With those two facts doubtlessly established, I don’t see the point of further “dialogue” on this matter.

Surprise! You managed, once again, to avoid the issue by shitting out yet another nasty ad hominem attack. I challenged you over saying I lied about the Labor Party’s platform and size. And, gee, rather than bring evidence to the table to prove me wrong, you launched yet another of your childish insults. But Bill, sweets, if you say that’s something’s untrue when it is in fact the case, doesn’t make YOU the liar?

No, I’m not off my rocker. Actually, I’m sane, and in a rather good mood, but thanks for your concern. I am, in fact, rather pitying you for your nasty disposition and your really ugly way of comporting yourself. And rather distressed that someone who purports to have the interests of queers at heart could be so judgmental, and such a bitterly nasty piece of work. Whatsamatter, can’t get laid?

I am, for sure, out of here now. I’m filtering out e-mail showing updates to this thread, and deleting the bookmark for this page.

Sorry, sweets, I will no longer give you the pleasure of rising to your rancid bait. Because you may be a cocksucker, but you’re also a sadist. And not in a nice way.

Peace.

Have fun at the DNC.

Bill, for you, politics is not the art of the possible. It’s an excuse to be rude, condescending, absolutist, holier-than-thou, and exude the my-crap-doesn’t-stink sectarianism that’s helped sink what’s left of the Left over the past 40 years.

You know NOTHING about who I am or what I believe, and nonetheless have the unmitigated gall to repeatedly launch ad hominem attacks on me, portraying me as the next best thing to Goebbels. So tell me, who died and left you the right to be Miss Stalin?

You tell me I’m compulsively lying when I say the Labor Party platform doesn’t mention sexual orientation. OK, Miss Thing, show me where it does. Go on. Go on, show me where the Labor Party voices ANY support for queer rights in its platform. Oh, I see, it will SOMEDAY. And oh, yeah, according to Wikipedia, the Labor Party’s membership IS less than the population of Wasilla. So where’s the lie, huh? C’mon, puh-leeze show me where’s the lie, since I’m not very bright and you’re an effing genius, if you do say so yourself.

Sigh. I’m out of here, not because I surrender, but because I give up. You’re as over-the-edge nasty as a speedfreak, honey. Why on EARTH should I bother with someone as utterly unpleasant as you’ve proven to be?

Bill-O, for all your highflown idealistic rhetoric, your posts have the tone of someone who’d gleefully put on show trials at the local stadium and send anyone with whom he disagrees off to the re-education camps. You want to believe that while you’re valiantly making The Revolution, or at least posting as if you are, your oh-so-perfect politics gives you the right to put words in other people’s mouths and insult perfect strangers, including queers who have the temerity to disagree even slightly with you? Fine. Have fun.

I simply will not be back here again, and it’s kind of a shame, because this stuff is interesting to me. But I’m thinking that our back-and-forth has entirely monopolized this conversation. And I honestly don’t need some full-of-himself butthole to spout vicious rhetoric at me like some surpassingly odd combination of Rosa Luxemburg and Ann Coulter. Yeah, I know you’ll say something snarky like “Well, it just shows that Simon knows he’s wrong.” Wrong. It’s because I see no reason to spend my time with compulsive bitches. No reason at all. Toodles.

Um, are you SURE you’re not in pay of Karl Rove?

In 2000 and 2004 they at least mentioned us before plunging the knife in out backs on ENDA and the hate crimes bill, but not this time because Obama and the Democrats want a free ride with the bigots.

And heres another lie, posed as a question. “But tell me, where in the platform of the Labor Party, a mass movement with fewer people than Wasilla that you want us to vote for, are the rights of sexual minorities mentioned. Or am I lying about that, too?”

Yes. Simon. So quit lying. It does you no good. The Labor Party doesn’t have a much of a political program at all because much of it’s progress has been held back by Sweeney and other AFL-CIO bureaucrats who want us, as you do, to vote FOR bigotry, war and economic collapse even though they, like you, pretend to be against those things.

When it gets moving again the USLP will be like the AFL-CIO unions that created it and fund it and like Pride at work (www dot prideatwork dot org) who are leading the fight for GLBT equality in the work place and whose efforts were sabotaged and betrayed by bigot enablers like Barney Frank, who gutted ENDA to please the Chamber of Commerce. The unions work for us in terms of job equality and the Democrats work against us. Which is probably one of the reasons you like them?

For once, Simon, you’re right. The USLP, the Socialists and the Communists will get a miniscule protest vote, as will Nader. And this time around the boycott vote, the ‘none of the above” abstentionist vote might even dip under 50%.

The protest vote parties are small, with only a few thousand members and often marginalized. But not always. A socialist, Gene Debs got 900,00 plus vote in 1912 and that scared the bejuzus out of the Democrats and Republicans, That’s why that debased collection of bigots, war makers and ‘bailout the rich types’ put laws in place, beginning with the Electoral College, that make a mockery of their claim that the US is a democratic nation.

Simon doesn’t understand that. He delusional enough to believe he lives in a democracy, and silly enough to think that voting for Obama will advance our agenda. He believes that after DADT, DOMA, ENDA and the hate crimes bill. That not very bright. Simon, tell the truth for once, were you part of the cast of “Up with People”?

People should vote for what they want, even if they don’t get it, rather than voting for what they don’t want, and getting it (to paraphrase Gene Debs). Simon on the other hands urgently wants to conform, to vote as he’s told, even if his vote elects a bigot pandering prowar bailout artist and pet of Wall Street named Barak Obama. And, oddly, he wants to tell us how proud of himself he is for doing that.

Luke I’m against PUMAs for one reason and only one reason – they’re going to vote for Obama or McCain. That’s a mistake that will cost us dearly.

But tell me, where in the platform of the Labor Party, a mass movement with fewer people than Wasilla that you want us to vote for, are the rights of sexual minorities mentioned. Or am I lying about that, too?

They refer to themselves as the US Labor Party, as do most of their supporters, so why the lying references to LaRouche’s gang of bigots? Tossing a little shit to see if it’ll stick? It won’t. You’ll have to become a lot better liar than that if you ever expect to get on the staff of the DNC.

Simon, wake up and do some more fact checking. Now you have to read Obama’s platform, the one that, on his instructions, refuses to even mention us? Why did you lie and say it did? And you have to Google the US Labor Party. And don’t forget to look up homophobe. The definition is Helms.

You most certainly are a cheerleader for the Democrats; it’s just that you’re the kind who keeps dropping the pom-poms.

I’m glad that you finally admit that you believe it’s OK for politicians to be religious bigots as long as their name isn’t Helms. By that logic, though, I wonder why you don’t just vote for McCain. Like Obama, he opposes SSM but probably for more cynical reasons than the mindless superstition of Barak Obama, gods best friend in the fight against the satanic evils of SSM.

Enjoy voting for the open bigotry of the Democrats, for a longer and wider war, and for the bailout. Many of us just don’t have the stomach to vote for parties that practice bigotry, support genocide and bailout predatory speculators. You, on the other hand, are happy to do so.

Ah, and here I thought it was because I’d been multitasking, hurriedly posting while I was also finishing up a project that was due the next morning. But since you’re apparently omniscient, I stand corrected.

Listen, I’m certainly no cheerleader for the Democrats. Time and again, they’ve been a disappointment. I do not now and never have believed that Obama is the Messiah. But calling him nothing more than a homophobic bigot is both overly harsh and just plain silly. Is he influenced by societal homophobia? Well, prolly, same as most whites, if they’re honest with themselves, can discern the influence of societal racism. But that sure as crap doesn’t make him Jesse Helms.

Rhetorical overkill helps no one. Even on this board, we’re seeing queers who don’t agree with one another being subjected to ad hominem attacks.

Yes, Obama is a cautious, centrist pol. He’s stated that he wants to overturn DADT by consensus, not fiat, and that he favors a legislative repeal of DOMA, rather than pursuing the matter in the courts. You may say that’s just lip-service blather, and maybe it is. But the argument that there’s no difference between him and pro-Prop 8 McCain and the conservative-Catholic/evangelical base he’s pandering to? OK, go live in your wet dream of a massive queer left. After all, political compromise is no substitute for kvetching on a message board.

Come to think of it, since we’re getting personal, just what kind of organizing – and with what party, faction, or organization – are you doing to further that massive queer movement? Your master stroke seems to be not “wasting” your vote on Obama, but instead impotently protesting by throwing your vote away on some party no one’s ever heard of. (I can just hear Pelosi lamenting “Oh, Bill Perdue voted for some weird Marxist! Where did I go wrong?”) Now, let’s for the moment forget that this was the Nader pitch. (Though I don’t know, maybe you in fact do believe we’re no worse off because Bush rather than Gore has been President the last 8 years.) But the U. S. Labor Party? Dude, I hate to break it to you, but the U.S. Labor Party was founded by thorough-going wacko Lyndon LaRouche, and was disbanded THIRTY YEARS AGO. Or maybe you mean “The Labor Party?” Well, I think a lot of what they propose economically is right on. But here’s a little exercise for ya. Go on over to their Website, go to the Party Program, and search for the word “gay.” Try that with their Constitution, too. It may be lip service, but at least the Obama site MENTIONS queers…and favorably.

Back in the day, Nader-as-wrecker got financial support from a number of Republicans. Did he hand the election to Bush? Nah, probably not. But your suggestion that “building a queer left” includes taking a vote that might help keep fundie Palin from being one lesion away from the presidency, and instead giving it to a party that won’t even deign to mention us once, or maybe to a party that hasn’t even existed in the past three decades? If you didn’t exist, Karl Rove would’ve had to invent you.

“Brian – it is very hard for me to believe you have done all the things you say when you make posts like you did above.”

If anyone else thinks it does, let me know. I think I’m saying clearly and unambiguously above that I don’t understand how your thought processes work. I can give you a thousand examples of decisions made at city council, the library board, State of Michigan, etc. where compromises were made. Almost never does either side get 100% of what they want. If this happens where you live, it is an unusual part of the world indeed. I also linked to the post, there is nothing there either.

You keep saying I’m hypocritical but you don’t adress it. And the sexual proclivities thing? I’m still waiting for evidence of that too.

A valid point, though society has advanced to the point where Rogers’ “outing” of an already out gay man was received by a collective yawn by the DC political establishment.

Wonkette said it best:

So this guy Mark Buse, John McCain’s chief of staff, is allegedly gay, like every other chief of staff on the Hill. NOBODY CARES.

That’s progress. And it must really piss off those partisan sorts who would employ base homophobia as a weapon of personal destruction against their political rivals.

to accuse me of saying you lied about your background – you are NUTS

Nope, I’m accurate. Then again, I have to be, because my credibility and good name are on the line.

Here’s a link to your post where you accused me of lying about my background:

http://www.queerty.com/biden-t.....-20080918/

Brian – it is very hard for me to believe you have done all the things you say when you make posts like you did above.

It’s interesting to note that you have a knack for insulting indivduals when they bring up points that go against your transparently partisan agenda. However, even a pseudonym cannot protect you from accountability for the comments you post on Queerty.

Sadly, you’ve blown your already limited credibility.

Nothing you’ve said refutes the massively documented fact that the Democratic Party has lied to us for decades, accepted our money and votes and given us DOMA, DADT, a worthless feeble ENDA and no hate crimes legislation in return.

So perhaps, Bill, you should fact-check more carefully, hmm?

I do check my facts, we are not mentioned in the Democratic Party platform on Obama’s instructions. Read the platform, not some insipid fundraising doggerel to collect money to pay the legal defenses of the ordained pentecostal anti-LGBT bigot who runs the DNC. There’s been a huge discussion about our exclusion on this and a dozen other blogs and in the MSM for the last month or so. Google it and check you own facts before shooting off your mouth about issues you know nothing about, which seems to be politics in general. Read ‘em and weep, Simon.

Where we are backhandedly mentioned is in regard to DADT, which means that Obama wants the winner in November to have a fresh supply of cannon fodder. That may seem like progress to you but I lost too many buddies and a lover in Vietnam to have anything but contempt for Obama and his war party and no patience at all for people who vote for more of our brothers and sisters being sent to kill and be killed in the Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and probably in Iran. We should fight to end the bigotry of Clintons DADT but urge GLBT folks to stay out of that genocidal war.

Your party, like the Republican Party, is a cesspool of bigotry. Your vote will be a wasted vote, a vote for a party which by its actions has proven itself to be an enemy of our communities. The Democrats are just Republicans in drag, they both pander to bigots, they both plan to extend and expand the genocidal war to steal Middle East oil and they’re equally responsible for the economic crisis the looming over the country.

Simon wants us to vote for the lesser bigot, the lesser warmonger, and the lesser Wall Street pet. What a waste of votes. The next president will be Nixon redux, and I expect that’ll be Obama. The only thing that can defeat him is McCain’s appeal to racists, a tactic first used by the Clintons in the primaries.

If he wins watch for the new tent cities named Obamavilles instead of Hoovervilles. Listen for “Hey, hey, O BA Ma, how many kids did you kill today?”

Etc.

Obama is a right wing hustler who can be counted on to disappoint those hoodwinked into supporting him. It’ll be a real education for the GLBT communities, working people and the antiwar movement.

An Obama presidency will be harder to politically dismantle than a McCain presidency, but it’ll be worth it because the effects will be so much more intense and have a marked destabilizing for the reactionary two party system that Simon is so uniformed about.

Vote for the union led and financed US Labor Party. If not vote for socialist or communist candidates as a protest or join the scores of millions who sit it out because they’re smart enough to refuse to vote for the lesser bigot, the lesser warmonger or the lesser evil.

And now we see what that kind of canard has wrought. It condones this kind of thuggery, since not only are your opponents wrong, but they are evil bigots and deserve to be fought without regard to the ruthlessness required. What’s more, anyone gay who supports them is even worse, because they are now traitors. Those who cheer on this kind of behavior need to pause and take a look in the mirror, as they’re typical the most hateful and bigoted people around.

Anyway, I have agreed with you on some occasions, and disagreed with you on many more – but to accuse me of saying you lied about your background – you are NUTS. But most will see that based on your posts. I simply asked some questions.

I have no idea what you are talking about with my “preoccupation” with the sexual proclivities of others either. We may not agree but I fail to see how that makes me a hypocrite.

My bad. That is, of course, the truth, and if I weren’t so preoccupied, I would have caught that. Sorry.

PS — as a public figure, my picture is available.

PPS — Post under your real name if you’re so confident in your positions. :)

Lie. Obama was not in the Senate in 1996, when the DOMA was passed.

has publicly called it “abhorrent,”

Irrelevant. Pretty speeches aren’t policy.

and supported its full repeal

Lie. Obama has consistently refused to meet with representatives of an effort to repeal DOMA through legislation, and has flat-out refused to co-sponsor companion legislation to do this in the Senate.

Ahhhh, now you’re picking up the little ironic thread in my post.

Rogers (and his defenders) consider those who politically disagree with them to be “less gay” than they are, less entitled to an opinion, and that those who disagree with them lack an opinion that is meaningful or germane.

Notably, I’m just posting some tongue-in-cheek commentary on a web forum, and you appear a bit ruffled, perhaps even angered, by it.

In contrast, Rogers and his supporters are trying to destroy the careers and severely disrupt the lives of those who disagree with them politically.

Which is truly the more “capital offense?”

And again, why the double standard?

Are you truly willing to be thoughtful about it?

Or is your position closer to Rogers’ “he’s with the other side and must be destroyed through leveraging homophobia” logic?

And if you’re truly in that dark, dark place, doesn’t that make you identical to the Republicans you claim to abhor? Haven’t you become them?

Difficult concepts to consider, yes, but they must be considered.

So perhaps, Bill, you should fact-check more carefully, hmm?

I do check my facts, we are not mentioned in the Democratic Party platform on Obama’s instructions. Read the platform, not some insipid fundraising doggerel to collect money to pay the legal defenses of the ordained pentecostal anti-LGBT bigot who runs the DNC. There’s been a huge discussion about our exclusion on this and a dozen other blogs and in the MSM for the last month or so. Google it and check you own facts before shooting off your mouth about issues you know nothing about, which seems to be politics in general. Gosh I forgot, you’re too busy to look up facts, so I found a few of the hundreds of references to it. Read ‘em and weep, Simon.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/polit.....democ.html

http://www.queerty.com/dems-ma.....-20080811/

http://www.gaywired.com/Articl.....8;ID=19875

http://www.365gay.com/news/dem.....aying-gay/

Where we are backhandedly mentioned is in regard to DADT, which means that Obama wants the winner in November to have a fresh supply of cannon fodder. That may seem like progress to you but I lost too many buddies and a lover in Vietnam to have anything but contempt for Obama and his war party and no patience at all for people who vote for more of our brothers and sisters being sent to kill and be killed in the Iraq, Pakistan, Afghanistan and probably in Iran. We should fight to end the bigotry of Clintons DADT but urge GLBT folks to stay out of that genocidal war.

Your party, like the Republican Party, is a cesspool of bigotry. Your vote will be a wasted vote, a vote for a party which by its actions has proven itself to be an enemy of our communities. The Democrats are just Republicans in drag, they both pander to bigots, they both plan to extend and expand the genocidal war to steal Middle East oil and they’re equally responsible for the economic crisis the looming over the country.

Simon wants us to vote for the lesser bigot, the lesser warmonger, and the lesser Wall Street pet. What a waste of votes. The next president will be Nixon redux, and I expect that’ll be Obama. The only thing that can defeat him is McCain’s appeal to racists, a tactic first used by the Clintons in the primaries.

If he wins watch for the new tent cities named Obamavilles instead of Hoovervilles. Listen for “Hey, hey, O BA Ma, how many kids did you kill today?”

Etc.

Obama is a right wing hustler who can be counted on to disappoint those hoodwinked into supporting him. It’ll be a real education for the GLBT communities, working people and the antiwar movement.

An Obama presidency will be harder to politically dismantle than a McCain presidency, but it’ll be worth it because the effects will be so much more intense and have a marked destabilizing for the reactionary two party system that Simon is so uniformed about.

Vote for the union led and financed US Labor Party. If not vote for socialist or communist candidates as a protest or join the scores of millions who sit it out because they’re smart enough to refuse to vote for the lesser bigot, the lesser warmonger or the lesser evil.

One other thing…I was surprised by that statement, so I went over to his site…under “People” is an LGBT section, complete with a downladable position paper that says most – though not all – the right things. And on his official site is this statement:

“While we have come a long way since the Stonewall riots in 1969, we still have a lot of work to do. Too often, the issue of LGBT rights is exploited by those seeking to divide us. But at its core, this issue is about who we are as Americans. It’s about whether this nation is going to live up to its founding promise of equality by treating all its citizens with dignity and respect.”

So perhaps, Bill, you should fact-check more carefully, hmm?

Just for the record, I support the idea of a massive militant queer left. I was a gay activist way back in the early 70s, was in ACT UP, yadda yadda yadda. But there’s an election coming up in two months, and if you’re cynical about Obama’s commitment, I’m equally doubtful that the massive queer left you dream of is going to spring forth fully formed from the ashes of Will and Grace.

“Our bigoted enemy? Prove it.”

Simon’s line of questioning displays more than a little confusion. Very few politicians or political parties are going to trumpet their bigotry: his framing of the question is absurd on the face of it. The question is not one of personal bigotry, although both Obama and McCain display plenty of that in their porcine opposition to same sex marriage.

Rather it’s a political question, a question of power and policy. Both candidates eat like pigs and from the same trough: they both pander to bigots. The fight for the evangelical swine vote is swinging back and forth and that’s a signal reversal of Roves traditional lock on that segment. The outcome of the McCain/Obama fight for bigot votes will be clear November 5th, but whoever wins is going to be owned by the bigots, not by us.

The strategy of pandering leads inevitably to the policy of bigotry and the proof is all around us. It was the Democrats, not the Republicans who refused to repeal Clintons DADT and DOMA. It was the Democrats, not the Republicans who gutted ENDA and tossed it and the rest of our agenda in the garbage. The DNC is run by bigots just as bad as those in the RNC. In fact their former GLBT outreach director is suing them for homophobic personnel policies. And he’ll win bigtime. If the Republicans are open about their mean-spirited bigotry then at least they’re honest and we know where they stand. And by his actions we know where Obama stands because he flat out refuses to allow any mention of us or our names in his platform.

If you want to talk about real bigotry consider this: the Republicans were just along for the ride during the last two years as the Democratic bus ran us over, backed up and then did it again. And again. DOMA, DADT. ENDA, hate crimes… the list goes on and on.

Is it ‘politically correct’ for you to suggest that we support our enemies, McCain and Obama? Simon, is it sectarian to point out bigotry when the proof for it is overwhelming? Or is it a closeted delusion to deny that both parties are sties mired in bigotry.

Should we believe what Obama or McCain say or base our judgment on what they do? Do we buy into their election year ‘promises’ or do we do what’s best for our communities, which is to build a massive militant GLBT left to force our agenda on Congress, the White House and the courts, no matter which party is in power?

Personally, I don’t buy the argument that a quisling, mendacious sell-out like the Obama/Biden ticket, who enabled the DOMA and DADT outrages, is “preferable” to the Republicans who did the same thing.

You can choose to sell yourself for $1 and claim it’s still much higher than the GOP’s asking price of 50 cents. I’d simply argue that you’re undervaluing yourself and other LGBT individuals.

Wow. I’m certainly not rabidly pro-Obama, and he sure could be stronger on issues like DADT. (Which he opposed when he ran for the Senate, but is now equivocating on.) But to identify him as a “homophobic bigot” because he’s insufficiently proqueer for some activists’ agenda? Too reminiscent of the sectarian quarrels of the left that gave birth to the original use of the phrase “politically correct.”

Disappointing? Yes. Absolutely. Our bigoted enemy? Prove it.

Right?

Ouch.

Great.

So since it’s unrealistic to expect that a major party will cease their anti-gay activities, Democrats who criticize Republicans over GOP anti-gay activities are being hypocrites, right?

Oops.

Brian, Bill, and Wayne,

Sure, in a perfect world, Obama wouldn’t waffle on queer issues. And yes, the Dems can be spineless, and Clinton’s support of DOMA and Don’t Ask was shameful. But this whole “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the parties” thing is one of two things:
1) Self-deception or
2) Unrealistic ideological purity

Sure, the ENDA debacle was crappy. But, as much as I support trans rights, are we supposed to celebrate those who voted against employment rights for queers? Sorry, I’m just not that absolutist. And yes, Frank was wrong on principle, but if you, Bill, identify the gutted ENDA as partly “Repubican,’ would you care to explain why it was STILL overwhelmingly opposed by GOP congresspeople? And do you think that, absent overwhelming GOP opposition to ANY version of the bill, Frank would have stripped ENDA of trans protections? Unfortunately, politics is the art of the possible. Live with it.

And let’s think of the Supreme Court, shall we? Let’s think of such sterling pro-queer appointments as Scalia and Alito, both of whom McCain held up as models. Whoopee!

Hell, let’s just think of recent history. If Gore had been elected, do you think the last eight years would have been essentially identical to the Bush years?

There actually are a bunch of progressive, proqueer Democrats out there, which is more than you can say for the Republicans. A lot.

I post using my real name, and it’s especially hypocritical that a partisan hypocrite like himself shows such prurient interest in the sexual proclivities of others — advancing the politics of personal destruction — while hiding behind a psuedonym himself.

Doubly ironic is the fact that Mike Rogers doesn’t have to worry about someone outing him for his sexual proclivities. Having seen numerous photos of the man, I doubt anybody is desperate enough (or blind and deaf enough) to hit that. Ick.

It’s obvious that the various Democrats who are “outing” their opponents are hoping that those opponents get fired and have a horrible time due to their sexual orientation.

In other words, they’re leveraging homophobia to promote their political agenda. Which is no different than the right-wingers doing the same thing through stunts like Proposition 8.

Mike Rogers has been quite adept at using homophobic stereotypes (including putting pictures of various people he “outs” that are modified to have them wearing makeup). The entire stunt is an effort to leverage homophobic bigotry to achieve a Democratic Party political victory.

Whenever homophobia is promoted, all gay people suffer. Democrats are especially hypocritical in their promotion of homophobic hatred this election season — they’re going after Nader, Barr, and McCain for perceived failings on gay issues while they run a DOMA-supportive, anti-gay-military-policy-supportive ticket AND stir up homophobia to get their opponents fired.

Anybody who believes the Democratic Party is, by default, “supporting gay rights” is deluded. One need only look at the present situation, and other situations (like Hitchcock’s poor treatment by the DNC’s fundamentalist chief of staff) to see this is the case.

If Democrats want to stir up and leverage homophobia to achieve their political ambitions, that’s obviously their choice. They shouldn’t complain, however, when objective non-partisans don’t take their selective histrionics seriously.

This is exactly what I’m talking about. Obama favors a “seperate but equal” civil-union instead of full marriage equality.Couples in NJ are already finding that the companies that issue benefits like insurance, etc. are not recognising thier civil unions as marriages, and are denying benefits. And you act like Obama’s position is somehow far and away superior to McCains position on the issue. When in fact there is very little light of day between the two. But McCain is chastised for having a gay chief of staff, but Obama gets off the hook for having a 2nd (lets not forget Donnie McClurkin) bigot shilling for him on yet another demeaning tour to pander to religious bigots? I just don’t see it.