Yeah, John's point is invalidated by the fact that my next sentence turned it around and noted that this is what initially flashed in my mind and I didn't act on it.

It does make me think I made the wrong decision.  Hopefully someone like John will confront me in public and see what it gets him.

Eh. To me, it's splitting hairs. If you are voting for one candidate because he's a member of X group, aren't you, by default, voting against the other candidate because she's a member of group Y?

I think if there were total equanimity between the races yes.  But this is no different from Catholics voting for Kennedy.  A group will often vote for "one of their own."*  An black person voting only for Obama because he is black does not mean they are voting against McCain because he's white.  Prior to this election there was never a viable opportunity to vote for a black person for president (Chris Rock not withstanding).  It is a source of community pride.  Its not that they don't want a white person president -- thats all they have ever voted for.   A white person voting for McCain only because Obama is black is a different thing, however.  At least to my mind.  I'm not sure I've articulated it well though.

*And I hate that phrase but I am not clever enough think of something else right now.

 I support gay marriage rights on the grounds that the private moral behavior of consenting adults is none of the government's business.

I'm sorry, Bruce, but I'm calling out your wording -- "private moral behavior" bothers me.  To me, this sentence infers that there's something immoral going on behind closed doors -- there's not.  The way I express love physically with my husband is in no way immoral.  You might choose not to engage in this behavior yourself, and that's fine, but there's nothing immoral about the love between two consenting adults of the same sex, or of different sexes. 

Oh, no doubt in my mind that this issue is headed for the Supreme Court. There's too many unresolved questions for it not to be - Tom's point being one excellent example.

Tom's point being one excellent example.

But I appreciate the love here!  :)  Even if we're just talking about taxes...

Scott you have never looked sexier.

LOL

I'm sorry, Bruce, but I'm calling out your wording -- "private moral behavior" bothers me.  To me, this sentence infers that there's something immoral going on behind closed doors -- there's not. 

**********

I didn't imply that at all, Tom. You are reading way too much into it.

What I meant to say is that sexuality (gay or straight) is behavior that should be governed by the individual's own moral compass, not by government edict. The same applies to drinking, what books one chooses to read, what movies you choose to watch, etc.

I'm not saying any of these things are immoral - just that their respective morality should be judged by the individual, not the law.

But which side is the pride and which side is the hate?  Remember, no villain sees himself as the villain.

I'd say people like Rev. Wright comes across as hating white people just as much as someone in the KKK comes across as hating black people.

Agreed.  Any form of biggotry is disgusting.  But I think for the reasons I articulated above a distinction can be drawn in this instance. 

I didn't imply that at all, Tom. You are reading way too much into it.

Perhaps, but I didn't bring morality into it.

Scott having never been black I have no idea how it feels to be black in America, so I will not compare him to the KKK.

I thought Rev Wright was wrong and told Obama's campaign regional director just that. But seeing some of the racial ugliness that is going on in this election, only comfirms things Wright is saying.

Well, I think you misunderstood what I said, Tom. I think if you re-read what I said, you'll see no harm was intented on my part.

But my plea from last week remains -- I still beg you not to beat me to a pulp! ;)