Absolutely spot on....

But you must then accept that a vote for Obama is still perpetuating hegemony and violence around the world. You also don't get to walk away clean because you disagree with your candidate on these issues.

@1 And how, exactly, is a vote for "4 More Wars!" Romney not worse on those accounts?

@1: That would be true, if there were a credible anti-war candidate. As much as I would love for someone like Jill Stein to have a chance, the reality is that either Barack Obama or Mitt Romney will win this election. Anything else is fantasy land. So not only is my vote for Obama a vote for progressive social policies, it is also a vote for the least war-happy credible candidate.

Now let's talk about Obama and Gitmo.

@1 / @4: I'm down with not requiring someone to solve every single problem in the world at once. I wish you luck finding your SuperPresident.

I suppose if the candidates were Mitt Romney (R) and Adolf Hitler (D) who supported same-sex marriage, anyone that voted for Mitt would be castigated as heartless, self-loathing, bigoted, homophobe.

Gay Dude for Romney - you really jumped the shark on that one.

Women should espouse a similar manifesto

@6- Are you comparing Obama to Hitler?

@6 Hmmm...I would have to hear some details of their economic plans first.

@7 This is called a Godwin. Rest assured, when it occurs it's like tilting a pinball machine too far - nothing else you do or say matters, and you automatically lose.

@9,

Yes.

@6,

Fuck off.

@6: If the only way you can feel good about voting for Romney is by comparing Obama to Hitler, you're a sad, strange little man and you have my pity. But then again, I feel that way about most Log Cabin Republicans: it seems like there are other political choices out there that don't wish People Like You would just stop existing.

On the post-relevant side of things: any links to that Facebook post? I'd also like to share it.

@ 2/3/5 I'm not looking for, or even hoping for, perfection. Of course Romney's worse -- horribly worse. Duh. And I would vote for Obama if I were in a swing state (thankfully I'm not). What I'm saying is that making a point of "you don't get to walk away clean" for selectively overlooking some policies while others are horrific, cannot be applied only to the opposition.

Nobody's walking away from this clean.

"Nobody's walking away from this clean."

True words.

Doug Wright puts his finger on it: civil liberties.

I think that both progressives and conservatives underestimate the importance of such an approach in widening support for gay rights. I'm almost 50, and I was brought up in a sheltered suburban environment and a Catholic upbringing which couldn't possibly be more heteronormative: basically, "gay" was synonymous with "perverted".

I didn't suddenly become pro-gay because I slid along the Kinsey scale, or started to hang with gay people (hell, until law school I didn't know a single out gay), or gained empathy. It was simply that gay rights were presented to me in a civil rights context and, click, that was it. Done. I was a fairly rational young man and I couldn't see a single damned reason why civil liberties for citizens in a democracy should be parceled out on the basis of who you slept with. You're a citizen, you've got rights, and that was that.

@6

I LOL'd on that one. You're a fucking moron.

@6: Ryan/Röhm, '16!

@14 While it's true nobody is walking away clean, the issue being addressed is that most people you speak with will say they are voting Romney/Ryan solely because of the economic argument and that they don't necessarily agree with him on anything else.

That's fucking ridiculous.

Even if Romney's plan could be enacted to perfection (which it can't, but we'll ignore this for the sake of argument)

Which legacy would you rather leave your children?

Leaving them with a growing deficit and a shaky economy.

Leaving them in a world where women and the LGBT community are treated as second class citizens.

There are a list of issues that should be considered, however human rights should always be at the top of the list. A 'No' should always be a deal breaker.

Lugh beat me to the point I wanted to make. The only way to not be compromised in some way by this process is to simply not participate in it.

I don't mean that to imply false equivalence in this case. I don't consider the choice between Obama and Romney a particularly difficult one. But I'm a long way from happy about it.

6 - yes, which is still true when you rename Adolph Hitler (D) to Bigfoot's Dick (D).

Language <> Intent. But since you're voting to negate your own civil rights, you're a moron, and you clearly don't get this.

Kudos to @10, who can work with an absurdity and distill it to its profundity.

We can't avoid being compromised. To the world, US citizenship makes us all unclean.

Not participating compromises you, too, I think. You then become one of those who allowed things to get worse because you refused to try to make them better. We're adult humans - none of us have totally clean hands. If you think you do, it's just because you are letting somebody else shovel your share of the shit.

@26: Ummmm, no, one can't get all that through Civil Unions. First, the term itself is vague and flexible and may mean lots or nothing. Second, it exists more to rationalize the rights-denying position than it does to grant rights; it's there to make nice folks feel just normal enough about what is, in reality, a bigoted position. Third, if one could get all the benefits of marriage through a civil union then why have separate categories?

And you did get the "separate but equal" thing being unconstitutional, right?

@25 : Yes. Absolutely.

Inaction in a dynamic system is still action. Things are happening whether you lift a finger or not.

I'm able to be somewhat forgiving of inaction through cowardice or laziness, two unfortunate but very human weaknesses. Self-righteous inaction, on the other hand...

Shorter @30: Right A should not be granted because of Misconduct B. But if Misconduct B were to cease tomorrow, Right A should still not be granted.

@31: Got news for you, frothie: I ain't gay and I ain't American, so there's nothing for me to take. I just rather like the idea of an America that lives up to its democratic and egalitarian ideals rather than one that validates bigotry. You're basically just a big ol' steaming pile of rage and hatred. So, voters have voted to outlaw gay marriage. So what? At one point they voted to outlaw black voting, interracial marriage and to shove every Japanese American into concentration camps. Stopping the majority from doing hateful stuff is one of the reasons sane democracies have constitutions and inalienable rights.

@34: I live in Canada, bro, so I'm not at issue here. We've had gay rights for quite some time, and gay marriage and gay divorce too. And you know what? We seem to have done it without straights like me or you freaking the fuck out and trying to deny other people their rights.

Kind of in love with seeker6079 right now... Logic = huge turn-on.

@22 Profundity? The only thing that can be distilled from your comments is a cold hard petrified turd.

#35 - I'm pretty sure Americans didn't actually vote for disenfranchisement of blacks, the criminalization of interracial marriages, or the internment of Japanese citizens. None of those things, to my knowledge, were put to a vote.

@37 Yep because it's just a word! There aren't over 1100 rights tied to that word or anything. I shall do it in a bipartisan fashion! For these purposes I will pretend you are the person I am talking to.

Dear Ken,

Get a godamn job you mooch, stop suckling on the tit of society and the economy will bounce back naturally! That's how it works! Now, as for me, I think you having over 1100 more rights than me because of your sexual orientation is pretty fucked up. I'm voting for Obama because he won't make things worse for me. Thank you for your time.

"narcissistic deviant lifestyle"

Three words used when "untermenschen" would have conveyed what you meant in one. Don't you want to be three times as efficient and only 1/3 as euphemistic?

"deviant lifestyle"

BTW, can you please point me to the American laws which deny civil rights to rubber fetishists, watersport enthusiasts and scat freaks? As I understand it, people are free to marry each other to obtain such sex (etc) from their partners. Their deviancy is to be indulged, but two guys who want a picket fence and a 401K are suddenly a menace.

Oh, and one other thing: If narcissism is to be a reason for denying basic civil liberties, then actors, politicians and models must all be banned from marrying.

Wow. That is very persuasively phrased. Still, it is fair to say that a strong economy helps gay citizens the same as everyone else. To assume that a gay voter will always vote on gay rights is to reduce him or her to his or her gayness and ignore everything else about his or her personhood. I'm a woman, but just because someone is pro-choice doesn't mean I ignore the rest of their platform. I'd vote for an anti-choice candidate if there were more pressing matters that I felt that candidate could handle better than the other guy.

Allowing any one issue to decide our votes makes us too easy to manipulate. That's why all these conservative politicians oppose gay rights and abortion in the first place. Most of them don't give a rat's hindquarters, but they know that they can win over conservative voters with lip service.

@40 No, but they voted for executive and legislative officers who supported and enforced those policies. That's how the system works.

@40: Re Japanese internment, point partially conceded. But if it had been put to a vote in early 1942 would it have been defeated? (Yeah, I laughed too.)

Re: interracial marriages etc.: My knowledge of American history isn't as good as it should be, so thanks for clearing up for me that all of the Jim Crow laws appeared by magic and much to the surprise and dismay of the voters and legislators of the South.

@23 and 25--good points.

@47 re @37. Ah. Misunderstood.

@6 lol, thanks for underlining the fallacious straw man bullshit that led to the LCR endorsement so pointedly. Godwin's law right out of the gate ftw. /sigh

@39: That was wicked. You must be getting ready for Halloween.

@51: If I wanted your opinion, I'd read your entrails. And yet you keep showing up here with your viscera inside your abdominal cavity...

Hello, Jobs And The Economy people! If jobs are important, if the economy is important, vote for Obama! That's all there is to it!

The only reason I can think of that anyone would vote for Romney is BECAUSE they think gay marriage is evil and that abortion is murder. His current stance on these issues is the ONLY thing that could possibly make him attractive. (Attractive to hateful people, of course.)

@6's post is an interesting enough conjecture, but it bears no relation to what is happening in this election. A Republican win would be an utter disaster for our economy as well as for human rights.

@40,45: Japanese internment was done by executive order (I had to look that up), so it was slightly less democratic, though still performed by an elected president. Jim Crow and anti-miscegenation laws were enacted by state legislatures. In a representative democracy, that's about as close as you'll get to letting the people vote.

I entirely get the spirit of the OP; when the FMA passes, I know about a dozen people who will come screaming to me about how They Never Meant This to Happen, and who will all demand that I console them. They know Mr Romney has winked at almost everybody, and are cheerfully gambling the lives of others because deep in their hearts they just "know" that his wink at THEM is the SINCERE one.

The point that seems to be missed in any discussion about this, though, is that Obama is doing reasonably well with the economy - not strikingly well, but as well as could be expected given the reality of his position. Whereas all we know about the Republican economic plans are that they are not as likely to improve the economy as the measures that have been taken in the last four years.

This keeps being framed as 'civil rights vs economy' and that is just not reflective of reality. The real choice is something like "some civil rights, possibly, and slow recovery of the economy, possibly" vs "no real chance of civil rights, and no real chance of economic recovery".

@ 51, well, in my part of Canada, the economy is rolling along quite healthily, gays are getting married, and the world has not come to an end. Our men also apparently have bigger dicks http://www.targetmap.com/viewer.aspx?rep… Maybe it's time to ask for some advice.

@55: You make a great point! It's uplifting to see how much progress has been made in the Democratic party with respect to civil rights. As Lyndon Johnson predicted after signing the Civil Rights Act, "We've lost the south for a generation." He was a little off though, since it's continued for longer than one generation.

@58,

That map was fun as hell. I looked at the key and had initially assumed they were charted in inches.... "Holy fuck, they have an AVERAGE 16 inch penis down in Venezuela!?"

@37 Civil rights are economic issues, asshole. The govt has been pumping money into making jobs for white dudes over the last 4 years, so don't give this "unemployed worker" bs while POC, gays, and women get fucked over ECONOMICALLY by conservative policies. Fuck you for getting yours and then calling people narcissistic for demanding to be included.

@62:
"Oh boy, that sucks. We can't make black people work for free any more since slavery was outlawed."
"What are we gonna do instead?"
"We'll make them dependent on government handouts! Instead of us not paying them to work, we'll pay them to not work! It's the exact opposite, but it's sort of the same, right?"
Seriously, Alleged, even you should be able to see how nuts that idea is.

@ Doug Wright

Calm down! Go take a 'Golden Shower'! Conservatives are too smart to be taken in by your selfish, one issue voting preferences. (And besides, they don't suffer freaks gladly anyway.)

@65: I honestly haven't noticed. If you have, it's because your a delusional bigot who doesn't let facts or truth get in the way of The Truth.

This thread's troll appears to be the typical Craigslist DL closet case/hate yourself afterwards/keep going back for more type. If you weren't thinking about other guys penises troll, why do you spend SO much time here on the Slog saying how unworthy homos are? Go suck more CL dick, por favor.

For some real fun, check out the mayor's race here in San Diego. We've got a progressive non-LGBT candidate (D) who voted for DOMA and then apologized for it, vs a "gay" City Councilman who has made some pro-LGBT symbolic votes but who has been hobnobbing with (Republican) homophobes.

Guess who's got the support of the LGBT community here? (Hint: It ain't the Repub)

Mr Bascomb - Well, that sounds like a mixed bag of fun. Apologies being cheap, I hope your progressive at least pledged never to support DOMA or any of its cousins again.

@1 - yes, exactly. And to everyone who immediately tried to make that statement about Romney - you;re missing the point. The fact that your war-mongering is not as foul as the proposed war-mongering of your opponent doesn't absolve you or your supporters from the consequences of your policy. If you vote for Obama (and I hope you do), you have to accept that you're OK with supporting drone strikes as long as it means [insert your reasons here].

@74
You really should pick better arguments than the ones you chose to use.
While you are correct in that the constitution of the United States does not give Gay people the right to marry, it also does not give YOU the right to marry anyone. In fact the constitution is rather silent on the whole matter.
Freedom of religion in this situation just means I cannot force your church to marry a same-sex couple in a religious ceremony. It has no effect on the civil ceremony of marriage performed outside of a church. And while marriage as you think of it may have religious overtones it is actually it's civil effects that make it important. If there were no civil benefits to marriage then most gays would probably not care one way or the other. BUT there are those benefits that you (and I) get from being married that they do not get.
Now what I want to know is why YOUR misguided religious belief that gays should not be allowed to marry should over-ride MY enlightened religious belief that they should be. Before you decide to use the religious freedom argument think about the fact that not everyone subscribes to an Abrahamic religion (Judaism, Christianity and Islam/Muslim are all Abrahamic) and therefor do not necessarily have the same ideas about sin that you do or even have the concept of sin in their religion in the first place.
As for the economy argument one should be cognizant of the fact that it failed while George Bush was in office. One should also be aware that the president (no matter what his party affiliation is) cannot actually do very much in the way of repairing that economy without someone in congress actually introducing a bill which gets passed by both houses and sent on to his desk for a signature. A signature that is mostly symbolic by the way since the president has three options with a bill. He can sign it into law, he can let it become law without actually signing it as a way to say it stinks but it is better than nothing or he can veto it. And even if he vetoes the bill it can still be made into law with a 2/3rds majority in the two houses voting for it to pass anyway. So if you want to bitch about the failing economy make sure you vote out the republicans in congress who are failing to introduce and pass bills that would fix the economy as they are the majority in the house and have the ability to pass anything they want there.

And before you decide that I'm part of that 47 percent that Mitt puts down be aware I have a more than full time job that makes it possible for you to survive at all in Modern America. I drive a semi. So if you wear clothes, buy food, use a vehicle of any sort or even have a house that wasn't built by you using logs you cut after making your own axe just remember that it was someone like me (and possibly even me that made it possible.