Gay rights emerging as issue in GOP primary for governor
If Nathan Deal has his way, gay-bashing is about to become part of the 2010 GOP gubernatorial campaign.
The July primary is expected to end without an outright winner, forcing an August runoff between frontrunner John Oxendine and a second candidate still to be determined. Deal apparently believes that former Georgia Secretary of State Karen Handel is his top competitor for that spot, and he has decided to use gays as a wedge issue against her.
Deal has accused Handel of supporting the right of gay couples to adopt and of joining the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay GOP group. According to Deal, Handel’s “support of gay adoption offends the conservative values of Georgians throughout the state, let alone those who vote in the Republican primary.”
Handel, to her discredit, says she opposes gay adoption and has always done so. She also claims that Southern Voice, a now defunct gay newspaper, was wrong to report in 2003 that she supported gay adoption rights. (At the time, Handel was running for Fulton County Commission chair, and gay votes are important in that race.)
On Monday, the AJC’s new PolitiFact feature attempted to get to the bottom of the dispute, in the end rating Deal’s claim about gay adoption “barely true” based on the paucity of evidence in the case. But Laura Douglas-Brown, a former writer and editor for Southern Voice, has since interviewed former Log Cabin president Marc Yeager and uncovered considerable evidence that bolsters Deal’s claim.
“Yeager also confirmed that Handel was a dues-paying member of the Georgia Log Cabin Republicans, noting that the LCR database shows she became a member in July 2002 and he remembers receiving a check for the membership from Handel at the LCR booth at the Atlanta Pride Festival, held at the end of June….
On Monday night, Yeager provided copies of three email exchanges between him and Handel from 2002 and 2003. They show the two had a friendly as well as political relationship, with Handel inquiring about Yeager’s vacations while also telling him about gay endorsement interviews and seeking his advice on the Georgia Equality candidate survey.
The first exchange, from July 2002, shows Handel sending Yeager a draft of her answers to Georgia Equality’s candidate survey, and Yeager responding with recommendations.
“As I’ve told you, I do support domestic partner benefits, and confirm my position here, although I do have concerns about a domestic partner registry,” Handel writes in the email. “Bottom line is that I will work with you and other GLBT leaders to develop workable legislation. Give me a call if you have questions. Otherwise, we can talk at the BBQ on Sunday.”
Asked in the GE survey if she has LGBT constituents and about her interactions with them, Handel responded, “I have numerous gay and lesbian friends, and my interaction is mostly on a personal level with these individuals. I am also a member of the Georgia Log Cabin Republicans and participated in this year’s Pride Weekend activities and attended the recent Georgia Equity/Human Rights Campaign forum regarding federal ENDA legislation.
“I believe it is important that, if we are to achieve real progress for Fulton County, we must reach out to all segments of our community, and I am committed to this,” Handel wrote.
In an exchange in mid-October 2002, Handel and Yeager discuss her interview for Georgia Equality’s endorsement and her stand on domestic partner benefits. Handel said she supports the benefits for county workers, but has privacy concerns about a DP registry open to all Fulton residents.”
The emails, if authentic, pretty much nail down Handel’s membership in the Log Cabin Republicans and her support for providing domestic partnership benefits for Fulton County employees. They also confirm the impression that Handel projected at the time as an old-fashioned Republican who was more interested in running government effectively and fairly than in using it to act out various resentments against various groups of people.
Somewhere along the way, though, someone pulled her aside and told her that if she wanted to play the politics game on a larger stage, she had to toe the party line on such issues. She has since followed that advice with an eagerness and avidity that I’ve found disappointing, and she continues to do so in this campaign.
So it’s going to be interesting: Will she now step up her denunciation of people whose support she once sought in order to advance her political ambitions? Can a Georgia Republican win the party’s gubernatorial primary with a record of having supported domestic partnership benefits for gay people? Or will Republicans punish Deal for trying to drag the state back into an era that many thought and hoped we had left behind?
The answers will tell us a lot about the state of the state.
UPDATE: Jim Galloway at Political Insider has posted the three emails cited above. The Handel campaign claims that she never supported domestic partnership benefits, and that the 2002 email from Handel stating otherwise was actually written by a staffer.
It’s a lame explanation, especially since Handel alludes to her support for domestic partnership benefits in another email whose authorship has not (yet) been challenged by her campaign.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
434 comments Add your comment
Bosch
June 8th, 2010
3:10 pm
NORMAL!!!
Bosch
June 8th, 2010
3:10 pm
Hey firsties on page 5!
the eyes,
Glad I could help.
TGT
June 8th, 2010
3:11 pm
How many searches are in your browser’s history for anal sex?
I assume, though, he’s a Chassid and only does it for procreation in the missionary position through slitted sheets…
Now, now, boys. Let’s not make this personal. Believe it or not, I am trying to keep this on the clinical level.
Sick & Tired Of Being Sick & Tired
June 8th, 2010
3:14 pm
When did REPUBLICAN and FAMILY VALUES become synonymous?? Whoever believes that one should not be allowed to vote in any election EVER!!!
The fundamentalist/religious right in Georgia have always been more about expousing Christianity when it is convenient but not living like a Christian.
hmmm
June 8th, 2010
3:14 pm
Still on the topic of gay whatever?
Let’s talk deficit holes, holes in Obama’s jobs theory. Holes, holes, everywhere a hole.
Opinions about the impact of Obama’s economic policies have changed little since February. But the proportion saying that Obama’s economic policies have made economic conditions worse has nearly doubled — from 16% to 29% — since June 2009. Over this period, the percentage saying his policies have improved conditions has changed little, while the number saying Obama’s policies have had no effect or that it is too soon to tell has fallen from 53% to 38%.–Pew
So when was the last time democratic leaders and their left-wingers talked about holes in the O-zone?
josef nix
June 8th, 2010
3:16 pm
just as we were beginning to have fun…sheesh a new thread with possibilities—and beleive me, on this one the eyes have it!
Upstairs
theyeshaveit
June 8th, 2010
3:19 pm
TGT, it would seem that your interest in anal sex defines you.
jewcowboy
June 8th, 2010
3:20 pm
TGT,
“Let’s not make this personal. Believe it or not, I am trying to keep this on the clinical level.”
Seriously…you do understand that gay people do other things besides have butt sex right?
Al
June 8th, 2010
3:27 pm
If the Republicans had any foresight whatsoever they would stop harping on this and give more than lip service to the “smaller government” and “getting government of the backs of the people” lines they spout. On issues other than social (read religious, personal, private, none of the governments da*# business) issues, republican’s stated positions should benefit a segment of the population with more disposable income and fewer tax deductions that most other segments. Younger voters largely do not care about a person’s sexual orientation. They tune out the valid message that dems are mortgaging the future because the flat earth branch of the conservative movement is busy injecting their religious beliefs into public policy. Younger voters have difficulty seeing past the hypocrisy of divorced and/or unfaithful politicians spouting off about the “Sanctitiy of Marriage.” We heterosexuals threw that quaint idea out long ago. You are all losing young votes.
On adoption, many of us as fiscal conservatives know that heterosexual adoption is not solving the crisis of thousands of kids in foster care at huge government expense. As a person with experience in foster care programs, if I were betting on stated sexual orientation as a predictor of abuse, my money would be on heterosexual males as the number one offender group among foster parents.
Deal and his ilk continue to do the same things and expect different results. Mr. Deal, Ms. Handel and friends – the earth is round, all conservatives are not Baptists and no law you pass will change anyone’s genetic make up. Please focus on things you can and should change, like the lack of ethics reform, the ridiculous per diem system for legislators, and the level of welfare fraud going on in georgia.
Libertarian
June 8th, 2010
3:39 pm
A little late here but I’ll add my two cents. Its sad that Karen Handel wouldn’t stand up to Deal and stand up for gay rights. Deal gives conservatives a bad name. Not all “conservatives” are anti-gay bigots. I wish KH had stood up to him, even though it may have cost her the election…at least she would still have her integrity. But sadly, integrity rarely gets one elected to any major political office these days.
TGT
June 8th, 2010
3:49 pm
jewcowboy: Seriously, yes. I’m not out to demean or make fun. I do believe, based on faith and science, that there are serious risks with homosexual behavior.
Some more good Satinover points: He refers to a 1994 University of Chicago study which states, “…it is patently false that homosexuality is a uniform attribute across individuals, that it is stable over time, and that it can be easily measured.” Dr. Satinover adds that, “Studies across the globe that have now sampled over 100,000 individuals have found the same. We now know that in the majority of both men and women, ‘homosexuality,’ as defined by any scientifically rigorous criteria, spontaneously tends to ‘mutate’ into heterosexuality over the course of a lifetime.”
Thus, “Keen observers of the gay scene—many gays themselves—have cogently argued that the gay lifestyle is not so much ‘homosexual’ as it is ‘pansexual.’ And indeed, this observation suggests an important point: that there really may be no such thing as ‘homosexuality.’ That there is rather mere ‘human sexuality,’ which in the ‘state of nature’ (sinful state) is enormously diverse and polymorphous. Psychoanalysts have long argued the natural (sinful) bisexuality of human beings, but it would perhaps be more accurate to speak of natural polysexuality. This protean potential of human sexuality may be constrained or it may be unconstrained.
“What we call the ‘gay lifestyle’ is in large measure a way of life constructed around unconstrained sexuality. Thus it is more readily oriented toward sexual pleasure in all its many possible forms than is the ‘straight’ lifestyle. Of course there are many heterosexuals who are oriented toward unconstrained sexual expression, but less commonly than among homosexuals.”
TGT
June 8th, 2010
4:02 pm
Oh Al, please tell me that you are not suggesting that there is a “gay gene.”
Satinover: “The notion that ‘homosexuals’ are in effect a ‘different species’ (different genes) is ludicrous beyond belief. There is not the slightest evidence for that as anyone who actually reads the studies (not reports on the studies) knows.”
Dr. Mark Breedlove at the University of California at Berkeley, referring to his own research: “[My] findings give us proof for what we theoretically know to be the case – that sexual experience can alter the structure of the brain, just as genes can alter it. [I]t is possible that differences in sexual behavior cause (rather than are caused) by differences in the brain.”
Prominent research teams Byne & Parsons, and Friedman & Downey, both concluded that there was no evidence to support a biologic theory, but rather that homosexuality could be best explained by an alternative model where “temperamental and personality traits interact with the familial and social milieu as the individual’s sexuality emerges.”
Lukas
June 8th, 2010
4:05 pm
Is anyone really surprise by this tried and true Republican election tactic?
lovelyliz
June 8th, 2010
4:16 pm
And surprisingly enough, the Republicans don’t understand my why gays and othe minorities, gosh darn it, just don’t like them.
Grey
June 8th, 2010
4:30 pm
“If Rush can pay Elton John a million bucks to play at the ceremony celebrating the sanctity of [his fourth] marriage, then what, exactly IS the GOP’s position on gays?!!!!”
Sorry, more interested in the huge disappointment liberals must be feeling since your “poster boy” sold out, to Rush Limbaugh. Counterpoint, then what exactly IS the DEM’s position on gays????
You can make this into a GOP problem all you want, seem the Liberal have more of a problem with their own! Sir Elton is an elite sellout and a hypocrit This whole discussion is moot
Grey
June 8th, 2010
4:36 pm
@ lovelyliz We don’t care if you don’t like us! Again, it’s a numbers and media game the liberal love to continue to play to their advantage. The GLAD crowd, illegal immigrants, etc, etc, etc are just using you liberals at large to get what they want – an angry nasty looking crowd of collective “progressives”. This phase should be over in November!
Ninja
June 8th, 2010
4:42 pm
“They tune out the valid message that dems are mortgaging the future because the flat earth branch of the conservative movement is busy injecting their religious beliefs into public policy.”
They would have had to have a future in the first place for the dems to sell it. Reagan beat them to the punch. Reaganites and libertarians have been getting exactly what they want for thirty years, they just don’t realize it.
Ninja
June 8th, 2010
4:48 pm
Not to say that they wouldn’t have, though.
Another dumb math analogy:
Democrats=Republicans+Dennis Kucinich.
Al
June 8th, 2010
5:35 pm
TGT,
I am not suggesting a specific “gay gene,” though perhaps you would prefer such a simplistic argument to refute. I am suggesting that genetic influences play a role in the epigenetic landscape into which we are all born. A somewhat tired example of this is: Not all tall people play basketball, but most sucessful basketball players are tall. It is neither genetics nor environment, but both. You mention a few specific studies. I could mention a few as well, but anyone who reads or has done psychological research knows the every published paper includes some version of the statement, “questions remain and further reseach is needed to clarify, blah, blah, blah.” Meta-analytic research certainly suggests a familial/genetic component to sexual orientation. Anecdotal support is provided by the appearance of homosexuality in extremely repressive culturals (Iranian claims to the contrary notwithstanding), the rank failure of most aversion therapy programs, and the high incidence of homosexuality in siblings and twins of homosexuals. If you think it is simply a choice TGT, you will have to explain why someone would choose to put themselves through the pain historically associated with being different in our culture. Regardless, my point remains. Younger voters are turning away due to the Republican insistence on keeping the government involved where it has no business, while touting the value of smaller government.
TGT
June 8th, 2010
5:49 pm
Al: I do not think that homosexuality is a “simple choice.” Although, certainly, homosexual behavior involves choice. The fact is that there are many supporters of the homosexual agenda who believe, and push (or have pushed) the idea of a “gay gene.”
I agree with James Dobson when he says that, “Homosexuals deeply resent being told that they selected this same-sex inclination in pursuit of sexual excitement or some other motive. It is unfair, and I don’t blame them for being irritated by that assumption. Who among us would knowingly choose a path that would result in alienation from family, rejection by friends, disdain from the heterosexual world, …No, homosexuality is not ‘chosen’ except in rare circumstances.”
Saul Good
June 8th, 2010
6:30 pm
TGT: “I agree with James Dobson…”
No more needs to be said. That pretty much sums up your bigotry.
BTW… I believe Dobson to be a homosexual himself. It’s always those who shout the loudest… Oneday someone will step out and show how he used the big cash money $ that others sent him to satisfy his own sexual urges and needs. I wonder how many he’s paid off with your donations to silence others thus far. No facts or evidence YET…but his “shouting” so strongly against homosexuality leads me to believe it simply masks his “own” urges… you can add Tim Wildmon to that group as well. I mean…what have homosexuals done to THEM that causes they and those like them to devote a majority of their lives to ridicule them? To literally make the “homosexual agenda” their life’s mission? Seems to me it’s just a way they try to suppress their natural urges and attractions they have for other men. Most men and women I know who are straight don’t spend their entire waking moments discussing homosexuality. They simply don’t care… unless it’s about standing up for their lack of “human rights” afforded to ALL humans which is directed by our Constitution.
TGT
June 8th, 2010
6:52 pm
Saul: That pretty much sums up you’re ignorance. Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean they’re a bigot. Maybe you’re a bigot. “It’s always those who shout the loudest…”
As far as government involvement in this issue, both sides are working towards that end. However, it is the homosexual movement that initiated this government battle. In a representative democracy, such as the U.S. relies upon, the ultimate power resides with the people. Whenever the issue of gay marriage (etc.) has been put to the people it has been SOUNDLY rejected (as it should). The homosexual movement is trying to circumvent the will of the people and gain their victories through the courts (just as the abortion movement did).
Ninja
June 8th, 2010
7:07 pm
“In a representative democracy, such as the U.S. relies upon, the ultimate power resides with the people.”
Except, as conservatives have been so apt to point out, we live in a democratic REPUBLIC to prevent just that sort of mob rule. Of course, we already know that “conservative” is just BS anyways, so it’s no surprise that their views are so malleable.
Saul Good
June 8th, 2010
7:12 pm
TGT…really? How about the states that LEGALIZED gay marriage? Did those states find straight people all of a sudden turning gay? Did they “recruit” straight children and turn them gay? Sad that you don’t want to give them the rights they as humans deserve. I mean HOW does it effect YOU if two gay people get married? YOU and your family? What would change in YOUR lives if two gay people were given the right to be married?
Does our Constitution NOT say: ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL?
And yeah…you’re a bigot if you’re against homosexuals just being who they are. They have no “agenda” in turning others gay… but this I can say: People who belong to the major “cults” in our nation DO have an agenda to turn others into fellow cult members. Homosexuals have been around since mankind existed. They always have, and always will be around. It’s only those who FEAR others not like them…or their own repressed urges that perhaps lean in that direction… who seek to put them into a box, close it, and send it out to sea. You work with gays, you live among them, and they teach your kids as well. They always have and always will. Rights or no rights… it’s the “fearful” and “hateful” who do all they can do suppress their rights as humans. Just like white christians did to slaves in our nation. Just like they refused to let them legally marry, attend school, attend their white’s only churches, and when a white person would finally break ranks and want to marry an African American…up until the 1960’s there were still states who denied them that right. Homosexuals WILL get that right to marry. I’m sure you’ll disagree with it…but it will in NO WAY effect YOUR world…unless YOU are GAY and seek to marry your partner.
TGT
June 8th, 2010
8:33 pm
Ninja: I was careful to say that the U.S. “relies upon” it’s representative democracy. It is true that it not a purely a representative democracy.
Saul: There are only 5 states that have LEGALIZED gay marriage, and all but one of them (Vermont) did it through the courts. 30 states have constitutional amendments barring gay marriage. Thirty-six states have statutes on the books prohibiting gay marriage. Marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman in at least 42 states. Same-sex marriage has been defeated in all 31 states in which it has been directly put to a popular vote.
It is not bigotry to take a moral stand, based upon bibical principles, against homosexual behavior (and gay marriage). This has been done in various cultures the world over for millennia by billions of people. It has nothing to do with “FEAR.”
TGT
June 8th, 2010
8:52 pm
The 36 states with statutes on the books would, of course, include the 30 with const. amendments.
Rhonda Atlanta
June 8th, 2010
9:20 pm
Jeff Chapman is looking good right about now.
Saul Good
June 8th, 2010
9:22 pm
“based upon bibical principles”
Just like our nation’s laws are based upon the 10 commandments right?
Only TWO are laws. Don’t kill and don’t steal… the rest are saved for your pastors to do when not preaching. Which “biblical” commandment say’s don’t be gay?
If you want to talk “morals” and the bible…I promise you I’ll gladly sink your ship…
I’ll be glad to post the “exact quotes” from YOUR version of your human written fable that shows how they endorse the following:
-Slavery
-Child Rape and rape of virgins
-Murder
-Stoning
-Selling off of children
-Discrimination
Here are but just a few:
Judges 19:22-29 While they were enjoying themselves, some of the wicked men of the city surrounded the house. Pounding on the door, they shouted to the old man who owned the house, “Bring out the man who came to your house so we can have sex with him.”
The owner of the house went outside and said to them, “No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this disgraceful thing. Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don’t do such a disgraceful thing.”
But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.
When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.” But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.
When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel.
Exodus 21:17 Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city, to the gate of his city. And they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of his city shall stone him to death with stones
Matthew 5:32b …and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery.
Leviticus 26:18-26 ” ‘If after all this you will not listen to me, I will punish you for your sins seven times over. I will break down your stubborn pride and make the sky above you like iron and the ground beneath you like bronze. Your strength will be spent in vain, because your soil will not yield its crops, nor will the trees of the land yield their fruit.
” ‘If you remain hostile toward me and refuse to listen to me, I will multiply your afflictions seven times over, as your sins deserve. I will send wild animals against you, and they will rob you of your children, destroy your cattle and make you so few in number that your roads will be deserted.
Exodus 21:7-11 And if a man sells his daughter to be a female slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do. If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.
Yeah…tell me about your “morals” that are taught from your human written hate guide.
Enjoy your night. Go read your fictional human scribed bible and all the “good family values” you’ll find in it.
Oh…and before I part for the evening and enjoy dinner with my wife…I’ll leave you some NEW TESTAMENT stuff as well (in case you planned on using that as an “out”)… so nice your fable gets to change when other humans deem things to be dated. Perhaps it can use a new update. I hear Texas is re-writing history…maybe they can do the NEXT version of your human created fable as well.
Women are to keep silent in church!
1 Corinthians 14:34-35 Let women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church.
Wives to submit to husbands in everything
Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
Acts 12:21-23 On the appointed day Herod, wearing his royal robes, sat on his throne and delivered a public address to the people. They shouted, “This is the voice of a god, not of a man.” Immediately, because Herod did not give praise to God, an angel of the Lord struck him down, and he was eaten by worms and died.
God kills a couple for lying to Peter
Acts 5:1-11 Now a man named Ananias, together with his wife Sapphira, also sold a piece of property. With his wife’s full knowledge he kept back part of the money for himself, but brought the rest and put it at the apostles’ feet.
Then Peter said, “Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied to men but to God.”
When Ananias heard this, he fell down and died. And great fear seized all who heard what had happened. Then the young men came forward, wrapped up his body, and carried him out and buried him.
About three hours later his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. Peter asked her, “Tell me, is this the price you and Ananias got for the land?”
“Yes,” she said, “that is the price.”
Peter said to her, “How could you agree to test the Spirit of the Lord? Look! The feet of the men who buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out also.”
At that moment she fell down at his feet and died. Then the young men came in and, finding her dead, carried her out and buried her beside her husband. Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.
Goodnight!
John K
June 8th, 2010
9:56 pm
So our Constitution says that personal rights are up to a vote? Huh. No water for redheads then. It’s against my religious beliefs.
TGT
June 8th, 2010
10:29 pm
Saul: I think you’re the one who needs to spend a little more time in the Bible. However, do not just be a reader of the Word, but a doer as well.
For your listening pleasure: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WRcrHSJuUs
Goodnight.
TGT
June 8th, 2010
10:54 pm
John K: So, it bothers you that 30+ states have followed their constitutions and defined a very significant social institution in the manner they see fit?
Who said (civil) marriage is a “social right?” It is an institution which governments have seen the value of recognizing and thus must define. You may “marry” whomever you want, but the state does not have to recognize it.
Georgian
June 9th, 2010
9:31 am
First, Nathan Deal bashes children of undocumented parents and threatens to take their US citizenship away. Now, Nathan Deal is bashing gays for him to get an edge in the GOP field against Karen Handel. What a piece of work (polite word chosen for the blog).
Also, Karen is shamefully throwing the Log Cabin Republicans, who supported her in the past and probably currently, under the bus without blinking. I was around then and read in SoVo that she DID in fact support these things. She never wrote to correct that, so she was comfortable with the way it was written. Shame on Karen Handel.
I would not choose either of these bozos for Governor.
Dusty
June 9th, 2010
5:13 pm
Ahh, gay rights. The cheapest way for a candidate to instill a false sense of happiness in his constituents. You may be unemployed. Your son might have just been blown to bits in Iraq. Your taxes are through the roof. But all of that is okay because we’re making sure the gays don’t have the same rights as you do. Sally and Sue cannot both become the parents of Sally’s kid. Therefore your life is much better. If non-gay people are voting for a candidate based on that candidate’s opposition to gay rights, they’re wasting a perfectly good vote.
Saul Good
June 9th, 2010
5:46 pm
If non-gay people are voting for a candidate based on that candidate’s opposition to gay rights, they’re wasting a perfectly good vote.
Nice to see that we AGREE upon something! There are some people who only vote based on TWO “family values” issues…this is one..and you know what the “other” is… I mean the whole world can be crumbling around them…but they only go to the polls because of those one or two things…and usually don’t know anything else that the candidate their voting for stands for or supports. The candidate can be wanting to abolish our constitution and make us part of Great Britain again with only the Colonies… give the rest of our nation to Mexico…but if they’re up for banning gay’s from getting married…that’s the only thing (with the “other” thing) they care about. Sad.