I am totally astounded at the number of voters who self-identified in public as LGBT. We know many folk remain closety or clueless about their sexual orientation but NINE PERCENT call themselves LGBT in New York? Damn!!!

I assume that was in the city - if that 9% was statewide the millenium is upon us...

It was 7 percent, and it's statewide (at least according to the article).

Makes sense since GLB's are twice as likely as the gen population to vote.

Not to sound presumptuous, but you'd be surprised just how many LGBTs vote based on frivolous aspects like mere name recognition and hype.

While this blog may give an image, a large sector of our community is not that concerned with politics.

Add in the whole McClurkin fiasco, and it makes for a perfect recipe for justification.

Here is an interesting development...I wonder how much Clinton appreciates that 60% support. I wonder how much Obama would like to earn it if he ends up with the most delegates...

If the court decides in favor of same sex marriage, the amendment that is gathering signatures right now will have a better chance of passing.

Will either of these candidates put themselves on the line? Will they allow the right wing fanatics to march to ballot box in November to pass an amendment AND vote for McCain while they are there??

"Warring sides in same-sex marriage debate look to court date"

Bob Egelko, Chronicle Staff Writer

Wednesday, February 6, 2008

(02-06) 18:28 PST SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court scheduled a March 4 hearing Wednesday for the long-awaited clash between gay-rights advocates, the state and religious conservatives over the constitutionality of banning same-sex marriage.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/02/06/BACPUTN95.DTL

If we really want to be free, as Americans who possess the same individual rights that all living beings possess, the only logical choice is Ron Paul. I am surprised that more gays have not caught on to the revolution as we are usually more on the forefront of counter-cultural movements. I know that i've done my part but where are the rest of you? State sponsored corporatism via CFR candidates (black, female, gay, or otherwise) is not the answer.....

You obviously aren't familiar with how sound monetary policy democratizes the wealth in favor of the People instead of the elite, as per Jeffersonian/Jacksonian tradition.... are you? Can you say "gold standard"? Google it....

And just so you know, I'm dirt poor and will not return to work until we are free again. This is ALL ABOUT smashing the privelege enjoyed by the establishment in this country.

Classical liberalism is what made us great, and it can bring us back to greatness. State sponsored corporatism is NOT a free market. Hillary and Obama preserve elitism by taking money from the elite. Who do you think is behind universal health care, i'll give you three guesses and the first two can't be THE PHARMACEUTICAL LOBBY....!

Just look who gets money from corporate interests, and who gets money from REAL PEOPLE. Then come back to me when you know what you're talking about, and who really cares about the average working person.

If you haven't seen freedom to fascism yet, I suggest that you do.....

"LGB"

Is the "T" on your keyboard broken? Better get it fixed.

Dude, Christopher, follow the link or read the post. Trans people weren't a part of this survey.

What's weirder is the false inclusion from some of the commenters, but I guess we get so used to writing LGBT we forget that it doesn't apply to everything.

And classical liberalism made us all free, Mike? What about those little things known as slavery, colonialism, and the industrial revolution? They're all products of classical liberalism.

And they weren't so nice to the queers back in the 1800's Western world either....

Dude, Alex, you're right.

Transgendered people don't vote, don't deserve equal rights and they certainly don't belong in our community. Pathetic.

Alex, love that you used the word "speculate" twice in the same paragraph.

I don't know why, but Cali queers LOVE them some Hillary. Maybe it's the Bill spillover and they're hoping to get caught with one or the other of them (or both) a stained dress and/or a cigar.

And I don't think those percentages are accurate. Just take Long Beach as an example. They're more like 20% of the population there.

Christopher, no need to get offended at Alex. He's simply repeating what The Advocate said. If you're looking for someone to bitch slap, it should be them.

Of course, some loon will probably respond that Sen. Clinton IS a child molestor, but much of the commentary here, as well as Obama's delusional primary night speech, "we don't NEED to see the results," reminds me of a classic exchange on "South Park" which went something like this:

MAN: I'm not harming anyone. I treasure these little boys.

SOUTH PARKER: But, dude, you're a child molestor!

MAN: I give them toys. I take them to fun places.

SOUTH PARKER: But, dude, you're a child molestor!

MAN: They love it when I hug them. Their little smiles....

SOUTH PARKER: DUDE, YOU'RE A CHILD MOLESTOR!!!

......

LGBTs WHO WANTED OBAMA TO WIN INCLUDING MANY SIMPLY BECAUSE HE'S NOT HILLARY AND DOMINATED GAY BLOGS AND PRESS WITH ATTACKS ON HER: Any numbers showing that she won are meaningless because closet queens might have actually voted for O.2 and anyone who voted for H is obviously too stupid and counterrevolutionary to see O for the Robin Hood he is and the spread isn't really that big a deal so, really, she lost.

REALITY CHECK: Dudes, among gays proud enough to self-identify the votes for her had spreads of TWENTY-THREE and THIRTY-FOUR points which is, how do they put it in sports—a shutout! DUDES, SHE WON!

Serena~ Noticed that too, in a post about California, no less.

Christopher~ You do realize that I didn't conduct the exit polling, I'm just writing about it?

Bedwell~ What are you talking about? There are plenty of queers in community media supporting Hillary. Like that Advocate "interview"... I mean, we all love her because she's a diva!