However, I will say it’s unfortunate that your opposition to gay initiatives doesn’t extend to your panache for europop dance music (per your blog).

I mean, really? You’re going to argue that Ace Of Base should be legal and gay marriage shouldn’t be? THAT is an abomination.

You have it all backwards.

That is special treatment, given that the armed forces now regularly discharge heterosexual people based on their personal lives when such conduct could endanger unit cohesion, i.e. fraternization.

Furthermore, since men and women are not required to shower and live with heterosexual people of the opposite gender who may see them as sexual objects, requiring them to do so with people of the same gender is discriminatory and unfair.

Instead, we are asking that gay couples be afforded the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, allowing them to participate in this solemn and important institution.

Which makes no sense, since heterosexual couples are different biologically, physically, and sociologically, both in terms of the couple themselves and in terms of the potential impact of children, than are same-sex couples.

Heterosexual couples are the means by which society reproduces and perpetuates itself. Same-sex couples are simply a matter of social convenience that offer no long-term benefit to society as a whole.

What it does is allow the state to enhance the charges on the basis of motive. This has long been a common practice in American jurisprudence, as motive is the sole determining factor between first and second degree murder.

But, given that the state can already use motive as a determining factor, “hate-crimes” laws are both discriminatory and redundant, inasmuch as they allow “motive” to be automatically assigned based on the characteristics of a victim. Again, this is no different than a black man who attacks a white woman being automatically charged with rape in addition to assault simply because his victim is a white woman.

And under ENDA, heterosexuals and homosexuals would still have the same rights, as the bill forbades discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation” not “homosexuality.”

If that were the case, affirmative-action laws would be illegal, since they are clearly discrimination on the basis of skin color or gender. But they are not — because, rather than forbidding discrimination equally, laws like ENDA create “protected classes” that receive preferential treatment.

Case in point; when Boeing’s former CEO was involved in a consensual relationship with a subordinate that had no impact on the business whatsoever, he was summarily fired. But when Minneapolis Fire Chief Bonnie Bleskachek, a lesbian, systematically sexually harassed and discriminated against those who refused her sexual advances, the city was forced to “demote” her to a highly-paid administrative position and pay a settlement — because they were afraid that her bringing a lawsuit under Minnesota’s ENDA law would result in her being returned to her position.

Military service is not a universal right and is in fact often denied to people based on inborn characteristics or behavior.

And if we were asking to make it such, that would be a valid point. Instead, we are asking that current and future members of the Armed Forces who are gay be evaluated solely on their job performance.

Marriage is not a universal right and is in fact often denied to people based on inborn characteristics or behavior.

And if we were asking to make it such, that would be a valid point. Instead, we are asking that gay couples be afforded the same legal rights as heterosexual couples, allowing them to participate in this solemn and important institution.

“Hate crimes” laws discriminate by providing different classifications of punishment based solely on the victim

That is factually false. Hate crime enhancements do not pertain to all crimes against a specific member of a minority class. What it does is allow the state to enhance the charges on the basis of motive. This has long been a common practice in American jurisprudence, as motive is the sole determining factor between first and second degree murder.

Heterosexuals and homosexuals currently have exactly the same job protections based on sexual orientation — none.

And under ENDA, heterosexuals and homosexuals would still have the same rights, as the bill forbades discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation” not “homosexuality.” And while certainly gay and lesbians would be the primary beneficiary of the bill, ENDA protects sexual orientation equally and would allow a heterosexual individual to file suit against an employer if he or she were fired specifically for being straight.

In short, McCain believes in treating gay people equally.

His record and policy positions say otherwise.

– Military service is not a universal right and is in fact often denied to people based on inborn characteristics or behavior.

– Marriage is not a universal right and is in fact often denied to people based on inborn characteristics or behavior.

– UAFA discriminates against heterosexuals by allowing gay and lesbian people to automatically sponsor their multiple sexual partners for immigration to the United States without any enforceable legal requirement

– “Hate crimes” laws discriminate by providing different classifications of punishment based solely on the victim, just as similar laws under segregation discriminated by providing different classes of punishment based on the victim’s skin color

– Heterosexuals and homosexuals currently have exactly the same job protections based on sexual orientation — none. THAT is completely equal, versus ENDA, which creates an UNEQUAL situation similar to “hate crimes” laws.

In short, McCain believes in treating gay people equally. You simply have redefined “equal” to mean “special treatment based on sexual orientation”.

he is not perfect on issues of concern to the gay community

No, there’s perfection here, it’s just McCain’s policy positions are a clean sweep in opposition to every legislative remedy addressing gay rights. He opposes everything. That includes repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”, civil unions (to say nothing of gay marriage), the Uniting American Families Act, Matthew Shepherd ACT and ENDA, to name the most popular.

If that’s “not perfect,” what would a BAD Republican candidate on gay issues look like?

the next president will nominate three justices,choosing the succesors of Stevens,Souter and Ginsburg.mccain will nominate justices very likely to overrul Lawrence and Romer,with a serious damage for the community.

Ah, an empty assertion. Gee, we never see this from the left. [/sarcasm] Other than misguided paranoia, I see no evidence for this claim of yours. Yet looking at the records of the 3 Justices you mention, the very ones Obama champions as his models for future appointments, they are extremist liberals who have been on the wrong side of the Constitution in a number of cases, including:

1. Gonzales v. Carhart (concerning the Partial Birth Abortion Act)
2. Kelo v. City of New London (violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment)
3. District of Columbia v. Heller (2nd Amendment)
4. Grutter v. Bollinger & Gratz v. Bollinger (racial quotas)
5. Boumediene v. Bush (foreign terrorists have ‘right’ of habeas corpus)

McCain could screw up and appoint another Souter, who was appointed by Bush Sr., but at least with him we have a far better chance of more reasonable Justices than with Obama.

spokesman Ben LaBolt replied with this email: “Barack Obama has always believed that same-sex couples should enjoy equal rights under the law, and he will continue to fight for civil unions as president. He respects the decision of the California Supreme Court, and continues to believe that states should make their own decisions when it comes to the issue of marriage.”

Quote from McDonald’s article, bold is mine, for emphasis.
So McCain stands by the traditional definition of marriage, while staying respectful to gays and State rights. This can only because he is courting the Religious right vote. No way he actually might believe this.

On the other hand, Obama never states that he is for gay marriage. The closest we get from him is civil unions. So according to Obama, the CA Supreme court just wasted it’s time. CA already has Domestic Partner laws on the books.

Oh yeah, I forgot, Obama is a Democrat, he actually could have said he is entirely against any rights for gays, and it wouldn’t matter. They’d forgive him since of course he has to appease the Black vote, and just by being a Democrat he’s good, regardless of if he does a single thing to improve the lives of Gay Americans.

Get a clue.

Regards,
Peter H.