

Therefore be it Resolved:

That no one past childbearing years may marry, and

That no married couple with children may divorce, and

That the children of anyone who is not married to a member of the opposite sex shall be transferred by the state to a foster home having both a male and a female who are legally married to one another, and

That all those wishing to marry must successfully pass a fertility examination and be certified as capable of bearing children of the proposed union, and

That all who marry must prove financial ability to raise at least two children through high school, and

That no one may marry another if that union is not approvable by all religious institutions represented in the state, according to each respective set of religious rules and dogmas.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but anti-miscegenation laws were not passed by popular vote. In fact, a 1958 Gallup poll showed that 96% of white Americans dissapproved of interracial marriage.
Equality = Equality, and if people aren’t ready for it, it’s up to the courts to make people understand. I’m glad to hear that lawsuits have already been filed to challenge the passing of all three of these props.

So, it’s no longer cool to discriminate against blacks in our society, but we still get to persecute gays. That’s great, just great! And from what I hear, this was made possible by the fact that there is a lot of homophobia in both the black and latino communities who came out in such numbers to vote for Obama. Wonderful! They have fought for their own freedom, and now they are free to persecute gays. Congratulations, assholes!

Yes, Cyrena, but apparently African Americans voted 69% in favor of Prop. 8, according to what I’ve been able to glean.  Whites voted 55% against.  One analysis that I read (http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/11/prop-8-and-the.html) indicated that it is fairly likely that, along with Hispanics voting slightly in favor of Prop. 8 and Asians split, probably meant the difference.  That was compounded by a much higher voter turnout in the African American community than usual because of the candidacy of Barack Obama.

A brochure was distributed to the African American community that truthfully stated that Obama opposes same sex marriage.  It simply left out the fact that he also opposed Prop. 8.  It is only natural that those motivated to vote for him would pay attention to his thinking on this issue.

An October 6th London Telegraph analysis that reaches pretty much the same conclusions confirms that the African American voters made up 10% of the California electorate, while their proportion in the population is only 6.9%.

Voters in the African American community tend to be older, more established, more involved in religion than the African American community in general.  The Catholic and evangelical churches are predominant in the Hispanic community.  These influences are in many ways constructive and positive, but not as regards same sex issues.

It is not that the African American community is hostile per se towards the GLBT community, but that the people most likely to vote are more likely to be those who tend to be more socially conservative when it comes to marriage.  It’s not a matter of placing blame so much as a statement of statistical facts: more African Americans voted, understandably, because of Obama’s candidacy; more of them opposed same sex marriage than other racial groups; the combination appears to have been enough to overwhelm the thin opposition among the other groups, when take together, and carry Prop. 8.

Blueboy1938,

Thanks for both of your excellent posts. Obviously I agree with you, except for this…

•  “..Unfortunately, the wave of self-righteous African American and Hispanic voters that turned out to vote for Obama spelled its passage.  The voters in those groups tend toward very conservative social attitudes…”

I guess I wasn’t surprised to read that Fredrick Price and his church may have been in support of this, (I’m only just reading that here, so I’m taking it to be true unless someone can suggest otherwise) but I don’t think this is a common ‘tendency’ for African American and Hispanic voters in general. In fact, I’m sure it isn’t. It might be a tendency for Evangelicals of all colors, but I don’t believe it to be a black/brown thing..or even close.

So, don’t put that on the African-American or the Hispanic voters who turned out for Obama in California. I’m a native California. Like Obama, I’m a multiracial citizen, and like Obama, I identify with the African-Native American part of the multi. And, like Obama, I believe this proposition to be both discriminatory and divisive. It’s also a blatant violation of the Constitution that guarantees equal rights to all citizens.

So, I don’t think that African-American voters, (even in Los Angeles) were responsible for the passage of this despicable thing. I’ll agree that there may be ignornants that blindly follow the advice of their religious leaders, and believe stupid stuff. But this discrimination didn’t come from them based on any socially conservative tendencies..even most of the religionists. It’s obviously UN-Christian, in addition to being Unconstitutional.

~~~~

Greg Bacon,

Thanks for the nightmarish reminder of what would have happened if the reThugs had managed to get the Social Security Trust Fund and payment in the ongoing game of “Three Card Monte” known as Wall Street.

I don’t think it would have been a Yeeeehawwwwww, baby though. More like BURN BABY BURN!! I mean as bad as things clearly are now, (and for the majority) can you imagine if millions of seniors and disabled people, (many of them mentally - quite understandable) didn’t have ANY income, what they might be inclined to do?

I don’t wanna know.

At any rate, it’s a reminder that things could always be worse.

“Gays have civil unions and this is enough.” By Marshall, November 5 at 6:59 pm

I respectfully disagree.  Equal protection under the laws is not “sorta equal, kinda equal.”  Until all affectional unions of two people are the same, and that means called the same, they are not equal - neither under the law nor “in the eyes of all men.”

It would be one thing if something were being taken away from someone, but that is manifestly not the case.  Nothing was taken away from anyone when blacks were allowed to marry whites, and nothing will be taken away from anyone when same sex couples are allowed to marry.  That has been pragmatically demonstrated in other countries and in Massachusetts in this country.

I believe that there is a deeply rooted fear on the part of those who support the denial of what has been found to be a “fundamental right” in the California Constitution for marriage equality that same sex couples will show up the dismal record of heterosexual marriage, with it’s 50% divorce rate.  How does that statistic of failure, with its telling effect on millions of children of those crashed marriages, support the battle cry that “children need both a mother and a father”?

Hadn’t the anti-same-sex forces better spend their millions to combat this terrible blight than use it to fuel hatred against a group that simply wants to be treated with the respect the California Supreme Court found that it deserves?

Majorities vote on issues that don’t affect the majority all the time, so this line of argument doesn’t hold up to precedent. 

Of course many of us who don’t support gay marriage believe that the issue DOES affect the majority because it changes the definition of a fundamental institution which has societal as well as fiscal implications.

Gays have civil unions and this is enough.

Initially, it was thought that, since the Democrats were registering first time voters in large numbers, and because the majority of those were young, that the generational turnout come November 4th would spell the defeat of Prop. 8.  Unfortunately, the wave of self-righteous African American and Hispanic voters that turned out to vote for Obama spelled its passage.  The voters in those groups tend toward very conservative social attitudes.

So, while it is indeed a good time in America to witness the passing of at least one shibboleth of the country’s troubled racial history with the election of an African American to the presidency, hand in glove with that victory goes the defeat of rights for another group.  Discrimination is once again embodied in the California Constitution as it was a half century ago with the prohibition of interracial marriage, first eliminated in this state exactly 60 years ago this year.

per spargelen who claims to represent WF Buckley intellectualism and fiscal conservatism, not the southern-fried bullshit ladled out by “ministers, et al”

spargelen, 

I am one of the ‘morons’ you referenced, part of the ‘et al’.

Do you really think that the best way to be recognized on this Gore Vidal forum is to kick the ‘et al’ folks whilst proclaiming your own similarity to Buckley? Oh dear what a false hope that is! They may applaud the kicking you give me today, but be aware: they will turn on you later. 

You will i hope understand my hesitancy to accept your claim of ‘intellectualism’ whilst you offer proof which indicates otherwise.

My personal belief is that the word “marriage” is the problem.  In Europe, the government is able to certify certain contracts between individuals, and yes they are called marriages.  But they are performed mandatorily by the State.  If Europeans want religion to be involved, then you go to the church and have a “religious” service, thereby maintaining a separation of secular and ecclesiastical.

In defeat, I think we should make civil unions available to mixed-gender couples and then encourage heterosexuals to follow that path.  Then, maybe, the state can get out from dealing with the ecclesiastical business of “marriage” altogether.  We might also jettison the words “husband” and “wife” too, and embrace the term “partner.”  (Just that change alone could reduce the divorce rate.)

The advantage of such a change is that religious groups could still maintain their spiritual commitment to superiority, while freeing the government from separation anxiety.  Everyone wins!!!

(As a footnote, in America, Mormons have to wait for a year after being married by the state to get a “Temple Marriage.”  Such a wait carries a slight but insignificant stigma within the church.  However, in Europe, Mormons obey the King’s orders and get married by the State servants – plus, they have a couple of week grace period where they can have sex and revel before having God bless their union in a Temple.)

I am Republican (WF Buckley intellectualism and fiscal conservatism, not the southern-fried bullshit ladled out by “ministers, et al”) and I say let people form economic unions however they what. Who cares? What would a gay couple, a Mormon tribe of harem holders, etc. do to anyone and their personal rights? Nothing, that’s what. Keep your nose out of other people’s business. Seems silly anyway, some moron who believes in some gaseous omnipotent force in the sky telling rational humans how to behave? Grow up and get over yourself; you and a banana share about 25% of your total genes.

Greg, I agree with you.  This should be a non-issue!  If you are not gay - than don’t have a same-sex wedding!  The nerve of people in this “free” country, to deny someone else the opportunity to have a loving, compassionate relationship regardless of sex is something that should be celebrated, no matter the individuals involved!

And for all of the “Religious Thumpers” out there let me point out a few issues of morality that you should go out and thump about: (1)2 unnecessary immoral wars - and the liars that got us into them, (2)a Presidency and his administration that has committed TREASON against the American populace (from lying to get us into war, to outing Valerie Plame, to torture, to mismanaging these failed fiascos with no plans!, (3)the illiegal firing of the attorney’s general for false reasons, (4)for the reckless mismanagement of this nation, (5)for allowing a U.S. City to drown and do nothing about it for days!

Yes, there is so much immorality going on - but the marriage of two people that are committed to each other of the same sex - IT IS NONE OF MY BUSINESS OR YOURS!!!!

Don’t enshrine homophobia in the Constitution. Vote No on Prop. 8.

The thing that amazes me about this is that so many people will vote for it.

The problem with freedom in this country, is that a lot of people here don’t really believe in it.

They seem to have all the money in the world and all the energy to keep their fellow man in chains.

No one’s going to force them to marry someone of the same sex.

So why do they care?

Yes, I agree it’s completely repugnant.

Every four years, the gullible and feeble minded are set up to strike out at matters which, in the big scheme of things, doesn’t matter much.

Not when compared with higher taxes on the poor and middle classs and less taxes on the rich and even less regulation on Wall Street.

The last eight years, the Bush/Cheney crowd has been lying to us 24/7, cutting taxes on the elite and waging two illegal and immoral wars, all the while Wall Street stole tens of TRILLIONS of dollars and what are people psyched up about?

Homosexuals having sex and getting married.

Don’t worry, the Republican theme song will soon be put back on the shelf, to be stored until 2012.

P.S. Just think what might of happened if the Republicans had managed to get the Social Security Trust Fund and payments into the ongoing game of “Three Card Monte” known as Wall Street.  Yeeeehawwwwwwww, baby.