Comments on: People Wonder, How Does 2% Exercise So Much Influence?

By: John N.

John N. — Mon, 09 May 2011 17:54:40 +0000

I love the real point of the article. Wealthy professionl homosexuals who cannot be bothered to have any children nonetheless want the pro creation tax breaks of marriage then want the entitlements. NOM needs to note this and push this unfairness aspect to people who are single.

(1) Notice the SSM advocates never offer to surrender the tax and other benefits in fairness to people who are single.
(2) Whenever I debate one, I always propose going back to the old days. No marriage liecense, with no tax breaks, and not future entitilements. I have yet to find a liberal or homosexual who will agree to this.

So when it is all said and done, what these SSM advocates want is the smaller tax burden that comes with SSM without sacrificing the entitlements.

By: Barb

Barb — Mon, 09 May 2011 15:46:10 +0000

Point well-taken. The president raised over a billion dollars to get elected in 2008, and he's expected to raise that same amount for his reelection. This is the same president who spouts off about "campaign finance reform" and tries to shut down his opposition's fund raising options. The message seems to be that it's OK if he raises unlimited money, it's not OK if his opponent does it. the *real* Barb

By: Mike P.

Mike P. — Mon, 09 May 2011 15:30:18 +0000

I have to say that while money does matter in politics, and the 'gay community' is well-heeled, the importance of money is exaggerated. Groups always feel that they have been ignored; that is part of the inevitable let-down of watching the politician you supported actually have to govern the country. At the end of the day, everyone only has one vote, and money cannot buy elections.