Will we ever elect a LGBT president? And if we do, when?

[Psychic Octopus]

2084.

It is, after all, somewhat hopeful by all accounts.

That's actually my prediction.

[Free Palestine]

No. At least not until the next century, and hopefully not in my lifetime at the soonest.

Hopefully? Don't want a gay President then?

I've been wrong before.

I'll be laughing my ass off when we have a gay president in 2052, you faghater.

Hey, I do not hate anyone whose sexual orientation is different from the norm. However, on religious and moral grounds, I cannot support their movement for Gay Marriage (which I hold as a religious institution, not general), though I have no problem with Civil Unions. That does not mean that I support their lifestyle, but they should be allowed to do so. A LGBT President would likely push for the exact reform to which I am opposed. Again, it is not a problem of qualification, but one of policy.

Not all gays believe that the federal government should mandate marriage laws.  I'm sure there are some Log Cabin Republicans who, you know, believe in the Constitution.

[k-onmmunist]

2040s at earliest.

[DS0816]

No. At least not until the next century, and hopefully not in my lifetime at the soonest.

That president will emerge straight out of the Republican Party (which has been the case with numerous, closeted officials).

[Lahbas]

Gio smells a bigot.

Fine, call me a bigot if you want to.

[Alexander Hamilton]

Lahbas is not a bigot. Get over yourselves.

[Eraserhead]

Yes, it'll be none other than Dave Leip.

[Phony Moderate]

Sarah Palin wins in 2012, and she reveals in her victory speech that she is a lesbian.

[Badger]

No. At least not until the next century, and hopefully not in my lifetime at the soonest.

Hopefully? Don't want a gay President then?

I've been wrong before.

I'll be laughing my ass off when we have a gay president in 2052, you faghater.

Hey, I do not hate anyone whose sexual orientation is different from the norm. However, on religious and moral grounds, I cannot support their movement for Gay Marriage (which I hold as a religious institution, not general), though I have no problem with Civil Unions. That does not mean that I support their lifestyle, but they should be allowed to do so. A LGBT President would likely push for the exact reform to which I am opposed. Again, it is not a problem of qualification, but one of policy.

Not all gays believe that the federal government should mandate marriage laws.  I'm sure there are some Log Cabin Republicans who, you know, believe in the Constitution.

So the Constituion doesn't prohibit states banning inter racial marriages as well? Surely the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment appl;y to homosexuals as well? Yes, the amendment was added in the aftermath of the Civil War with the protection of freed slaves in mind, but it's been expanded far beyond just African Americans by the courts since then (hispanics, Aisians, etc).

[Alexander Hamilton]

No. At least not until the next century, and hopefully not in my lifetime at the soonest.

Hopefully? Don't want a gay President then?

I've been wrong before.

I'll be laughing my ass off when we have a gay president in 2052, you faghater.

Hey, I do not hate anyone whose sexual orientation is different from the norm. However, on religious and moral grounds, I cannot support their movement for Gay Marriage (which I hold as a religious institution, not general), though I have no problem with Civil Unions. That does not mean that I support their lifestyle, but they should be allowed to do so. A LGBT President would likely push for the exact reform to which I am opposed. Again, it is not a problem of qualification, but one of policy.

Not all gays believe that the federal government should mandate marriage laws.  I'm sure there are some Log Cabin Republicans who, you know, believe in the Constitution.

So the Constituion doesn't prohibit states banning inter racial marriages as well? Surely the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment appl;y to homosexuals as well? Yes, the amendment was added in the aftermath of the Civil War with the protection of freed slaves in mind, but it's been expanded far beyond just African Americans by the courts since then (hispanics, Aisians, etc).

bager, the equal protection clause is not violated in any way and you know that. A gay man has the same legal right to marry a woman as a straight man does.

[Badger]

No. At least not until the next century, and hopefully not in my lifetime at the soonest.

Hopefully? Don't want a gay President then?

I've been wrong before.

I'll be laughing my ass off when we have a gay president in 2052, you faghater.

Hey, I do not hate anyone whose sexual orientation is different from the norm. However, on religious and moral grounds, I cannot support their movement for Gay Marriage (which I hold as a religious institution, not general), though I have no problem with Civil Unions. That does not mean that I support their lifestyle, but they should be allowed to do so. A LGBT President would likely push for the exact reform to which I am opposed. Again, it is not a problem of qualification, but one of policy.

Not all gays believe that the federal government should mandate marriage laws.  I'm sure there are some Log Cabin Republicans who, you know, believe in the Constitution.

So the Constituion doesn't prohibit states banning inter racial marriages as well? Surely the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the 14th Amendment appl;y to homosexuals as well? Yes, the amendment was added in the aftermath of the Civil War with the protection of freed slaves in mind, but it's been expanded far beyond just African Americans by the courts since then (hispanics, Aisians, etc).

bager, the equal protection clause is not violated in any way and you know that. A gay man has the same legal right to marry a woman as a straight man does.

The same way a black man had the same right to marry someone from his own race, same as a white man?

[Bo]

Yes, in 2072.