POLL re gay marriage

[Non Swing Voter]

This should be interesting.

[dead0man]

2

[Holmes]

Obviously very important, but that hardly matters in California anymore. It's more symbolic. For the office of president, it matters a lot.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

Pro-gay marriage.  It's somewhat important to me. 

[ElectionsGuy]

Not usually a consideration

[Likely Voter]

While it only effects a small minority of the population (including some of my friends and family), I see it as a good litmus test of a candidate's morality.

...if you are for SSM, it shows you are for treating everyone equally and not guided by antiquated ideas and superstitions. That is a good indication of other things.

[Consciously Unconscious]

1.  It's very important. 

[DC Al Fine]

Not important. Its a dead issue in Canada.

[bedstuy]

In practice, it almost never matters in how I vote.  If someone opposes gay marriage, usually they're a Republican and I wouldn't vote for them anyway. 

The only primary with a pro-SSM candidate vs. an anti-SSM candidate I can remember was the US House Primary in Central Brooklyn between Charles Barron and Hakeem Jeffries.  I had enough reasons not to vote for racist, far-left Charles Barron, but his anti-SSM position was another indicator of how terrible he was.

[Frozen Sky Ever Why]

Not even on my radar.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

In practice, it almost never matters in how I vote.  If someone opposes gay marriage, usually they're a Republican and I wouldn't vote for them anyway.  

The only primary with a pro-SSM candidate vs. an anti-SSM candidate I can remember was the US House Primary in Central Brooklyn between Charles Barron and Hakeem Jeffries.  I had enough reasons not to vote for racist, far-left Charles Barron, but his anti-SSM position was another indicator of how terrible he was.

Charles Barron is racist, what? Unless you think that veiled or not so veiled antisemitism constitutes racism (which is fair), that statement has no basis in reality.

I'd vote for an anti-marriage equality Democrat over a pro-marriage equality Republican but I'd only consider an anti-marriage equality Democrat in a primary if they were running against a centrist Democrat and had excellent credentials on economic issues. For example: if Brendan Boyle was against gay marriage and his only opponent was Margolies, I'd vote for him without hesitation.

[bedstuy]

In practice, it almost never matters in how I vote.  If someone opposes gay marriage, usually they're a Republican and I wouldn't vote for them anyway.  

The only primary with a pro-SSM candidate vs. an anti-SSM candidate I can remember was the US House Primary in Central Brooklyn between Charles Barron and Hakeem Jeffries.  I had enough reasons not to vote for racist, far-left Charles Barron, but his anti-SSM position was another indicator of how terrible he was.

Charles Barron is racist, what? Unless you think that veiled or not so veiled antisemitism constitutes racism (which is fair), that statement has no basis in reality.

I'd vote for an anti-marriage equality Democrat over a pro-marriage equality Republican but I'd only consider an anti-marriage equality Democrat in a primary if they were running against a centrist Democrat and had excellent credentials on economic issues. For example: if Brendan Boyle was against gay marriage and his only opponent was Margolies, I'd vote for him without hesitation.

Charles Barron hates Jewish people and white people.  Both are forms of racism.  I guess the counter would be that Charles Barron is just a race-baiting buffoon who plays that angle for politics.  I think he's probably both racist and a race-baiting buffoon. 

[Sol]

Most politicians who support SSM also support full LGBT rights, atleast to a certain extent. And that is obviously important to me, I'm not gonna vote for a candidate who opposes my rights.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

In practice, it almost never matters in how I vote.  If someone opposes gay marriage, usually they're a Republican and I wouldn't vote for them anyway.  

The only primary with a pro-SSM candidate vs. an anti-SSM candidate I can remember was the US House Primary in Central Brooklyn between Charles Barron and Hakeem Jeffries.  I had enough reasons not to vote for racist, far-left Charles Barron, but his anti-SSM position was another indicator of how terrible he was.

Charles Barron is racist, what? Unless you think that veiled or not so veiled antisemitism constitutes racism (which is fair), that statement has no basis in reality.

I'd vote for an anti-marriage equality Democrat over a pro-marriage equality Republican but I'd only consider an anti-marriage equality Democrat in a primary if they were running against a centrist Democrat and had excellent credentials on economic issues. For example: if Brendan Boyle was against gay marriage and his only opponent was Margolies, I'd vote for him without hesitation.

Charles Barron hates Jewish people and white people.  Both are forms of racism.  I guess the counter would be that Charles Barron is just a race-baiting buffoon who plays that angle for politics.  I think he's probably both racist and a race-baiting buffoon.  

What statements has Charles Barron made that show that he hates white people? Also, what's wrong with Black politicians appealing to largely Black constituencies by acknowledging the existence of racism and the disproportionate amounts of power held by white America? How is that race baiting?

[Torie]

Somewhat.

[bedstuy]

In practice, it almost never matters in how I vote.  If someone opposes gay marriage, usually they're a Republican and I wouldn't vote for them anyway.  

The only primary with a pro-SSM candidate vs. an anti-SSM candidate I can remember was the US House Primary in Central Brooklyn between Charles Barron and Hakeem Jeffries.  I had enough reasons not to vote for racist, far-left Charles Barron, but his anti-SSM position was another indicator of how terrible he was.

Charles Barron is racist, what? Unless you think that veiled or not so veiled antisemitism constitutes racism (which is fair), that statement has no basis in reality.

I'd vote for an anti-marriage equality Democrat over a pro-marriage equality Republican but I'd only consider an anti-marriage equality Democrat in a primary if they were running against a centrist Democrat and had excellent credentials on economic issues. For example: if Brendan Boyle was against gay marriage and his only opponent was Margolies, I'd vote for him without hesitation.

Charles Barron hates Jewish people and white people.  Both are forms of racism.  I guess the counter would be that Charles Barron is just a race-baiting buffoon who plays that angle for politics.  I think he's probably both racist and a race-baiting buffoon.  

What statements has Charles Barron made that show that he hates white people? Also, what's wrong with Black politicians appealing to largely Black constituencies by acknowledging the existence of racism and the disproportionate amounts of power held by white America? How is that race baiting?

City Council people are supposed to work for their constituents.  What Charles Barron did was scream about renaming streets after black panthers and loving Robert Mugabe, instead of doing his job.   I think his chief of staff actually said that other city council members should be assassinated if they didn't support renaming a street after a black panther.  That's being a buffoon who ignores his constituents actual needs and distracts people by turning everything into a white vs. black issue.  That's what race baiting is. 

As far as proof that he's a racist, here's one specific incident.  He said he wanted to slap random white people because he was angry about reparations.  Assaulting people because they're a specific race is pretty much the definition of racist, right?

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

In practice, it almost never matters in how I vote.  If someone opposes gay marriage, usually they're a Republican and I wouldn't vote for them anyway.  

The only primary with a pro-SSM candidate vs. an anti-SSM candidate I can remember was the US House Primary in Central Brooklyn between Charles Barron and Hakeem Jeffries.  I had enough reasons not to vote for racist, far-left Charles Barron, but his anti-SSM position was another indicator of how terrible he was.

Charles Barron is racist, what? Unless you think that veiled or not so veiled antisemitism constitutes racism (which is fair), that statement has no basis in reality.

I'd vote for an anti-marriage equality Democrat over a pro-marriage equality Republican but I'd only consider an anti-marriage equality Democrat in a primary if they were running against a centrist Democrat and had excellent credentials on economic issues. For example: if Brendan Boyle was against gay marriage and his only opponent was Margolies, I'd vote for him without hesitation.

Charles Barron hates Jewish people and white people.  Both are forms of racism.  I guess the counter would be that Charles Barron is just a race-baiting buffoon who plays that angle for politics.  I think he's probably both racist and a race-baiting buffoon.  

What statements has Charles Barron made that show that he hates white people? Also, what's wrong with Black politicians appealing to largely Black constituencies by acknowledging the existence of racism and the disproportionate amounts of power held by white America? How is that race baiting?

City Council people are supposed to work for their constituents.  What Charles Barron did was scream about renaming streets after black panthers and loving Robert Mugabe, instead of doing his job.   I think his chief of staff actually said that other city council members should be assassinated if they didn't support renaming a street after a black panther.  That's being a buffoon who ignores his constituents actual needs and distracts people by turning everything into a white vs. black issue.  That's what race baiting is.  

As far as proof that he's a racist, here's one specific incident.  He said he wanted to slap random white people because he was angry about reparations.  Assaulting people because they're a specific race is pretty much the definition of racist, right?

I agree with everything you've said about race baiting but I strongly disagree with the notion that his statement on slapping white people is racist. It is certainly expressing antipathy towards white people but hatred towards white people in that context is understandable. The idea of reparations is ridiculous but the general sentiment that white people are ignorant about race relations is rational and disliking them as a group, especially if you have little contact with white people outside of interactions regarding race relations or politics, for this reason is warranted and isn't racist. It's actually absurd to think that it's racist because it isn't predicated on some kind of essentialized trait or generalized behavior but rather an empirical truth.



Barron's statement is unfair to whites who believe in racial equality but honestly, who cares? Charles Barron isn't actually going to slap white people. He clearly meant it as a metaphorical device in the vein of the phrase "x should have some sense slapped into him" and his ideas about reparations still aren't going to be taken seriously by his own community.

Racial resentment isn't racism.

[bedstuy]

I'm not saying that being racist against white people is a significant problem.  I say this as someone who was called a cracker by some dude on the street the other day. 

I've experienced what it's like to like as a white person in a 85% black neighborhood.  I can say, there is practically no racism against whites on the part of black people in America.  I know what being discriminated against is, because I'm gay.  White people are not victims of discrimination and I would never say that.  So, I can see the aversion to saying Charles Barron is racist.  It's not the same as white on black racism.  I actually think the only victims of Charles Barron's racism are black people who get this dog and pony show about Robert Mugabe and black power instead of actual representation for their community.

[Frodo]

No impact on my vote whatsoever whether they support gay marriage or not.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It really is moot at this point.

-My state has gay marriage.
-No Democrat in my district would EVER oppose it and this has been the case for probably a decade now.
-I will never vote for a Republican.
-No Republican ever has a chance of winning anything in my area.

So the only way this could ever be an issue is if a DFL candidate for statewide office ever called for the repeal of gay marriage in Minnesota, which would only happen if they were a joke candidate who'd get crushed in the primary. As far as my vote goes that ship has already sailed.

[TNF]

Not important, because the only people I'm going to even consider voting for are the Greens or various socialist third parties, and all those groups support marriage equality, so it's never really going to ever be a determinant of how I vote.

[Mr. Illini]

It's somewhat important, but now that my state has gay marriage and it is looking like it will be legalized nationwide in the not-too-distant future, it is not as big for me as it used to be.

[TheDeadFlagBlues]

I'm not saying that being racist against white people is a significant problem.  I say this as someone who was called a cracker by some dude on the street the other day. 

I've experienced what it's like to like as a white person in a 85% black neighborhood.  I can say, there is practically no racism against whites on the part of black people in America.  I know what being discriminated against is, because I'm gay.  White people are not victims of discrimination and I would never say that.  So, I can see the aversion to saying Charles Barron is racist.  It's not the same as white on black racism.  I actually think the only victims of Charles Barron's racism are black people who get this dog and pony show about Robert Mugabe and black power instead of actual representation for their community.

Sorry for grilling you about this. I think that was pretty undeserved in retrospect.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I agree with everything you've said about race baiting but I strongly disagree with the notion that his statement on slapping white people is racist. It is certainly expressing antipathy towards white people but hatred towards white people in that context is understandable. The idea of reparations is ridiculous but the general sentiment that white people are ignorant about race relations is rational and disliking them as a group, especially if you have little contact with white people outside of interactions regarding race relations or politics, for this reason is warranted and isn't racist. It's actually absurd to think that it's racist because it isn't predicated on some kind of essentialized trait or generalized behavior but rather an empirical truth.

Disliking people b/c of their race = not racist, and yet I'm a racist for god knows what reason.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Not at all important to me right now.  I don't expect that in any of the elections I'll be voting in that the position of the candidates will actually affect when SSM becomes legal in this state or in the nation.