Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.

Seriously, though, is it possible that this issue is played out, and not that big of a deal anymore? The US public has a penchant for only new things (anybody remember port security anymore? Mine safety? Mad cow disease?). Maybe the gay marriage issue won't pack the same punch as it did in 2004.

Any move towards legalizing gay marriage will help the GOP.

PNAAC Minister @ 3:

Umm, no. Progressives don't need the "family values" (gay-basher) vote.

Progressives need the gay-bashers to stay home, because the gay-bashers vote Republican (ironically, in light of recent events). The gay-bashers will go to the polls if they get a gay-bashing issue to vote on, like gay marriage.

Weaseldog @ 7:

Oh My God! My wife is leaving me! This amendment ruined my marriage!

Snark!

Did she leave you for another woman?

The only thing a bedwetting conservative fears more than a terrorist is gay marriage. Together with terrorism and immigrant bashing, the gay marriage issue is the thing that will send their base to the polls with a pantload causing them to pull the voting lever against their own best interests.

Fanon @ 8:

Weaseldog @ 7:

Oh My God! My wife is leaving me! This amendment ruined my marriage!

Snark!

Did she leave you for another woman?

Reminds me Of Robbie McConnell's tune, "The Mistress"

The approach in my state is that "English should be the official language" approach, even though all government proceedings are conducted in English anyhow. It's a thinly veiled bigotry initiative, directed primarily against Mexicans. I think we'll see "English as the official language" superseding gay marriage as ballot initiatives in 2008. Gotta turn out the bigots somehow.

A party who favors people who derive their income on the labor of others (dividend income), rather than people working for wages and salaries, needs to come up with non economic issues in order to get these people to vote against their own economic interests. I think a big hole could be blown in their strategy by the Dems targeting the gun lobby with the pitfalls towards the 2nd amendment on account of the "unitary executive" approach where the President can nullify amendments in the name of national security. This would also, of course, require that the Democrats forgo endorsing the notion that amendments, such as the 2nd can by nullified by legislation, and endorsing the concept that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, something they don't seem to want to teach in school these days.

The Repubs need the fundamentalist and their clerics, the gun lobby, and the bigots to succeed. I don't want the bigots, and the fundamentalist can't be reasoned with. I think the gun lobby support for the Repubs could be diminished. We need to be the party that supports the constitution, and either you're for us, or you're against us. By being the party that supports the notion that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, we implicitly support the 4th amendment, which is nearly gone now.

Rusty Shackleford @ 6:

PNAAC Minister @ 3:

Umm, no. Progressives don't need the "family values" (gay-basher) vote.

Progressives need the gay-bashers to stay home, because the gay-bashers vote Republican (ironically, in light of recent events). The gay-bashers will go to the polls if they get a gay-bashing issue to vote on, like gay marriage.

bingo.

But this is the kind of calculus conservatives play with, that infuriates many liberals. "do I not support this good thing because it will hurt my votes?"

If it's a worthy cause, we should support it.

Gays put Bush back into the white house in 2004. If it hadn't been for the gay lobby trying to force the gay marriage issue onto the front pages like they did, Bush would have had to run on his record (which sucked) rather than on "protecting family values" which acted as a distraction.

If gays had simply waited for a more favorable climate instead of trying for the power play, they might have gotten what they wanted a lot sooner in the long run.

Ryoko @ 20:

If gays had simply waited for a more favorable climate instead of trying for the power play, they might have gotten what they wanted a lot sooner in the long run.

And if so many straights weren't such tiny-minded, despicable bigots, this wouldn't even be an issue.

Ryoko @ 20:

Gays put Bush back into the white house in 2004. If it hadn't been for the gay lobby trying to force the gay marriage issue onto the front pages like they did, Bush would have had to run on his record (which sucked) rather than on "protecting family values" which acted as a distraction.

If gays had simply waited for a more favorable climate instead of trying for the power play, they might have gotten what they wanted a lot sooner in the long run.

There were alot more issues that caused the loss than just those related to gays.

Rusty Shackleford @ 6:

PNAAC Minister @ 3:

Umm, no. Progressives don't need the "family values" (gay-basher) vote.

Progressives need the gay-bashers to stay home, because the gay-bashers vote Republican (ironically, in light of recent events). The gay-bashers will go to the polls if they get a gay-bashing issue to vote on, like gay marriage.

I'm responding to this post a second because it's an important concept that people need to wrap their heads around.

I think the gay marriage issue ought to be dealt with very carefully with progressives. Having lived in Iowa for most of my life, I can say that there are a lot of Bible-beating wackos out there. While they are in the minority, the other "tolerant" part of Iowans just don't want gay marriage. It's a threat to their religious views. By the way, don't we already have "civil unions"? Can't another human enter into a contract with any other human regardless? Including power of attorney? Just asking.

Ben @ 28:

Can't another human enter into a contract with any other human regardless? Including power of attorney? Just asking.

Sure. But why should gays have to go to the trouble of contracting for all the rights that accompany marriage when heterosexuals can get those rights so easily by getting married?

Ok, here's the deal.

It's 2007. The generation (as a whole)that was running around stoned and naked at Woodstock espousing peace and tolerance is now about 60 years old---they are becoming "the old people".

Their parents, who are still as a whole more "traditional" are now about 80. As life expectancy is 77.6 or so, more than half of them should be gone now, and every year that goes by takes big digs out of the remainder of that cohort.

This is significant because the elderly vote in disproportionate numbers and are a political force to be reckoned with.....but you can see, "tradition" (and Bill O'Reilley's audience) is dropping in to be clients of the mortuary industry.

Now if you follow my reasoning, in about 5 years (to say a lame duck Democratic president), it will be like twice as easy to get this done. We fire it through congress, the Democratic president signs it, and the fundamentalist freaks (whose ranks will be diminished by progressive economic policies-lots of people turn to the jesus out of despair)....have two years to calm down and realize that the fucking world isn't going to end......just like it didn't when we allowed shopping on Sundays, African Americans to have civil rights, women to vote, etc.

Now conversely, should ya'll (and don't get the idea that I'm not sympathetic to those of you who have this as a primary issue) get pissy and don't turn out to vote for the Democratic candidate, we get four more years of giving the wingnuts the opportunity to destroy the ecosystem, economy, and our civil rights, plus stack the supreme court even further to the right...who will...you guessed it, possibly overrule a future law providing for gay marriage.

So there you have it. Choices are either "good possibility within five years" or "no way in hell".

If it makes you feel any better, there are some lacking freedoms that make me unhappy as well........I'm splitting to Europe until the US grows up.

V V

Rusty Shackleford @ 31:

Johnny @ 29:

Rusty Shackleford @ 6:

PNAAC Minister @ 3:
Progressives need the gay-bashers to stay home, because the gay-bashers vote Republican (ironically, in light of recent events). The gay-bashers will go to the polls if they get a gay-bashing issue to vote on, like gay marriage.

Great idea! You're right, the Dems should throw gays under the bus. What do the Dems need with the gay vote? I'm sure y'all will be able to win the election without us, so good luck with that. Feel free to shit all over us, it's the treatment we're used to from straights after all. Same 'ol, same 'ol.

Where did I advocate throwing gays under the bus? I think you misread my post.

I think you misread that I was responding to PNAAC Minister.

Shouldn't we be saying that Hillary shouldn't run because it'll offend misogynists, and Obama shouldn't run because it'll offend racists? Or is it only homophobes that we need to be catering to?

Johnny @ 35:

Shouldn't we be saying that Hillary shouldn't run because it'll offend misogynists, and Obama shouldn't run because it'll offend racists? Or is it only homophobes that we need to be catering to?

Q: Are misogynists a/o racists a voting block of any significance?

A: no.

People who are against gay marriage are though.

Further more gay marriage is an issue not a person.

CD @ 37:

Johnny @ 35:

Shouldn't we be saying that Hillary shouldn't run because it'll offend misogynists, and Obama shouldn't run because it'll offend racists? Or is it only homophobes that we need to be catering to?

Q: Are misogynists a/o racists a voting block of any significance?

A: no.

People who are against gay marriage are though.

Further more gay marriage is an issue not a person.

Gay marriage is an issue that represents homophobia. Someone who would refuse to vote for Hillary just because she's a woman, is a misogynist. Someone who vote refuse to vote for Obama just because he's black, is a racist. Bigotries of all types are usually shared among the same people. The same person who hates gays, will also tend to hate women and blacks. Even if there's more societal pressure to keep the latter two prejudices hidden. And that societal pressure would have no effect in the privacy of a voting booth. So your answer to your posed question is wrong, yes there are just as many misogynists and racists, a bigot is a bigot is a bigot.

The facts were known in 2002. We invaded in 2003. It is 2007. Why is it "news" four (5) years later about what reality was in 2002: "The President knew it was a lie"?

We should have had the chance to discuss this in 2002, before the invasion, not many years after the fact. This isn't oversight. It's rehashing history. This isn't governance. It's recklessness. What does this say about what the President "really knows" about Iran; and are we going to wait until 2012 before we 'discuss' the facts behind an illegal invasion of Iran? This should be on the table now. Impeachment would force this government to confront this President's reckless activity.

Bigotry is irrational hatred, there's no justifiable reason to hate someone just because they're black, or gay, or a woman. It's a form of insanity, someone who has an irrational hatred of one group, doesn't view any group they don't personally belong to in a rational matter.

And here they are getting married -- destroying all of Western Civilization with their love for each other.

Rusty Shackleford @ 23:

Ryoko @ 20:

Gays put Bush back into the white house in 2004. If it hadn't been for the gay lobby trying to force the gay marriage issue onto the front pages like they did, Bush would have had to run on his record (which sucked) rather than on "protecting family values" which acted as a distraction.

If gays had simply waited for a more favorable climate instead of trying for the power play, they might have gotten what they wanted a lot sooner in the long run.

Yeah! They were more concerned with their puny civil rights than they were with who would win the election. Stupid gheys!

You don't get it, do you? When gays decided to make marriage an issue, they gave GW a platform to run on in 2004. They shot themselves in the foot. If they had simply waited until Kerry was elected, they would have had better luck overturning the marriage. Instead, they empowered their worst opponent. It was a stupid political move on the part of gays which backfired badly and only served to strengthen the religious fundies power grab.

CD @ 42:

Johnny @ 39:

CD @ 37:

Johnny @ 35:

Q: Are misogynists a/o racists a voting block of any significance?

A: no.

People who are against gay marriage are though.

Further more gay marriage is an issue not a person.

Gay marriage is an issue that represents homophobia. Someone who would refuse to vote for Hillary just because she's a woman, is a misogynist. Someone who vote refuse to vote for Obama just because he's black, is a racist. Bigotries of all types are usually shared among the same people. The same person who hates gays, will also tend to hate women and blacks. Even if there's more societal pressure to keep the latter two prejudices hidden. And that societal pressure would have no effect in the privacy of a voting booth. So your answer to your posed question is wrong, yes there are just as many misogynists and racists, a bigot is a bigot is a bigot.

That's a nice bit of writing there but there is still no organized anti-woman or anti-black voting block in this country. There is those a very organized anti-gay marriage voting block out there and if anything connected to homosexuality is put on a ballot they will show up in droves and vote not just against that issue but every other liberal thing on the ballot whereas if there is no gay issue on the ballot only a few of them will show up.

Why do they have to be organized? All they have to do is pull the curtain on the voting both and make sure to vote a straight Repug ticket to punish the Dems for nominating "that bitch" or "that N-word." Who decides which group is expendable? Be consistent, or be a hypocrite. If you're going to advocate throwing one disenfranchised group under the bus, you have to advocate the same for all non-white heterosexual males.

Just as a heads up, there is no process for citizen-initiated constitutional amendments in Iowa, and the state legislature went blue in 2006 (for the first time since the late forties). So unless the Democratic legislature decides to put the amendment on the ballot, it will not be there for the '08 election (why would they want to shatter their newfound majority by drawing out all the R's?). Linked above is the full text of the constitution, or check the wiki article on Wisconsin's constitution. They have a similar amendment process.

So very little chance of the amendment reaching the ballot, is my wager. This whole event is exactly why I had to back away from HRC this cycle - we're giving them elections by asking for our rights, and people are dying. Enough.

Johnny @ 53:

CD @ 50:

Johnny @ 49:

CD @ 42:

Why do they have to be organized? All they have to do is pull the curtain on the voting both and make sure to vote a straight Repug ticket to punish the Dems for nominating "that bitch" or "that N-word." Who decides which group is expendable? Be consistent, or be a hypocrite. If you're going to advocate throwing one disenfranchised group under the bus, you have to advocate the same for all non-white heterosexual males.

For this segment of society to be truly effective their organizers have to tell them how to vote.

If the ringleaders openly say don't vote for him he's black they're toast.

The same does not apply (at this point) to sexual issues.

Come on, bigotry's not that complicated. Misogynist don't need to be told not to vote for Hillary because she's a woman, 43% of population say they would never vote for her. And while Hillary is quite unpopular with progressives for being too corporate/DLC, it's not progressives who are saying they would NEVER vote for her. If she were the nominee, we'd hold our noses and vote for her. That 43% is largely people who hate women. So by not catering to misogynists and throwing Hillary under the bus, we're left with a tiny margin of error in regaining the White House. That 7% of votes that are in play. Who decides that risk is acceptable, while risking a backlash from homophobes isn't? You aren't consistent, because it's more socially acceptable to express hostility towards gays, then blacks and women.

You don't know how politics works do?

[Deleted. Keep it civil]

CD @ 54:

Johnny @ 53:

CD @ 50:

Johnny @ 49:

For this segment of society to be truly effective their organizers have to tell them how to vote.

If the ringleaders openly say don't vote for him he's black they're toast.

The same does not apply (at this point) to sexual issues.

Come on, bigotry's not that complicated. Misogynist don't need to be told not to vote for Hillary because she's a woman, 43% of population say they would never vote for her. And while Hillary is quite unpopular with progressives for being too corporate/DLC, it's not progressives who are saying they would NEVER vote for her. If she were the nominee, we'd hold our noses and vote for her. That 43% is largely people who hate women. So by not catering to misogynists and throwing Hillary under the bus, we're left with a tiny margin of error in regaining the White House. That 7% of votes that are in play. Who decides that risk is acceptable, while risking a backlash from homophobes isn't? You aren't consistent, because it's more socially acceptable to express hostility towards gays, then blacks and women.

You don't know how politics works do?

[Deleted. Keep it civil. The flamewar ends here]

Yes, gays really need to sit in the back of the bus until it is a convenient time for them to beg for equality. They need to wait until the progressives have no opposition to their other more pressing causes.

I stood out there with the demonstrators before we attacked Iraq opposing Bush. I sent money to the Democratic candidates. I wrote the letters to the editors against these cretins who have been destroying our country. I share the same concerns other liberals do about the state of politics today. But I am not going to wait for the time to be ripe to demand justice. It is now.

Why did no one respond to Ben's batshit crazy question, " don’t we already have “civil unions?"

The answer Ben is NO. We don't already have civil unions in Iowa. We only have civil unions in two states in America.

As for any two people being allowed to make a contract, you really are one ignorant f*ck aren't you? It would take MANY thousands of dollars to get just a few of the 1,300+ rights that automatically come with marriage. Even then, ANY contract can be, and in gay partnerships OFTEN is, challenged and overruled in court on behalf of family members who had nothing to do with their gay child/brother/parent when they were alive.

I'm really stunned at some of the comments here. I hear people who call themselves progressives/liberals/Democrats arguing about how inappropriate it is for a law abiding, tax paying segment of our community to fight for EQUAL rights.

There is nothing more infuriating to me than being lectured by some asshole that is married (often to his/her 2nd, 3rd, 4th spouse) about how I need to stop fighting for the right to marry because the time isn't right.

If that's you, do me a favor and STFU!!!!!

Yes, it will.

And I am really sorry to say this, but so will Hillary if she's the nominee.

Gay marriage and Hillary will give the Conservatives renewed reasons to show up at the polls, rather than stay home, disillusioned with the Repiglicans. They will never vote with us, so we need to keep them home...

They want her to be the nominee, which is why they say she's "viable". They are scared of Obama and Edwards...because they can win.

Zeke @ 60:

There is nothing more infuriating to me than being lectured by some asshole that is married (often to his/her 2nd, 3rd, 4th spouse) about how I need to stop fighting for the right to marry because the time isn't right.

If that's you, do me a favor and STFU!!!!!

Amen Zeke, these people have so much nerve to think they have the right to lecture us about gay rights, when they've had their full civil rights since at least 1964 (for racial minorities) and since birth for whites. And hi from "the road", sweetie.

Gee, the Politico's spinning a situation where we've got 57% of the American public supporting equal marriage rights for gays into something harmful for Democrats?

That homophobic voter who's not already in the Republican camp is non-existent and the independents are now seeing portrayals of gays as normal - even good - people. Did you see the cheerleader's sidekick on Heroes?

It gives an opportunity for candidates to flub by trying to appease the religious bigots by not supporting equal marriage rights clearly, but it's already become an issue that the majority of americans supports gay equality.

CD @ 59:

candideinnc @ 60:

Yes, gays really need to sit in the back of the bus until it is a convenient time for them to beg for equality. They need to wait until the progressives have no opposition to their other more pressing causes.

I stood out there with the demonstrators before we attacked Iraq opposing Bush. I sent money to the Democratic candidates. I wrote the letters to the editors against these cretins who have been destroying our country. I share the same concerns other liberals do about the state of politics today. But I am not going to wait for the time to be ripe to demand justice. It is now.

You raise an interesting point.

Have gays as a group ever been forced to sit in the back of the bus?

In addition to being denied the civil right of marriage, until 2003 it was illegal in many states for gay people even to have sex with each other.

Have gays as a group ever been forced to sit in the back of the bus?

Lets see:
- When American troops freed the prisoners from concentration camps in Germany - they dumped the gays into other concentration camps and jails.
- Gays were subject to lobotomies and electro-shock therapy to try and 'treat' them.
- Gays were subject to arrest and imprisonment for loving their partners before Lawrence vs. Texas.
- Gays frequently have their partner's power of attorney challenged by family members and lose in court.
- Gays still can't enter into marriage or civil unions with their partners if they are serving in the military.

There's more, but I wonder, does injustice need to pass a certain threshold with you for you to consider whether it's an injustice worth addressing? Or is the fact that it's an injustice sufficient to address it?

Very few people cast their vote based on this issue, UNLESS there isnt a big divergence between the candidates on the war. Progressives can pick up alot of social conservatives if they promise to end the war. We saw in the last presidential what happens when the candidates DONT differ markedly on the war.

I have two more comments/observations to make.

First of all, racism and homophobia, are certainly not identical but that doesn't mean that they aren't closely related in foundation, source, purpose, practice and result.

I may have never been made to literally ride in the back of the bus. I freely admit that. As someone listed about however, there are many ways that gays are forced to the back of the bus in other ways. Here is another example. As far as I know, no black person has ever been thrown out of his home, and disowned by his parents because of his race. Black children, when verbally or physically attacked by racists in school, or on the playground or on the school bus, go home and tell their parents, who take action on their behalf, who fight for them, who hold them and commiserate with them, and share stories with them and tell them, "I know EXACTLY how you feel. I went through the same thing at your age but look how I turned out. You have my support. You'll be OK." What do gay kids, who face homophobic abuse at school, do when they come home to their homophobic parents? They suffer in fear and silence, take more abuse, run away or commit suicide. The people closest to them, their family, are often the people who abuse them, neglect them and harass them most. I know, that kid was ME growing up in Mississippi.

Does that in ANY way negate, diminish or trivialize the racism that African-Americans face. ABSOLUTELY NOT. In my case, being gay made me MUCH more understanding of the struggle of African-Americans, even though I was a well-to-do white kid in Mississippi. My experience pushed me to loudly and publicly challenge racism in a VERY hostile environment. I was a civil rights activist LONG before I was a gay rights activist.

My point with that rant is to show that you don't have to literally be put in the back of a bus to understand the CONCEPT of riding in the back of the bus.

My second point is this: Why does it seem that the focus here is to scold, chastise and blame gay people rather than to challenge why the Democratic Party has been such pussies in this “culture war” Why is the focus on getting the gays to sit down, shut up and stop stirring trouble with their pleas for equality and equal access GUARANTEED in our state and national constitutions; while continuing to volunteer and send their money of course. Why is the focus NOT on the fact that we should be able to fire up the Democratic base AT LEAST as well with a platform of fairness and equality as the Republican base can on the platform of discrimination and exclusion?

Does anyone really believe that the Republicans would have been so successful if the Democrats hadn’t run for cover, throwing the gays (one of their most loyal constituencies) under the bus AND letting the Republicans TOTALLY, 100% control the debate?

And you’re scolding the GAYS? SHAME ON YOU!

It seems to me that your beef should be with the spineless Democratic politicians and our apathetic, lazy LIBERAL base who can't seem to get the least bit fired up to support ALL tax paying, law abiding citizens’ right to full citizenship and NOT with the gay people who have the audacity to ask for their rightful piece of the pie.

Now, where do YOU go from here? Are you going to fight like warriors or tuck you tail between your legs and run away like a bitch AGAIN afraid of the religious right whose numbers and power have ALWAYS been over-stated. MOST of their power comes from the fact that they’ve convinced people that they’re powerful. Every time we have these, “Oooo, we’ve stirred up the big, bad, Bible thumping beast. WE’RE DOOMED, WE’RE DOOMED” discussions we perpetuate that myth.

I swear, sometimes I would give my left nut for just ONE Democrat with some frickin’ balls! I'm so sick of Chicken Little, "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" Democrats, I could spit.

Rusty Shackleford @ 68:

CD @ 59:

candideinnc @ 60:

Yes, gays really need to sit in the back of the bus until it is a convenient time for them to beg for equality. They need to wait until the progressives have no opposition to their other more pressing causes.

I stood out there with the demonstrators before we attacked Iraq opposing Bush. I sent money to the Democratic candidates. I wrote the letters to the editors against these cretins who have been destroying our country. I share the same concerns other liberals do about the state of politics today. But I am not going to wait for the time to be ripe to demand justice. It is now.

You raise an interesting point.

Have gays as a group ever been forced to sit in the back of the bus?

In addition to being denied the civil right of marriage, until 2003 it was illegal in many states for gay people even to have sex with each other.

and is that the back of the bus?

Johnny @ 75:

The "gays have never had to sit at the back of the bus" comment was outrageous. I mean how willfully clueless can you get, in a world this saturated with blatant, unrelenting homophobia, and someone has the nerve to act like they don't see any of it. Yes it's been just wonderful growing up gay in America "CD", thanks so much for asking.

Nice talking points kid but you have alot of growing up to do before anyone takes you seriously.

I have two more comments/observations to make.

First of all, racism and homophobia, are certainly not identical but that doesn't mean that they aren't closely related in foundation, source, purpose, practice and result.

I may have never been made to literally ride in the back of the bus. I freely admit that. As someone listed about however, there are many ways that gays are forced to the back of the bus in other ways. Here is another example. As far as I know, no black person has ever been thrown out of his home, and disowned by his parents because of his race. Black children, when verbally or physically attacked by racists in school, or on the playground or on the school bus, go home and tell their parents, who take action on their behalf, who fight for them, who hold them and commiserate with them, and share stories with them and tell them, "I know EXACTLY how you feel. I went through the same thing at your age but look how I turned out. You have my support. You'll be OK." What do gay kids, who face homophobic abuse at school, do when they come home to their homophobic parents? They suffer in fear and silence, take more abuse, run away or commit suicide. The people closest to them, their family, are often the people who abuse them, neglect them and harass them most. I know, that kid was ME growing up in Mississippi.

Does that in ANY way negate, diminish or trivialize the racism that African-Americans face. ABSOLUTELY NOT. In my case, being gay made me MUCH more understanding of the struggle of African-Americans, even though I was a well-to-do white kid in Mississippi. My experience pushed me to loudly and publicly challenge racism in a VERY hostile environment. I was a civil rights activist LONG before I was a gay rights activist.

My point with that rant is to show that you don't have to literally be put in the back of a bus to understand the CONCEPT of riding in the back of the bus.

My second point is this: Why does it seem that the focus here is to scold, chastise and blame gay people rather than to challenge why the Democratic Party has been such pussies in this “culture war” Why is the focus on getting the gays to sit down, shut up and stop stirring trouble with their pleas for equality and equal access GUARANTEED in our state and national constitutions; while continuing to volunteer and send their money of course. Why is the focus NOT on the fact that we should be able to fire up the Democratic base AT LEAST as well with a platform of fairness and equality as the Republican base can on the platform of discrimination and exclusion?

Does anyone really believe that the Republicans would have been so successful if the Democrats hadn’t run for cover, throwing the gays (one of their most loyal constituencies) under the bus AND letting the Republicans TOTALLY, 100% control the debate?

And you’re scolding the GAYS? SHAME ON YOU!

It seems to me that your beef should be with the spineless Democratic politicians and our apathetic, lazy LIBERAL base who can't seem to get the least bit fired up to support ALL tax paying, law abiding citizens’ right to full citizenship and NOT with the gay people who have the audacity to ask for their rightful piece of the pie.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda. It’s time to move forward with the reality on the ground. The marriage equality has been (I believe RIGHTLY) made. Where do we go from here. Where do YOU go from here? Are you going to fight like warriors or tuck you tail between your legs and run away like a bitch AGAIN afraid of the puffed up, paper tiger, religious right; whose numbers and power have ALWAYS been over-stated. MOST of their power comes from the fact that they’ve convinced people that they’re powerful. Every time we have these, “Oooo, we’ve stirred up the big, bad, Bible-thumping Beast. WE’RE DOOMED, WE’RE DOOMED” discussions we perpetuate that myth.

I swear, sometimes I would give my left nut for JUST ONE Democrat with some frickin’ balls!

Well it's a great post anyway, bears repeating!