No where in America has same sex marriage been brought on by the vote - it's only be enacted because of court rulings or legislative votes.

Basically, Americans don't like voting for gays.

It's ugly, but true.

Or Blacks, or Hispanics, or any other minority group.* Which is why I don't think civil liberties should be up for public referendum. Thats how you elect school boards or approve or reject budgets not whether your fellow citizens are afforded the same rights you enjoy.

*I also don't think this is limited to Americans. Human history is wrought with examples of majority groups choosing to discriminate against minority groups.

••

That's why the last Presidential Election put yet another old White guy in the Oval Office.

Ah, well! Maybe some day!

Thats not what I meant. I meant, historically, voters (and I noted that this was not restricted to Americans) don't tend to vote in favor of legislation that would be beneficial to minority groups. That was my point. certainly if one looks at the impact of the 1964 civil Rights Act on the Democratic Party in the south its supported by history. I was addressing votes for legislation (which was what we were discussing) not candidates.

As to candidates obviously, from a racial perspective, we've come along way from 1964. Perhaps in 44 years an openly gay person could run for the highest office in the land. At present I don't happen to believe that if an openly gay man or woman ran for president he or she would be elected. Heck, the potential that Elena Kagen may be a lesbian has been the primary basis for some to question her qualifications as a Supreme Court Justice.

++

Thats not what I meant. I meant, historically, voters (and I noted that this was not restricted to Americans) don't tend to vote in favor of legislation that would be beneficial to minority groups. That was my point.

••

And Barack Obama in the White House largely (tho not entirely) invalidates that point. Whether Obama eventually proves to be a Great President or a footnote, there is no getting around the fact that the course of History CHANGED when he was elected. A big change? A world altering change? Not yet. But you know what they say about single steps and journeys of a thousand miles.

Obama was not elected for the interests of a minority group. Indeed, his election did not signal any sort of advancement of civil liberties for african americans, any more than Kennedy's did for Catholics. It simply was evidence that as a nation we have evolved to the point where an African-American can be elected to national office.

However, we've been electing non-straight white christian males to the lower offices for years now, and Geoff is right that electing a person is different then electing rights for people, which, sadly, we're still not doing.

You both are right on your points - it's just that it's two separate points.

There are circumstances that helped Obama win the election that far outweighed any disadvatage caused by his race.  For instance, the inability of the preceding President to govern well made the Democrats very likely to win no matter who they nominated.  Still, a few years ago Americans may have gone for a below average white guy over a better qualified minority candidate.

Obama's continued popularity is probably more likely due to his obvious intelligence and ability to articulate his ideas than anything having to do with race.  Some days he sounds like the only person in Washington who knows what they are doing, including those in his own party.  And he certainly seems unaffected by Glen Beck's Nazi accusations!

Only on one day of the year, Dan.

Though it is funny in that I know quite a few people who have a smidgen of Irish blood who for some reason do claim Irish ancestry when asked where their family came from.

My mom has full Irish ancestry, has red hair, light blueish gray eyes and a slightly receding chin with big cheekbones, she looks so Irish that when she visited Ireland people were shocked she spoke with an accent.

That's kind of mind-blowing.

And on the odd end of the spectrum, I have an Irish name, and in fact, have relatives who came from Ireland, but when asked about my background, I tend to downplay the Irish.

Not because I don't like the Irish, but more so that I know so little about them. I am also part Mexican, and grew up in a Mexican Neighborhood*, with Mexican relatives, so when identifying with an ethnicity, I default to Mexican.

And before anyone gets their panties in a knot, yes, I consider myself an American. I just mean that I know more about the culture, heritage and background of my Mexican relatives than my Irish ones.

*Yes, you young hipsters, there used to be a time, long before you were born, that the Mission Dist. actually had Mexicans in it.