Gay Marriage: An Electoral Liability

Hours after the polls closed in California, Regent Media Editorial Director Aaron Hicklin weighed in on last night's results in the UK based Guardian. Check out his thoughts...

Amid the euphoria around Obama's tremendous victory, gay men and women across America will find it difficult to contain their disappointment, anger, and a painful sense of betrayal. The success of Proposition 8, a ballot initiative that amends California's state constitution to define marriage as only between a man and a woman, shows that despite all the gains we still rank low when it comes to the struggle for equality.

Six months after the California Supreme Court struck down the state's ban on same-sex marriage, unleashing a wave of gay weddings, it's like waking up to find that we're still the misunderstood problem child that other kids shun in the playground. There will be a lot of soul-searching in the weeks to come, but the fact is that gay Americans remain an electoral liability for Democrats whose support remains largely tepid, often crystallising only after they've left office.

Continue reading:

Comments

[Wayne]

I find myself outraged not only at Obama and his exploitative "Faith Tours" targeted to Black churches that were headlined by a prominent "Yes on Prop 8" advocate, but also the "Gay Press" for refusing to speak out more forcefully against Obama and his segregationist views towards gay marriage equality.

[Charles Perry]

The LDS Church Must Be Destroyed

In 1977 a has-been pop star and corporate shill by the name of Anita Bryant used her celebrity status to push a voter initiative in Miami that struck down a local gay rights ordinance. Her primary strategy was to play up fears that "militant homosexuals" threatened to corrupt innocent children. This strategy proved effective in rolling back the rights of gays in other cities as well, until finally over a year later lesbian and gay activists in California built a statewide campaign that shrewdly wedded grassroots activism, elite-level fundraising, and a libertarian discourse that so marginalized Christian conservatives that even Ronald Reagan came out against them.

An underappreciated aspect of that story is the intense viciousness of the outrage directed at Anita Bryant. At every concert appearance, protestors picketed. Bomb threats disrupted her TV appearances. Boycotts of the products she endorsed caused lucrative contracts not to be renewed. In short, the gay community ruined her.

The community needs today to mount a comparable campaign to discredit the moral credibility of the LDS Church. No other institution has the hierachical control of membership and command of resources necessary to resist in a sustained way the cultural and demographic shifts that have brought America close to mainstream acceptance of lesbian and gay equality. What we have now is a zero sum game. The LDS Church is invested fully in securing its vision of gender, sexuality, and family as the American ideal, and it will use all of the considerable human and financial resources at its disposal to sustain that vision. To the extent that America accepts the LDS Church as a legitimate moral authority, there will NEVER be equality, there will NEVER be liberation.

Fortunately, the LDS Church is vulnerable on a variety of fronts. It has business interests that can be boycotted. It has a public image that is sensitive to historical prejudices and is easily tarnished. It possesses sacralized property that is vulnerable to desecration.

This church's leaders had a revelation to renounce polygamy only after the federal government threatened to confiscate its temples. Its leaders had a revelation to accept blacks only after their desire to expand into Brazil ran up against the complexity of racial identities in that country. What interests would have to be threatened in order for a new revelation to come? And if no revelation is forthcoming, what would it take to belittle and diminish this cabal of self-righteous hypocrites such that no self-respecting member of mainstream society wanted anything to do with them?

[rick]

was this your first time at the rodeo?
you were duped by a man in an empty suit that will throw you under the bus like he does to everyone else who becomes a liability. What a waste of our voting power and shame on the gay press.

[Zack]

I agree with Charles Perry. What happened to us is outrageous, and we need to turn our outrage into activism. We need to fight the perverse LDS church and their disgusting tentacles of influence over mainstream America.

[Gerd]

American LGBT activists in California should now fight with lawyers against that bad 52procent referendum. They should argue before the supreme courts, that the topic of gay marriage is not a theme for referendums and that this is a question for the supreme courts.
Human rights like gay marriage is not a playgame for referedums.

Gerd

[Chris]

I agree that the LDS church was influential Prop. 8 defeat, however, the Catholic Church was equally complicit. Their power is huge and in many ways "under the radar". Among other tactics, they use spirtual blackmail on its members. (See Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City). They are, quite simply, out to destroy GLBT people. Their tactic is to make us "a little less than human" in the world's eyes. Easier to hunt down and kill when we're no better than a rabbit. Am I being overly-dramatic? Perhaps, but I also have read much about the rise of Nazism and the comparisons are disturbing.

[tara]

I didn't vote for Obama or any key Dems on my state ballot. I'm disgusted by their hypocritical complacency, their trying to have it both ways. Obama is praised so much for being pro-gay rights and on and on; but, he's a calculating politician, who has shown time and time again that he doesn't have the courage to stand for equal rights for all Americans. Why so many gay Americans are fervent supporters of him, I do not know. I'm realizing the depths of how much I am a "stranger" in this country -- not a full citizen but someone who walks in the shadows. I still believe in voting, but I will not vote for someone who doesn't take a passionate stand for my rights.

So many people have given me flack for not voting for Obama. They say, "you know, the Republicans are worse; they hate gay people." My response: the Dems are just as bad. They could take a stand. But, too often (and for so many types of people and causes), they are content to sell us out. I'm disgusted by them.

[Christy]

I am a hetrosexual who lives in the great State of California. I want to tell the gay community why I voted yes on Prop 8. It is not because I am a facist it is not because I do not believe in equailty for all. I do believe in equality for all. My reason for voting yes is simple. Its about definition. I am a hetrosexual you are a homosexual we have chosen different sexual orintaions based on our chemical makeups. Hetrosexuals are male and female we get "married" as defined between a man and woman. Homosexual is between the same sex. Lets define homosexual "unions" as "unions between the same sex." I really do not see what is wrong with this? You have all the same rights as a "married" hetro couple has "homosexuals" have a "union." I do not think it is a loss at all. Unless you all now want to be called hetrosexuals and we just keep messing up the definition system. I could see there being an upset if the rights were not the same. Being married the only rights I have is I get a ceremony (same as you) I call my man a husband (I think you do too but not sure) I get his benefits (you do too) healthcare (so do you) we are exclusive (so are you) we have children (so do you). I am confused as to where the problem is?

[Bud Evans]

"Truth is our Courage; Love is our Strength -- We Shall Prevail" by Bud Evans

Well, it’s over for now. The 2008 Presidential Election is history. A benign bigot won who expected our unconditional support but who, in turn, would not even speak up for our right to be treated as equals and to protect the ones we love. By Obama’s incessant, and unethical, repetition of: “I believe marriage is between a Man and Woman” mantra he gave permission for voters in his own party of “Hope” and “Equality for All” to vote Yes for Obama and Yes for Proposition 8 in California.

YES WE CAN! …Indeed.

Thanks for your support, Obama. I guess we got what we deserved for being so naïve. We are politically expendable. Nothing is going to change that fact any time soon either. Fear drove most of us to support a candidate who does not support us. He does not view us as equals -- no matter what his finely tailored speeches profess to his immense tapestry comprising millions of disciples loosely stitched together by White guilt, Black disenfranchisement, Blue-Collar displacement and Gay desperation.

Yet how committed is Obama to some of his congregation? Imagine the mixed message Obama sent to the people of California -- especially in the minority community. After all, how many of them must have asked this to themselves, as they went to vote: “Well, Obama is against homosexuals getting married -- so why should we be for it. Obama is a fair and reasonable man, so it must be wrong. Like he said, in so many words, it’s not right for queers to get married. They can go sit at another table. The Marriage Table is reserved for “god’s chosen people” -- for heterosexuals only.” Or so says our great, fair-minded, emancipator of the downtrodden.

Yes, thanks for nothing, Obama. One word, just one word, just a simple: “Vote NO on Proposition 8” might have made the difference in many people’s minds - especially in the uneducated minority community where too many, unfortunately, relish the thought of the role of a formerly oppressed minority being reversed so that they can take out their angst by kicking another minority in the teeth.

Tragically, far too many in racial minority communities believe that the road to status quo membership in society is to find another minority to take their place at the bottom of the social heap. And the religious excuses they use are lame rationalization for their minority targeted, anti-social, bigoted, vile behavior. It is the same conduct attributed to how White Trash treated Blacks in the 1960s in the South. To paraphrase Shakespeare: The play is the same, only the actors have changed roles.

Barrack Obama made reference to us in the GLBT community during his acceptance speech Nov. 3, 2008, where we were sandwiched somewhere between Blacks and Whites and Disabled People. I listened to his soaring rhetoric with sadness -- erudite and inspiring, but still filled with empty, meaningless words that I doubt will ever find application.

Blacks, Latinos and other minorities don’t need him to fight for their civil rights anymore. The only minority left in the United States against whom it is legal to discriminate is the GLBT community. Like a good lawyer, Obama is both comprehensive and evasive in his message of “inclusion” involving us -- which usually ends with an segregationist scheme. Where is the unqualified outrage that Robert Kennedy showed when he spoke out against racism before his own tragic life was ended by an assassin’s bullet? Where is the uncompromising convictions of a Lyndon Johnson who knew the Democratic party would lose the South if he pushed for the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act? But Johnson pushed for its passage anyway.

Blacks could just have been ignored before the riots of the 60s. They were not that essential in the political scheme of things on Capital Hill. But, at their own political risks, many White politicians put their political careers on the line to stand up for what was right. No minority in this country would ever achieve equality without a fair judiciary and without the political leadership that sets the wheels of justice in motion.

For those who say that only the courts shall be the final arbitrators of our fate, I say you are wrong. When Brown vs. The Topeka Board of Education was decided, the Eisenhower Republican administration was already on board to end segregation in America. When Loving vs. Virginia was decided, the political climate in Washington (after the 1964 Civil Rights Act) was already in favor of quietly removing the last racial barriers dividing the races in America. And even though the majority of Americans still were against interracial marriage, after the Supreme Court Ruling in 1967, there was no political upheaval over it.

So who now in American politics is our champion? Who now would risk any of their political capital for us? All we are told is to be quiet and to let things happen gradually behind the scenes. Our leaders in the GLBT community tells us to be patient. But “baby-steps” is quickly becoming the new definition for bullsh*t. Radical changes rarely happen in slow motion. Demands for equality are never heard if they are whispered.

Our own history should inform us. Where would the GLBT rights movement have been without Stonewall to get the ball rolling. Also contributory, the GLBT organization called ACT-UP was considered by many mainstream Gays as being too “militant” but they brought public awareness to the HIV/AIDS crisis in the 1980s in ways that the mainstream, Gay unfriendly, media would never willingly do. ACT-UP’s public acts of civil disobedience made people see the epidemic in ways that quiet talk behind closed doors could never accomplish.

We need a pro-active organization like that now to publicly demand our rights. Scream, shout, lie down in the streets and tie up traffic. Chain yourselves by the hundreds, all over the country, to the doors of Marriage License Bureaus if that’s what it takes to show we are serious. How can we expect other people to understand that Rights are not a gift to be bestowed or taken away by any benign or hostile majority. Equal Rights, just like every other American’s Rights, belong to us too at birth and cannot be taken away.

Now ask yourself this about our newly elected President, Ask yourself: if some other minority was the object of a hateful proposition that would have denied them equal citizenship, would Barrack Obama have been so silent on it? I think not. But see how easily he makes the transition from lofty platitudes and his glorious rhetoric of “inclusion” and “equality” to jumping aboard the hate-wagon rolling over our bodies and the bodies of those we love -- that is, if that wagon just happens to be moving in the direction he wants to go.

And please don’t dredge up that tired old chestnut of “well, if he openly supported our rights, he wouldn’t win”. The fact of the matter is that Obama didn’t have to lock himself into the indefensible position of opposing our equality while supporting an apartheid system of laws created just for our management. He did not have to ride the wave of bigotry to election.

When asked about marriage equality, he could have simply said that the question should be left up to the states (a position I don’t agree with any more than interracial marriage should be allowed to just remain a state issue), never-the-less, he could have just left it at that. But no, he had to be over-emphatic in his denunciation of same-sex marriage equality at every opportunity. What kind of “friend” to our community is that?

Obama took tens of millions of dollars from us for his campaign and tens of millions of votes from us to further his ambitions and then he turns his back on us to let the wolves come together to rip us to shreds -- many of whom were his strongest supporters, in his own race, who joined with the very same people they despised in the Republican party. All the while, Obama turned a blind eye to this blood-fest. Is that the kind of Messianic leader the GLBT community has been waiting for? If I where a religious person, I’d say it sounds more like the coming of the anti-Christ.

I did not vote for Obama. My Gay neighbor, at first, said that he would never vote for Obama either. But then, for whatever reason, he jumped on board the bandwagon. I suppose the high school football lure of being on the winning side is like an irresistible narcotic enticement too much for some people with weaker convictions to resist. It didn’t matter much though, because we both live in the Reddest of Red States --- Kansas. So, a symbolic protest vote against Obama would not have altered the election one bit.

I may have even held my nose and voted for Obama if I lived in a Swing State because the thought of a malignant bigot being elected over a benign bigot would be too great a risk even for me to imagine. It is so tragic that we only have such unhealthy choices to make. It is really time we start looking for a viable third party, at least in Congress to start -- the Presidency later.

If Joe Lieberman could control the agenda with just his one vote in the Senate, a third party of around ten percent of the members of Congress could give maximum representation to a minority such as ours. A third party would be a powerbroker and could caucus with either party for control of Congress and in setting political agenda on a quid pro quo basis. Coalitions could be formed and “orphan” legislation (that is legislation which no party wants to go out on the limb for alone) could be passed.

We owe nothing to the Democratic Party because they have (witness DOMA and DADT) given us nothing but betrayal or indifference in return. I really wanted to like Obama, but I don’t believe he has the courage to stick his neck out for us like President Johnson did for Black folk. I’d be pleasantly surprised if I am wrong. But I will not hold my breath until then.

(C) Bud Evans, 2008

My Blog: http://rainfish2000.blogspot.com

[Grandblvd03]

Many Chicago gay people feel mixed emotions about this great night. One one hand, we are happy Obama was elected and very proud to be part of it. One the other hand, we realize that the large black voter turnout in California actually contributed to Proposition 8's success, as black voters voted overwhelmingly in favor of the ban. While gay people see this as a civil rights issue, most black people don't. That's very disheartening, as gay people overwhelmingly support civil rights issues related to black people.

I proudly voted for Barack Obama and will always support him and any causes related to black Americans. I hope straight people will feel comforted and more secure in their marriages today knowing that gay couples will not be allowed to marry.

[Anne Fields Gavorski]

I'm a Republican (gasp!) heterosexual married mom in Ohio. Much of my family lives in CA. I called them all yesterday in tears. What the hell is wrong with that state? I cannot believe that they pass Prop 2 (Treatment of Farm Animals) and then pass Prop 8. How is this possible? They care more for farm animals than humans?! BTW I was in favor of prop 2 also but there is gross irony and no humanity in how those two bills pass at the same time. I am baffled and disgusted!

In 2004 Ohio had its own prop 8 that passed and everyone said it was because all the Republicans came out to vote but that doesn't make sense in light of prop 8 this year. I voted against the measure in Ohio. Here a vote against was actually in favor of gay marriage. So what the truth is that religious zealots (regardless of party affiliation) vote against gay marriage every time. I cannot grasp how discrimination is a Christian value but I'll leave that for another time . . .

[Steve]

I think we need to stop pointing fingers that create more divisiveness amongst disenfranchised communities.

Prop. 8 won because:

1) The Yes on 8 campaign were able to communicate a very deceptive and effect message that resonated with many, who aren’t necessarily homophobic, just a little uneducated about our community.

2) The No on 8 did not have an effective field outreach program early on to counter these attacks in various communities of color.

A silver lining to all this is that it was less then a year ago when only 23% of the population supported same sex marriage and on November 4 Prop 8 won by only a 4% margin.

[Lola Alvarez]

Somebody above, in your comments mentioned how disgusted they were at a black man getting one of the most powerful seats in the world...Quite frankly I am also disgusted and increasingly so but mostly at the obtuseness and racism most of the gay community demostrate on a regular basis. However, it is not fair to say it's the gay community because in reality it's always the same clique of white priviledged gay men who whine time and again from their safe cushioned world of opportunity: hearing their silly voices and arguments on proposition 8 or 7 or whatever, whilst the real issues around the world go unnoticed for them: people being detained in concentration camps called Guantanamo, people being tortured and raped in their own countries by US troops...Lesbians, trannies, black & asian gays being physically abused and tortured in countries around the world. And you're going on about what?! Prop what?! Rubbish! Get serious and get a life!!!!! Honestly.............

[Kevin]

Aaron, you've never been there for gay people. You are part of the PROBLEM. Month after month you put haterosexuals on the cover of your supposed gay magazines. Haterosexuals are NOT gay people's authority on anything! Never will be. After age old anti-gay oppression by haterosexuals they have ZERO credibility on any gay issue.

People like Aaron have snowed gay people for a long time. They have gotten into gay people's mind that haterosexuals are the ideal and have all but excused the long history of anti-gay oppression haterosexuals have inflicted.

Gay people need to think on their own. Stop listening to the LIES haterosexuals tell you. You decide what you are. And stop buying magazines like The Advocate, Out and most other gay magazines that put haterosexuals on a pedestal and subjegate gay people in a continuation of anti-gay oppression.

[Tom]

I'm a Chicago gay white man and I've been out since I was 21. I am almost 50 now. I think this whole movement should have stressed domestic partnerships or civil unions instead of trying to force the word "marriage" down everyone's throat. Is it possible for us as a community to have a reasonable discussion about this? Perhaps we need to regroup and recast our message. There are many gay people who want the legal rights and some kind of legal recognition and actually don't even want the word "marriage" involved. We feel that marriage is a straight thing.

If any gay person thinks that a republican president is ever going to include tolerance of gay people in his/her speech, you are kidding yourself. Obama was the right choice on many counts, and our best hope and choice. Perhaps his presidency needs time to settle in. I am disappointed that African American democrats overwhelmingly threw us under the bus. So did Hispanic Americans by a lesser margin. Yes, it makes me angry and resentful. Does that mean it's OK now for me to be racist? It does not. Maybe we can work with these issues through outreach to the black and hispanic communities.

We got a lot of support from young people and from rich hollywood stars. Good for us. We need the support of middle America, and that can only come through pragmatic planning and messaging, and by pulling ourselves out of our gay bubble and reaching out to other people. It is absolutely true that the people running the show in the gay community are a fairly small group of upper income white gay men. There is a breathtaking amount of racism and prejudice in the gay community -- we treat non-white gay people pretty shabbily. There is still a very tenuous relationship between the gay and lesbian communities. I think we need to at least be willing to listen to dissent within our own community. There has to be a discussion, not a small group of self-righteous people calling all the shots -- that's what we're supposed to be fighting against, remember?

How do we do this? For one, we ask people what they think. We invite gay people to weigh in. All gay people.

[GraceJeanJones]

Obama was very influential in helping seal the fate of gays & lesbians regarding Proposition 8 in California, and the anti-gay amendment that passed in Florida.

After reading below what Obama did, how Obama sold gays & lesbians up the river, how Obama fanned the flames of hate that many blacks feel toward gays & lesbians, is it any wonder that 70% of black voters voted against gays & lesbians in California and Florida.

Obama should be ashamed of himself. Such strategies are right out the Karl Rove playbook, even worse....please read below for yourself:

http://direland.typepad.com/direland/2007/11/obamas-anti-gay.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/earl-ofari-hutchinson/obama-should-repudiate-an_b_69244.html

[John W Beck]

ooo Tara - sweetie - let's take this 1 point at a time.

***I am a hetrosexual who lives in the great State of California. I want to tell the gay community why I voted yes on Prop 8.

ooo OK, so far so good.

***It is not because I am a fascist it is not because I do not believe in equality for all. I do believe in equality for all. My reason for voting yes is simple. Its about definition. I am a heterosexual you are a homosexual we have chosen different sexual orientations based on our chemical makeups.

ooo Here we go. I am sure you are a perfectly nice woman, with mostly kindness and light in your heart. You just seem to be operating on a number of false assumptions.

1. You DO NOT believe in equality for all. If you did you would have no issue with me being married to my husband (here in the mostly happy state of Massachusetts. We have the lowest rate of divorce in the country too). You seem to have problems with what words are used, words, so you do not "believe" in equality for all. Please stop lying, especially to yourself.

2. Just as I imagine you never made a conscious choice to dig members of the opposite sex, I too never made a choice to be attracted to men. This is how I have been, from when I was a child and knew nothing of sex, really knew very little about anything. But other boys and men attracted me in a way that girls and women did not.

Even if it was a choice, how does that hurt you? What does it matter to you that I have a husband and we are married?
I doubt it makes your ears bleed or your dog go blind. Give me a break.

*** Heterosexuals are male and female we get "married" as defined between a man and woman. Homosexual is between the same sex. Lets define homosexual "unions" as "unions between the same sex." I really do not see what is wrong with this? You have all the same rights as a "married" hetero couple has "homosexuals" have a "union." I do not think it is a loss at all. Unless you all now want to be called heterosexuals and we just keep messing up the definition system. I could see there being an upset if the rights were not the same. Being married the only rights I have is I get a ceremony (same as you) I call my man a husband (I think you do too but not sure) I get his benefits (you do too) healthcare (so do you) we are exclusive (so are you) we have children (so do you). I am confused as to where the problem is?

ooo I am confused what your problem is too. The "definition" of marriage is always changing, as society changes. Just a few decades ago inter-racial marriages were forbidden in some parts of this "free" country. Before 1967 "marriage" could not mean a black American and a white American were married in many southern states. Didn't matter that they were a man and a woman - couldn't happen in Dixie.

And before you get all rosy about 'civil unions' - they are NOT the same as marriage. Words do matter and have power. I have not grown up thinking I want to get civil unionized with my life partner when I meet him. And unless they are forced to by the state, most businesses will not give those in civil unions the same treatment as married couples. Words do matter. If you are married, would you like a downgrade to a 'civil union'? I rather doubt it. Don't expect us queers to smile and say "Thank You! Can I have MORE 2nd class citizenship please?"

Matthew Shepard was not tortured and murdered in a vacuum. The young men who brutalized him did so because they had been taught, all their lives, that gays are disposable and do not have the same rights as they did. You show people and killers like that this with your casual vote to tear the rights away from your fellow Americans.

I have to wonder how much you really thought of that when you blackened the "Yes" box on Question 8.

This world is changing sweetheart. California DID just pass a constitutional amendment outlawing gay marriage, but by a very slim majority. Not the over 70% the last gay marriage ban passed by a few years ago. Did you vote for that too? The older people, older ways of thinking are passing away.

You just voted to strip your fellow citizens of a civil right. I don't understand what makes people like you so cruel and thoughtless.

Thankfully, I imagine in a short time the California Supreme Court will rule that the initiative just passed by 52% of voting Californians made a major change in the state Constitution (you don't remove civil rights from a recognized class of people on a whim) and that kind of change requires a different sort of voting that has to start with the state legislature in California I understand and then get a 2/3 or 3/4 (I forget which) majority vote of the voting population to alter the foundation of state law so fundamentally.

Try to walk your talk Tara. Actions speak louder than words, and you showed with you vote you do not think gays and lesbians deserve the same rights you have. It may even be OK for more angry young men to murder more queers. Because hey - they don't deserve the same rights as you do. You just voted that way and you're still talking that way.

[John W Beck]

Ah! Silly me. I see I should have addressed my last comment to Christy.

Tara - Christy - more words on a computer screen - words - words do matter. Especially when they name & define something.

I am given the exact same rights and responsibilities with and to my partner Donn as heterosexual couples are given in this state. Why make things more complicated? Why duplicate the machinery and give each set a different name? We're married. He is my husband (this is a word I chose to use) as I am his.

I have a friend who is in his mid 50's and he will not be marrying his partner of 23 years. Mostly because that is just not where his head is at. He never considered getting married to his man, that was never a possibility for him, and he is not comfortable with it. That is where he is at, and he is joyful with his partner and they will probably live happily ever after.

One thing I do want to comment on that I missed in the last piece. You never made this argument Christy, and for that I thank you. That is that women and men can 'naturally' have children, and so they should be married to produce children.

Using this reasoning, all infertile heterosexual couples and those who chose not to have children should also be barred from marriage.

If it's for making babies that is. When I hear folk make this argument I really wonder if they ever think for themselves or just learn talking points from right-wing groups and repeat them ad naseum.

Thankfully, things are getting better. Getting better for those who want to expand civil rights and move towards a more perfect union. And a more perfect civil union is called marriage.

[parsagi]

Good post, Kevin. I'm not anti-gay. I say live and let live. Always have and always will. But gay and marriage does not compute with me. And the more rich white gay men whine about it the more they antagonize people who aren't their enemies, but disagree with the word "marriage" being applied to non-straight unions. Also, you are so right that the prejudice and racism w/i the gay community is overwhelming. The gay community needs to get its house in order before trying to renovate ours (straight America).

[Premium White pro]

senorlechero, I would welcome an explanation as to how exactly gays marriage is anti-family. I think divorce and infidelity are much clearer and more-present dangers to family life in America.