Which will be elected POTUS first? Muslim or Homosexual?

[Bo]

Openly gay, as we have already had a homosexual president.

Agree. BTW, do you mean Buchanan?

[Bo]

Openly gay, and its going to be a republican.

Charlie Crist?

Phil Innomarato?

Some unknown, whos conservative on everything else and maybe libertarian on the gay marriage issue (pulling the state out of marriage all together and ending all state subsidies on marriage).

I bet he is from PA.

I wouldnt be surprised.

Are you talking about Keystone Phil? lol.

[Bo]

Openly gay, and its going to be a republican.

Gay Republican. I still think that's an oxymoron. Kinda like being black and liking the KKK or being Jewish and voting for Hitler.

Unless the Republican Party becomes more libertarian and drops the Religious Right, then an openly gay individual would be elected over a Muslim as a Democrat. All of the openly gay politicians I can think of right now are Democrats: Barney Frank, Jared Polis, Tammy Baldwin, Steve Pougnet (the Mayor of Palm Springs who's challenging Mary Bono Mack in CA-45) and Linda Ketner (the lesbian who almost defeated Henry Brown in SC-01 in 2008). And, due to the sexist double standard, it would probably be a lesbian over a gay man because it seems as though lesbians are much more tolerated, probably because of the girl-on-girl fantasy that most heterosexual men have, whereas society seems to be repulsed seeing two guys going at it and straight women, most of whom love gay men, aren't really turned on by seeing two guys getting it on. Sad, but true. But, take it from me, I kissed a boy and I liked it... A LOT.  

I know quite a few gay republicans and libertarians.  Gosh, the McCain campaign was full of gays in Arizona.  There were so many at the rallies and volunteer meetings.  I think that gays want to be republican but cant get past the whole anti-gay marriage crowd.  They want someone to speak for them (rather than doublespeak for them like Obama - they hate that).  At the same time, they probably would be a strong vote for fiscal conservatism if given the chance.  Theres a simple way to neutralize the whole issue entirely - get the state out of marriage entirely - the state shouldnt be issuing licenses and deeming who is married and who is not.  Remove the tax breaks for married couples and reorganize it based on children, while ensuring that gays have the right to adopt.  Then whether you're gay or straight you can go around and say you are married whenever you want without there being an equal rights issue.  If thats not good enough then this is going to be an endless battle that only results in pain.  See the big damning issue for the gay marriage movement is that it is controlled by a powerful moneyed left-wing cabal that dont just want gay marriage, but also want to force churches and pastors to conduct gay marriages that they do not believe in under penalty of jail and fine.  In NH, Governor Lynch told the legislature hed veto their bill if it didnt add that protection.  The problem with the right wing side of the argument is that the anti marriage movement is controlled by an equally moneyed right wing cabal that just wants to punish people and invade people's private lives (in this particular issue at least - i dont lump abortion with gay issues, abortion is murder). 

wow we finally agree on something! Yes, get the government out of marriage altogether. I don't think it needs to be a state's rights issue, either, because then you'll have all the gays running off to Massachusetts and New England to get married and become citizens there. People who say it's a state's rights issue need to stop and think about that. People shouldn't be punished just because of where they live. If anything we need to follow Canada's lead: define marriage, at the federal level, as the union between two consenting adults, then you don't have to worry about the religious issue as you can always fly off to Vegas and get married then. Would they have said let segregation/Jim Crow/slavery be a state's rights issue? I think not. Or letting women vote be a state's rights issue? No.

But yes, agree with azmagic. Get government out of the bedroom. No one has the right to tell you who you can and cannot fall in love with. If the social conservatives want to preserve the "sanctity" of marriage, they should push for a national ban on divorce. Anyone see that report out the other day that showed that divorce is actually higher in states that have constitutional bans on gay marriage? Things that make you go hm..

If you want the govt. out of people's personal lives, are you against banning spanking?