I'll say it very clearly:
I AM A GAY MAN, AND I OPPOSE GAY "MARRIAGE."
In fact, the very thought of it makes me cringe!
Now, promise me that before you brand me a traitor or accuse me of being a gay "Uncle Tom," at least listen to what I have to say, fair enough?
First of all, if you’re really in love with someone, why do you need a piece of paper to prove that? All it means is that when the relationship sours, your partner gets to take half of what you’ve worked so hard to earn (especially if you’re in a community property state like CA). Most of my str8 friends tell me that society is actually doing gays a favor by not allowing us to get legally married!
Regardless of how much of a hypocrite I might seem, I think that our state Supreme Court decision earlier this year was completely WRONG. I have actually read the decision in its entirety (from a legal persepctive and not a "gay" perspective) and it is filled with errors and misapplications of precedent, a clear example of overzealous judges overstepping their bounds and succumbing to cultural whims rather than using proper restraint and following the law. Californians have an opportunity on election day, as voters in a democracy (imagine that), to overturn the decision, and I sure hope that we do. Either way, there is no way the decision will stand if, heaven forbid, it goes to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In California, same sex couples can register with the state as domestic partners and receive almost all of the benefits a legally married couple get without it actually being called marriage. Even in other states, all it takes is a visit to an attorney to draft some forms (i.e. power of attorney, living will, etc.), and it’s almost just as if you were husband and wife. When I lived in Arizona, I knew a lesbian attorney whose entire legal practice consisted of providing these services to same-sex couples.
I do not believe this relegates us to second class citizens, as long as civil unions and domestic partnerships are available. By demanding marriage rights, gays and lesbians are claiming entitlement to something that was simply never intended for them, not due to bigotry or prejudice, but rather the nature of marriage itself as an institution.
As I like to (and need to) frequently remind so many of fellow gay men, "It’s not about you!"
To compare, I am sure that a lot of str8 men would love to be allowed to go into the ladies’ restroom, but they aren’t because any ladies restroom, since its opening, was intended for ladies only. As long as the men have their own restroom, even if they would rather go into the ladies room, this certainly doesn’t make men second class citizens or constitute "separate but equal." No one would dare proffer such a silly argument. It’s just simple common sense that a ladies restroom is for ladies only, just as it is simple common sense (not "homophobia") that marriage as an institution was always intended, and should always be intended, for ONE man and ONE woman. As a gay man, this does not make me feel inferior whatsoever, in the same way that it does not make me feel inferior that I am not allowed to purchase a home in a 55+ retirement community, or be hired to model female bikinis (sorry to disappoint all of you), or have to stand in the long line everytime I go through customs at a European airport. Oh, and how DARE the manager at McDonald’s tell me I’m not allowed anymore to play in the children’s play area and jump in the ball pit. I am going to hire the ACLU and sue!
Let me clarify something: as a gay man myself, I am not "anti-gay rights." I simply do not feel the same sense of entitlement that a lot of gay men have. I am one of those folks who believes in the real American way, that gay or straight, black or white, male or female, blue eyed or brown eyed, you need to quit whining about "injustice" and pay your way in society for the rights we enjoy and that that our country has firmly stood for and fought for since its founding.
Just over two years ago, I made the bold decision that I would stop being a whiny gay man who felt entitled just because he was "different" and thought he HAD to, for reasons that I still honestly cannot articulate to this day, always be Democrat and liberal. I subscribed to these ideas for several years, and they got me absolutely nowhere, and I was nothing but unhappy and depressed almost 24/7. I decided that, even though I'm gay, there must be a better way to live my life, that I did not have to forever sit in the same miserable abyss of emptiness that so many other gays seem content with sitting in and are absolutely determined to stay in.
Once I started realizing that I was a capable and highly intelligent person with actual potential (regardless of sexual preference) and started putting the gifts God gave me to good use, I reached a point of success, personally and socially, that I could have never otherwise imagined. I realized that society is not nearly as "homophobic" as many gay people imagine. In fact, the overwhelming majority of resentment, jealousy and hate I have experienced as a gay man has come from other GAY men, not all of these "homophobic" straight folks. In fact, EVERY str8 person who was a friend of mine before I came out is still a friend of mine to this day. Even those who do not agree with the homosexual lifestyle have gone out of the way to let me know that they still like me as a person and I will always be their friend, because I am Casey first, and a gay man second. Unfortunately, I cannot say the same about many gay men I have encountered in the past nine years. There are some pleasant exceptions here and there, but let me say very clearly that those exceptions are clearly the most very precious jewels in the deepest rough.
When I wake up in the morning, I am eager to start my day with a smile on my face. When I walk down Santa Monica Blvd. in West Hollywood, or Hillcrest in San Diego, or the Castro in SF, I might be the only person in the vicinity with a real smile on his face and who is proud of what he has achieved and what he stands for and who is genuinely happy and content with who he is as a person, but that's just fine with me. I can only control my own attitude and nobody else's. If all of these other gay men want to be bitter and miserable their entire lives, and deprive themselves of the happniess and fulfillment they could and would otherwise achieve, then they in the end are in reality more "homophobic" than any straight person. However, that is really beyond my control, as I can only decide my attitude and my beliefs and no one else's. Believe me, I had to resign myself to that fact a long time ago, but it sure lifted a burden from my shoulders that in hindsight, I never even needed to assume in the first place!
The bottom line is that I support Prop. 8, mainly because contrary to what many believe, it's not a gay issue at all. It's not about gays, it's about marriage as an institution and what it was always intended to stand for, and what it should always stand for. Again, Prop. 8 takes nothing away from gay people here in CA that we do not get already through domestic partnership.
I was fortunate to grow up in a household where I was raised by both a mother and a father (who believe it or not, are still together now 33 years and counting). The majority of gay men I have met since coming out in 1999 were unfortunately not afforded the experience of growing up in a good, decent, and healthy loving home (many admit they were either abused, were children of divorce, or were raised by day care centers or neighborhood babysitters rather than loving parents), so I can understand why they are so quick to "jump the gun" and dismiss the legitimacy of marriage and allow their sexual orientation do their thinking for them on this issue.
Furthermore, it has been shown time after time that pushing a gay marriage agenda has almost always eroded, not enhanced, society's support of gay people. Many who otherwise support gay rights, and believe we deserve to be treated with dignity and be free from discrimination or hate crime, all of the sudden change their tone when gays start crossing the threshold by insisting on "marriage" rights. It's a classic case of being given an inch of good intention from decent people, and exploiting and abusing it by going miles and miles beyond what was intended. The marriage issue is where people often finally draw the line and say, wait a minute, that's enough!
Personally, if a same sex couple is truly in love, why do they need a traditional and legal sacrament to prove that? Perhaps a lot of gays who think they are "in love" and have found their "life partner" have deep insecurities about whether or not the person they are with really cares about them at all, and they therefore feel that they need legal "marriage rights" from the government to continue to subsscribe to their own divorce from reality. Most gay "relationships" I have seen are based on anything but love, and are instead basically nothing more than "friends with benefits." This makes a mockery out of what a real and loving relationship entails, and society should not be forced to pretend that this resembles anything close to a genuinely committed relationship between two people that is worthy of any type of legal recognition whatsoever.
Ironically, many gay people don't realize that it is best for their own good, intended or not, that society generally looks down on the idea of "marriage" for same-sex couples. Deep down, most gays and lesbians know that, although I'll concede that few are as bold as I am to actually come out and say it. It's the big "pink elephant" in the gay community that ultimately, we can't simply dismiss and ignore, try as we might.
Regardless of your sexual orientation, I hope you'll agree with me that giving "marriage" rights to same-sex couples is a horrible idea. It's best for everyone, gay or straight, that traditional marriage is kept intact.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Gay Marriage and Public Education
Although I support Proposition 8 (for reasons I explained in a previous blog), several recent TV ads here in California by Prop. 8 supporters have been EXTREMELY misleading, attempting to scare parents into thinking that if Prop. 8 fails, gay marriage will be taught to public school children from a very young age.
The ad features a law professor from Pepperdine University (which is just about the lowest ranked ABA law school in the state) speaking of a court case in Massachusetts in an attempt to make parents think that the public schools will be allowed to teach their children about gay marriage without notifying parents beforehand.
This approach confuses voters by suggesting that the law in California is the same as it is in Massachusetts. This is most certainly not the case. If anything, gay marriage would not be taught to CA public school students until middle school sexual education classes (and shouldn't be until this time, if at all), and California law clearly states that parents DO have the right to opt their children out of sex ed classes.
Again, I will be voting YES on Prop. 8, and you can call me a "hypocrite" or "traitor" all you want. It starting falling on deaf ears long ago, and will just affirm all the more why the ballot measure needs to be passed in the first place. At the same time however, I think the T.V. ads are very irresponsible. Proposition 8 has NOTHING to do with public education, and as I mentioned in my prior blog, it doesn't even really have anything to do with gays either.
The Prop. 8 opponents are also guilty of misleading the public by saying the measure is about "discrimination" or treating some people like "second class citizens." This is also completely false. Keep in mind that Prop. 8 would not even be on our ballot if the California Supreme Court had not overstepped its bounds in the horrible ruling it made earlier this year that was not even a court's decision to make.
The Bottom Line: Proposition 8 (as well as a similar measure on the Arizona ballot this election) is about the institution of marriage, and what it was always intended to be since its inception.
Here's an article in today's local paper that further speaks to the issue:
Nicole C. Brambila • The Desert Sun • October 23, 2008
A young girl exclaims to her mom, “Guess what I learned in school today? I learned how a prince married a prince and I can marry a princess.”
Her mother's eyes widen as a law professor at Pepperdine University says, “Think it can't happen? It's already happened.”
This is one of several Yes on Proposition 8 ads on TV and radio claiming that if the man-woman marriage measure fails on Nov. 4, students as young as kindergarten will learn about same-sex marriage.
The professor points out that a Massachusetts district judge in 2007 dismissed a civil rights lawsuit brought by the parents of a second-grader who read “King and King” in class without the school district providing parental notification. Massachusetts' curricula “encourage instruction for pre-kindergarten through fifth-grade students concerning different types of people and families.”
California educators, however, say the state education curricula does not address marriage. It's up to local school districts, they say.
Although the proposed amendment says nothing about public school education, it has emerged as a central issue in this hotly contested measure that has had both sides volleying charges of unfair political advertising.
“We teach the California standards, and marriage, of any kind, is not part of the California standards or required to be taught by state Education Code as the television ad states,” Palm Springs Unified Superintendent Lorri McCune said via e-mail on Wednesday.
“Passage of Proposition 8 will not change anything that is taught or not taught in our classrooms.”
Proposition 8 on the Nov. 4 ballot would amend the state Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
A yes vote would reverse the state Supreme Court's 4-3 decision in May that found a ban on same-sex marriage that voters approved in 2000 unconstitutional.
Same-sex marriage is an issue that resonates with many locally as the Palm Springs area boasts one of the largest gay populations per capita in the U.S. and is renowned for its gay-friendly businesses and events.
Gays and lesbians have been legally marrying in the state and the Coachella Valley since June 17.
Tolerance lessons
Opponents of the measure say the ads are deceptive because schools already are required to teach tolerance of gays and lesbians.
To combat anti-gay discrimination, California schools have addressed topics such as gay households, homophobia and sexual orientation for years, well before the state Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal this year.
The California Teachers Association, the California School Boards Association and state Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell have all maintained Proposition 8 has nothing to do with public school education.
“The Yes on 8 ads are alarming and irresponsible,” O'Connell has said in statements.
“Our public schools are not required to teach about marriage. And, in fact, curriculum involving health issues is chose by local school governing board.”
Proposition 8 supporters received fodder for their claims earlier this month when a public charter school took 18 first-graders on a field trip to San Francisco City Hall, with parental permission, where their teacher and her female partner had married.
“The other side's argument is (Proposition 8) has nothing to do with education. Our argument is this has everything to do with education,” said Chip White, a Proposition 8 spokesman. “It's already happening.”
About 52,000 children are being raised by two mothers or two fathers in California, which is one of 12 states with comprehensive anti-bullying laws that apply to gay students and children with unconventional families.
The need for such awareness training was brought home to California in February, when a 15-year-old who sometimes wore feminine clothing and talked about being gay was shot to death at his Oxnard junior high school. A classmate has pleaded not guilty to murder and hate-crime charges.
The education code specifies that marriage should be discussed in sex education classes. But districts are not required to hold the classes and parents can have their children excused if the course conflicts with their moral values. Most California districts do not teach sex ed.
California gives local districts authority — and in the case of sex education, the imperative — to adopt curricula that reflect community mores while meeting certain standards.
“We teach tolerance and acceptance,” said Shari Stewart, president of the Palm Springs Unified school board.
“We don't specifically have a curriculum (regarding) sexual orientation. We only teach what's on the state test.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
The ad features a law professor from Pepperdine University (which is just about the lowest ranked ABA law school in the state) speaking of a court case in Massachusetts in an attempt to make parents think that the public schools will be allowed to teach their children about gay marriage without notifying parents beforehand.
This approach confuses voters by suggesting that the law in California is the same as it is in Massachusetts. This is most certainly not the case. If anything, gay marriage would not be taught to CA public school students until middle school sexual education classes (and shouldn't be until this time, if at all), and California law clearly states that parents DO have the right to opt their children out of sex ed classes.
Again, I will be voting YES on Prop. 8, and you can call me a "hypocrite" or "traitor" all you want. It starting falling on deaf ears long ago, and will just affirm all the more why the ballot measure needs to be passed in the first place. At the same time however, I think the T.V. ads are very irresponsible. Proposition 8 has NOTHING to do with public education, and as I mentioned in my prior blog, it doesn't even really have anything to do with gays either.
The Prop. 8 opponents are also guilty of misleading the public by saying the measure is about "discrimination" or treating some people like "second class citizens." This is also completely false. Keep in mind that Prop. 8 would not even be on our ballot if the California Supreme Court had not overstepped its bounds in the horrible ruling it made earlier this year that was not even a court's decision to make.
The Bottom Line: Proposition 8 (as well as a similar measure on the Arizona ballot this election) is about the institution of marriage, and what it was always intended to be since its inception.
Here's an article in today's local paper that further speaks to the issue:
Nicole C. Brambila • The Desert Sun • October 23, 2008
A young girl exclaims to her mom, “Guess what I learned in school today? I learned how a prince married a prince and I can marry a princess.”
Her mother's eyes widen as a law professor at Pepperdine University says, “Think it can't happen? It's already happened.”
This is one of several Yes on Proposition 8 ads on TV and radio claiming that if the man-woman marriage measure fails on Nov. 4, students as young as kindergarten will learn about same-sex marriage.
The professor points out that a Massachusetts district judge in 2007 dismissed a civil rights lawsuit brought by the parents of a second-grader who read “King and King” in class without the school district providing parental notification. Massachusetts' curricula “encourage instruction for pre-kindergarten through fifth-grade students concerning different types of people and families.”
California educators, however, say the state education curricula does not address marriage. It's up to local school districts, they say.
Although the proposed amendment says nothing about public school education, it has emerged as a central issue in this hotly contested measure that has had both sides volleying charges of unfair political advertising.
“We teach the California standards, and marriage, of any kind, is not part of the California standards or required to be taught by state Education Code as the television ad states,” Palm Springs Unified Superintendent Lorri McCune said via e-mail on Wednesday.
“Passage of Proposition 8 will not change anything that is taught or not taught in our classrooms.”
Proposition 8 on the Nov. 4 ballot would amend the state Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman.
A yes vote would reverse the state Supreme Court's 4-3 decision in May that found a ban on same-sex marriage that voters approved in 2000 unconstitutional.
Same-sex marriage is an issue that resonates with many locally as the Palm Springs area boasts one of the largest gay populations per capita in the U.S. and is renowned for its gay-friendly businesses and events.
Gays and lesbians have been legally marrying in the state and the Coachella Valley since June 17.
Tolerance lessons
Opponents of the measure say the ads are deceptive because schools already are required to teach tolerance of gays and lesbians.
To combat anti-gay discrimination, California schools have addressed topics such as gay households, homophobia and sexual orientation for years, well before the state Supreme Court made same-sex marriage legal this year.
The California Teachers Association, the California School Boards Association and state Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell have all maintained Proposition 8 has nothing to do with public school education.
“The Yes on 8 ads are alarming and irresponsible,” O'Connell has said in statements.
“Our public schools are not required to teach about marriage. And, in fact, curriculum involving health issues is chose by local school governing board.”
Proposition 8 supporters received fodder for their claims earlier this month when a public charter school took 18 first-graders on a field trip to San Francisco City Hall, with parental permission, where their teacher and her female partner had married.
“The other side's argument is (Proposition 8) has nothing to do with education. Our argument is this has everything to do with education,” said Chip White, a Proposition 8 spokesman. “It's already happening.”
About 52,000 children are being raised by two mothers or two fathers in California, which is one of 12 states with comprehensive anti-bullying laws that apply to gay students and children with unconventional families.
The need for such awareness training was brought home to California in February, when a 15-year-old who sometimes wore feminine clothing and talked about being gay was shot to death at his Oxnard junior high school. A classmate has pleaded not guilty to murder and hate-crime charges.
The education code specifies that marriage should be discussed in sex education classes. But districts are not required to hold the classes and parents can have their children excused if the course conflicts with their moral values. Most California districts do not teach sex ed.
California gives local districts authority — and in the case of sex education, the imperative — to adopt curricula that reflect community mores while meeting certain standards.
“We teach tolerance and acceptance,” said Shari Stewart, president of the Palm Springs Unified school board.
“We don't specifically have a curriculum (regarding) sexual orientation. We only teach what's on the state test.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
FROM THE HEART: Self-Serving People
*DISCLAIMER: This is not a political message, for once ;)
It is just a shame how selfish some people are, who are so out for themselves that they do not care who they hurt or how far the "fallout" of their actions reaches. One of my dearest friends, who means the world to me, was completely used by one of these types of people and then kicked to the curb like trash. As a result, he's going to probably lose his house (that he has put so much work and pride into) and need to get a THIRD job to make ends meet as a result of all of this. It makes my heart absolutely ache to see what he's having to go through right now.
This just goes to show how important it is, especially in times like these, that we look out for one another and surround ourselves with genuine and caring people who will build us up and enrich our lives rather than tear us down and deflate our spirits.
I also believe that we have a God in heaven who loves each and every one of us and shares our hurts. I understand some of you don't believe in God, and I respect that. However, for those of us who do, it's a great comfort to know he's looking over us and shares our hurts with us.
Let's take care of each other folks, and I challenge each and every one of you to call at least five people who you are thankful for and appreciative of, and let them know that, especially if it's someone you haven't told that to in a long time.
And if any of you ever just need to talk to someone who will be there to listen, remember that wherever you are, I'm just a phone call or e-mail away.
Love,
Casey
(760) 835-8563
SuiGeneris1122@aol.com
It is just a shame how selfish some people are, who are so out for themselves that they do not care who they hurt or how far the "fallout" of their actions reaches. One of my dearest friends, who means the world to me, was completely used by one of these types of people and then kicked to the curb like trash. As a result, he's going to probably lose his house (that he has put so much work and pride into) and need to get a THIRD job to make ends meet as a result of all of this. It makes my heart absolutely ache to see what he's having to go through right now.
This just goes to show how important it is, especially in times like these, that we look out for one another and surround ourselves with genuine and caring people who will build us up and enrich our lives rather than tear us down and deflate our spirits.
I also believe that we have a God in heaven who loves each and every one of us and shares our hurts. I understand some of you don't believe in God, and I respect that. However, for those of us who do, it's a great comfort to know he's looking over us and shares our hurts with us.
Let's take care of each other folks, and I challenge each and every one of you to call at least five people who you are thankful for and appreciative of, and let them know that, especially if it's someone you haven't told that to in a long time.
And if any of you ever just need to talk to someone who will be there to listen, remember that wherever you are, I'm just a phone call or e-mail away.
Love,
Casey
(760) 835-8563
SuiGeneris1122@aol.com
Friday, October 17, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
McCain WILL Confront Obama About Ayers In Final Debate!
By Andy Barr, Politico. com
(Oct. 14) - John McCain said Tuesday that Barack Obama is "probably ensured" that his association with 1960s radical William Ayers will come up in Wednesday’s debate.
"I was astonished to hear him say that he was surprised that I didn't have the guts" to bring up Ayers, McCain said on KMOX, a St. Louis radio station.
"I think he is probably ensured that it will come up this time.
"
McCain was responding to Obama's charge last week that the Arizona senator was willing to make attacks on the campaign trail that he would not say in person.
"I am surprised that, you know, we've been seeing some pretty over-the-top attacks coming out of the McCain campaign over the last several days, that he wasn't willing to say it to my face," Obama said. "But I guess we've got one last debate. So presumably, if he ends up feeling that he needs to, he will raise it during the debate.
"
Obama has also accused McCain of trying to score "cheap political points" by bringing up Ayers.
Despite challenging Obama on the association, McCain insisted that he does not care about the "old washed-up terrorist" but said that the Illinois Democrat is not "being truthful about the relationship.
© 2008 Capitol News Company LLC
2008-10-14 14:58:55
(Oct. 14) - John McCain said Tuesday that Barack Obama is "probably ensured" that his association with 1960s radical William Ayers will come up in Wednesday’s debate.
"I was astonished to hear him say that he was surprised that I didn't have the guts" to bring up Ayers, McCain said on KMOX, a St. Louis radio station.
"I think he is probably ensured that it will come up this time.
"
McCain was responding to Obama's charge last week that the Arizona senator was willing to make attacks on the campaign trail that he would not say in person.
"I am surprised that, you know, we've been seeing some pretty over-the-top attacks coming out of the McCain campaign over the last several days, that he wasn't willing to say it to my face," Obama said. "But I guess we've got one last debate. So presumably, if he ends up feeling that he needs to, he will raise it during the debate.
"
Obama has also accused McCain of trying to score "cheap political points" by bringing up Ayers.
Despite challenging Obama on the association, McCain insisted that he does not care about the "old washed-up terrorist" but said that the Illinois Democrat is not "being truthful about the relationship.
© 2008 Capitol News Company LLC
2008-10-14 14:58:55
Could The Polls Be Wrong? Obama and the "Bradley Effect"
Interesting article on CNN. com today, especially since it's so disgusting how that T.V. network has shown such pro-Obama bias . . .
(Oct. 14) - Sen. Barack Obama has a sizable lead over Sen. John McCain, polls show, but those numbers could be deceiving if the "Bradley effect" comes into play.
The Bradley effect is named after former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, an African-American who ran for California governor in 1982.
Exit polls showed Bradley leading by a wide margin, and the Democrat thought it would be an early election night.
But Bradley and the polls were wrong. He lost to Republican George Deukmejian.
The theory was that polling was wrong because some voters, who did not want to appear bigoted, said they voted for Bradley even though they did not.
"People will usually tell you how they voted after the election, but we found in the Bradley campaign ... that people were actually not telling us who they voted for," said Charles Henry, who researched Bradley's election.
The Bradley effect is also called the "Wilder effect," after Douglas Wilder, Virginia's former governor. He won by just one-tenth of a percent, but as he pointed out to CNN, "people forget -- in the exit polls, I was still double-digits ahead.
"
According to CNN's latest poll of polls, Obama is leading McCain by 8 percentage points, 50 to 42.
Some analysts say the race could be much closer or even tied if the Bradley effect is factored in.
iReport. com: iReporter pleads with voters to 'stop the racism'
"It leaves a question mark over this race, and we won't have the final answer until the votes are counted," said David Gergen, a senior political analyst for CNN.
But there could be an opposite effect, Wilder said.
"There's going to be a reverse Wilder or Bradley effect. ... There are some Republicans who are not going to say out front that they're going to be voting for Obama, but they're going to be, because the economy is what's driving people to consider what's in their best interest," he said.
Some analysts say the Bradley effect can account for 6 percentage points against an African-American candidate.
Michelle Obama told CNN's Larry King that a lot has changed since Bradley lost.
"That was several decades ago, and I think there's been growth and movement," she said. "I just believe that the issues are going to weigh in people's hearts more so as they go into the voting booths this time around.
"
Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown said last week that he thinks the Bradley effect could cost Obama several battleground states -- and possibly the presidency.
Race "is still a problem in this country," Brown told CNN. "It goes away when there are other troubles that are more challenging, and right now, whether or not we survive in the economy is more challenging. But race could rear its ugly head. I just hope it doesn't before November 4.
"
In the past 15 years or so, there's been no indication in the polls that the Bradley effect has been a factor in statewide races.
Bill Schneider, CNN's senior political analyst, said that if there is racism in this year's election, it's probably already showing up in the polls.
And Keating Holland, CNN's polling director, pointed out another important caveat:
"We've never had a black presidential candidate as a major nominee, so the polls don't have any history at all when it comes to national elections," he said.
© 2008 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
(Oct. 14) - Sen. Barack Obama has a sizable lead over Sen. John McCain, polls show, but those numbers could be deceiving if the "Bradley effect" comes into play.
The Bradley effect is named after former Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley, an African-American who ran for California governor in 1982.
Exit polls showed Bradley leading by a wide margin, and the Democrat thought it would be an early election night.
But Bradley and the polls were wrong. He lost to Republican George Deukmejian.
The theory was that polling was wrong because some voters, who did not want to appear bigoted, said they voted for Bradley even though they did not.
"People will usually tell you how they voted after the election, but we found in the Bradley campaign ... that people were actually not telling us who they voted for," said Charles Henry, who researched Bradley's election.
The Bradley effect is also called the "Wilder effect," after Douglas Wilder, Virginia's former governor. He won by just one-tenth of a percent, but as he pointed out to CNN, "people forget -- in the exit polls, I was still double-digits ahead.
"
According to CNN's latest poll of polls, Obama is leading McCain by 8 percentage points, 50 to 42.
Some analysts say the race could be much closer or even tied if the Bradley effect is factored in.
iReport. com: iReporter pleads with voters to 'stop the racism'
"It leaves a question mark over this race, and we won't have the final answer until the votes are counted," said David Gergen, a senior political analyst for CNN.
But there could be an opposite effect, Wilder said.
"There's going to be a reverse Wilder or Bradley effect. ... There are some Republicans who are not going to say out front that they're going to be voting for Obama, but they're going to be, because the economy is what's driving people to consider what's in their best interest," he said.
Some analysts say the Bradley effect can account for 6 percentage points against an African-American candidate.
Michelle Obama told CNN's Larry King that a lot has changed since Bradley lost.
"That was several decades ago, and I think there's been growth and movement," she said. "I just believe that the issues are going to weigh in people's hearts more so as they go into the voting booths this time around.
"
Former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown said last week that he thinks the Bradley effect could cost Obama several battleground states -- and possibly the presidency.
Race "is still a problem in this country," Brown told CNN. "It goes away when there are other troubles that are more challenging, and right now, whether or not we survive in the economy is more challenging. But race could rear its ugly head. I just hope it doesn't before November 4.
"
In the past 15 years or so, there's been no indication in the polls that the Bradley effect has been a factor in statewide races.
Bill Schneider, CNN's senior political analyst, said that if there is racism in this year's election, it's probably already showing up in the polls.
And Keating Holland, CNN's polling director, pointed out another important caveat:
"We've never had a black presidential candidate as a major nominee, so the polls don't have any history at all when it comes to national elections," he said.
© 2008 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Monday, October 13, 2008
Barack Obama Is NOT the "Gay Friendly" Candidate
Let's look at the cold, hard facts, as tough as they may be for some of you to swallow:
As a gay man, I have been shocked and downright ashamed of the way so many gay men blindly think that just because they are gay, they MUST vote for a liberal Democrat like Barack Obama. What is even more pathetic is the fact that so many of my fellow gay men do not realize that God gave them a brain so they can think intelligently FOR THEMSELVES about issues completely irrelvant to the gay agenda, such as: abortion, affirmative action, economy, edcuation, environment, national security, offshore drilling, the war in Iraq, etc., etc.
However, even if "gay issues" are all that you care about in this election, let's examine Barack Obama's record in that arena to "clear the air" once and for all (feel free to "fact check" all you want as everything I am about to say can be confirmed 100%):
1.) Despite protests from the gay community, Barack Obama has continued to stand behind an anti-gay minister, the Rev. Donnie McClurkin.
In fact, Rick Garcia, a long time gay rights activist who founded Equality Illinois, went as far to say the following:
“I thank God that the Rev. Fred Phelps doesn’t have a strong political base to follow him. If Rev. Phelps had a strong base, maybe Sen. Obama would hook up with him, as well.
"
*It should also be noted that Reverend Phelps (godhatesfags. com) is no Republican, but a Democrat! Since it is now slightly past the 10th anniversary of Matthew Shepard's murder (remember how Phelps and his forces were picketing at the funeral), it is a very timely moment to bring this up.
Phelps has run in various Kansas Democratic Party primaries five times.
These included races for governor in 1990, 1994, and 1998, receiving about 15% of the vote in 1998. In the 1992 Democratic Party primary for U.S. Senate, Phelps received 31% of the vote. Phelps ran for mayor of Topeka in 1993 and 1997.
Phelps supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic Party primary election. In his 1984 Senate race, Gore opposed a "gay bill of rights" and stated that homosexuality was not something that "society should affirm". Phelps has stated that he supported Gore because of these earlier comments. According to Phelps, members of the Westboro Baptist Church helped run Gore's 1988 campaign in Kansas.
2.) Barack Obama has refused to grant interviews to the gay media.
After courting anti-gay votes through affiliations with anti-gay preachers, and advocating segregation for gay Americans, Obama has refused to speak with the Philadelphia Gay News, one of the largest and most established LGBT papers in the country.
Unfortunately for Obama, the gay press has been operating increasingly independently of the Democratic Party as of late (FINALLY THANK GOD). They struck back and called Obama out on the carpet -- embarrassingly so.
Mark Segal, publisher of the Philadelphia Gay News, said, "Senator Obama's lack of dialogue with the local gay press is disappointing. The local gay press often is to the LGBT community what churches are to the black community.
"
3.) Barack Obama refused to be photographed with San Francisco's gay-friendly mayor, Gavin Newsom.
"I gave a fundraiser, at his (Obama's) request at the Waterfront restaurant," said former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. "And he said to me, he would really appreciate it if he didn't get his photo taken with my mayor. He said he would really not like to have his picture taken with Gavin.
"
Insiders at City Hall, both current and former members of Newsom's staff, recall the incident well. And you can bet that Newsom hasn't forgotten it either. "He was pissed," said one former staffer.
In fact, early last year, Newsom alluded to the incident in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Speaking to Reuters on Jan. 26, 2007, Newsom was asked about three potential Democratic candidates: Obama, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore.
"Barack Hussein Obama will not be photographed with me, will not be in the same room with me," Newsom told Reuters, "even though I've done fundraisers for that person - not once, but twice - because of this issue.
"
Obama was reluctant to be seen appearing in San Francisco altogether, much less side by side with the pro-gay mayor. "I would guess that is part of the rejection of the Obama campaign.
"
*On the other hand, being born and raised in John McCain's home state of Arizona, I recall that McCain's attitude toward a gay mayor was quite different. In the late 1990's, then Tempe, AZ mayor Neil Giuliano came out as a gay man. When the religious right started to attack, McCain was the first one to tell them to "back off" and that it did not make a bit of difference.
ELECTION 2008: It's your choice, but I hope you understand that with the right to vote also comes the responsibility to make the best decisions for this great country we live in.
Let's get real: Do we really want someone like Barack Obama as our next president? Just remember that if he wins this election, we're stuck with him the next four years whether we like it or not!
As a gay man, I have been shocked and downright ashamed of the way so many gay men blindly think that just because they are gay, they MUST vote for a liberal Democrat like Barack Obama. What is even more pathetic is the fact that so many of my fellow gay men do not realize that God gave them a brain so they can think intelligently FOR THEMSELVES about issues completely irrelvant to the gay agenda, such as: abortion, affirmative action, economy, edcuation, environment, national security, offshore drilling, the war in Iraq, etc., etc.
However, even if "gay issues" are all that you care about in this election, let's examine Barack Obama's record in that arena to "clear the air" once and for all (feel free to "fact check" all you want as everything I am about to say can be confirmed 100%):
1.) Despite protests from the gay community, Barack Obama has continued to stand behind an anti-gay minister, the Rev. Donnie McClurkin.
In fact, Rick Garcia, a long time gay rights activist who founded Equality Illinois, went as far to say the following:
“I thank God that the Rev. Fred Phelps doesn’t have a strong political base to follow him. If Rev. Phelps had a strong base, maybe Sen. Obama would hook up with him, as well.
"
*It should also be noted that Reverend Phelps (godhatesfags. com) is no Republican, but a Democrat! Since it is now slightly past the 10th anniversary of Matthew Shepard's murder (remember how Phelps and his forces were picketing at the funeral), it is a very timely moment to bring this up.
Phelps has run in various Kansas Democratic Party primaries five times.
These included races for governor in 1990, 1994, and 1998, receiving about 15% of the vote in 1998. In the 1992 Democratic Party primary for U.S. Senate, Phelps received 31% of the vote. Phelps ran for mayor of Topeka in 1993 and 1997.
Phelps supported Al Gore in the 1988 Democratic Party primary election. In his 1984 Senate race, Gore opposed a "gay bill of rights" and stated that homosexuality was not something that "society should affirm". Phelps has stated that he supported Gore because of these earlier comments. According to Phelps, members of the Westboro Baptist Church helped run Gore's 1988 campaign in Kansas.
2.) Barack Obama has refused to grant interviews to the gay media.
After courting anti-gay votes through affiliations with anti-gay preachers, and advocating segregation for gay Americans, Obama has refused to speak with the Philadelphia Gay News, one of the largest and most established LGBT papers in the country.
Unfortunately for Obama, the gay press has been operating increasingly independently of the Democratic Party as of late (FINALLY THANK GOD). They struck back and called Obama out on the carpet -- embarrassingly so.
Mark Segal, publisher of the Philadelphia Gay News, said, "Senator Obama's lack of dialogue with the local gay press is disappointing. The local gay press often is to the LGBT community what churches are to the black community.
"
3.) Barack Obama refused to be photographed with San Francisco's gay-friendly mayor, Gavin Newsom.
"I gave a fundraiser, at his (Obama's) request at the Waterfront restaurant," said former San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown. "And he said to me, he would really appreciate it if he didn't get his photo taken with my mayor. He said he would really not like to have his picture taken with Gavin.
"
Insiders at City Hall, both current and former members of Newsom's staff, recall the incident well. And you can bet that Newsom hasn't forgotten it either. "He was pissed," said one former staffer.
In fact, early last year, Newsom alluded to the incident in an interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. Speaking to Reuters on Jan. 26, 2007, Newsom was asked about three potential Democratic candidates: Obama, Hillary Clinton and Al Gore.
"Barack Hussein Obama will not be photographed with me, will not be in the same room with me," Newsom told Reuters, "even though I've done fundraisers for that person - not once, but twice - because of this issue.
"
Obama was reluctant to be seen appearing in San Francisco altogether, much less side by side with the pro-gay mayor. "I would guess that is part of the rejection of the Obama campaign.
"
*On the other hand, being born and raised in John McCain's home state of Arizona, I recall that McCain's attitude toward a gay mayor was quite different. In the late 1990's, then Tempe, AZ mayor Neil Giuliano came out as a gay man. When the religious right started to attack, McCain was the first one to tell them to "back off" and that it did not make a bit of difference.
ELECTION 2008: It's your choice, but I hope you understand that with the right to vote also comes the responsibility to make the best decisions for this great country we live in.
Let's get real: Do we really want someone like Barack Obama as our next president? Just remember that if he wins this election, we're stuck with him the next four years whether we like it or not!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)