Sunday, November 14, 2004
Bush gains more Ohio black votes
Early, earnest grass-roots efforts helped to re-elect the president
By Byron McCauley
Editorial page editor

Burstion-Donbraye, 50, of Cleveland, isn’t one of them.
She has been active in Republican politics for years and has long been a Bush ally, having served as his press secretary when he ran for governor of Texas. Her work, and the work of the Ohio Republican Party, deserves at least some of the credit for increasing black support for Bush in the state.

My observation…There is a growing group of minorities that are fed up with the direction of the democratic party. These people are the new frontline warriors who’ve replaced the outdated…old strategy civil rights leaders that continue to manipulate the black vote. Take care..and have a great day. Ray

Beats me why they would. But not a red herring. If it hasn’t happened yet, it will as sure as the sun rises in the East. History shows that they would act up for the same reason that they bushwhack churches and religious organizations by filing discrimination lawsuits in areas of employment for one. While most would be content to be “tolerant”, there remains a small, but significant minority that enjoy nothing less than ultimately poking a stick in God’s eye as it were.

Why give such an opening to these misguided perverts? As usual, the few ruin it for the rest by such in-your-face actions.

On the other hand, it could be a moot issue if Bush suceeds in restrainng out-of control courts that encourage such frivilous lawsuits.

I’d settle for codifying that one can’t sue faith-based organizations for the standards they enforce. Don’t like a particular “bias”? Go find a friendlier atomosphere.

My legal opinion that is not based on canadian law? I understand canada to have hate speech laws — which we don’t. Maybe they have used hateful speech there, but I haven’t heard of it happening in the refusal to marry area.

I also understand that the government doesn’t get into the marriage business of any particular churches in other areas of discrimination — such as racism, or discriminating between denominations. So I don’t see why it would jump into this one. Why would a homosexual want a priest who didn’t want them married to officiate is beyond me.

Its a red herring. Just think about it.

Are you sure about that? Evangelicals in Canada & Sweden who have been brought up on “homophobic” charges for practicing their beliefs would beg to differ with your legal opinion.

the same thing that happens to any clergyman that refuses to perform a heterosexual wedding. nothing.

Okay, I see jab has addressed a solution to that problem. However, without a proposed two types of “marriage” being in place, the church (and synagogue and mosque) is without protection in the interim should an SSM law be voted in.

As for the article and its merits; Democrats have been blasting away at the notion that values were THE reason that they lost. Should they continue to hold to that belief, 2008 will also be a Republican victory. The MESSAGE was the reason they lost the election, as much as the messenger. I see the Dems as missing the point; and the elist in their party rolling their eyes and shouting “those right-winged fundamentalists came out in droves”. It was more than that.

As for homosexuality, the 11 amendments on the various states ballots were not a republican strategy. They were a reaction to the Massachuesettes Supreme Court decision and the actions of the San Francisco Mayor. I have to agree with the notion that civil unions if enacted, are just the first step to approval of gay marriages. The object of any group wanting something is to always get a small victory first; gay marriage may not past today,but, if you can sneak civil unions under the radar than over the course of time, “what the heck, go ahead, give them[gays]what they want”.

As for why blacks view voting for a Republican as repugnant: you’d probably have to read up on every conservative black blog on the Internet to get an IDEA of why blak view this as such. I believe that LaShawn offered one good reason. Mine is as follow, since the time of our Emancipation, blacks have often been lead as a single group,e.g. we all descended from slaves so we share a common bond in that respect. Well, as a result, we’ve gained a collective mentality of what is right or wrong or what’s best for our interests by a select few “leaders”. There has always been only a small number of individuals willing to speak for us. Somewhat like a Moses, leading us into the ‘PROMISE LAND’. Therefore, with that being said, over the years, self-serving “leaders” have attached our well being to the hopes and fate of the Liberal/Social ideal and the Democratic Party. Enuff said, what you have now is the ‘herd mentality’; monolithic thinking at its best. So when you choose a candidate, Republican is not even a consideration. And if a black thinks differently, its the,”what’s wrong with you Brotha/Sista”?

LaShawn, hope I didn’t say too much and cut into your bandwidth?

People are very emotiaonal and fluffly. Specially when it comes to how they settle down and build their lives. Deciding before the fact that that is not the issue begs the question. The change I would offer? edit the FMA so that it is one sentence long — the first sentence. That defines marriage, while allowing people — all of us — to live our lives in our own ways.

I too want to be happy. But I’m not willing to give up the sacred institutions of marriage and family so a few others can be treated differently, and neither is the majority of America willing to that.

You really don’t offer anything compelling that would make me seriously consider a change for the few, that would devastate the many.

I don’t want these things for me. I want the opportunity for my friends who are settling down, building homes, and looking to live life with their loved ones the best they can. I’d like them to not be frustrated in that by people who they are not harming. By people who would judge them without knowing them.

Our country has come a long way, and is one of the world leaders in understanding that though are not all cut of the same cloth, we are all trying to live our lives of happyness and love best we can.

In the no-spin world it comes down to one thing only: moral equivalence. That’s what you want, plain and simple. Male/male female/female will never be the moral equivalent of marriage, as it is defined, and has been defined since who knows when.

I would remind you that 11 states voted overwhelmingly that they don’t buy the “gay marriage” push, and all its complex arguments. Heterosexuals don’t need your permission to be straight, so why the need for our permission for you to feel okay with your choices? Just do whatever it is you do, and leave America’s family unit alone.

Besides, La Shawn put it best. It’s not about rights. You already have the right to marry- you just don’t like the right as it exists. You want it changed- just for you. Be honest about that one little fact, and you might actually get dialogue with people. Keep spinning your arguments, and you’re going to keep getting what you’ve already gotten.

You can’t fool all of the people, all the time.