Not Only Republicans Are Homophobes

Not Only Republicans Hate Gay Marriage Democrats don't like gay marriage either! Don't believe me? Believe that the only states that banned gay marriage were red states? They weren't! In fact, in 2000, California had a controversial proposition on the ballot which, if passed, would define marriage as a union between man and woman. It would essentially ban gay marriage. Not only did the proposition pass, but it passed with a significant majority! As an Enlightened One, you should know that California is an Enlightened State, which always votes for the Democratic candidate and has a Democratic majority. How then could gay marriage be banned in such a liberal state? Did George W. Bush have the army prevent Democrats from voting and then use his wicked connections with conservative news sources such as FOX News and IndyMedia to prevent the rest of the world of finding out about the oppression? Were the Democrats too high that day to vote? What was it, Enlightened Ones? Why didn't Democrats, who officially support gay marriage, not support the right of gays to marry in California, when they could have easily defeated the proposition?

Hey *messybuu* if democrats hate gay marriages also, then *why* was San Francisco the first one in line to perform a gay marriage?

"Homophobe" (1980s): Anxiety one feels when they think they might be gay.

"Homophobe" (90s): Dislike of gays.

"Homophobe" (00s): Disagreeing with a Gay activist, or their stated agenda.

My gay best friend does not support homosexual marriage. Is he a homophobe?

Not supporting gay marriage, does not a homophobe make.

Hey *messybuu* if democrats hate gay marriages also, then *why* was San Francisco the first one in line to perform a gay marriage?

Not to mention Kerryland (Massachusetts)

california is one of  the states in which the largest and best-funded dominionist organizations are headquartered as well as being home to large numbers of their members--including Trinity Broad­casting Network, robert schuler's crystal cathedral, sheldon's traditional values coalition, christian anti-defamation league, chalcedon foundation, campaign for california families and my personal favorite, the national association for research and therapy of homosexuality. 

because it's a given--rightly or wrongly--that california will be giving its electoral votes to the democratic candidate,  those who only casually support the democrats arent as motivated to vote.   when they dont vote for president, they also dont vote for or against initiatives.  if they arent gay, they may not be that motivated to vote against an anti same-sex initiative. 

the same cant be said about the footsoldiers on a mission against same-sex marriages. theyre way motivated and there's nothin like a group of people who rightly or wrongly believe theyve got god on their side.

ive noticed something in the preliminary returns (which i hope to confirm when the ratified election tabulations are all nice and official).  in 2 of the 11 states in which there were anti same-sex marriage initiatives, it appears there were more votes cast and against the initiave than for all the presidental candidates on the ballot.  seems strange that anyone would take the time to go to the polling place, stand in line and not vote for any of the candidates for president dont it?

while i appreciate the buzz value of your title, it is a bit further over the edge than the fallacious reasoning that inspired your article.

  no one said republicans, democrats, christians or anyone other than homophobes are...homophobes.

while i appreciate the buzz value of your title

Hey, you never appreciate the "buzz value" of my titles You just ridicule them.

Reply #7 By: iamheather - 12/7/2004 11:03:41 PM while i appreciate the buzz value of your title Hey, you never appreciate the "buzz value" of my titles You just ridicule them.

He ridicules just about everyone. So don't feel like the Lone Stranger!

california is one of  the states in which the largest and best-funded dominionist organizations are headquartered as well as being home to large numbers of their members--including Trinity Broad­casting Network, robert schuler's crystal cathedral, sheldon's traditional values coalition, christian anti-defamation league, chalcedon foundation, campaign for california families and my personal favorite, the national association for research and therapy of homosexuality.

I see. So these people either convince the Democrats who would otherwise vote in favor of gay marriage to vote against it or motivate those who wouldn't normally vote to vote, and if so, is that a bad thing? To persuade more people to participate in the democratic aspect of government?

because it's a given--rightly or wrongly--that california will be giving its electoral votes to the democratic candidate,  those who only casually support the democrats arent as motivated to vote.   when they dont vote for president, they also dont vote for or against initiatives.  if they arent gay, they may not be that motivated to vote against an anti same-sex initiative.

So, Democrats aren't as serious about voting regularly as Republicans? And that means they're in favor of gay marriage because they don't bother to vote at all?

the same cant be said about the footsoldiers on a mission against same-sex marriages. theyre way motivated and there's nothin like a group of people who rightly or wrongly believe theyve got god on their side.

What's wrong with voting regularly?

ive noticed something in the preliminary returns (which i hope to confirm when the ratified election tabulations are all nice and official).  in 2 of the 11 states in which there were anti same-sex marriage initiatives, it appears there were more votes cast and against the initiave than for all the presidental candidates on the ballot.  seems strange that anyone would take the time to go to the polling place, stand in line and not vote for any of the candidates for president dont it?

So, what you're saying is that ballots were stuffed specifically against gay marriage but not in favor of Bush?

while i appreciate the buzz value of your title, it is a bit further over the edge than the fallacious reasoning that inspired your article.

I'm sorry my reasoning can't be as solid as yours, which insists that Democrats are lazy, Jesus freaks control the politics of California, and the opposition cheated. For me to insist that Democrats don't support gay marriage either based on how anti-gay marriage legislation passed in blue states too? OUTRAGEOUS!

He ridicules just about everyone. So don't feel like the Lone Stranger!

nawwww only those i like and those i feel deserving of it; i usually fall into both categories. 

Hey, you never appreciate the "buzz value" of my titles You just ridicule them.

in my twisted world, ridicule is sometimes the most genuine form of appreciation.   why go to the trouble of ridiculing someone unworthy of the effort?  (okay there are times when i just cant control myself but.... )

in my twisted world, ridicule is sometimes the most genuine form of appreciation.

duly noted and contemplated

is that a bad thing? To persuade more people to participate in the democratic aspect of government?

not at all.  and its a much more reasonable explanation of how the california initiative was passed.  unless, of course, you can provide stats or campaign data that support your contention that democrats actively supported it.

So, what you're saying is that ballots were stuffed specifically against gay marriage but not in favor of Bush?

based on what i actually pointed out, what youre saying is if i said 'hey the sky is sure a strange color' youd be saying i was saying the sky was yellow and green.   i didnt offer any conclusion...just noted something that seemed unusual.

I'm sorry my reasoning can't be as solid as yours, which insists that Democrats are lazy, Jesus freaks control the politics of California, and the opposition cheated.

and im sorry you cant provide a cogent response, leaving you no apparent option but to twist my statements totally outta recognition.

not at all. and its a much more reasonable explanation of how the california initiative was passed. unless, of course, you can provide stats or campaign data that support your contention that democrats actively supported it.

Results imply that they either actively supported it or didn't bother. Doesn't seem to be parallel with Democrats supporting the rights of homosexual to marry. They either oppose them or don't care.

based on what i actually pointed out, what youre saying is if i said 'hey the sky is sure a strange color' youd be saying i was saying the sky was yellow and green. i didnt offer any conclusion...just noted something that seemed unusual.

If something you write doesn't have a point or suggestion of some sort, then why even post it?

and im sorry you cant provide a cogent response, leaving you no apparent option but to twist my statements totally outta recognition.

I like that condescending attitude. I'm convinced!

Dammit, whatever happened to Hubert Humphrey at the 1948 Democratic National Convention: "To those who say that this civil rights program is an infringement on states' rights, I say this, that the time has arrived in America for the Democratic Party to get out of the shadows of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights." The Democrats need another Hubert Humphrey

california is one of the states in which the largest and best-funded dominionist organizations are headquartered as well as being home to large numbers of their members--including Trinity Broad­casting Network, robert schuler's crystal cathedral, sheldon's traditional values coalition, christian anti-defamation league, chalcedon foundation, campaign for california families and my personal favorite, the national association for research and therapy of homosexuality.

I disagree.  I think it is simpler than that, and not as black hat.  The real reason is that most of California (The northern Coast excepted) is more conservative, but on the wedge issues, they vote Democrat for representation.  After all, they were the ones to slam the door on property taxes first.  In many ways California is as conservative as say Florida.  So they would vote for the most part for conservative issues.  Just not on a state or national level for Politicians.

I lived half my life in California, and it is still the second home for me.  But I usually stay south of LA (I did live in SF for 2 years), so I dont see the loonies in SF and Berkley.

Reply #16 By: Dr. Guy - 12/8/2004 9:46:54 AM But I usually stay south of LA (I did live in SF for 2 years), so I dont see the loonies in SF and Berkley.

Good thing too. Ain't nothing good ever come out of the bay area. (Lived in the San Diego area for almost 20 years. I finally got to go home a year ago.) Although I will say that I miss it sometimes.

Hey *messybuu* if democrats hate gay marriages also, then *why* was San Francisco the first one in line to perform a gay marriage?

California's MUCH bigger than just San Francisco.

California's MUCH bigger than just San Francisco.

Tell that to the people by the bay!

Tell that to the people by the bay!

I think the voters for the marriage ban did exactly that, actually

Reply #19 By: Dr. Guy - 12/8/2004 2:57:24 PM California's MUCH bigger than just San Francisco. Tell that to the people by the bay!

Yeah REALLY! According to the bay people *they* are kalifornia! And BTW Gideon, you missed something real important. SF is almost pure democrat, with very few republicans in sight.

I think the voters for the marriage ban did exactly that, actually

And that is why SF defied the ban!  They figured they were exempt as they were enlightened!