A Gay For McCain

As we get closer and closer to Nov. 4th, it seems as if more and more of the water cooler discussions at work centers around the upcoming election.

I was in a meeting today when the topic surfaced and a colleague was once again ranting against John McCain. She feeds off of adversity and purposefully directed her tirade toward the sole Republican in the room. She ended by gesturing at me and saying, “Jerry, back me up on this!”

When I shook my head in protest, her eyes widened. “But you’re voting for Obama, right? I mean you’re gay!” When I told her I was voting for McCain, she gave me a condescending “oh, right” which translates into “oh yeah, you’re from Tennessee so you must be racist.”

I tried to explain I’ve never been a single issue voter and don’t plan to become one now. I enumerated the issues that matter to me in addition to gay rights, like the economy, national security and energizing small businesses, but she didn’t hear any of it.

I’m not sure which is more insulting, the thought all gays think exactly the same way or if I’m not voting for Obama, I must be racist. Or what about the assumption gays must naturally vote Democrat. Last time I checked, neither party is exactly beating down the door to usher in the time of great gay enlightenment.

It led me to wonder...how many gays and lesbians are supporting McCain this year and for what reason? Let us know!

Comments

[tycooko]

I'm not a single issue voter, too (though I don't think McCain shouldn't be voted just because he's homphobic), but human rights are the FIRST thing to be settled, not only in the United States, but they're a world-wide issue.
To perpetrate an immoral, old, disgusting and bigoted discrimination as homophobia is, is not a possibile choice and the person who does this must be rejected from a civil society.
It's even crazier than you vote people who don't want "your kind" to get married (it doesn't matter if you, personally, want to marry: I do. Do you want me to be free or not?).
Learn the meaning of the word "responsability".

[Donte]

In my opinion neither is truly right to run this country Mccain will die odds are before his term is up then we are screwed with palin. Obama seems wishy washy to me we are again having to vote for the lesser of two evils.Why you would want Bush Jr. running our country eludes me our country is in shambles from our recent president, and sadly to say im ashamed of being american... there i said it...we used to be bright intelligent people but no longer.

[Ken]

I know it's true that niether McCain or Obama is for full marrige equality But atleast Obama is alot more for gay rights then McCain would be, I also worry that If McCain died or just becomes physcaly/mentaly unable to serve as president we would be screwd with Sara Palin,she would be "The Wicked Witch Of The West" to the GLBT community. I think she is just a female version of Mike Huccabee-same views on homosexuality.

[corrective_unconscious]

Anyone using the phrase "a gay" is likely some sort of disingenuous moron-troll.

Or a McRage voter....

[tycooko]

I quote and agree with corrective_unconscious!!!

[Patricia]

I am voting Republican for the first time in my life. Here are my reasons. I think McCain will handle terrorism, the war and international relations more confidently, so I will feel safer than I would with Obama. I don't like Obama and btw....I am not a racist..He has no foreign experience, has run on his preachy sermon-like speeches and he couldn't throw his support behind Hillary Clinton, a decent candidate and also the first woman who had a real chance at the White House. Obama has not been held to anywhere near the standards that Hillary Clinton has been..or Sarah Palin. I do not like how the media has handled either woman. I don't like how my *feminist* friends get off on trashing Sarah Palin..I looked into her myself and I like her...she is refreshing and well....hot:-) I would like looking at her for the next four years as opposed to Joe Biden. I don;t feel like being lectured to by Barack Obama for the next four years..

I also am against abortion...just as the first feminists were. I would rather see the needs of women truly and honestly addressed and they might be with a woman close the Oval office. I also don't think a woman with four children will blow up the world. Thats my take on it..

[corrective_unconscious]

>I would rather see the needs of women truly and honestly addressed and they might be with a woman close the Oval office.

No they won't be, because stone age mentality, lying sociopath Palin opposes sex ed and birth control distribution to those populations who need it most: Such as her own daughter. (BTW, the anti "elitist," 150k wardrobe maven, Sarah Palin, also had her first child before marriage - these things really are, sadly, generational.)

Say, why don't you and your fellow two "feminist" Republikkkan women voters take up a collection to help Alaskan women pay for their rape kits, which the state won't pay for when they've been raped?

[petitgui]

Barrack Obama might have little experience concerning international relations, he is prefered to Mc cain in a vast majority of countries..
Bush made the world hate America and even in historical allied countries like most european nations nobody is actually really hoping that Mc cain will win.

Obama can make the rest of the world view America favorably again...Mc Cain elected would only make things worse... and the gap between gay rights in Europe and the US will only keep widening as more countries will grant same sex marriage or partnership..

Not a single gay voter in his full mental capacity should vote for Mc cain...
Palin is simply scary to most gays in the western world..

[Pacwriter]

While I can understand not being a single issue voter, when the single issue is your own humanity, it's a little baffling to see voters vote against their own interests and self-preservation. While McCain may not be for a Constitutional amendment against gay marriage, Palin is, and much of the Republican party--the social conservative wing--is strongly against gay rights (and anti-gay). Voting McCain because you think he'll be strong on foreign policy or the economy is analogous to a Jew voting for the Nazi party because he thinks they'll be strong on defense. What good is safety if you're treated like a second-class citizen--at best?

[McCain_supporter]

I think too many gay people focus on simply who the "gay friendly" candidate is. They don't seem to care about the issues at hand, the economy, national defense, taxes, etc. They only care about who is going to be gay friendly, and who does the gay media want them to vote for. I think its time gay people stop being selfish, pull their heads out of other people's @sses, and vote for the RIGHT candidate, not the candidate that views the constitution as a "book of constraints" and that has ties to domestic terrorism. I am proud to be a supporter of McCain-Palin 2008.

[Pacwriter]

Do you honestly think Obama would have gotten this far if he really had ties to domestic terrorism? That story has been debunked by numerous major media outlets, and Ayers has been a respected university professor for many years, long before Obama met him. In fact, several thousand professors nationwide have signed a petition supporting him and the work he has done in the decades since the Weathermen. People change. George Bush isn't still the cocaine user he was in his younger days, right? But putting aside the silly terrorism story, engineered to catch the attention of undereducated simpletons who hear the "trigger word" and go ape, let's return to the idea that voting for Obama based solely on the idea that he's gay friendly is selfish. One, many of us are voting for him based on a variety of issues. We think he will do a better job on the economy, stopping the free ride for the rich, and on defense, because he holds a more nuanced view of the world and its conflicts. On issues many of us care about, like healthcare and civil liberties, Obama's values more closely match our own. But two, is it selfish to value your basic human rights and dignity above all else? Really? That's selfish?

[Ken]

Well you have the right to support McCain,But as far as gays wanting someone who is gay friendly makes perfect sence considering the oppression that republicans inflicked on us over the last 8 years. As far as international affairs and expearaince,Obama has Joe Biden who has just much expeariance as McCain,Also Obama has carefully selected very smart people as advisers. stateing what someone posted, G.W.Bush ended up having other countrys hating us. And someone else mentioned that Palin who has 4 children won't blow up the world? Think again,she comes from a very rightwing fundamentalist church who preaches Armageddon so don't think that she won't get some insane vision in her head that God is telling her to push the button,she could be more of a threat to us then Terrorist.

[American Soldier]

I'm a soldier in the US Army, and with everyone always saying crap about the war, they never seem to ask the ones who have been there, and if they do, they only write about the negatives. I have seen the good we are doing over there, even if its taking time.. I'm voting for McCain because of his determination to continue what we are doing, till we are done. His stance on the national security is much higher than that of Obama. Hell as many of said, even Sarah Palin has more experience in executive areas than Obama. and Biden, has anyone paid attention to what he has sad over the last month? He's driller Obama into the ground stating, "America will be tested by a foreign nation upon his election" and in the VP debate, he couldnt get any facts straight from things that had happened/been said, to the Articles of the Constitution for god's sake. I'm proudly gay, and gay rights dont make up the whole issue on who should be president, cause if you are relying on the president to "free the gays", and not trying to help in the communities yourself, then there truely is no pride left...

[vince]

You know it's disheartening to see that gay men and women are attacked for not supporting Obama. I would have gladly backed Hillary Clinton, I think she would have made an excellent President. However right now I am stuck between a rock an a hard place. I do not like Obamam for several reasons the least of which is that he is highly supprted by terrorist organizations, I mean come on his best friend that he told all his aspirations to was responsible for September 11th. He attended a church of one of the most Black Supremacist men in the United States his whole life and his wife's colleg Thesis stated that African Americans should be put in places of power regardless of their experience over their caucasian counterparts with more experience. I am not saying that Mccain will do any better and Sarah Palin really has issues but I am not voting for Obama, there's just too much at stake, atleast with Mccain we'll live to fight another day, with Obama we won't be living at all.

[superboi1985]

Oh come on people, seriously. Obama!!

[Bill in florida]

Merriam-Webster defines Terrorism as a “systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion”.

We must fear other religious groups that will hurt us and take away our Christian country. We must fear Gays, who will destroy our country and our Christian morals. We must fear Liberals and Democrats, as they will destroy our country by removing our Christian morals and taxing Joe the (no legally qualified to be a) Plumber. And because we fear all of this, we should ONLY vote for Christian, Conservative Republicans, as only they can save us from the world. This, my friends, is terrorism. Making us live in fear. The tactic that the Bush administration, the Republican party, and radical Christian groups has been using for many years. These are the true terrorists, and John McSame is supporting them.

I have never been, nor will I ever be, a single issue voter. I have even supported and voted for Republican’s in the past. However, I cannot support a candidate who’s mandate is to restrict my rights, to “deregulate” big business, while regulating what I do in the privacy of my own home (Sodomy laws are one example people). I cannot vote for a candidate who supports giving special rights to one group of people, while taking basic rights and freedoms away from others. (Read Amendment 2 in Florida.) And I cannot support a party that has fought hard to drive a wedge to divide this country, just to promote their own self interests.

But after reading all the comments here, I have decided to change my vote and support McCain/Palin. What swayed me? The comments made by Patricia about Sarah Palin. “she is refreshing and well....hot:-) I would like looking at her for the next four years as opposed to Joe Biden.” This is the best reason I have heard so far to vote for McCain. Palin is a babe, and we need a babe as the next President. Hotness wins out over civil rights (not just for gays, but for everyone), the economy, national security, and all the other issues I thought were more important.

[Merle]

Here we go again......If your family/relationship does not come first in your life, you either do not have a relationship to protect or one not worth protecting. If the most fundamental aspect of your life, your relationships do not define you, then you have some FUCKED UP PRIORITIES. Ask any member of the "religious right" what defines them most and what motivates their vote and they will tell you "my family". The Uncle Toms who place politics above their family/relationship probably do not deserve rights. They are no different than any other anti-gay Republican. Fortunately they do little harm, no good and basically are autophobic contrarians rejected by a party they place before all else in their lives. "Faggot Uncle Tom" fits.

[OFC221]

I THINK OUR CAUSE WILL NEVER MOVE FORWARD AS LONG AS WE ARE IN THE TANK FOR ONE PARTY GROUP AND WE DONT DEMAND REAL ACTION AND REAL GHANGES--REPUBLICANS WILL NEVER ADVANCE OUR CAUSE BECAUSE WE NEVER VOTE FOR THEM...DEMOCRATS WILL NEVER ADVANCED OUR CAUSE BECAUSE THEY KNOW WE ALWAYS VOTE FOR THEM AND THEY HAVE OUR VOTE REGARDLESS...WE NEED TO DEMAND FROM ANY PARTY GROUP IF WE WANT TO MAKE SOME PROGRESS. BY NOT GIVING ONE PARTY OUR VOTE AND BY JUST GIVING THE OTHER PARTY OUR VOTE ALL THE TIME WITHOUT ANY ACCOUNTABILITY, IT ONLY SHOWS HOW IGNORANT OUR COMMUNITY IS....

[Tom]

I don't care who someone votes for. I respect our countries right to vote, with that being said the most important thing is that we ALL vote. We are lucky to be born into a country we get to choose our leader. All I ask is that as a gay comunity we vote. That is the only way our opinions are counted. PLEASE remember to vote, which ever cantidate you choice that right it up to you and you alone.

I personally would not mind paying more taxes, and feel voting from your wallet is wrong. We have the largest debt in history and that will not go away without paying more in taxes.

[Paul]

I concur with corrective_unconscious; any person who refers to himself as "a gay" isn't speaking a language I understand. There are, indeed, many issues at hand in this election, but as a tax paying, law abiding American Citizen who, because of my sexual orientation, can still be evicted from my apartment, or fired from my job, I personally find it imperative to put basic human rights at the top of my list of concerns. I concede that neither candidate offers perfect solutions, but the bottom line, history proven fact is that the Republican party offers me nothing in light of the fact that I am not a wealthy heterosexual white man. Vote as you will...I defend your right to do so, however, I also defend my right to say I told you so in the event that you get what you are asking for.

[OFC221]

WE GAY WILL GET OUR DAY IN HISTORY THEY DAY WE STOP BEING SO NARORWMINDED AND IGNORANT ABOUT ISSUES. REPUBLICANS WILL NEVER HELP THE GAY COMMUNITY BECAUSE WE HAVE NEVER GIVEN THEM A CHANCE. DEMOCRATS WILL NEVER HELP THE GAY COMMUNITY BECUASE THEY KNOW WE ARE SO STUPID THAT WE ALWAYS VOTE FOR THEM NO MATTER WHAT. THEY CAN GO DECADES WITHOUT HELPING THE GAY COMMUNITY BUT WE WILL STILL VOTE FOR THEM....
ARE WE TOO STUPID TO MAKE A STAND FOR OURSELVES AND START MAKING REAL DEMANDS....LETS STOP GIVING ONE PARTY ARE FULL SUPPORT UNTIL WE SEE SOME ACTION TOWARDS HELPING OUR GAY COMMUNITY... LETS TAKE A STAND AND DEMAND RESULTS..ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

[Johann_Ivan]

Yeah. Let's give it up for the "multi-issue" gay republicans:

Issues like the economy (how's that working out?)

Foreign policy (still waiting to be showered in flowers by the Iraqis)

War on terror (how's Afghanistan & Osama these days?) Pakistan?

Smaller government (HomeLand Security anyone? Too bad UPS already uses brown for their uniform color)

Hey, how'd those tax cuts work out, btw? Economy should be just about ready to explode, shouldn't it?

Less government regulation, anyone?

Oh wait, it's okay to give taxpayer $$ to corporations (They Create Jobs!) - so long as no strings are attached (such as tax breaks / subsidies revoked for outsourcing?)

Corporatism. It's dying. The question, dear Brutus, is how many shall it take with it?

Big Tent GOP, eh? Where do they keep the gays? Oh, that's right, out back.

Question: On what issue has Republican rule actually achieved results?

Answer: Tax cuts & streamlining pesky bidding processes by replacing them with no-bid contracts.

Hey! Gay "Threat to the American Family (TM)" Republicans: Get A Clue.

[Gregory - iconicscooter (gay.com)]

While not a popular consideration it might behoove many gays & lesbians to consider the FACTS that, while they disdain the Republican Party, the Democrats have done little to support their agendas over the years.

Consider that the Democrats now hold the majority in the Senate & the House.

Have you seen one piece of legislation going to the floor that endorses gay marriage?

Have you seen any legislation that would overturn The Defense of Marriage Act?

The answer to both of these is no. Isn’t this the “big” issue for us?

Moreover, who was it that signed the amendment making marriage between one man and one woman? Oh, that’s right, Clinton.

(http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act )

If this is the party that supposedly supports the community then why haven’t these important changes occurred?

Do you even care that with a majority of the house & senate for decades, the gay community has not benefited from Democrats?

Clinton could have gotten several bills passed in our favor before Republicans took over in 1994 but didn’t, why is that?

Have you asked yourself why Clinton had to compromise the military policy, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”?

Too often, and easily, the Democrats ask for your loyalty and the community is ever too willing just to turn it over.

If past behavior is an indicator of future behavior, then what have the Democrats done for you, personally, in the past to better your life as part of the community?

Maybe you identify with a candidate, with his or her being a victim of circumstance or another party’s behavior, we gays love our iconic victims don’t we – Barbra, Judy, Marilyn.

Reality: there are no victims, only participants.

Sure the Republicans have issues with gays, no doubt; certainly they need to mind their own business when it comes to abortion.

Getting government out of the business of marriage altogether would alleviate all these issues.

Marriage ceremonies would be symbolic and legal contracts for every person who wishes to make such agreements, gay or straight, could do so freely. Goats and bigamists would have to find their own special church for such symbolic ceremony.

However, turning your loyalty over to a party that has done little or NOTHING for you for decades doesn’t appear to be a very well thought out decision.

If you have distaste for defining marriage between one man and one woman, you’re really going to need the Pepto-Bismol when they define what “rich” is and that you fall into that category; that they define what “neighborliness” is which means you pay more taxes to pick up the tab for others in our nation who choose not to be productive; or what it means to “spread the wealth around” to other Americans without one bit of oversight as to the usefulness or success of your tax dollars.

Would you honestly invest your money in ANYTHING without oversight or outcome assessment?

As my ex-boyfriend loved to say, “Hell to the no”!

Before you turn over your vote to a party that claims to be liberal, but is anything but liberal with all their controls, regulations, pc language, speech code and constraints, you might consider just how important that vote actually is and if your loyalty has been to the wrong party.

What they’re NOT doing is so loud we can’t hear what they’re saying.

Perhaps you really want change, but the change you seek has nothing to do with the Democratic Party, which has done nothing, if little, to change your life.

You may think that someone else is to blame for your unfortunate lot in life, perhaps that government is the reason for all of it, but I tell you this: you are where you are in this life through a series of personal choices made since you were conscious of what making a choice was in life.

No one can save you from this reality but apparently you think the Democrats will.

Self-governance; self-reliance; self-evaluation; all lead to independence, freedom and choice. Sound familiar? It ought to; it’s what our nation was founded on.

If you claim to be informed, just how informed are you about those to whom you are loyal?

Are you really willing to give up this independence and relinquish your personal responsibility & accountability to Democrats? I guess if being a victim to others is your lot in life then this is right up your alley.

We love our iconic victims!

[Gregory - iconicscooter (gay.com)]

Look it up:

Here are two links showing who held the House and Senate in majority for decades.

And where's your gay freedom now to marry? Where's you military endorsements?

http://clerk.house.gov/art_history/house_history/leaders.html

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Majority_Minority_Leaders.htm

[Ken]

First of all not one person has told me what great accomplishments for gay rights were made under the last Democratic President? ... Silence...that's right there were NONE.

Also, what anti gay vitriol has John McCain espoused. Has he once campaigned against gay rights during this campaign? has Sarah Palin? In fact if we remember Joe Biden made it abundantly clear that he and Obama agree with Sarah Palin, no to gay marriage. Now I personally disagree with ALL of them and support gay marriage, which is why despite being a New Yorker have contributed to defeating Prop 8 in California. How many of you in here have done that? In fact only 20% of the gay population has given for to defend their own "human rights."

I won't address all the other ill informed and misguided comments on here against McCain because there isn't enough time in a day, but the ones that should "get a clue" are you liberal gays that throw your votes away without any actual conditions. One last point, I wonder how many of you actually would give credit to the Republicans that have fought to get gay rights advanced and have actually succeeded. If you think they're aren't any, then you're truly an ignorant bunch.

[Merle]

Pathetic Uncle Toms.

[Jeff]

Yes to Ken in the above statement. You are correct. Obama/Biden and McCain/Palin have the same views on Gay Marriage. Plus most people who vote Democrat on the sole reason that they are Gay, or Black, or Union is just showing ones own ignorance. I vote from the heart, I vote for the plan and the man or Woman. I do not vote on race, sex, or sexuality. I use my brain and I will vote McCain.

Use your brain, Vote McCain.

[Johann_Ivan]

Context: Gay Rights

Republicans: Fighting tooth and nail (see state propositions, rallying cries of defending the American Family from "teh gays").

Democrats: Not advocating "protecting" American Families (TM) from "teh gays".

Republicans: Identifying gays as a "threat" to American Families. (What do we do to threats, boys & girls?) - See Jessee Helms, et all.

Democrats: Not so much.

Verdict: Democrats - since they don't actively *oppose* us, tis better than supporting those who do actively oppose us.

Great Accomplishments? Republicans. For advancing the nonsense that gays are a threat to American Families.

Odd, how when Republicans identify someone (Muslims?) as a threat, no one questions their dedication at attacking said threat. Think about it.

[Johann_Ivan]

Republicans against gays? That's so 2004 - as indicated by their party platform of 2004: http://www.ontheissues.org/Archive/2004_GOP_Platform_Civil_Rights.htm

Clearly, the GOP has enlarged its "Big Tent" and is now a bastion of tolerance /snark.

Get Real.

[Johann_Ivan]

Someone should inform major GOP support organizations that the GOP has embraced tolerance.

Review the following - read what they say about homosexuality and then ask yourself if you believe your desire to be treated with tolerance (NOT marriage) will trump their opposite desires:

Family Research Council:
http://www.frc.org/human-sexuality

Concerned Women of America:
http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp?id=5014&department=CFI&categoryid=family

Southern Baptist Convention:
http://www.sbc.net/aboutus/pssexuality.asp

And the list goes on... try using Google sometime before you spout any claptrap about Republicans being tolerant or decrying "What have Democrats done for us?"

Here's what Democrats have done: They haven't made attacking homosexuals a central theme of their party. That's what.

[Dan]

I would normally vote Democratic as well, but I am having a hard time voting for someone who has so little experience. Obama does not have the experience or knowledge to be President. I like some views that McCain has, and I think (hope) he can be independent of the Republican Conservative Wak-jobs.

[Matt]

Well, I personally agree with this article. I am not a single issue voter, and I honestly believe that McCain is the right choice. Coming from a country that has been bound with socialist policies, it's easy to see that Obama is no different than those Socialist leader who wanted change, but then became dictators. I am tired of being the lone gay at the conversation who is republican. Now, I know I am not alone...

[David]

Seems silly to vote for someone based on gayness. Goodness. Expand your horizon. Voting for/against someone based on gay issues, says that's as deep as you go; that's all you got to offer the world...

Frankly, I care nothing for 'gay issues' in politics. I exist just fine, and if you need Obma to tell you that it's 'okay to be gay'... well, chances are you just aren't okay.

And as the author brought up regarding racism... recent news stories have been talking about how blacks voting for Obama cause he's black, are showing 'racial solidarity'; however whites voting for McCain cause he's white are showing 'latent racial prejudice'.

[mike the carpenter]

It is refreshing to see that the so called gay and lesbian folks on here are just has bigoted and ill informed as the general public!

OBAMA 2008 all the way.

[TheKenDoll]

Obama will raise taxes for social programs for lazy people and he he is one of the biggest afrocentrists ever. Afrocentrism is a way of people with nothing to be proud of in their history to steal other people's history!

[HCK]

I'm a gay for McCain, and I couldn't even begin to list the insults and names that have been lobbed at me in gay.com chatrooms. Until the gay community starts putting its votes up for grabs by either party, the gay legislative agenda will go nowhere. I'm not holding my breath.

[TonyWinPHX]

At the beginning of the election I said that I would hold judgement on who gets my vote until everyone has said their piece and we see how the issues lay out. There are several issues at hand, economics, international policy, taxes, and what most gays are concerned about, gay rights.

Now let's remember that running-mates share positions and let's see what they have to say:

Economics: This one is really easy right now. Tax and spend economics that takes money from middle america and distributes it to everyone (i.e., socialists) or trickle down economics that bolster cuts for business that create jobs and middle america to stay on their feet? If you said trickle down - you're thinking like a republican and McCain/Palin.

International Policy: This one is even easier. Given that we are in the middle of a war, whether we want to be there or not, would you rather have a commander in chief that has been to war and dealt with international leaders before, or a commander in chief that has never done a thing internationally or military in his life? IF you said experience is important - you are thinking McCain/Palin.

Gay Rights: I have never understood why Gays seem to only vote democrat during elections. Do Gay men and women think that if a democrat is president then it will be pink and purple roses, hand holding, marriage and skipping down the street? It sure wasn't during the Clinton Administration no matter how many blowjobs he got. Gay men and women never seem to want to look at the big picture when it comes to politics, and sure never want to give a republican a chance because they seem to think that republicans are all about the christian values and sending all gays to hell. Well get a load of this...

Obama has managed to successfully dodge the question on gay rights and gay marriage to win your vote. But the truth is he doesn't support either. McCain has at least been honest and said no to marriage, but would support civil unions.

Look at the Palin/Biden VP debate. Both were asked the question and we know what Sarah had to say, No. She doesn't support "Marriage" but supports "unions". Guess what Biden had to say...

THE SAME THING.

So it is important to look at the bigger issues because if you are voting democrat because you are GAY... you have had the big pink wool pulled over your eyes.

[Rob]

I would love to say that I'm for McCain and that I stand behind him but personally his homophobia really gets to me. I stand with alot of his other decisions but I'm really not sure what to do about the fact that he sees me as someone who doesn't even deserve a vote..

[Joe The Average Joe]

Elections are almost always a simple choice between the lesser of two evils -- this seems no exception. If there's not a candidate that I can fully stand behind, I don't cast the vote - at all. The fact that Bush was voted in twice, in spite of his extraordinarily poor performance on every front, indicates to me that faith in the electoral process is misplaced at best; we could have gotten to that same end by simply letting the vote of every chronic-know-nothing actually count. (Of course, the chronic-know-nothings probably already think their vote counts.) I am not apologetic for my opinion, nor am I alone in it. You all know someone just like me -- whether you know it or not probably only depends on how bent you are on shoving your own opinion down someone's throat for being different than your own.

[Johann_Ivan]

"If you said trickle down - you're thinking like a republican and McCain/Palin."

How's that little experiment working out so far? (maybe instead of 8 years we should give it 12? 16? 20?). I know, I know.. if we just wait long enough, trickle down will work! Hey, I tried that with the tooth fairy - he never showed up either.

"commander in chief that has been to war and dealt with international leaders before, or a commander in chief that has never done a thing internationally or military in his life?"

If you said "commander in chief with military service" you're thinking like a Kerry supporter.

"Gay men and women never seem to want to look at the big picture when it comes to politics"

Shame on them! I mean, hey, so what if Republicans claim gays are a threat to American Families, oppose hate crime legislation, adoption rights for gays, military service, or anti-discrimination laws for gays?

Sheesh. Those gays are just too sensitive. They need to just suck it up and say "thank you sir, may I have another?"

The absolute lack of any discerning intellect from the pro-GOP homosexual closet is mind boggling.

Economics? Looked around lately? Military engagements? Foreign Policy Experience (TM)? Iraq? Pakistan? Iran? Afghanistan? (or perhaps it should be renamed Kabul since that's the only relatively safe area)

Say.. speaking of Afghanistan, riddle me this: At what point does a city constitute a country? Answer: When it's the only city you exercise significant control over. Kabul anyone?

Trickle down works great. Just ask NASDAQ, NYSE, or any of the foreign exchanges.

Now, for 10 bonus points, answer me this: What do you get when you cross trickle-down economics (what Bush Sr. aptly called Voo-Doo Economics) with unfettered capitalism?

Answer: A socialist bailout of corporate America to the tune of 700 billion.

Good think we've managed to keep government off the back of American Companies. *whew*. What a roaring success that turned out to be - not since 1929 have things looked so grand.

[Alan]

I don't understand why there's a "hot button issue" with gays being politically conservative. Now granted most gay men and lesbians are flaming liberals, but how on earth does that give you the right to condemn those of us that think outside of the mold that society has put us in. Much like Jerry, I am not a single issue voter, there are a broad scope of issues that affect us all. Including national security, the economy, environmental protection and intergovernmental relationships just to name a few. Those of you that allow one aspect of this presidential race i.e. gay marriage , to dictate your vote are ill informed of the issues, their key points and how it might effect you lives in the future! Get out of your "gay bubble" and be TRULY open minded. Stop being scorned about being in the closet, what other people think of you (believe me I've been there and done that) and don't allow your sexuality to define your life and who you are. Furthermore marriage is first and foremost a RELIGIOUS tradition not necessarily a state sanctioned practice. Also marriage to me is nothing more than an out dated tradition that's set as some sort of bench mark that we must achieve in our adult life. Lets take a look at the statistics: 51% marriages in the United States end up in divorce! And Lord knows that the statistics are even worse for gay couples! People change partners almost as much as they I've change their underwear (that is if you do it on a regular basis). Personally I never need to get married, if I feel like I want to spend a good chunk of my life with someone, then hell yes I want to be able to have some sort of legal recourse if we break up and share mutual assets. So to allow that, I think that ANY ceremony that pertains to a "marriage like union" ,heterosexual or homosexual, should be called a civil union. That's a fair compromise to both sides of this argument, if you look at in terms of practicality and the seperation of church and state.

Additionally if you think that I am a fan of George W. Bush, you'd be sadly mistaken. I think that he is one of the most ill prepared presidents that has ever led this nation and PERPETUATED (not caused) the ever expanding crises that are gripping this nation. Iraq was a poor and hasty decision but we're there and must finish what we started. Afghanistan was a completely justified war and our presence there should remain for sometime in the name of national and global security. Regardless of your stance on these wars, remember the men and women who currently serve in these dangerous areas, they need our constant prayer and support!

Next, the credit crisis and the woes on Wall Street are partly YOUR fault. Those of you that put your life on credit cards and sub-prime mortgages are a generous portion of the reason that our financial markets are in a tail spin. Don't blame the government for your stupidity and lack of control! Get up, get a second job and pay down that debt! Stop being lazy and asking the government for a hand out when things get bad.

If people don't change, this nation never will, despite the promises of RADICAL "change" by the democratic candidate for president. Basically I could continue to go on, but by now I'm sure you get my point. Liberals stop being so narrow minded and judgmental. It's time to exercise your credo of "tolerance for everyone and everything". Stop showering those of who are free thinkers with hate because our views don't match yours. In the same respect conservative gays let you voice be heard! I respect your opinion, why don't you respect mine?

[Joe The Average Joe]

ROFLMFAO, Johann_Ivan

[Pacwriter]

The Obama economic/tax plan is being incredibly misrepresented in an attempt to frighten people.

America has always had a progressive income tax. Always. In other words, the more you make, the larger percentage you pay. Obama is not proposing some massive redistribution of wealth. He's merely suggesting that the wealthiest Americans go back to shouldering the same tax burden they had during the prosperous Clinton years.

Trickle down economics--namely, giving a tax break to the rich in the hope that it spurs investment and trickles down to the rest of us--has never worked. They tried it during Reagan, and it led to the recession during the first Bush presidency. And it's not working again. (Theory aside, no President ever cut taxes in the middle of a war. That was just silly.)

Here's why trickle down doesn't work. We all have certain things that we need to buy (food, clothes, etc). That's our subsistence spending. Then there are the things that we'd like to buy if we had that little bit extra (the video game, new TV, car, extra outfit, etc). That's our discretionary spending. Both subsistence and discretionary money go right into the economy, helping keep it strong.

But at a certain income level, people have no more discretionary spending needs left. In other words, they've already bought everything they wanted to buy. Sure, some money does get invested, but since most of the tax cuts are going to the extremely wealthy, that money just sits there--and the economy becomes sluggish at best.

Under Obama, we're not all going to be living on a commune. But the middle class would have a lower tax burden, so they can help kickstart the economy through their discretionary spending and investment. The rich? They'd just go back to paying what they were paying before.

Is it so awful, if you've got a boatload of money, to pay a bit more to help those less fortunate? Do you really need more money than you can possibly spend? I don't call that socialism. I call it social responsibility. And interestingly, it was during the Clinton years that millions were moved off the welfare rolls and into "workfare," where they had to make a meaningful contribution in order to receive benefits.

Of course, what a horror it would be to go back to those years of budget surpluses and economic prosperity...

[Joe The Average Joe]

Pacwriter: Also interesting -- when there's a surplus of money, it's called a "government surplus" -- but when there's a debt, it's called a "national deficit".

[Johann_Ivan]

Question: What was the tax rate during WW II?

Answer: 94% top marginal tax rate - remaining at around 90% until the Kennedy years. Yes, indeed, terrible times for America. Except, weren't those the "golden years" of America?

Don't Republicans want to go back to the "good old days"?

Gosh, we surely couldn't survive returning to Clinton-era levels of tax rates, could we now?

Perish the thought.

[Johann_Ivan]

Challenge:

Name one major Republican initiative during Bush's Presidency which has met with success.

War? Economy? Jobs? Cutting spending? Foreign Policy? Healthcare? Education? Energy? Smaller government?

Civil Liberties Patriot Act anyone? Land of the Free and home of the (TERROR ALERT LEVEL ORANGE) brave?

Or are those just "gay" issues?

Challenge II:

Name one major Republican initiative during Bush' Presidency which the Democrats successfully prevented and which would have surely saved America, won the war, and led to an economic revitalization not seen since the bad ol' days of the 40's, 50's, and 60's tax rates?

[Michael]

I don't like either party. John McCain lost my vote when he voted against the new GI bill. He said it causes people to want to get out of the military. The main reason most of us join is to get the educational benefits. We get shit on our whole enlistment and getting your bachelors degree is the light at the end of the tunnel. I separated from the Air Force in early October. Someone who was a POW wouldnt vote to help the veterans, and troops; instead of Helping them out for all of the sacrifice they have given in their enlistments, He votes against it. I hate McCain, And his campaign was even worse when he put Sarah Palin up for his Running mate. She is such an Air head. Anyway- Long story short, he lost my vote with that one move he made. I hope he loses his campaign and dies somewhere.

[Gregory - iconicscooter (gay.com)]

I love the idea that if you DON'T vote for BO you're a bigot and a racist.

I have news for you, if you vote FOR BO, you're a bigot and a racist, it just happens it's white people you happen to be racist and bigoted towards.

Nice try.

[ERIC]

AS A FORMER DEMOCRAT(LEFT IN 1992.)

I FOR ONE WOULD NOT BE VOTING REPULICAN FOR THE FIRST TIME, IF SEN. OBAMA (OR SEN. CLINTON)WAS NOT ON THE TICKET.

I'D BE VOTING LIBERTARIAN. AS IT IS; I WILL BE VOTING FOR A REPUBLICAN PRESIDENT.

IF THE DEMOCRATS WERE REALLY AS PRO-GAY AS THEY CLAIM; ILLINOIS WOULD HAVE BEEN THE FIRST STATE TO ALLOW SAME GENDER MARRIAGE. IT IS A DEMOCRATIC STATE.

THE DEMOCRATS HAVE HAD POWER IN THE CONGRESS FOR TWO YEARS NOW AND HAVE DONE NOTHING FOR GAY "RIGHTS". ANYONE HEARD OF D.O.M.A. ?

I SALUTE THE GAY SOLDIER FOR ALL HE'S (SHE'S)DONE AND FOR SPEAKING OUT !

[Kevin in Chicago]

Something to remember about the Defense of Marriage Act.

85 members or 85% of the Senate voted for it.

342 members or 78.6% of the House.

1 Democratic president signed it.

The Supreme Court consisting of 9 Justices has refused to hear any case challenging it.

12 active lawsuits in 6 states against DOMA, 1 in Federal Court.

Now...can you honestly tell me that either party or We the People REALLY give a damn about this subject?

Sure doesn't look like it to me.

Vote for the candidate that you feel is best suited to lead this nation, indivisible.

The choice is pretty clear for me. Some of you might actually have to THINK for a change.