9:48 p.m.: Ron Paul gets asked whether he supports nutrition programs in schools, like those pioneered by former President Lyndon Johnson (and fellow Texan). He says that as long as it is done with local support, he’s fine with it. He goes on to say that the federal government has never fed people, that it’s “the market” that looks out for people. That would come as a surprise to people on Social Security, unemployment insurance, and food stamps. Where do you think their food is coming from?

9:43 p.m.: Brian Williams noted that Texas has executed over 200 death row inmates during Rick Perry’s tenure. The crowd cheers. So much for “pro-life”. Disgusting people. Death isn’t something to celebrate, especially state-sponsored murder.

9:38 p.m.: Michele Bachmann stands by her comment that the U.S. should drill for oil in the Florida Everglades.

9:36 p.m.: Rick Perry says that the verdict is out on climate change. “The fact of the matter is the science is not settled,” Perry said. This, of course, is blatantly false. The UN and other organizations comprising hundreds of scientists have stated that climate change is not only real, but caused by man. The only people casting doubt on the science are those with an economic interest to see nothing be done.

9:35 p.m.: Jon Huntsman makes the argument that Republicans can’t run away from science in the way that most Republican candidates on the stage have. “98 percent of climate scientists” agree on climate change and comments that “don’t reflect the reality of the situation” will “turn people off”.

9:30 p.m.: Perry says that he doesn’t support military adventurism, but is unwilling to criticize President Bush for getting America into an 8 year long war in Iraq and 10 year long war in Afghanistan.

9:26 p.m.: Jon Huntsman says that it’s time for America’s troops to come home from Afghanistan. Amen to that!

9:24 p.m.: Rick Perry joins every other Republican presidential candidate in saying that he would oppose a 10-to-1 spending cuts-to-tax increases debt ceiling deal.

9:23 p.m.: Mitt Romney won’t say whether he’s a member of the Tea Party.

9:20 p.m.: Jon Huntsman seems to have a Rudy Giuliani problem. Being a social moderate didn’t work for Rudy in 2008, it’s not going to work in 2012 with a Republican Party further to the right.

9:17 p.m.: Ron Paul falsely states that undocumented immigrants qualify for welfare. He sees a conspiracy behind the fence as being used to “keep us in”. At least he makes a good point that it is un-American to have a border with machine gun turrets facing our southern neighbor.

9:13 p.m.: Rick Santorum says that immigrants come to the United States to leach off of the government. I know they don’t have a lot of Latinos in Pennsylvania, but that’s a woefully uninformed statement.

9:12 p.m.: Newt Gingrich says that immigrants should come to the U.S. and learn American history. Apparently he doesn’t know much about immigration, because that’s already the law.

9:11 p.m.: Mitt Romney wants a border fence along the nearly 2,000 mile long border. Great way to create jobs, Mitt! Let’s build a new Berlin Wall. Shows how much of a welcoming country the U.S. will become under a Republican president. He also wants to end in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants.

9:04 p.m.: Williams points to billions in cuts to education in Texas, despite some of the lowest graduation rates in the country. “When you share the border with Mexico…. we have a unique situation in our state.” Interesting way to unload your failures onto Latinos.

8:59 p.m.: Newt Gingrich seems to think that he developed everything since the wheel.

8:50 p.m.: Mitt Romney says he would not call Social Security “by any measure, a failure”.

8:48 p.m.: Rick Perry repeated his line that Social Security is a “Ponzi Scheme”.

8:40 p.m.: Ron Paul does a no-no among Republicans: criticizing Ronald Reagan in his own presidential library. He says that his message was great, but that the country greatly increased its deficit during the Reagan years. Of course that’s true, but it’s not a popular line among conservatives who like to pretend that the Reagan years were the golden years for America.

8:37 p.m.: Ron Paul says that he supports eliminating the minimum wage – and that it would help the poor.

8:34 p.m.: Michele Bachmann says that she would like to see the government pull back its regulation on energy production. I assume that means she supports another Deepwater Horizon oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.

8:30 p.m.: Rick Santorum calls government assistance for poor people a “culture of dependency”. No mention of how to ensure that people have jobs or whether to provide unemployment insurance.

8:27 p.m.: Newt Gingrich is carrying Rick Perry’s water for him saying that the news media is attempting to get Republicans to attack each other. I understand why Romney would not like to address the fact that he supported the individual mandate and Rick Perry’s unwillingness to address 25% uninsured in Texas.

8:25 p.m.: The GOP healthcare plan is to repeal the Affordable Care Act without any solution to cover the 50 million Americans without health insurance.

8:23 p.m.: Massachusetts has nearly universal healthcare, while Texas ranks 50th with a quarter of its population uninsured. Perry doesn’t have an answer for Texas’ horrible healthcare system. He blames the federal government. Pathetic. Take some responsibility, Governor Perry.

8:21 p.m.: Mitt Romney says that he would grant a waiver to states from the same national law that was modeled after Romneycare. Nice try, Mitt.

8:15 p.m.: Ron Paul claims that government isn’t needed for air traffic control, drug safety, etc. Just let “the market” regulate itself!

8:10 p.m.: Herman Cain wants to tax corporations at a 9% rate, a flat tax rate of 9% on incomes (a giant tax cut for millionaires, essentially) and a 9% national sales tax (a huge tax increase on the poor and middle class). Herman Cain isn’t alone on flat tax. Jon Huntsman and other Republican candidates also support it.

8:09 p.m.: “Michael Dukakis created jobs three times faster than you did, Mitt.” -Rick Perry to Mitt Romney

8:03 p.m.: Brian Williams didn’t pull any punches. He points out that Texas is a leader in minimum wage jobs and has some of the worst schools in the nation. He turned to Mitt Romney and noted that Massachusetts ranked 47th in job creation during his term as governor.

8:00 p.m.: I love the positioning of these candidates in each debate. Romney and Michele Bachmann are always in the middle of the stage (Rick Perry joins them there tonight). Jon Huntsman and Rick Santorum are left nearly falling off the stage.

7:56 p.m.: Speaking of Al Gore, just saw Ron Paul’s anti-Perry ad on MSNBC.

7:47 p.m.: While we wait for things to get started, be sure to check out the article I wrote about a potential weakness that Rick Perry might have – the fact that he supported Al Gore for president. Not exactly the best selling point for a far-right conservative to have.

7:40 p.m.: I’m going to be liveblogging the Republican presidential debate at the Reagan Presidential Library in California. The debate begins at 8 p.m. on MSNBC and MSNBC.com. It will be the first debate featuring Texas Governor Rick Perry, who has quickly taken the lead in both national and state polls among GOP contenders.

Alaska
Incumbent: Lisa Murkowski (R) – Defeated
Challenger(s): Joe Miller (R), Scott McAdams (D)
Prediction: Toss-Up

What a difference a few weeks make. Not even two weeks ago, Lisa Murkowski was ahead by double digits in the polls and was expected to cruise towards re-election. That ended after a week of ballot counting in which Sarah Palin-backed Tea Party candidate Joe Miller narrowly defeated Murkowski by 1,100 votes. Miller is a far-right candidate that has stated he wants to eliminate Social Security, that President Obama is “bad for America”, and that he will refuse earmarks to Alaska. Traditionally, Alaska has enjoyed nearly two dollars back for every one dollar that they send to Washington. While it’s popular to talk about deficit reduction, most voters back home expect you to bring home the bacon, especially in small states like Alaska. If this race is going to be close, which I expect it will be, it will be solely because the Republicans nominated an extremist candidate. Democratic nominee Scott McAdams, like Joe Miller, has no statewide experience.

Arizona
Incumbent: John McCain (R)
Challenger(s): Rodney Glassman (D)
Prediction: Leans Republican

John McCain dispatched of former Representative J.D. Hayworth quite easily in Arizona’s GOP primary. With nearly 60 percent of the vote, McCain more or less ensured his re-election, even though he spent over $20 million to win the primary. The Democrats nominated a city councilman in Rodney Glassman. Whether this race becomes the least bit competitive will depend on if the national party decides to spend in Arizona, which seems unlikely given the number of other competitive races across the country. Still, McCain’s image has been badly tarnished since the presidential campaign just two years ago.

California
Incumbent: Barbara Boxer (D)
Challenger(s): Carly Fiorina (R)
Prediction: Leans Democrat

At least one thing is sure: two females will continue to represent California in the U.S. Senate. Barbara Boxer has a long streak of tough races and she survived in 2004, a rough year for Democrats. Her opponent, Carly Fiorina, is the former CEO of HP (she was terminated by the board of directors). While Fiorina brings a strong resume to the table, the fact that she is anti-abortion in a state that hasn’t elected a statewide anti-abortion candidate in decades does not bode well for her. On the plus side, she brings a lot of money to the table in a highly expensive state. If Meg Whitman can manage to buy the governor’s mansion with the $100+ million that she’s spent so far, Fiorina might manage to win this Senate seat. At this point, though, it’s still leaning towards Boxer.

Hawaii
Incumbent: Daniel K. Inouye (D)
Challenger(s): Cam Cavasso (R), Edward Pirkowski (R), John Roco (R)
Prediction: Likely Democrat

Not much to say for Hawaii’s Senate race other than it will probably have the nicest Election Day (weather-wise) of any of the races in the country. Daniel Inouye will win re-election easily.

Nevada
Incumbent: Harry Reid (D)
Challenger(s): Sharron Angle (R)
Prediction: Leans Democrat

Sharron Angle is the best thing that happened to the Democratic Party in Nevada. Her statements have ranged from crazy to downright bizarre (she claimed that the news media exists to report the news as she wants them to – this even confused the Fox News reporter conducting the interview). She called a bill that Congress passed to ensure that teachers and police officers were not laid off “laundered” money. She supports abolishing the Department of Education, privatizing Social Security and Medicare, and believes that the United States should withdrawal from the United Nations. Much like the other Tea Party candidates across the country, Angle is her own worst enemy. Even with an approval rating below 40 percent, Harry Reid just might manage to squeak by with the help of the Tea Party.

Oregon
Incumbent: Ron Wyden (D)
Challenger(s): Jim Huffman (R)
Prediction: Likely Democrat

Ron Wyden is a popular and reasonable senator that garners a lot of respect from both Republicans and Democrats. He will win re-election easily.

Washington
Incumbent: Patty Murray (D)
Challenger(s): Dino Rossi (R)
Prediction: Leans Democrat

Patty Murray was seen as a shoe-in not too long ago. Now that two-time Republican gubernatorial nominee Dino Rossi is challenging her, it could be a close fight (he lost both races by small margins). President Obama won Washington with 57 percent of the vote and has been a fairly reliable state for Democrats for the past couple decades. In fact, a Republican hasn’t held Murray’s seat since 1986 and the state hasn’t voted for a Republican at the presidential level since Ronald Reagan’s 1984 rout of Walter Mondale. It could be relatively close, but Murray is still the favorite. If Republicans have any hope of taking back the Senate, which is extremely unlikely, they would have to knock down incumbents like Boxer and Murray.

Adjustments

As we move along throughout the election cycle, I am going to continue to add new races to our list. While I do that, I am also going to make adjustments along the way to races where significant movement is seen.

Arkansas – Conservative Democrat Blanche Lincoln is badly trailing her Republican challenger Congressman John Boozman. While it was already expected that she would lose, the race is being moved from Leans Republican to Likely Republican. Polling shows Lincoln not just trailing by double digits, but nearly 30 points. It’s no longer a question of “if” Senator Lincoln loses, but instead “how much” she loses by.

Florida – Democratic candidate Kendrick Meek disposed of billionaire challenger (and former Republican) Jeff Greene 57 to 31 percent in the primary. Despite this, he is only garnering around 15 percent in the polls. Independent Charlie Crist’s main problem is not that he is an incumbent governor (he’s actually quite popular), but that he is relying on winning a sizable portion of Democrats, independents and Republicans. It’s not an easy task, but he has a far better shot of doing it than Meek, who has never even faced a challenger since he was elected to Congress in 2002. Polling has shown a tightening of the race, essentially a tie between Crist and conservative Republican Marco Rubio. This race is moving from Leans Democrat (assuming Crist was to caucus with the Democrats) to Toss-Up.

Wisconsin – Russ Feingold was caught off guard when public polling showed a close race against a no-name challenger. Interestingly, shortly after the Gulf oil spill disaster, the Republican candidate suggested that he would support oil exploration in Lake Michigan. Feingold was quick to criticize him with a TV ad highlighting his position on drilling in one of Wisconsin’s biggest tourist attractions. While Feingold will likely ultimately succeed in winning re-election, current polling suggests that we should move the race from Likely Democrat to Leans Democrat.

Below is a map of the Senate races that we have covered so far:

Map

The judge’s decision mirrored arguments that I outlined in March, arguing that the equal protection clause of the Constitution guaranteed these rights. The law was challenged under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment. Judge Walker writes that: “Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.”

The fundamental idea behind the 14^th Amendment is to protect against arbitrary uses of power. If the government (or in the case of Prop 8, a voter-passed initiative) takes away certain rights, “the government must show that the intrusion withstands strict scrutiny.” Judge Walker noted that the Supreme Court has held that marriage is considered a fundamental right that is protected by the Due Process Clause. Judge Walker points out that race restrictions were once placed on marriage and that the Supreme Court recognized that “despite their historical prevalence, [they] stood in stark contrast to the concepts of liberty and choice inherent in the right to marry.”

The next question before the court was the issue of Equal Protection under the Constitution. Judge Walker wrote that, “The court defers to legislative (or in this case, popular) judgment if there is at least a debatable question whether the underlying basis for the classification is rational. … The evidence at trial shows that gays and lesbians experience discrimination based on unfounded stereotypes and prejudices specific to sexual orientation.”

He notes the Lawrence case from 2003 where the Supreme Court rejected a Texas law banning sodomy: “Indeed, homosexual conduct and attraction are constitutionally protected and integral parts of what makes someone gay or lesbian.” Ultimately, Prop 8 is unconstitutional on Equal Protection grounds because it “targets gays and lesbians in a manner specific to their sexual orientation and, because of their relationship to one another, Proposition 8 targets them specifically due to sex.”

The legal history of gay marriage in California is quite lengthy. Voters approved a ban on gay marriage in 2000 with Proposition 22. San Francisco’s Mayor Gavin Newsom challenged this by issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. These licenses were invalidated by the California Supreme Court without issuing a ruling on whether the ban on gay marriage was constitutional or not. The city of San Francisco filed an action in state court to overturn California’s ban on gay marriage. The argument was that the ban was expressly against the constitution of California. The trial judge agreed, stating that it violated the state’s equal protection guarantees. An appellate court reversed the decision until the California Supreme Court ultimately decided in May 2008 that banning gay marriage was unconstitutional.

This is what led to Proposition 8. Petitioners sought to include in the state’s constitution a ban on gay marriage. They successfully got the requisite number of signatures for the initiative to be placed on the 2008 general election ballot. Ultimately, voters passed Prop 8 by a 52 to 48 margin on the same night that voters across the nation elected the first African-American president. Attempts to once again have the ban overturned failed. The California Supreme Court allowed the 18,000 marriages that occurred between the initial May 2008 ruling against the original ban and Prop 8’s passage modifying the California Constitution.

Now that a federal court has ruled on this issue, the next step will be to the 9^th Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco. It is known as one of the more liberal in the country and will in all likelihood uphold the ruling of Judge Walker. It is worth noting that he was appointed by a Republican president, George H. W. Bush. The trial court case lasted for roughly a year. It is unlikely that an appeal will conclude any sooner. The final step would be an appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court. Depending on how the Supreme Court rules, gay marriage will either become legal across the country or current bans will remain in place.

Nevada GOP Senate Primary

Sharron Angle – 38.6%
Sue Lowden – 27.9%
Danny Tarkanian – 22.7%

65.5% precincts reporting

Across the border in California, more moderate candidates succeeded in fending off Tea Party insurgents in both the Senate and Governor primary races. Carly Fiorina is the former CEO of HP, having been fired from that job due to poor performance. When she became CEO of the company in 1999, HP’s stock price was at $52 per share. When she left in 2005, the stock had fallen over 60% to just $21 per share. Fiorina will have an uphill battle against incumbent Senator Barbara Boxer in this reliably Democratic state. Her competence will be a big part of the Boxer strategy. Still, she managed to easily knock off Tea Party favorite Chuck DeVore, who received fewer than 1 in 5 votes.

California GOP Senate Primary

Carly Fiorina – 54.4%
Tom Campbell – 25.2%
Chuck DeVore – 17.6%

19% precincts reporting

The California governor’s race is another hot ticket item. Meg Whitman, the former CEO of eBay, easily defeated the more conservative Steve Poizner. She will get the rights to take on former governor Jerry Brown, the Democrat in the race. Whitman’s win was not without effort. She spent over $50 million of her personal wealth just to win the Republican nomination. It will likely take another $50 million to win a general election. Polls show her trailing Brown by single digits.

California GOP Governor Primary

Meg Whitman – 63.3%
Steve Poizner – 26.6%

19.4% precincts reporting

The final major race of the night was in the state of Arkansas, where two Democrats battled it out in a runoff after both candidates failed to reach 50% in May’s primary. Conservative Democrat Blanche Lincoln survived a close fight from the more liberal Bill Halter, who enjoyed support from organized labor and left wing blogs. Arkansas is one of the most conservative states in the country and it is also a right-to-work state, so there are few labor unions. Both factors made it difficult for Halter to overcome, despite Lincoln’s unpopularity. This seat was likely going to the Republicans come fall no matter who the candidate was anyway. It is also another race where a female won, which is quite the theme tonight.

Arkansas Democratic Senate Runoff

Blanche Lincoln – 52%
Bill Halter – 48%

99.8% precincts reporting

We’ll have updated midterm election projections soon! Stay tuned!

The victory for gay Californians was short lived. Voters approved Proposition 8 during the fall 2008 election, banning gay marriage once again as an amendment to their state constitution. While the margin was close, only 52 percent of Californians voted in favor of Prop 8, compared to over 60 percent just eight years earlier, it made little difference to those that were once again unable to achieve marriage equality.

The battle continued beyond Election Day. While by 2009 gay marriage was legalized in Connecticut, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont, Californians found themselves going backwards in the equality movement. A court challenge with the California Supreme Court was filed shortly after Prop 8 became law. The argument of the pro-marriage community was that Prop 8 first needed approval from the legislature before it could be approved by voters, since it fundamentally changed a basic right of citizens.

The California Supreme Court sided with supporters of Prop 8. As Lisa Leff of the Huffington Post put it, “While gay rights advocates accused the court of failing to protect a minority group from the will of the majority, the justices said that the state’s governing framework gives voters almost unfettered ability to change the California Constitution.” However, the ruling left unchanged the 18,000 gay marriages that had taken place between the initial Supreme Court ruling and Election Day of 2008.

The Prop 8 fight was seemingly over. Gay rights activists debated amongst each other whether a push to overturn Prop 8 should be put on the ballot in 2010 or 2012. Some argued that the quicker, the better, while tempers were still flared and gay rights activists were ready to go. Others argued that losing again in 2010 would set back the gay rights agenda more than Prop 8 did. Instead, waiting until 2012 would be the preferable approach, allowing a carefully crafted campaign to be built.

While Californians bickered amongst themselves about a way forward, two powerful Washington D.C. attorneys were setting their sights on the Golden State. Former Bush Solicitor General Ted Olson, a conservative by any standard, joined forces with Democrat David Boies to challenge Proposition 8 in federal court. The two formerly faced off in the U.S. Supreme Court case Bush v. Gore, which ultimately decided the 2000 presidential election.

These unlikely allies filed their lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Northern California on behalf of two gay men and two gay women. “Our Constitution guarantees every American the right to be treated equally under the law,” Boies said in May 2009. “There is no right more fundamental than the right to marry the person that you love and to raise a family… The courts exist to reverse injustices… This is not a question of state law. It’s a question of federal Constitutional law.”

The case before the U.S. District Court, which is in its final stages, wrested on the history of discrimination against gays in the United States and the equal protection clause of the Constitution. Both Boies and Olson argue that Proposition 8 violates basic constitutional protections. “This case is about the equal rights guaranteed to every American under the United States Constitution,” Olson said.

As Boies and Olson have pointed out, Prop 8 and the California Supreme Court ruling that followed created three distinct classes of Californians: straights that were free to marry (and divorce) whenever they want; the 18,000 gays that were married between their initial ruling and Prop 8 passing who were allowed to keep their marriages; and every other gay Californian who were not entitled to any marriage rights at all. Any reasonable interpretation of this ruling is that it violates basic constitutional principles of equal justice.

The hope of these attorneys is to eventually see the U.S. Supreme Court hear their case. This is, of course, more than just about California. It is about the legal rights of all Americans. I personally find it ironic that the act of banning gay marriage in Proposition 8 could ultimately lead to the opposite – legalization across the nation. A favorable ruling from the Supreme Court would mean that gays and lesbians could marry in every state. Such a reality depends on the verdict of one judge in California and the U.S. Supreme Court to protect the rights of this nation’s citizens.

In the race to challenge incumbent Democrat Barbara Boxer, Republicans have three candidates to choose from. Among them are Campbell, who switched from the governor’s race to the Senate race. It appears that was a good move as he currently leads his two rivals, former HP CEO Carly Fiorina and Teabag candidate Chuck DeVore. PPIC finds that Campbell has 27%, 16% for Fiorina, and a distant third for DeVore at 8%. Fiorina has positioned herself as a moderate alternative to the ultra-conservative DeVore, but has not gained much traction. While Fiorina was the early favorite, particularly of the establishment, that is clearly no longer the case.

The general election is shaping up to be a Democratic win, though, as President Obama enjoys a 61% approval rating in the state (34% disapproval). That’s considerably higher than much of the rest of the country and indicates that the party’s coalition is holding up – at least in the Golden State. Compare that to Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger whose approval rating is in George W. Bush territory – only 30% approve and 60% disapprove. Barbara Boxer has an approval rating just below 50% at 49% with 44% saying that they disapprove.

The other major poll out is of the Illinois primary for Senate, which will be held tomorrow. Democrat Alexi Giannoulias, the State Treasurer, leads the pack with 31% support, compared to 23% for Hoffman, and 23% for Jackson. The Republican Party is set to nominate the moderate Republican Congressman Mark Kirk, a Chicago suburbanite that voted for President Obama’s cap-and-trade bill but now says that he opposes it. While his support for those policies helped him in his Democratic-leaning Chicago suburb district, it is not popular at all with Republicans. That said, Kirk manages to poll better than both Hoffman and Jackson in this heavily Democratic state. Either of them winning the primary puts this seat once held by President Obama in serious jeopardy. The general election polls are below:

42% Giannoulias, 34% Kirk
37% Kirk, 36% Hoffman
38% Kirk, 36% Jackson

While Giannoulias leads Kirk by a healthy 8%, his two competitors are in extremely tight races with Kirk. Also decided on Tuesday will be the candidates to replace Mark Kirk in his suburban Chicago district, as well as competitive primaries for governor in both parties.

Certainly we can all agree that a 0.3 percent increase in funding is not enough to keep pace with inflation. For the past two years education funding has been increasing at an annual rate of 4 percent. Worse yet, however, is the formula they use to determine how much a school district receives. Instead of having a minimum guarantee, districts that lose population will lose money and districts that gain population will gain money.

It is estimated that Indianapolis Public Schools, the state’s largest district, will lose 2.8 percent of its budget in the first year and another 4.3 percent in the budget’s second year. Other major urban centers face similar realities, such as Gary, which will see a decrease of 3.6 percent and 4 percent over the next two years. Even rural districts that face population decline are going to hurt under this budget. Likely the only districts to benefit will be those in the Indianapolis suburbs where growth is the highest.

In other words, the places that need the money the most will be getting less and less, while well-to-do districts in the suburbs will be getting more. Typical of a Republican budget. You wouldn’t even need to lose students under this formula to lose money. If another district gains and you just stay even, they’re going to get an increase in their share while you will not. I don’t want to see this state look like California, but damn, you have to set your priorities straight. Republicans don’t understand that.

While this decision is certainly disheartening, it is not the end of the story. We will not rest until the day that people of all colors, religions and sexual orientations can choose to enter into a union with another person that they love. It is not the role of government – in a republic – to be a moral arbiter of law. That is what authoritarian regimes do. Does America strive to be more like Saudi Arabia or Iran?

This is what I ask of those of you who feel passionately about this issue. Do not spend time contemplating what is wrong with American justice or whether there will ever be a day where equality is finally achieved. Instead, do something about it. Write to your local newspaper, communicate with people of opposing or neutral views to try to win them to our side, and most importantly be a part of the political process. Speak out, protest (there are ways to do this other than carrying signs) and VOTE.

Proposition 8 was passed with the slimmest majority – less than 52 percent. We will have to work just that much harder to convince people that our rights should not be put up for a vote. There will be opportunities across this country to do exactly that. As we have seen in the states of Vermont and Maine, some politicians have the courage to stand up for what is right. In Iowa, the Supreme Court has ruled in our favor. New Hampshire has passed a gay marriage law that is waiting to be signed by Governor Lynch (by all means call and write to him!). Our side is on the winning side of history. Those that stand in the way of equality will soon see that.

At a state level, it’s up to them. I don’t want it to be a federal thing. I personally still think it’s wrong. People don’t understand the dictionary–it’s called queer. Queer means strange and unusual. It’s not like a slur, like you would call a white person a honky or something like that. You know, God is pretty explicit in what we’re supposed to do–what man and woman are for. Now, at the same time, we’re supposed to love everybody and accept people, and preach against the sins. I’ve had some friends that are actually homosexual. And, I mean, they know where I stand, and they know that I wouldn’t have them anywhere near my children. But at the same time, they’re people, and they’re going to do their thing.

I normally would not lend people such as Joe very much credibility. In fact, he has none. Yet it was John McCain and others in the Republican tent (especially on Fox News) that pushed him to the front of the national spotlight. They put him on the pedestal, now they have to deal with it. What does this say about John McCain and other Republicans that latched themselves to this man? In a way they married him in the hopes that he would provide them with electoral success with middle class voters. John McCain apparently is happy to marry to the right wing ideology of Christian conservatives in the hope of winning elections, but does not want to ensure equal marriage rights to gay couples. I would ask the Senator: do you stand by Joe’s comments? Voters in Arizona deserve to know that answer before they vote in 2010.

Days after he cracked that being rich in the U.S. meant earning at least $5 million a year, Republican presidential candidate John McCain acknowledged that he wasn’t sure how many houses he and his wealthy wife actually own.

“I think — I’ll have my staff get to you,” McCain responded to a question posed by Politico, according to a story Thursday on the publication’s Web site. “It’s condominiums where — I’ll have them get to you.”

Later, the McCain campaign told Politico that McCain and his wife, Cindy, have at least four in three states — Arizona, California and Virginia. Newsweek recently estimated the two owned at least seven properties.