Don't mistake me, then. It's not "reason enough" for me to vote for him, though it's one of many reasons Obama's a better choice than McCain.


I reject both of them. The election in November is about my civil rights, and both major party candidates stand in the way of that.

iSm -
I respect your position and am not trying to change it, but I wondered if you had taken the Supreme Court into your calculus, since gay marriage legislation would seem likely to go through the US Supreme Court at some point, and the next president is likely to appoint at least 2 or 3 justices. Of course there is no guarantee that justices appointed by Obama would favor gay marriage, but I think it is more likely than not, and I am certain that McCain's election will cement an anti-gay marriage Supreme Court for at least a generation.

As ISM pointed out, his vote in CA probably means next to nothing because Obama is going to win CA. If it were close, he might not have the luxury of not casting his vote.

Of course, if my vote counted, I'd vote for Obama.


It doesn't.


So I'm going to protest HIS, the candidate's, stance on gay marriage rights and his disgusting statement that he's using his religious views to dictate American policy (though I think he's lying, making the matter even worse).


If I lived in Ohio, I'd suck it up and vote for Obama for a myriad of reasons ... Supreme Court appointees among them.




But then again ... if I was a gay man living in Ohio ... I'd likely move to California. ;)

By that standard, every candidate commits "voter fraud" whenever they become their party's sole candidate. :rolleyes:

Using a legal option to challenge other candidates’ presence on a ballot is in no way shape or form voter suppression. That’s not apples and oranges, that’s apples and automobiles!

Typical Republican half truths and innuendoes.

Like how in 2004 (or 2000 - I lose track) there were charges of voter suppression when people tried to get in line to vote after the polls closed?

Typical Democrat half truths and innuendoes.

Of course, you've said all this already. Sorry, it was a long day.

iSm: If you were FOR either candidate, watching you decide wouldn't be half so interesting

For the past week, I have been spending the night at a clients house. I did not have internet access so I turned on the TV at several points. Aparently the client prefers Fox News, because that's what I got whenever I turned on the set and I got to hear bits of this "new program" while I was searching for something watchable.

I've heard the disdain on this board about Fox news but had really never experienced it first hand. All I have to say is WTF? PEOPLE ACTUALLY LISTEN TO THIS DRIVEL AND CONSIDER THIS A VALUED NEWS SOURCE??????

I am shocked and appalled that this is considered a valuable source of news. Actually, a better word for it would be completely disgusted. I had no idea.

What were you watching? They have several opinion programs which would be similar to watching Keith Olberman or Chris Matthews on MSNBC.