Obama victory muted for gays, lesbians

It will take time, but eventually Americans will decide whether they would rather put their hands in a gay person or someone with the intellect of, oh, I don't know, a GW or a hottie like Sarah Palin.

At that point, we will have realized that what matters most isn't lipstick on hockey moms, but our future and our children's futures.

Obama isn't going to change American views overnight. He has to focus on being the best president he can. As he is successful, it will open the gates for Americans to trust other people who may "appear" to be different but who's policies are what is best for the country.

Mediocrity (here I'm thinking about the white baseball players who were in the majors before Jackie Robinson made us realize we were watching mediocre players and guys like Hank Williams, Jr. who are "stars" because their parents were stars) fears change. Change exposes them.

So, too, will Obama expose the mediocrity we've come to embrace as our only options.

This is an example of the "law of unintended consequences" in action. California, for example, can reliably be viewed as three-fifths Democrat and two-fifths Republican for most purposes. It's been that way for quite some time. Those percentages, in fact, track the percentage of votes cast for Barack Obama and John McCain (60.9% versus 37.3%). Thus, if Proposition 8 (California's man-woman only marriage proposition) were supported by all Republicans and opposed by all Democrats, one would have expected it to fail by a considerable margin. The fact that it passed, then, can only be attributed to a greater number of socially conservative Democrats and Independents at the polls than expected - including Hispanics, Asians and older African-Americans. It was, in turn, the Democrat's drive for greater voter turnout that brought all of these extra, socially conservative Democrats to the polls. One can be sure, however, that such was not the intended result. I suspect that same factors contributed to the success of the other, similar ballot initiatives passed in Arizona and Florida.

As we celebrate an important milestone along the road to true equality for on minority group, we must mourn this setback on that same road for another group. The participants change, but the fight continues.

What about the polygamists?

I love how the gay community and media are blaming the Mormons for this, but they need to look at two democratic constituancies - blacks and hispanics who voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8.

Bigotry knows no Party. Humans who are gay, are still humans and have inalienable rights, that supercede any dubious religious dictates !! It's the illusional, self-righteous that, once again, suppress, other human beings !! In the name of God, no less!!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.

Today's gays don't understand how straight blacks have drawn toward the church in this time of economic peril. While gays like to assume blacks 'know' them, the fact is the groups have grown apart. Black gays and lesbians do not have the wealth or family structures allowing them freedoms of setting up black San Franciscos or the like. Finally, there was no coalition building I can see from the other coast which would have helped garner support for the cause of defeating Prop 8. I don't recognize the gays and lesbians targeting blacks both gay and straight for the failure to mobilize support for their cause. Progressive infighting will not get gay marriage on the books.

THERE ARE MUCH MORE IMPORTANT ISSUES AT THE MOMENT!!!!

Under gay marriage, would a divorced father (mother) be able to marry his adult son (daughter)?

If not, why not? We all know why hetrosexual relatives can't marry, but that reason is eliminated with homosexual relationships, so would it be allowed?

* * * * *
Posted by: Terry | November 8, 2008 9:08 PM
*
The issue really has nothing to do with gay marriage and everything to do with state protection for the parent-child relationship. Most states (if not all of them) prohibit marriage between parents and children regardless of whether the child is natural or adopted, and regardless of whether the child and parent are of the same or opposite sex. So the answer is "no," a marriage between father and son, or a mother and a daughter, would still be prohibited even where gay marriage is lawful and practiced.

John W,

We know the reason for the hetrosexual relative ban - the vastly increased probablility of "defective" offspring. So let me make a simpler case, how about gay cousins getting married to each other? Would the proponents of gay marriage allow this?

* * * * *
Posted by: Terry | November 9, 2008 8:31 AM
.
The ban on inter-family and incestuous marriages cannot be entirely explained on the basis of the "defective child production" rationale. It doesn't explain, for instance, why parents are prohibited from marrying adopted children (from a different gene source) or, in some places, their step-children (who were also produced from different genes).
.
As for cousins, there are a few States where first cousins are permitted to marry, and most states permit second cousins to marry. The same rules apply in numerous countries and tribes throughout the world. These marriages are permitted despite the near universal taboo against incest. Thus, if the "defective child production" rationale of prohibiting people from intermarrying to closely doesn't apply to first or second cousins in the heterosexual context, I can't see how people can have much objection to permitting same-sex first or second cousins to marry where gay marriage is permitted. The latter involves no transmission of genes from both parents, in which case there is no danger of genetic mutation or defect.