Yes, we can.

[Gemini Cricket]

I like the whole idea of protest voting. But does anyone really look at those ballots with blanks and say, 'Hey, look at that! We better do something!'?

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

I like the whole idea of protest voting. But does anyone really look at those ballots with blanks and say, 'Hey, look at that! We better do something!'?

Yes. Those statistics are kept and you can bet the people whose job it is to run campaigns pay attention to the numbers of people who, say, vote mostly party line but leave the Presidential part of the ballot blank.

[Gemini Cricket]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Yes. Those statistics are kept and you can bet the people whose job it is to run campaigns pay attention to the numbers of people who, say, vote mostly party line but leave the Presidential part of the ballot blank.

And then they use that info to shape the way the next campaign is run? Or use it to gauge what kind of response their newly elected president will receive?
These aren't loaded questions, I'm just askin'.

[Ghoulish Delight]

One would assume both. And not just Presidential elections, but local elections as well. I imagine it gets factored into every decision the party makes and who it's targeting its message to.

[innerSpaceman]

I don't care if they take it into account or not. That's not my purpose. My purpose is Living With Myself.

I thank the lucky stars that living in California means I don't have to vote strategically. I didn't vote for Gore, btw. I voted for Nader. I would never have done that in a swing state.

Fvck the electoral college for making my vote meaningless ... but since it is, I'll accept the luxury of actually voting my conscience.


CP, I will check out that link and see if my conscience eases. I appreciate the philosophy behind his consiliatory desires, but if I'm not willing to budge on gay rights and reproductive rights, what do you think the chances are for the neanderthal homophobes and abortion foes?


We spoke a bit last weekend about the one-issue voters. I daresay most of those are abortion-issue voters who ignore everything else. Well, seeing as the presidential election is meaningless in California, and rather we have the most important ballot measure election I can recall in my lifetime where the issue of TAKING AWAY my rights to marry the one I love is at stake ... I am A One Issue Voter this time around.


So I doubt it will make much difference to me that Obama agrees I should be able to visit my loved one in a hospital. If he's going to stop short of supporting my rights to marry, which I CuRRenTly HaVE, then I'm not going to vote for him.


I understand he feels he can't make that committment in this Country in this day and age. The loss of my vote won't phase him.

[innerSpaceman]

Originally Posted by About.com (CP's link)

Obama said, "I'm a Christian. And so, although I try not to have my religious beliefs dominate or determine my political views on this issue, I do believe that tradition, and my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."

Barack Obama ... said he would support civil unions between gay and lesbian couples, as well as letting individual states determine if marriage between gay and lesbian couples should be legalized.

"Giving them a set of basic rights would allow them to experience their relationship and live their lives in a way that doesn't cause discrimination," Obama said. "I think it is the right balance to strike in this society."

I am appalled.


This is precisely what I object to. Basing American liberties on religious beliefs. That is tantamount to treason in my book. Exactly the opposite should be the case. Our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness do not have a religious test. They are absolute.

Leaving it up to the States is pathetic. Many of the most important marriage rights are granted only at the federal level.


Furthermore, I agree with the California Supreme Court that separate cannot be equal. To say that it's ok for me to have all the rights and responsibilities of marriage without calling it that is an affront to my dignity and an insult I will not bear. Again, it is only religious belief that would snatch away my current right to have the same societal acceptance and honor that comes distinctly with marriage.



Sorry, CP, but your link did nothing but cement my opposition to Obama.


I hope he wins rather than McCain, but I cannot support his election.

[JWBear]

iSm... Hillary Clinton has the exact same position on gay marriage as Obama.

[flippyshark]

I very much wish that Obama (and Clinton) had the sense and moral rigor to fully support gay marriage. I also wish that Barack, in particular, did not feel the need to wave the God flag so high and so often. On the other hand, I'm in a major swing state (that tends red lately) so I'll have no problem casting my vote for Barry. Still, really society-at-large, get a fvckin' grip.

[scaeagles]

If it matters, I think the government should be out of the marriage business all together.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

If it matters, I think the government should be out of the marriage business all together.

I may or may not agree with that, but as long as it is, it should be available for all.