Hot Air poll shock: Near-majority support gay marriage in Vermont
posted at 5:10 pm on April 8, 2009 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
I’m inclined to quote Sean Penn here, but I know if I do some nutroots moron will see it, not realize I’m joking, and accuse me of homophobia. Such is the price of working in a medium that thrives on politically calculated faux outrage.
In any case, shocka:
Three possible explanations: (a) you guys are far more libertarian than I thought, (b) we’ve got a vast audience of lefty lurkers, drawn to the site perhaps by my (unfair) reputation for being some kind of rabid Palin-basher, or (c) a left-leaning blog linked to the poll and pushed enough traffic to it to warp the result. And the correct answer is … (c). Ben Smith linked it this morning and Chris Orr at TNR picked it up 90 minutes after that, doubtless after a few hundred new votes for gay marriage had flowed in from Politico. I took a peek at the data last night, though, before any outside influences had affected it and the results were almost as surprising: From what I recall, fully 50 percent preferred the federalist option, 21 percent approved of the legislature’s decision to legalize gay marriage, and only 29 percent supported the FMA to overturn it. I thought we’d see a majority of social cons for this one; as it turned out, it wasn’t even close. Make what you will of the fact that three of the leading GOP contenders — Palin, Romney, and Huck — endorse the FMA while only 30 percent or so of our very heavily trafficked right-wing blog agree. Does that create some space for the GOP to take the middle course and back civil unions? A poll of delegates at the Republican convention last August showed 43 percent would be okay with that. By 2012 I’ll bet that number’s near majority, too.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Libertarian?
lol
If it turned out this place was 50% ANARCHIST I wouldn’t be surprised one bit.
Darth Executor on April 8, 2009 at 5:12 PM
LOL-Nah, we just don’t like people in Vermont.
So, just how many times did Getalife vote, anyway?
-Dave
Dave R. on April 8, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Which makes this site more liberal on gay marriages than California.
Apologetic California on April 8, 2009 at 5:13 PM
AP,
I don’t think you’re rabid.
Snowed In on April 8, 2009 at 5:13 PM
Obviously the results are tainted. However, when I voted yesterday afternoon the federalist opinion was going pretty strong.
amerpundit on April 8, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Neither do I. I do have trouble figuring out whether to hate or love Allah though. I lean towards the latter since I realized his pimping Hitchens like a 5 cent whore benefits me more than it annoys me.
Darth Executor on April 8, 2009 at 5:16 PM
Other potential answer
Conservatives have less problems when its done through the proper channels and simply object to how this and gay ‘culture’ in general are both portrayed and shoved down people’s throats
Defector01 on April 8, 2009 at 5:17 PM
AP is lovable.
Who else would put headlines on top of the site that are solely designed to let us mock his beta maledom?
lorien1973 on April 8, 2009 at 5:17 PM
no comment needed
gatorboy on April 8, 2009 at 5:17 PM
“(unfair)”…you would have to be the judge of that call?
JoeySlippers on April 8, 2009 at 5:18 PM
I voted for option 1 and I think that the poll results suggest a very large number of closeted homosexuals on HotAir.
You can always tell…I could name names but I wont…..at this time.
The Wall on April 8, 2009 at 5:18 PM
I can’t see any reason not to allow civil unions, and a Marriage Amendment will only increase the Federal government’s reach, something that is extremely unpopular right now, thanks (probably) to the anti-bailout fervor.
I, personally, think that gays should be allowed to get married, but that churches who choose not to perform the ceremonies should not be punished out of some insane obsession with “discrimination.” We still allow men-only clubs (and whites-only clubs, apparently (looking at you Dawson)), so I believe that churches should have some amount of freedom to perform the ceremonies they agree with.
Also, I’m not sure why gays would want to be married in a church that doesn’t actually support their union.
If the Fed decides to impose requirements to perform ceremonies, we FINALLY get to be on the side of the argument that Church and State should be separate.
jimmy the notable on April 8, 2009 at 5:18 PM
+1
gatorboy on April 8, 2009 at 5:18 PM
Obama will put Palin on the defensive in 2012 by pushing for a Federal civil unions law. This will also help him super majority gay votes in places like VA and Florida which have large gay populations.
DeathToMediaHacks on April 8, 2009 at 5:18 PM
+1
gatorboy on April 8, 2009 at 5:19 PM
I’m sure this is answered somewhere, but why do gays need a new legal right to set up whatever civil agreement between themselves it is that they want to create?
Is it just the convenience of having a handy, state-recognized agreement, the terms of which are set up in advance by law? Or would these agreements, were they written, actually not hold up in court?
I’m assuming it has to do with forcing corporations to issue benefits and so on to their “dependant.”
TexasDan on April 8, 2009 at 5:19 PM
Yep. That judicial fiat thing is always a problem for me. If Vermont really wants gay marriage, it’s not my concern.
Mr. D on April 8, 2009 at 5:19 PM
AP’s beta maledom is easy to mock even if he doesn’t do that.
Darth Executor on April 8, 2009 at 5:19 PM
It was supposed to be a poll of Hot Air readers. We come here because we don’t care what liberals think.
frankj on April 8, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Yes, true. But he gives us that outlet. And it’s good sport.
lorien1973 on April 8, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Because he doesn’t already have the gay vote pretty much sewn up?
myrenovations on April 8, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Marry who you want, just don’t touch me with your Gay-Claw.
Bishop on April 8, 2009 at 5:20 PM
Allah, how about us at HotAir believe in individual freedom and limited government? I would hope that’s not too hard to believe…
beatcanvas on April 8, 2009 at 5:21 PM
E x a c t l y
carbon_footprint on April 8, 2009 at 5:21 PM
It seems to me to be simular to ACORN and other Liberals trying to infiltrate the Tea Parties to make the attendees look bad.
kingsjester on April 8, 2009 at 5:21 PM
We all know, of course, that gays won’t be satisfied with marriage.
Next they’ll want the right to have babies.
TexasDan on April 8, 2009 at 5:21 PM
I voted for “I like it” but the 18 inch rule still applies!
lorien1973 on April 8, 2009 at 5:22 PM
I think that that is pretty much synonymous with the libertarian option.
jimmy the notable on April 8, 2009 at 5:22 PM
If they Gays start demanding a right to vote, they will have a fight on their hands.
Bishop on April 8, 2009 at 5:23 PM
Thank GOD! Whew! We can all sleep better now knowing that gays can marry in Vt!
ThackerAgency on April 8, 2009 at 5:24 PM
When I voted, the Federalist option was winning, with the first option very close to it. It would have been nice to see how HA readers only felt – there do seem to be quite a few Federalists here (some with a Libertarian streak).
Speaking of which, why the hate for Libertarians?
Anna on April 8, 2009 at 5:25 PM
I picked door number 2.
Agree or disagree-I disagree-Vermont followed the rules.
annoyinglittletwerp on April 8, 2009 at 5:25 PM
If the economy is still in the toilet in 2012, Obama could deliver on those unicorns and Palin (or whoever) would still have him on the defensive.
Snowed In on April 8, 2009 at 5:25 PM
You’re kidding, right? He’s got the gay vote locked up already. That’s like saying that maybe the Republican will lock up the white Evangelical, gun-owner vote in Kansas.
By the way, Obama should be displeased by this latest development. He claims to oppose gay marriage.
amerpundit on April 8, 2009 at 5:26 PM
My objection to gay marriage has long been the courts twisting equal protection into a pretzel to make it happen. I voted for it in FL, and it lost, as I predicted for a couple years before.
Why a pretzel? Because equal protection applies to similarly situated people in light of legal precedent, here men and women. No culture I’m aware of in history, until recently — ever — has said male-male or female-female marriage is acceptable. Something Montesquieu said about “trembling hands” seems very applicable if you don’t want to launch straight to polygamy with child brides a la Afghanistan. If ‘equal’ causes us to lose our ability to make clear distinctions based on gender, age, or other conditions then it’s the logical outcome.
Beagle on April 8, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Allah: Is there any Wordpress plugin that allows only registered Hot Air readers to vote?
amerpundit on April 8, 2009 at 5:26 PM
Yep. So Allah is using this to make that very point.
Which begs the question: are social cons who seek to control the lives of others merely Statists in Republican clothing?
Exit question: is the Republican party an anti-Statist party – or not?
beatcanvas on April 8, 2009 at 5:26 PM
This is the point I make sometimes, which always riles up the social cons.
lorien1973 on April 8, 2009 at 5:28 PM
I’m against gay marriage but I think most of us on the site are more about laws and constitution than we are about getting our way (I guess you can call that
conservative libertarian). I voted for the federalist option. What’s the big deal with civil unions? As long as it doesn’t force anything on citizens or religious organizations, we shouldn’t have a problem with that.youngO on April 8, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Oh yeah. Nobody is scared of being outed like anonymous Internet commenters.
/eyeroll
TheUnrepentantGeek on April 8, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Those questions seem to have been written by the guy who created Saddam Husseins’ election ballots:
VOTE FOR ONE:
SADDAM HUSSEIN _______
PLEASE KILL MY FAMILY _______
BobMbx on April 8, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Guess Death thinks the Log Cabin Republicans are a large portion of the gay vote.
Esthier on April 8, 2009 at 5:29 PM
I’m against gay marriage but I think most of us on the site are more about laws and constitution than we are about getting our way (I guess you can call that libertarian). I voted for the federalist option. What’s the big deal with civil unions? As long as it doesn’t force anything on citizens or religious organizations, we shouldn’t have a problem with that.
Haven’t figured out the strike thing just yet
youngO on April 8, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Some of them are Statists, some of them genuinely believe society will collapse due to moral decay.
TheUnrepentantGeek on April 8, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Hey Allah, here is something to tick you off.
Stevens to run for re-election in 2014. :) enjoy!
upinak on April 8, 2009 at 5:30 PM
I don’t agree that ‘Marriage’ is something that should be for same-sex couples.
However, I also don’t believe that we need to amend our United States Constitution to exclude a right from any citizen.
If states wish to create laws individually, that is their own business. Messing with the Constitution is something that should only be done in rare circumstances. Gay marriage, in my opinion, isn’t one of them, due to the fact that you’re talking about amending it for 1 minority group, and not granting them equal rights, but excluding them from it.
My basic point is that the Constitution is not meant to be an exclusionary document.
jrlingreenbay on April 8, 2009 at 5:30 PM
Ron Paul.
I imagine you believe you’ve made some serious threat, as though anonymous posters on a blog care at all if their sexual preferences are made known.
Oh, wait… did I upset you? Should I be afraid you’ll out me now?
Better tell my husband before he finds out by checking the site.
Esthier on April 8, 2009 at 5:32 PM
DeathToMediaHacks on April 8, 2009 at 5:18 PM
As much as I hate to say it, your right and not only would it help him there it would win him Ohio since they have the largest gay and lesbian population outside of San Fran.
tee866 on April 8, 2009 at 5:32 PM
Oh yeah. Nobody is scared of being outed like anonymous Internet commenters.
/eyeroll
TheUnrepentantGeek on April 8, 2009 at 5:29 PM
Based on the opinion of a sparkling intellect like Wall’s, no less.
But he isn’t planning to “out” anyone….yet, as if we are foreign spies or something. *cue ominous music*
Bishop on April 8, 2009 at 5:32 PM
Just wondering….
If I marry my house, and later on get a divorce, can I equally divide the assets and liabilities and still stay in the house?
Get’s rid of half of my debt as I read the current divorce laws.
BobMbx on April 8, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Bill Quick asked a similar question on his blog and I opted for the federalist option. I’m guessing that that option is quite in vogue here at HA.
Physics Geek on April 8, 2009 at 5:33 PM
I really hate to waste any time explaining this to you,but why are you trying to stereotype anyone on this blog?I voted the federalist choice,how can you equate that with trying to guess someones bedroom habits and why would you want to?
canditaylor68 on April 8, 2009 at 5:34 PM
Sorry, Allah, but you’ve got it wrong.
I voted “federalism”, because this one actually came about in a legal manner.
But in IA, CA, CT, and MA it came about by judicial thugery. To protect against that I favor the FMA.
If the SSM advocates would stay out of the courts, i’d oppose the FMA. Since they insist on using black robed thugs to pervert the law, I favor the FMA.
Greg Q on April 8, 2009 at 5:34 PM
I didn’t vote in the poll.
We need to save Marriage.
pseudonominus on April 8, 2009 at 5:34 PM
BobMbx on April 8, 2009 at 5:33 PM
Possibly, though you might also have to pay alimony to yourself or at least child support for the small shed out back.
Bishop on April 8, 2009 at 5:35 PM
This site was linked by a bunch of blogs, including Andrew Sullivan.
The Dean on April 8, 2009 at 5:37 PM
Eh, I neither hate nor love Ron Paul. His bad ideas tend to cancel out the good ones. Maybe if someone a little less eccentric took the wheel, and espoused solid Libertarian beliefs (personal liberty and limited gov’t), would that help?
Not that I have anyone to volunteer, though.
Anna on April 8, 2009 at 5:39 PM
I voted for McCain/Palin. Granted, it was a “safe” vote. I’m from a blue state.
I didn’t think McCain could ever muster a government based on his ideas.
But last year truly made a difference for me. Long-time Democrat here.
I try not to get into the fray of Republicans. I decided, personally, I’ll vote for ANY party member, R or D, who convinces me that they are open to ideas, willing to take the heat, and for people.
That’s my deal today. Today, Feinstein in CA gets my vote. She’s a moderate Dem., with an ear to the ground on EFCA.
I’ve voted for her for years. She gets my vote again.
Boxer, whom I’ve also voted for years, does not.
I would love to see the Republican party shift to the middle.
I’d move there in a heartbeat.
I’m not seeing that as reality right now. There are just too many conservative forces at work.
It has nothing to do with your blog, in short.
It has to do with a load of us who are looking for the center.
You’re not it.
That should reassure you, I guess.
AnninCA on April 8, 2009 at 5:39 PM
Then take it out of the state’s jurisdiction.
LevStrauss on April 8, 2009 at 5:39 PM
The question is, now that homosexuality is so ‘hip’, how heavy handed will the government be in FORCING acceptance? I mean, will there be ’sensitivity training’ required of every business? Will there be hiring requirements of a certain percentage of gays?
Oh yes, libertarian positions indeed. Please more government assistance on ‘fairness’ and ‘civil rights’.
ThackerAgency on April 8, 2009 at 5:39 PM
No big surprise. Any state that could produce a Bernie Sanders and Leahy could also sanction gay marriage. It’s Vermont . . . enough said.
rplat on April 8, 2009 at 5:39 PM
I’m sorry, what are you doing here?
jimmy the notable on April 8, 2009 at 5:40 PM
I guess none of us ever really know whether or not we might be in a situation that we might be forced to enter a gay marriage. It’s a good thing that it’s legal now since, ya know, everyone is ‘a little gay’.
ThackerAgency on April 8, 2009 at 5:40 PM
As a Republican who really does believe in small government, I’m not a big fan of asking the state for permission to get married. Hence I’m not a big fan of marriage licenses.
Abolish them. Problem solved, and you get to keep your personal values.
Jimmy Liberty on April 8, 2009 at 5:40 PM
What would your ideal Republican party espouse?
myrenovations on April 8, 2009 at 5:41 PM
Let’s take a poll to see if we want Allah to still be on Hot Air. I vote “no”. Let’s tell it like it is folks – instead of gay and lesbian. They are queer. Give them a jar of vaseline and ignore them. If they didn’t get the media attention, they wouldn’t even do this insane stuff.
suzyk on April 8, 2009 at 5:42 PM
Yeah… it’s a long battle.
Which makes them no different than the Statist Left – they just have a different agenda.
I know I’ve heard somewhere about this unalienable right of the individual to be free in self-determination. Give me a few minutes… I know I’ll find the reference…
beatcanvas on April 8, 2009 at 5:42 PM
TexasDan,
I’m assuming it has to do with forcing corporations to issue benefits and so on to their “dependant.”
I am a gay marriage supporting conservative and i can assure you that they just want to be recognized as human beings with the same rights and opportunities as straight people. At the very least, treat them with dignity and dont immediately look for an ulterior/financial motive.
This is an issue where conservatives are one the wrong and losing side. In a country that has no fault divorce, and allows for people like Kevin Federline and Britney Spears to marry, there some how seems to be a higher bar/standard for gays.
If its any consolation, there is gay divorce as well. So, gay people just like straight people may conclude that marriage isnt for them.
I agree with social conservatives that say, gay marriage is not a “right”. But what exact victory so-cons gain from opposing this, i am not sure.
Unfortunately there are a few nuts on the pro-gay marriage side, but i dont think this in itself should be a barrier to the concept of gay marriage.
Federalism is the best solution and legislatures doing it instead of courts is perfect. If Vermonters think that their legislature has betrayed them, they can start canvasing for a Prop 8 like referendum or what ever their State Constitution allows.
nagee76 on April 8, 2009 at 5:43 PM
You’d be surprised how many gay people don’t vote actually. The idea isn’t just to get those who do vote to support you, it’s maximizing that populations vote potential. Something the idiots who organized the anti Prop 8 measure failed to do. They didnt even organize in gay communities (I know).
DeathToMediaHacks on April 8, 2009 at 5:43 PM
I’d love to see the Democrat Party shift to the middle, but I’m not holding my breath.
Snowed In on April 8, 2009 at 5:43 PM
Proof positive that every thing in life………….
………… should be directed by taking a poll!
Seven Percent Solution on April 8, 2009 at 5:44 PM
I won’t presume to speak for others, but here’s my take:
1) A law put on the books by the legislature is always preferable to one imposed by the courts. (See Jersey, New, for expensive examples of the latter.)
2) If it don’t cost me money, I’m not necessarily against it.
3) If it don’t get shoved into my face, ditto.
4) If Vermont wants ‘em, fine. I’ll chip in for gas.
Paul_in_NJ on April 8, 2009 at 5:45 PM
More likely to support gay marriage: Democrats
More likely to oppose the execution of gays in Islamic countries: Republicans
Disturb the Universe on April 8, 2009 at 5:46 PM
Maybe the “middle” in America is really the center between the two Statist views. The middle, in America, might actually be the principle of individual liberty.
beatcanvas on April 8, 2009 at 5:46 PM
I get so torn on this issue. I agree that the government should not be in the business of marriage licenses… but as a military spouse, I enjoy the benefits of having my marriage recognized by the government. Makes me feel a little hypocritical (and human), but it’s a reminder that things are not always black and white.
Anna on April 8, 2009 at 5:47 PM
Actually, the homosexual contingent here at Hot Air isn’t closeted.
paul006 on April 8, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Not surprised at all actually.
But they won’t turn out to vote for or against gay marriage/civil unions anyway. It won’t matter what Obama runs on or who he runs against. They aren’t going to show up at the polls.
Obama himself could show up in the bars on a Friday night, ballots in hand and they wouldn’t bother.
myrenovations on April 8, 2009 at 5:48 PM
Your my favorite poke “the bear with a stick” blogger. Faux outrage…UNITE!!!
portlandon on April 8, 2009 at 5:49 PM
Frankly, I find it shocking that you find it shocking that HA readers aren’t all foaming-at-the-mouth bigots who want to gas the gays. I know lots of conservative people who happen to be gay and would GLADLY give their votes to the GOP if the GOP were in any way supportive of equal rights. The gays love their money too and want low taxes, especially since more of them are educated and wealthier than the straight population (true! look it up). It’s a goldmine that goes undiscovered.
dcwvu on April 8, 2009 at 5:49 PM
For the record, the libertarian position is not allowing the government to detain or throw a gay person in jail for being gay. It’s not libertarian to use the government apparatus to strong arm public acceptance of something that is a health hazard.
ThackerAgency on April 8, 2009 at 5:50 PM
This thread is so gay.
*ahem*
MadisonConservative on April 8, 2009 at 5:51 PM
Lots of benefits have been created around the marriage license. But had the marriage license never been there, whoever was giving the benefit would have come up with some other way to give an incentive.
Of course, if we just got rid of the income tax we’d no longer need many of these “benefits.”
Jimmy Liberty on April 8, 2009 at 5:51 PM
I love you, MadCon. :)
Anna on April 8, 2009 at 5:52 PM
dcwvu on April 8, 2009 at 5:49 PM
The gays that are activists for gay marriage are a small population of the under 5% of the total American Population that is gay. Several states have voted against gay marriage. The state supreme courts that overturn that vote are going against the wishes of the state’s population.
kingsjester on April 8, 2009 at 5:53 PM
This is true esp when it comes to DEERS and other benefits. Of particular mention is children and their necessary care. It really boils down to inheritances. Thats how it started, thats how it will always be.
canditaylor68 on April 8, 2009 at 5:56 PM
it’s tough when the middle keeps shifting away from the republicans.
sesquipedalian on April 8, 2009 at 5:58 PM
As long as my husband (and all the other military servicmembers) still got paid! Nothing like paying income tax, only to have it recycled back into your paycheck.
I understand what you’re saying about benefits, but it’d be a bit easier for a company to give benefits to whomever they choose (married or not), than for the Fed Gov’t/military to do so. We already deal with enough paperwork, and limited funds, so I could see the military doing away with benefits altogether, rather than try to figure out who deserves spousal/familial benefits (without a marriage license).
Anna on April 8, 2009 at 5:58 PM
Support of gay marriage is liberal, both social and fiscal. No real libertarian would support the extension of entitlements. Which makes me thing the “libertarians” who support gay marriage are really either closet gays or plain liberals.
Darth Executor on April 8, 2009 at 5:59 PM
The answer’s simple: For most of us, regardless of how we fall on the gay marriage issue (I have no problem with it myself), the state of Vermont went about this the right way. It was not accomplished by judicial fiat. It was done through the legislature in the people’s house. That’s the way it should be done.
Matt Helm on April 8, 2009 at 5:59 PM
*servicemembers.
Anna on April 8, 2009 at 5:59 PM
I seem to remember hearing that there is a name for being able to tell… now what is it…?
Oh, that’s right… it’s called GAYDAR!! And it is, in the words of Hunter S. Thompson, one of the mostly highly prized skills in the homosexual repertoire.
Congratulations, The Wall… you must be a big hit at San Francisco parties.
JohnGalt23 on April 8, 2009 at 6:00 PM
The Republican party jumped smack into the middle last year.
We lost because of it.
Please, take your failed idea and light it on fire, then flush the ashes, then blow up the toilet.
MadisonConservative on April 8, 2009 at 6:00 PM
Yes they are beatcanvas… that’s exactly what they are.
JohnGalt23 on April 8, 2009 at 6:02 PM
You also think Christopher Hitchens wants to kill you.
Therefore, the weight of your opinions is gargantuan.
MadisonConservative on April 8, 2009 at 6:02 PM
AP, this is not the “middle option” as you suppose, because there’s no such thing on this issue.
If you mean the more “centrist” or even “classic” conservative position, then the federalist option is it, period.
Civil unions would be a state-by-state “middle option” but it would hardly be a conservative one. Either you believe your state should sanction same-sex marriage or you don’t–the civil union option is really a lame compromise from either perspective.
Again, the biggest problem is this: gay marriage activists won’t stop at civil unions, and they won’t stop with one or two states. Their end goal is the full recognition of same-sex marriage in every state, whether the people support it or not.
Not only is the federalist position a respector of the constitution, it is also a respector of the right of the people in several States to chart their own course no matter what their neighbors do. It’s a tough position to hold, indeed, because of the slippery slope toward the nationalization of licentiousness, but at least it is a principled position.
cackcon on April 8, 2009 at 6:04 PM
The point at hand is civil unions, not marriage.
I really, really don’t get notion that gays are being slighted by not being allowed to “marry.” But I made the leap in my other post as well; how outraged will they be when, once married, they find they’re not able to have babies?
I also get tired of the “marriage is a farce becuase of Britney Spears” bit. How well people do in their marriage relationships has exactly zero bearing on whether a relationship between two people with the same gentalia can ever be considered a marriage. I’m always reminded of the scene in the Life of Brian where one guy wants to be a woman. “It will be a symbol of our struggle against oppression./It’s a symbol of his struggle against reality.”
TexasDan on April 8, 2009 at 6:05 PM
Let’s take a poll on whether suzyk gets to stay! I vote no.
jimmy the notable on April 8, 2009 at 6:06 PM
You are either a liar or an idiot. It is impossible for a conservative to be in favor of altering 5000 years of history. The idiocy of stating that sodomites merely wish “recognized as human beings” proves that you are either a sodomite yourself or a covert Kos infiltrator.
If sodomites were not recognized as human beings, they could be treated like any common varmint. Ask a Texan what that is, if you don’t know.
Anyway, getting rid of RINOs and sodomites is a must if the Republican Party ever wants to be the governing party again.
platypus on April 8, 2009 at 6:08 PM
Probably because there wasn’t a 4th option: who cares. I think a significant number of votes would be siphoned off into the “who cares” category… which for me means that a large number of Republicans would support Palin regardless of her gay marriage position. Even among those who do care about gay marriage, Palin is already the social con pope because of her Absolute Moral Authority on abortion.
Lehosh on April 8, 2009 at 6:09 PM
Great. New widget for WordPress; vote/kickplayer.
TexasDan on April 8, 2009 at 6:09 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »