Gay love

[Swimmer]

Originally Posted by spence

Well, it's not rejected everywhere and interestingly enough polls seem to show much more support that state constitutions or laws would indicate.

Bryan nails it, any of us can go online get ordained as a minister and be performing as many perfectly "legal" weddings in 48 states as we'd like. 50% will end in a divorce...

Gay rights is one of those issues where I think the dems come out ahead by leading the charge.

-spence

There ar 16 million baptists in the south and midwest that will not vote for Obama to the person. Ohio and those other swing states are not going to be labeled in the majority for gay marriage under any circumstances. And its not just the baptists who will swing anyway but for Obama. Maybe here in the east and on the very west coast it will work out well for the dems with the gays and lesbians, not in middle America.

[spence]

Didn't Southern Baptists form the Klan?

Originally Posted by Swimmer

There ar 16 million baptists in the south and midwest that will not vote for Obama to the person. Ohio and those other swing states are not going to be labeled in the majority for gay marriage under any circumstances. And its not just the baptists who will swing anyway but for Obama. Maybe here in the east and on the very west coast it will work out well for the dems with the gays and lesbians, not in middle America.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[basswipe]

Originally Posted by spence

Didn't Southern Baptists form the Klan?


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No.

[spence]

Originally Posted by basswipe

No.

You sure? They don't have a great track record for tolerance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[basswipe]

Originally Posted by spence

You sure? They don't have a great track record for tolerance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sure.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

You sure? They don't have a great track record for tolerance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence, you're hardly in a position here to question anyone else's facts.

I agree Obama did this to get votes. That was his intent. But I think it's a boneheaded move that will cost him more votes than it gets him. Obama already had a lock on the gay vote. IMHO opinion,supporting gay marriage hurts him with independents, as gay marriage has been almost universally rejected.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, you're hardly in a position here to question anyone else's facts.

Based on your continued use of the word I really don't know what a fact means to you.

I agree Obama did this to get votes. That was his intent. But I think it's a boneheaded move that will cost him more votes than it gets him. Obama already had a lock on the gay vote. IMHO opinion,supporting gay marriage hurts him with independents, as gay marriage has been almost universally rejected.

The gay vote has nothing to do with this.

The objective is to position Obama as forward leaning and in contrast to Romney who will be forced by his party to take a position that appears to be dated by independent voters.

I'd wager this is part of a larger strategy and we'll see more ideas similar to this in the future.

-spence

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Based on your continued use of the word I really don't know what a fact means to you.


The gay vote has nothing to do with this.

The objective is to position Obama as forward leaning and in contrast to Romney who will be forced by his party to take a position that appears to be dated by independent voters.

I'd wager this is part of a larger strategy and we'll see more ideas similar to this in the future.

-spence

"I really don't know what a fact means to you."

Then let me elucidate...it means the truth. For example, you kept saying that in ME, the gay marriage law was signed, but the legislature chose to delay implementation. I posted a link to show that your statement was factually incorrect. The public voted to strike down the law.

"Romney who will be forced by his party to take a position that appears to be dated by independent voters."

You're claiming that opposition to gay marriage is dated by independent voters. OK. North Carolina is not a state of hard-line conservatives, it's not Tea Party Central. Yet just this week, the voters in NC overwhelmingly rejected gay marriage.

So you're saying that vote that just happened a few days ago, no longer reflects the political tone in that state? That vote is antiquated already? If they took another vote today, the results would be different? That's what you're saying?

Jamie: voters in NC rejected gay marriage this week.

Spence: That's old news, that position is now dated by independents.

Spence, I get that you really, really hope independent voters are swooning about how forward-thinking and enlightened Obama is. I understand you really, really want that to be the case. But that hope does not trump the reality of what happened in NC a few days ago.

That's the difference between us. I agree with you that gays should be able to marry. Unlike you, I recognize the reality that most people (or at least most people who vote) don't feel that way. I react to reality, you base your existence on what you wish reality looked like.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The gay vote has nothing to do with this.

-spence

of course not....absolutely nothing....

Obama for America | 2012 | Store | LGBT for Obama - Collections

[Piscator]

[QUOTE=spence;938224]Didn't Southern Baptists form the Klan?

QUOTE]

The historian Elaine Frantz Parsons describes the membership:

Lifting the Klan mask revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own. Indeed, all they had in common, besides being overwhelmingly white, southern, and Democratic, was that they called themselves, or were called, Klansmen