Good times. That's what I call watching the once-powerful, Bush-voting American Theocrats as they slip into marginalization.

All three candidates have the same position regarding gay marriage, i.e. against "marriage" and for "civil unions". Personally, I'm 100% with what Sarge said in another thread -- get the government out of the marriage business entirely. I'd prefer if all "marriages" were civil unions under law, and "marriage" was something you did in a "church". I see no reason why two close friends shouldn't be able to benefit from the rights of civil unions if they decide to form a lasting household together.

Back to the topic: McCain is no different from Hillary or Obama on this issue. The bit about "activist judges" is just something he's started saying in the primaries to woo gullible conservatives. He threw that in for the rednecks, no joke. Can't wait until the press takes a close look at his ever-shifting stances over the years.

This is what McCain's website says. Note that he believes in marriage as ONLY the union of one man and one woman:

" As president, John McCain would nominate judges who understand that the role of the Court is not to subvert the rights of the people by legislating from the bench. Critical to Constitutional balance is ensuring that, where state and local governments do act to preserve the traditional family, the Courts must not overstep their authority and thwart the Constitutional right of the people to decide this question.

The family represents the foundation of Western Civilization and civil society and John McCain believes the institution of marriage is a union between one man and one woman. It is only this definition that sufficiently recognizes the vital and unique role played by mothers and fathers in the raising of children, and the role of the family in shaping, stabilizing, and strengthening communities and our nation.

As with most issues vital to the preservation and health of civil society, the basic responsibility for preserving and strengthening the family should reside at the level of government closest to the people. In their wisdom, the Founding Fathers reserved for the States the authority and responsibility to protect and strengthen the vital institutions of our civil society. They did so to ensure that the voices of America's families could not be ignored by an indifferent national government or suffocated through filibusters and clever legislative maneuvering in Congress."

Barack Obama opposed the Defense of Marriage Act and wants to repeal it, and he has voted consistently against the Federal Marriage Amendment. McCain voted for DOMA, and voted against FMA on the grounds that he didn't think any court would read into the Constitution any such right that "plainly doesn't exist." Now, there's a good chance he will be less doubtful of that possibility.

And, regardless of any of their prior stances, the question today is what are they going to do about it NOW?

That's the answer that's going to win the ballgame.

OK, so Obama and McCain differ on the DOMA. Otherwise, very similar in that they both support gay civil unions and both oppose gay marriage.

But I forgot to mention another point, which is that in a time like this, I predict "gay marriage" isn't going to be the rallying cry it once was. I know you and the other bible-thumpers can't wrap your heads around it, but most of us normal folk have more important things to worry about. If you guys plan to beat that drum, be prepared for a backlash from adults who are worried about grown-up problems.

Kerry,

If you think the majority of American's are one issue voters like evangelicals, your crazy. Most people are far more concerned about our 9 trillion dollar debt, all the money we are wasting in Iraq, the secrecy and corruption of the Bush administration, the crashing economy, sky rocketing food and oil prices....then they are about what .5% of the US population is doing in or outside their bedrooms.

Put more simply if someone worries more about gays doing the bump and grind, then their own security and putting food on the table, then you have a clinical disorder. Actually those who worry about what gays are doing in good times, let alone bad times have a clinical disorder. Their impact on society is next to zero! Ziltch, and my concern about them ranks as such. I worry more about those who would tie them to a fence and bash their brains in because of some over the top phobia.

Kerry,

Oh and in answer to the question about whether American's are stupid or not. As I said above, sometimes they are, and I have proof. All you have to do is look at the US economy and stock market. If American's were smart all the time, we wouldn't go through constant boom and bust cycles, and we wouldn't have to have the Federal Reserve come in to prevent a financial collapse because stupid banks loaned stupid people way to much money to buy way over priced houses in California, Florida, Nevada and God knows where else. If American's were always smart they would have listened to people like Warren Buffet who said people were crazy for the astronomical prices they were paying for tech stocks right before the Dot.com bust. And of course then there are all the stock market geniuses, and economists out who continue to profess that the capitalism and the markets will be fine without regulation, because they regulate themselves...despite the fact that its obvious they don't regulate themselves, because the Fed always has to come in and save our assess when the market crashes...(ie fails to regulate itself).

So seeing this example of people playing the markets to the extremes (extreme pessimism or extreme optimisim), is it any wonder that America as a whole can get way to conservative or way to liberal for its own good? Damn straight it can. Bush sold the American public the best line of bullshit in history...and as a result we are 9 trillion in debt, we're hated by the world, our economy is on the brink, we are dependent on a resource coming from totally unstable companies, foreigners own the car market, the tech market. We have the most expensive health care systems, and yet it it ranks below many in the developed world. And we are in a world more unstable than it was on 9/11 and we have little to show for the billions we spent. And we are farther away from solving the Israeli problem, or killing Bin-Laden then we were under Clinton. And we have no bargaining power against Russia or China, the real problems to worry about, because Iraq and Afghanistan have us over a barrel.

This whole thing is silly. If Joe and Steve are two consenting adults who want to get married, go for it. The argument that gay marriage will clear the legal road for pedophilia, This whole thing is silly. If Joe and Steve are two consenting adults who want to get married, go for it. Trust me, when I marry my beautiful fiance next year, I won't be thinking about Joe and Steve!

But I'm afraid this will be a powerful campaign issue for the conservative base. Hell it worked for Bush in 2004. As soon as he said Kerry will marry gays the wheels fell off his campaign. My mother, a lifelong democrat, voted for Bush in 2004 because of the gay marriage issue.

Sadly the inconvenient truth of the hard working, but hardly educated flyover country living people in places like West Virginia, Ohio and parts of Pennsylvania that have antipathy for anyone unlike them is a reality that could cost us the election.

Excuse the spelling and grammatical errors on my previous post. It's hard trying to type and play with my 4 year old twin nephews at the same time:)

Sadly the inconvenient truth of the hard working, but hardly educated flyover country living people in places like West Virginia, Ohio and parts of Pennsylvania that have antipathy for anyone unlike them is a reality that could cost us the election.

No offense, but I think if anything costs "us" the election, it will be attitudes like this. You can't afford to generalize like this; sweeping statements against any other group this large would be (rightly) considered unacceptable and just plain wrong. This kind of prejudice infuriates these "hard working Americans", and is part of what causes them to throw their lot in with those (GOP) who seem to know them better. Just as with minorities and the democrats.

Funny you would specifically name places where Obama did poorly, as though that was evidence that these are all cross-burning rednecks. Frankly, I can't stand that kind of race-card-playing and tea-leaf-reading, no matter what side of the isle is perpetrating.

When someone says he can read my mind, I call him an idiotic charlatan. When she says she can read the minds of public figures she has never met, I call her Kerry. When someone says he can read the minds of millions of people he hasn't met, I call him a pundit. You, my friend, are dangerously close to punditry.

Leantotheleft,

What's funny to me about homophobes like Kerry, is they will go after things like gay marriage until their last breath, even though that never has or ever will stop gays one from existing, and two committing the acts that make homophobes squirm. No legislation on earth is going to stop the genetic reality of homosexuality, just like you can't stop hermaphroditism. If you want to stop either of these, you have to look up and ask God why he would create these types of people and then codify their discrimination and persecution in the Bible. These people cannot, and should not be asked to control an urge that "straight" people can't even control themselves...if they could control it the human race wouldn't exist.

And such a high percentage of sex starved priests wouldn't turn into pedophiles.

No legislation on earth is going to stop the genetic reality of homosexuality, just like you can't stop hermaphroditism.

Well... this is an interesting topic, and my own theory is that things are bit more complicated than either of the two most common stances. I'm by no means a scientist, but this is what I think is consistent both with the research I have heard about and what I've observed:

First of all, I believe that male homosexuality and female homosexuality are fairly different things, not just mirror opposites... however, since that may be true of male and female heterosexuality to begin with, that shouldn't be surprising.

Anyway, I think almost all male homosexuality is physiologically determined, if not genetically. Current research suggests that the hormone balance in the mother's womb has a big effect on hetero vs. homo. For instance, the order in which the kid is born and the age of the mother seem to be contributing factors.

I think these kids are hardwired to be gay from the get-go. There are male and female versions of this, but I think female sexuality (on both sides) tends to be more plastic. Whereas I think most men are hardwired to primarily straight or gay orientation, women are more prone to change in this balance over time, and are far more liable to be truly bisexual. I think bisexual men are fairly rare.

In addition, I think there is a form of homosexual behavior that is essentially the result of a gay "fetish". In other words, I think it is possible for straight people to be attracted to the same sex in a fetishistic way, not unlike any other kind of fetishistic attraction to what is normally not especially attractive. This may be the only form of male bisexuality, other than self-denying homosexual "agnostics."

This "fetishistic homosexuality" is what certain conservatives are most afraid of. Many of them believe that it is the only kind of homosexuality, and there is nothing (besides faith) to prevent almost anyone from falling prey to it. Since this behavior is innately sinful, this is what the most hysterical bible-bangers are most concerned about. To them, it is a "back door" attack on morality, pretty boys and girls sent to corrupt their children.

My own view is that it is rare, with limited broad appeal (you can't induce a foot fetish in me, for example) and limited depth (it's not the same thing as 'true' homosexuality). In case you're curious, no, I don't have a "gay fetish" -- this is speculation. Of course, since I don't subscribe to the particulars of judeo-christian morality, I find homosexuality of all kinds to be a little bit gross, amusing, weird and mostly harmless... kind of like trekkie conventions.

Oh, but in the case of lesbians, then I'd have to say yes, if they are open-minded, they can be recruited, especially if they are dissatisfied with men. So guys, it's up to us to keep our ladies straight... those lesbians are always waiting for us to slip up...

"Oh, but in the case of lesbians, then I'd have to say yes, if they are open-minded, they can be recruited, especially if they are dissatisfied with men."

Wow. Now THERE'S a research report from the University of Male Chauvinism. Thanks, Doctor.

BTW, I'm not talking about right and wrong here; I will, but the article isn't about norms. It's about political realities.

All I'm saying is that if you run the electoral college numbers, you can win the presidency on this issue, alone. With room to spare.

Tell me you believe Obama can win the states he won in the primary in the general--states like Idaho, North Dakota, Utah, Wyoming. I don't see them helping.

And the fact is that Hillary won 8 of the 12 states you can win the election on (220 electoral votes), and Obama only 4 (64 electoral votes). That means he would have to roll in a lot of little states that he won in the Democratic primary that he won't get in the general.

Add a gay marriage problem into that, with Obama having to make a clear statement that doesn't alienate religiously conservative blacks or funding-rich gays, and you have another explosion of chaos in the party.

If Obama as candidate chooses to ignore this issue, he will be ignoring an army that's already ready to fight on this issue. There are no IRS regulations against sermonizing on moral issues, and this is a clear one. They don't have to say his name to make it clear he's wrong for the moral health of the country.

Even if McCain chooses not to stand with the traditionalists (which is a little up in the air), unless Obama moves to the right of McCain (which he can't, because the gay activists would slaughter him), McCain will win anyway.

And don't be too reliant on polls in this kind of climate. Really conservative Christians don't participate in polls. They don't answer the phone. They don't like to talk to pollsters. They just do what they do and get on with it.

Now THERE'S a research report from the University of Male Chauvinism.

Huh? I was being a bit funny with that part, although I do literally think that women have a more plastic sexuality. I don't think it's chauvinist to believe that.

It's about political realities.

I know, but I wanted to talk about something else. I had said all I wanted about the "political reality."

Let's put it this way: do you think anybody who was an Obama supporter already is going to have a big problem with his stance on gay marriage? And do you think that McCain, with his nearly identical stance, is going to be able to play off that to increase turnout? No and no, have a nice day.

"do you think anybody who was an Obama supporter already is going to have a big problem with his stance on gay marriage?"

Yes, a huge one. African-American evangelicals are not going to follow along quietly into the rainbow future. There are a lot of blacks who find the putative connection between civil rights and gay marriage absolutely insulting and disgusting. Unless they believe that neither Obama nor McCain can possible do anything about the rising tide of immorality, they will not vote for someone who promises to let it keep rising. And Obama can't afford to say anything but. And bear in mind that African-Americans don't vote proportionally to their population numbers, which are small and nationally diluted to begin with.

"And do you think that McCain, with his nearly identical stance, is going to be able to play off that to increase turnout? No and no, have a nice day."

Yes. Because McCain is a staunch pro-lifer, and his claim to believe that marriage is ONLY between one man and one woman is a lot more believable than the lukewarm "respect" the already morally suspect Obama has for the Court's decision.

Obama can't afford to abandon his strong gay sponsorship. McCain can't afford not to abandon his weak one.

If Obama comes out against gay marriage, after the Court has said civil unions is not an option, he will lose his gay following (which, by the way, is not as strong as Hillary's) and all the money it means (along with the ancillary backing of radical women's groups and the far left which will tear him to pieces). If McCain does, he will strengthen the base and assuage some fears that he might be more "moderate" than party needs him to be.

I predicted this a long time ago. The Democratic party (and Obama in particular) is going to have to choose between blacks and gays to bring home this season. Will they go for voters or for money?

Hi Kerry,

You've posted four articles on this site in the month of May. Three out of the four have mentioned gay relationships - and two of those three seem to be totally about lesbians and gays. If this is what you are focused on in one of the hardest fought battles for the democratic nomination in modern times, while your country is at war in two other countries, with a prsidental race getting ever closer and the world economy going down the pan you have got your priorities completely lost.

I'll say it again the bible has about 3 mentions of lesbians and gays in the whole book - none attributed to Jesus. Yet lesbians and gays are what you highlight. In an incredibly bust month politically with very little activity on lesbians and gays again you focus on them. You are pushing your own prejudices and hiding behind your religion and politics to do so. If you are a genuine reflection of a group of the electorate I'd say that's pretty woirrying. No wonder you have people picketing military funerals with God hates fag signs, you have a news anchor who resolutely won't come out and your of highest profile actor and actress who are lesbian and gay one has just started to come out and the other move to the UK.

You still have homophobic murders in your country (and not exactly many murders where the victim is straight and a gay person killed them because of it) yet you continue to advance prejudice and not once I have I seen a homophobic murder under the coddling criminals group of articles on this site.

To me the right should attract lesbian and gay voters compared to the left, because of their tenant of not interfering in things that do concern them, yet so many on the right can't follow through their alledged politcal analysis because of their own prejudice.

Wb,

You seem to attribute "conservatism" only to the libertarian or economic strain. The faction of conservatism known as "moral" conservatism is much more important in American elections. Americans have not adopted the moral laissez-faire so popular in Europe, largely because it has not completely lost its religious underpinnings, as Europe has.

"yet so many on the right can't follow through their alledged politcal analysis because of their own prejudice..."

The "alleged political analysis" of moral conservatism does not follow your template. Part of their "political analysis" is the value judgment that immoral activity is a significant threat to the national interest. There is nothing illogical about their conclusion that gay marriage is an important issue to pay attention to.

The people who answer the survey questions "attend church once a week or more" (more than 40% generally, and over half if you stretch to a few times a month) are still very important on election day, and they are not interested in changing the traditional definition of marriage.

As to this:

"You have a news anchor who resolutely won't come out and your of highest profile actor and actress who are lesbian and gay one has just started to come out and the other move to the UK."

I have no idea who you are talking about here, and I can't imagine who would be the "highest profile" actor and actress.

"If this is what you are focused on in one of the hardest fought battles for the democratic nomination in modern times..."

Yawn. Either way, they still end up with a liberal Democrat, who is tremendously unqualified to be the president of the United States. What shall we say about them? Other than the overrepresentation of Democrats generated by Operation Chaos, I don't see what there is to say about it. I've said what I've said, but I don't think much of it rates a whole article.

"while your country is at war in two other countries..."

Again, that's not news.

"with a prsidental race getting ever closer..."

Oh, please. Talk to me after the conventions. The race isn't "closer" until after Labor Day.

"and the world economy going down the pan you have got your priorities completely lost."

That's your opinion. My opinion (and I have a lot of history to back it up, not to mention the experiences of the last two elections) is that the key issue in November is in fact going to be gay marriage. Go back and look at what I said before the 2004 elections. I was right, and I was right about WHY I would be right.

"You still have homophobic murders in your country (and not exactly many murders where the victim is straight and a gay person killed them because of it) yet you continue to advance prejudice and not once I have I seen a homophobic murder under the coddling criminals group of articles on this site."

Ooh, yes, let's talk about that. How "many" do you think "many" is? According to the 2006 "hate crime" statistics, there were 7,720 "bias incidents" that year. (Personally, I don't think that qualifies as much of a "problem" to begin with, in a nation of 300 million people).

Of those, 15.5 percent were caused by "sexual orientation bias" (that would be 1,196), whereas 18.9 percent were motivated by "religious bias." That would be 1,459.) More than half were motivated by race. And of those religious bias crimes, two thirds were against Jews.

And, by the way, in 2006 there were a total of ZERO sexual orientation-motivated murders.

So I don't think you have any idea what you are talking about.

Kerry,

Did you know its be shown that nearly half the people who fill out survey's regarding their church attendance lie about how often they go out of guilt. All you truly know is that you have a bunch of bigots who lie on church attendance survey's out of guilt and obviously hypocrisy.

Indeed, the 50% figure is true. You may have noticed that I did not claim that they went to church, only that they "answer the survey questions" that way. We know a great deal about those who answer those surveys--much more than we know about people who actually go to church, and about whether or not they do.

However, I am not merely talking about the number of people who claim to go to church. I am talking about the number of people who claim to go to church and who IN FACT vote. Those are the people (whether they actually go to church or not) who both vote conservatively and vote against legislation to permit gay marriage and for legislation to protect traditional marriage. Even if we take the church attendance question entirely out of it, we still have HUGE majorities in states containing 323 electoral college votes that have ALREADY expressed their opposition to gay marriage, as recently as 2004.

Unless something has markedly changed, those numbers have real impact.

In case that got too complex, let me make it clear. It does not MATTER whether they actually go to church or not, for the purpose of the statistical correlation. The people who SAY they do (for whatever reason) also have particular opinion stats and voting behavior, and they oppose gay marriage, on paper and on election day.

And the fact is that Hillary won 8 of the 12 states you can win the election on (220 electoral votes), and Obama only 4 (64 electoral votes). That means he would have to roll in a lot of little states that he won in the Democratic primary that he won't get in the general.

Kerry,

Going back to one of your earlier comments. The mistake you make in the above observation is that the majority of Hillary supporters (or at least enough) are either going to stay home or vote for McCain. I seriously doubt that the short term ego bruising that Hillary supporters are suffering from is going to make them stay home, or vote for McCain, especially if the Democrats are able to paint McCain as Bush term #3, and with the regularity Bush keeps sticking his nose in the campaign, the less likely McCain is going to be able to separate himself from Bush. Plus, McCain is in a very bad spot, he has to bring together two very different groups, his traditional base, and moderates. And these groups are so widely disparate in what they want, that in appealing to one group he is going only going to piss off the other.

The democrats on the other hand don't have that problem. The moderates have seen what extreme conservatism results in (did you see the toothless tiger we have become on the world stage with Bush's little middle east visit), that they won't mind a little shift to the left, and that is exactly what the polls everywhere are indicating, from Bush's poll ratings, to polling on individual issues. American's in general are more confident that Democrats will get us back on our feet. The only way you guys will win is to change that perception, and since you've had 7 1/2 years to screw it up, I doubt you will repair it in 6 months.

"The mistake you make in the above observation is that the majority of Hillary supporters (or at least enough) are either going to stay home or vote for McCain."

No, I'm not assuming that. I'm assuming that Hillary can win all the states she already won, and Barack can win all the states he already won. If so, Hillary has the better shot at winning the election.

"I seriously doubt that the short term ego bruising that Hillary supporters are suffering from is going to make them stay home, or vote for McCain..."

Then you don't know women very well. This is an insult to women, and it hurts. There are a lot of true believers for Hillary out there who may vote for the man who stole her office, but they aren't going to do much work for him.

"especially if the Democrats are able to paint McCain as Bush term #3..."

which they can try, but the very "maverick" nature that so infuriates the conservatives will give the lie to that.

"and with the regularity Bush keeps sticking his nose in the campaign..."

Bush generates money. Tons and tons and tons of money. There are those who are wild about Bush, and they need to be on board. Don't worry--McCain will be made his own man. No question about that.

"the less likely McCain is going to be able to separate himself from Bush."

All McCain has to do to separate himself from Bush is google "McCain +Maverick," and publish the results (I just found 307,000. Whereas "McCain backs Bush" gets 762.)

"Plus, McCain is in a very bad spot, he has to bring together two very different groups, his traditional base, and moderates."

And the far right will come for the gay marriage issue, the abortion issue, and the war--and swallow the immigration and global warming messes with a grim face. The moderates already like him. And once they see what far-left kook fringe nutballs the Clintons and especially the Obamas truly are, they will run to the ballot box with joy.

"And these groups are so widely disparate in what they want, that in appealing to one group he is going only going to piss off the other."

That's where his Senate experience comes in. It's all about putting together coalitions. And this one is going to work. Because the far right are more concerned about the moral issues, and because the moderates are pragmatists who don't really believe in their heart of hearts that McCain will bow to the far right when he gets in.

"The democrats on the other hand don't have that problem."

The Democrats can only WISH they had such simple problems.

"The moderates have seen what extreme conservatism results in (did you see the toothless tiger we have become on the world stage with Bush's little middle east visit), that they won't mind a little shift to the left, and that is exactly what the polls everywhere are indicating, from Bush's poll ratings, to polling on individual issues."

Congress, polls worse than Bush. And when the socialist tendencies of the Obamas are fully exposed, he won't have a chance of winning over libertarians or independents.

"American's in general are more confident that Democrats will get us back on our feet."

That's because they have no idea what the Democrats are planning to do. When the party is pressed, the American people will be revolted and revolt.

"The only way you guys will win is to change that perception, and since you've had 7 1/2 years to screw it up, I doubt you will repair it in 6 months."

Just wait. You ain't seen nothing yet.

Kerry,

The country already knows what Hillary means, there are no surprises there. And Obama isn't that much different. And they know what 4 more years of Bush means, and the polls show they want a democrat. You can't hide from this fact...plain and simple.

As for woman feeling betrayed...please! Get over it already. If your hurt feelings drive you that much that you forget the reason you went to the polls for a Democrat to begin with, you weren't that strong of a voter to begin with. But I doubt many are that shallow. They are going to the polls to prevent another George Bush, and a flip flopper like McCain. McCain may have been a maverick at one time, but he's also become an ass kisser. I can't count the number of "republican causes" he used to oppose when he wasn't a presidential contender that he now all of a sudden embraces.

There was a time I actually would have voted for McCain as president, but that was back when he was a real moderate, but he isn't one any more. He's become what most voters fear, a bought politician.

Kerry,

I also love your comment about Bush and his money raising ability, in light of the fact that Democrats, despite all their warring amongst each other have a war chest 2-3 times the size of republicans at the moment.

of course this has alot to do with the fact that despite pouring millions into districts once firmly in republican hands, they still lose to democrats. I'm citing here of course the three special elections that republicans have lost in deeply red states.

Kerry, brit is right: you're obsessed with gay sex. You're out of step with the mainstream, which is fine, but it's clouding your ability to analyze what OTHER people care about. There are bigger fish to fry this year, and the distinction between McCain and Obama is vague and small. The idea that this California decision will force democrats to choose between blacks and gays is laughable. I know you belong to a vocal minority (bible-bangers), but you have to see beyond that to imagine what healthy Americans might be thinking.

"Kerry, brit is right: you're obsessed with gay sex."

No, I just haven't had time to write much this month, and this issue deserves both the announcement of the decision and a more argumentative opinion piece.

"You're out of step with the mainstream..."

No, I AM the mainstream, on this issue. The majority of Americans consistently say in polls and survey that gay marriage should be ILLEGAL. The voters of states constituting 323 electoral votes have actually VOTED that way (a point that cannot be emphasized enough).

By the way, when arguing over whether the performance of Democrats in the Democratic primary augurs well or poorly for their performance in the general, we should keep in mind that the Democratic delegate count has very little connection to the electoral college.

Democrats Abroad, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam have no votes in the general election, but they do have convention delegates. So none of them count. Also, the process disproportionately rewards districts that have delivered votes to the Democrats, a situation that is not replicated in the electoral college. And with Superdelegates, the number of overall delegates is heavily affected by how many Democrats are already in power in that state. That makes sense, if you are trying to pick the "Democrats' Democrat," but it doesn't provide much help in handicapping the general election.

The electoral college math is much easier to do than the Democrat delegate math. Don't be deceived by the mess they've made. A person can win the presidency with just 12 states, most of which Obama couldn't even win against Hillary, and McCain can.

"which is fine, but it's clouding your ability to analyze what OTHER people care about."

I can analyze whatever you like. It's my choice of subject you are objecting to.

"There are bigger fish to fry this year, and the distinction between McCain and Obama is vague and small."

I totally disagree. On both counts. Do not forget the election of 2004. Do not forgot Ohio. Those folks didn't vote in 2006; they will be there in November, especially in California. The rising tide will be resisted, and the battle will be joined in November.

"The idea that this California decision will force democrats to choose between blacks and gays is laughable."

No, it's historically predicted. Democrats have successfully maintained their African-American base, small as it is, in part by not giving completely in to the more radical elements of the gay rights movement. The gay activists have been patient and waited for their moment, expecting to be rewarded, and understanding the danger it is for any national politician to be too gay-friendly. But this year, there is both the chance to elect an African-American and the need to hold back another raft of traditional marriage protection (you'll excuse the expression) "proposals."

They don't have the luxury of placating both this year. They have to pick one.

"I know you belong to a vocal minority (bible-bangers), but you have to see beyond that to imagine what healthy Americans might be thinking."

Values voters were the key bloc of the 2004 election. And that is why. Like it or not, it's the historical truth the Democratic party has to grapple with.

The majority of Americans consistently say in polls and survey that gay marriage should be ILLEGAL.

Yeah, they just don't care as much.

It's my choice of subject you are objecting to.

Really? Then you haven't read a fucking thing I wrote. I'll TELL YOU what I'm objecting to, and that's your dumbass thumpin'. What kind of moron are you to tell me what I'm objecting to, and then be wrong about it? You really take the prize.

"As for woman feeling betrayed...please! Get over it already. If your hurt feelings drive you that much that you forget the reason you went to the polls for a Democrat to begin with, you weren't that strong of a voter to begin with."

That's what they always tell us. "Wait your turn." "Let him go first." "Next time, honey." "Don't be so emotional." "Be a good soldier, girl. It's for the good of the party." And, of course, "being a woman has nothing to do with it."

Sorry, but ask Susan Estrich. That kind of treatment resonates with women. Not even just Democratic women. There is an underlying sisterhood that does know what those words usually mean--because they usually mean less, or later, or never.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,356543,00.html

Here's the key part:

"For many women, Hillary Clinton was not just another candidate, and the fact that this campaign has been drenched in sexism has only made that identification stronger. Watching Hillary take a beating and come back, watching mostly (but not entirely) male reporters and pundits demean and dismiss her, question her motives, her appearance and her sexual orientation, has brought home for many women not how far we've come, but how far we have to go. Seeing the vigor with which some, starting with the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America, pounced on Clinton's victory in West Virginia to try to push her off the stage (since when do people demand that the winner quit?), has produced far more anger and resentment among women than Obama's reference to Ms. Agar as "sweetie." There is nothing sweet about the way Hillary has been covered in this campaign, about the way she has been attacked, about the meanness and mean-spiritiedness that has been in evidence from the beginning. If women didn't understand why we need a woman President when we started this march, a good many of them surely do now."

There is a certain radical feminist psychological interpretation here that should not be ignored. For centuries, perhaps for the entire history of this nation, women and black men have contested the position of most oppressed. Each feel a keen insult when the other is favored.

White men have played off this rivalry, in order to get what they want from both. When white slave-owners feared the revolt of black slaves, they fed white women horror stories about them. When they wanted to placate the slaves in a different way, they bonded with male slaves by intimating that they shared a common "maleness" that was--even in servitude--clearly superior to the "womanliness" both were expected to "protect."

The very existence of "superdelegates" now seems almost like a white establishment conspiracy to prevent the ascendence of the "wrong" kind of people. If they give the final prize to Obama, who will have won the majority--but not the necessary winning margin--of delegates (themselves awarded in a very "clout"-oriented system), women will be angry. They may even be able to feed that anger with the knowledge that Hillary might well have won the popular vote. Regardless, they will have this experience to look back on, nursing their discontent that the man, as usual, got to go first--less experienced, less well known, elevated as the "best man" for the job.

At the same time, if the elites of the party give the nod to Hillary, it will seem like stealing it from the black man, and that's exactly how it will be seen by a lot of African Americans, especially those who are predisposed to believe in that kind of conspiracy to begin with--like the nonsense spouted by Reverend Wright. Don't even think about what Louis Farrakhan might have to say about it.

"I'll TELL YOU what I'm objecting to, and that's your dumbass thumpin'."

Aw, I'm sorry. I'll try not to thump you so hard next time.

Kerry,

It as nothing to do with "what they always say", it has to do with setting priorities and putting things in perspective. I'd love to see a black man and a woman in office, because I think its time, but damn it, that isn't as important to me as the issues the candidate is running on. Those issues are paramount, and always will be. And its definitely so important that I am going to just not vote, or I am going to vote for someone completely opposite of my belief system. That's just crazy.

As someone on the religious right, you guys seem to amass one issue voters who are more concerned about things like abortion, flag burning, and gays, than your own welfare. I'm right on this because the price you paid to ensure someone fought for these issues, was the voting in of a president who spent more money and accumulated more debt owed to the Chinese, Japanese and Europeans than any politician in the history of the world.

"It as nothing to do with "what they always say", it has to do with setting priorities and putting things in perspective."

Not, traditionally, things American voters do very well.

"I'd love to see a black man and a woman in office, because I think its time, but damn it, that isn't as important to me as the issues the candidate is running on."

That's because you are neither a black man nor a woman.

"Those issues are paramount, and always will be. And its definitely so important that I am going to just not vote, or I am going to vote for someone completely opposite of my belief system. That's just crazy."

Identity politics is rather irrational. But it's the way a lot of people actually vote.

"As someone on the religious right, you guys seem to amass one issue voters who are more concerned about things like abortion, flag burning, and gays, than your own welfare."

In case you missed it, those are called "issues."

"I'm right on this because the price you paid to ensure someone fought for these issues, was the voting in of a president who spent more money and accumulated more debt owed to the Chinese, Japanese and Europeans than any politician in the history of the world."

You still don't get it, do you? The pro-lifers care more about the lives of babies than economics. Morality trumps the pocketbook for pro-lifers and moral traditionalists in the white church. (I am not being racist here, but the fact is that black evangelicals have a tradition of voting economics over morality, while white evangelicals tend to do the opposite.)

Still, I'm curious as to what you think an "issue" is, if abortion, flag desecration, or protecting the traditional family don't qualify.