Hillary Clinton

Could Gary Johnson Grab LGBT Voters from Clinton, Trump?

Will candidate dissatisfaction affect the reliably Democratic gay vote?


Gay Pride Clinton Banner
Robin Platzer/Twin Images/LFI/Photoshot/Newscom

It may seem as though the Democrats will own a dominant chunk of the gay vote this election (again), regardless of the small—but symbolically significant—pushes by the Republican Party to be more friendly and supportive of the community, even if policy goals don't align.

Mark Lee is an opinion columnist at the Washington Blade, an LGBT-targeted publication in the nation's capital. He has been writing about the growing discontent with the two major parties and is questioning whether Hillary Clinton will get the same level of the gay vote as previous Democratic candidates have received. Lee doesn't really have facts at the moment to back him up, but given that Clinton has such high unfavorable ratings, it is worth wondering how many gay voters might be looking elsewhere:

Similar to all Americans, one-quarter of LGBT voters indicate they don't support either major party nominee. The high degree of dissatisfaction with both of these notorious grifters has the net effect of lowering Clinton's tally of LGBT votes.

An astounding 41 percent of Americans have recently said they are having difficulty choosing between Clinton and Trump because they believe neither would make a good president. LGBT voters are undoubtedly among them.

When given the option, 13 percent told a polling firm aligned with Democrats they'd prefer a giant meteor hitting earth than being forced to chose either Clinton or Trump. The disaffected among those under 30 represents a plurality. With the largest bloc of voters now self-identifying as independents, more than a quarter of the unaffiliated would chose annihilation.

A poll of LGBT likely voters back in May showed overwhelming support of Clinton compared to Trump: 84 percent to 16 percent. Right now those numbers show Clinton performing better than Barack Obama did in 2012 with the LGBT vote. Exit polls from 2012 showed Obama getting 77 percent of the LGBT vote and Mitt Romney getting 23 percent.

But also of interest in the Clinton-Trump poll: Those polled were not presented any third-party options, and 22 percent of the LGBT voters polled identify as "independent" (outnumbering the 15 percent that identify as Republican).

Given Gov. Gary Johnson's pro-gay positions (some of which are subject to libertarian criticism because Johnson simply hasn't made good arguments justifying further government intrusion that reduces religious liberty and freedom of association—and for many libertarians, these policies are a violation of the non-aggression principle), there's certainly opportunity for him to land some of the LGBT vote.

Clinton's still deeply disliked—a new poll by YouGov puts her unfavorable ratings at 55 percent. She's still less detested than Trump—his unfavorables are at 66 percent.

But what's also different about this race is that Clinton has jumped aboard and declared support for every single political goal put forward by the most powerful of LGBT activist groups. This is not an election where there's been any equivocation or attempts to walk some line to appeal to more conservative, religious Democrats in Southern states. Clinton has publicized a pro-LGBT federal policy agenda that supports passage of a whole host of new laws.

So to the extent that she loses LGBT votes, it seems as though the likely candidates are: Those who put other priorities ahead of LGBT issues and find the Dems wanting (essentially, likely the same pool of gay voters who have already been turning away from the Democrats); those who have concluded that we've reached the point where don't actually need additional federal regulations on LGBT issues in order to lead happy, free lives (that's guys like me, but I admittedly may be overestimating how many of us fit in this category); and those who really, really don't trust Clinton based on her background of, well, not being very trustworthy.

When I look at those categories, I suspect we may not see a significant difference in numbers for Clinton come November compared to previous elections, but given the nature of the race this year, I'm truly hoping exit polls ask gay and transgender voters about third-party candidates, at least Johnson and the Green Party's Jill Stein.

I do suspect what might be likely is that we may see a big drop in turnout, and that's probably not going to be accurately reflected in the exit polls, for obvious reasons. Both candidates may receive fewer votes than the presidential candidates in previous elections, but that won't necessarily change the percentages. The Republican base resisted the opportunity to update its party platform to be more gay friendly, and while there was some significant outreach to gay voters at the convention, it was really heavily focused on making LGBT folks feel included in the push for stronger interventions to protect against Islamic terrorism within the United States. Trump's rather erratic campaign and the unclear future of the GOP has left gay conservatives somewhat divided.

There is a huge opportunity here for Johnson among LGBT citizens who don't see themselves as fellow travelers in the progressive movement just because of their sexual orientations or gender identity. It may also be an election where a chunk of LGBT voters just throw up their hands and walk away from the two parties.

NEXT: Former L.P. Candidate John McAfee Still Can't Abide Gary Johnson

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. No, not clinton. She always supported gay marriage.

    1. My last pay check was 9700 dollar working 12 hours a week online. My sisters friend has been averaging 15k for months now and she works about 20 hours a week. I can’t believe how easy it was once I tried it out.
      This is what I do,…. http://bit.do/FOX92

    2. Anybody can earn 450$+ daily… You can earn from 9000-14000 a month or even more if you work as a full time job…It’s easy, just follow instructions on this page, read it carefully from start to finish… It’s a flexible job but a good eaning opportunity.. go to this site home tab for more detail… http://bit.do/ctDjs

  2. Given Gov. Gary Johnson’s pro-gay positions (some of which are subject to libertarian criticism for not really making strong arguments for further government intrusion on religious liberty and freedom of association), there’s certainly opportunity for him to land some of the LGBT vote.

    Stop concern trolling…

  3. For pete’s sake, ask Starchild.

  4. What % of the voting population is gay?

    1. Enough to not swing an election.

    2. Going off the percentage of gay people I see on various TV shows, I would say between 20 – 30%.

      1. What shows are you watching? I clock it at around 70%.

        1. There are channels other than Logo, you know.

          1. Yes, Rhywun, I know… I watch Bravo as well.

  5. “An astounding 41 percent of Americans have recently said they are having difficulty choosing between Clinton and Trump because they believe neither would make a good president.”

    It would be nice if gay Jay could capitalize on this, but I suspect he won’t. We have an historically unprecedented hate of the two major candidates, and no one knows what to do! Oh noes! Who oh who can we vote for?

    This conundrum is clearly a lack of education that other options exist.

    1. It would be nice if gay Jay could capitalize on this, but I suspect he won’t.

      He just doesn’t have the energy level or charisma to motivate people to vote for him. Sad!

      It may also be an election where a chunk of LGBT voters just throw up their hands and walk away from the two parties.

      Uh-huh. Assuming LGBTQWERTY voters are as engaged as the rest of the population, they will vote based on shallow appeals to identity politics and fear. So, Clinton voters, all the way.

      1. He just doesn’t have the energy level or charisma to motivate people to vote for him. Sad!

        Somehow that didn’t stop him from being elected governor of New Mexico. Twice.
        Maybe “energy” is not as important as some people think.

        1. Or maybe being a member of one of the two major parties has something to do with it. He was a Republican back then

          1. My snark below aside, this is actually the more likely possibility. By joining the LP, he blackholed himself.

            1. Pretty much

            2. At the same time, he was clearly never going to go anywhere nationally as a Republican. He couldn’t get 1% of the primary vote in 2012 (he might have done a little better without Ron Paul in the race, but not much. See Rand Paul’s performance this year). He might have had a shot at a Senate seat in New Mexico, but that’s about it, and that’s a gamble.

        2. Somehow that didn’t stop him from being elected governor of New Mexico. Twice.
          Maybe “energy” is not as important as some people think.

          As someone born and raised in New Mexico, no, “energy” is not required for higher office.

        3. He has the “energy” to disclose a policy on dangerous new inventions that sounds downright adolescent to me.

    2. Calling it a lack of education implies that the problem is simple omission, but really there’s a lot of active anti-third-party proselytizing, at least in my experience.

      1. Including from libertarians who think Libertarians are wasting their vote/electing Clinton.

        1. What the fuck are you babbling about here?

  6. “It may also be an election where a chunk of LGBT voters just throw up their hands and walk away from the two parties.”

    You mean walk away like this?

  7. Why would gays, specifically, vote LP? It’s not like Clinton is especially bad on gay issues compared to Obama (who seems to have made gays pretty happy with his Presidency), and Trump is arguably the most pro-gay GOP Presidential candidate in a long time.

    What does voting Johnson get them that they don’t already have?

    1. Why not? It’s not like both TEAMS haven’t been lying to them their whole lives about how super-supportive they are. And there’s also the crazy notion that maybe there are more important matters in life than “being gay”.

    2. Well I am not an expert or anything but I have heard that most gays were in favor of the Johnson

    3. A supposedly less crazy president?

  8. the reliably Democratic gay vote

    cheap dates 😉

    1. Start a rumor that Hillary wore white after Labor Day.

  9. Wait a minute. You’d think it could be assumed that gays would be all over Johnson.

    1. Sure, if you want to ignore the L in LGBT.

      1. And boy do i not want to do that!

        1. My feminine side is a lesbian.

  10. Just grab those gay votes by their m…ing legs.

  11. His nickname is GayJay. He should just come out of the closet and run as the first openly gay man to run for President. The media would fucking lap it up.

    1. The media would fucking lap it up.


      The media would surely not support a libertarian/republican gay candidate over Hillary Clinton or any other person with a D next to their name. They turned on Sarah Palin within seconds.

      1. Oh wait. I meant to say that the media would come all over GayJay’s face, and then lap it up.

      1. I said OPENLY gay.

        1. “According to Loewen, Buchanan shared a residence with William Rufus King, a Democratic senator from Alabama, for several years in Washington, D.C.

          “Loewen said contemporary records indicate the two men were inseparable, and wags would refer to them as “the Siamese twins.”

          “Loewen also said Buchanan was “fairly open” about his relationship with King, causing some colleagues to view the men as a couple.

          “For example, Aaron Brown, a prominent Democrat, writing to Mrs. James K. Polk, referred to King as Buchanan’s “better half,” “his wife” and “Aunt Fancy ? rigged out in her best clothes.””

          1. Yet Buchanan kept a picture of his fiancee in a place of honor to the end of his life. His fiancee broke off the engagement because she thought Buchanan was dallying with another woman. Then she killed herself.

            1. Oh, so you’re one of those homophobic deniers, are you?

              Well, I’m certainly not going to share my ideas about Millard Fillmore.


      2. No, because he earned so much of the blame for the most unjust of all U.S. wars. (My theory? People are still, after all these years, interested in whether he was sleeping with WRK or with his alleged niece or whatever, because he was one of our very worst Presidents ever. I get to say that because I’m from Virginia.)

    2. The media would fucking lap it up.

      If I know my media, they’d find a problem with it, like they find a problem with female republicans.

    3. “[…] run as the first openly gay man to run for President.”
      Sure, except he wouldn’t be.

      He might be the first to get his name on the general ballot in a majority of states, but I’d have to do research on that one.

  12. …and is questioning whether Hillary Clinton will get the same level of the gay vote as previous Democratic candidates have received.

    Let me answer that questioning with a definitive yes.

  13. You know, this particular element of the election should be instructive. I’ve been quite aggressively informed on a few threads that gays and lesbians righteously won’t ever consider voting Republican because of the GOP’s (admittedly abysmal) record on gay rights. So, here’s a good solid test of that claim. The LP has a longer history of supporting gay rights than either party. And Johnson’s certainly been in favor of same sex marriage longer than Clinton. Surely, since GOP opposition to gay rights is the driving force behind their reluctance to consider options other than the Democratic party, they’ll massively break in favor of the Libertarian ticket.

    1. I am sure that is going to happen real soon. But selling out your principles will make the staff at reason happy. So there is that.

    2. When I bring up the LP’s historical support, the goodthinkful LGBTQIMOUSE people don’t even take a stab at arguing in good faith. They immediately switch to name-calling and appeals to ridicule.

    3. I think that’s a pretty dumb argument because the LP is a third party, and third parties in the US system have difficult times attracting non-trivial support from any segment of the population, let alone a majority of any demographic. That’s like saying that because there are third parties further to the left than the Democrats on economic issues that economic leftism plays no role in Democratic voters deciding who to vote for.

      And more generally speaking, I don’t think it’s some huge leap in logic to think that the GOP’s record as a whole on gay rights would still negatively affect a GOP candidate who was pro-gay, even though it wouldn’t be as bad as if the Democrat was running against Rick Santorum. If people have formed hardened negative opinions of a party, many will be unwilling to consider anyone from that brand. I think there’s a couple things at play here hurting the GOP with LGBT voters (and the same could be said with regards to other demographics for both parties). Their position, now and historically, on LGBT rights prevents them from winning votes from gay people with similar views to them on most issues.

    4. The other is that, if gay people grow up perceiving (with good reason) the GOP as the party hostile to them, and the Democratic party as accepting and supportive, it’s not surprising that a disproportionate number of them would form political beliefs largely in line with the Democratic Party as a whole. The latter half of that equation is something that really can’t be fixed in one cycle or by putting up one candidate.

      You seem to think this theory is BS, so what exactly is your explanation for why gay people, who are an otherwise diverse demographic (geographically, racially, culturally, etc.), vote Democrat so overwhelmingly compared to the rest of the population?

      1. Except my point, the thing I’m suggesting observing, isn’t gay and lesbian support for the GOP. It’s how they’ll vote vis-a-vis the Libertarian party. So, all of the “earned ill will” (and, as I’ve said, justifiably so) doesn’t fly. The LP has been gay friendly a hell of a lot longer than the Democrats.

        Yet, I won’t be in the least surprised if Johnson winds up polling weaker amongst gays and lesbians than for the population as a whole. Gays and lesbians have become an identity group. And the Democratic party pretty much owns identity politics. Obviously, this doesn’t apply to all gays or lesbians. But, it should define the political landscape to any reasonably astute observer. For any non-Democrat, respecting the rights and liberties of gays and lesbians might be the right thing to do (it is), but it’s not, by any stretch of the imagination, smart politics.

        You might be able to make the case that the GOP pushed them there, that bigotry from the GOP turned them into an identity group more susceptible to the Democrats’ identity spoils system. But, again, that’s not entirely relevant to the question of whether there’s any reason to think that, no matter what anyone else does, the gay and lesbian vote will be reliably Democratic.

        1. I already addressed that argument (about the LP). The LP is a third party. The vast majority of people, regardless of demographics, do not take third parties seriously. I think it’s optimistic to think any group (maybe excepting young voters) will vote 3rd party more than a few % points. Maybe 5-10 in a good year. If Johnson got anywhere near that with any major group, that would be outstanding success by 3rd party standards.

          You’re correct that gay people are reliably Democratic, but you seem to want to separate it from the Republican-Democrat dichotomy which you just cannot do when talking about the general population. While most on this board, including myself, despise the two party system and thinking through that binary lens, that’s how most Americans view politics. And so the Democrats being the pro-gay party, in contrast to the GOP consistently opposing gay rights, has won them the support and loyalty from most gay people. I agree with you that this is mostly (but not entirely by any means) set in stone for the near future. But again, that has a lot to do with the GOP, the only real political opposition to the Democratic party. If we entered a hypothetical universe where the GOP (or another major party that replaced it) genuinely adopted pro-gay policies and attitudes, I think you’d see gradual erosion of Democratic dominance over time. Perhaps they maintain a long-term advantage, but I don’t think it’d be anywhere near the status quo.

          1. I already addressed that argument (about the LP). The LP is a third party. The vast majority of people, regardless of demographics, do not take third parties seriously. I think it’s optimistic to think any group (maybe excepting young voters) will vote 3rd party more than a few % points.

            No, you most certainly didn’t address my point. I even clarified it in my response. Their support for the LP will likely lag the general population. A smaller proportion of the gay vote will go to the LP than the proportion of the total vote of the will go to the LP.

            If your contention is “Gays and lesbians vote Democratic solely because the GOP was mean to them”, and that is what you seem to be arguing, you would expect that the proportion of said vote going to third parties that weren’t mean to them would be, on average, higher than for the general population. Not 50%, or even 20%, but your cited 5-10% would be something you expect to see. Hell, no, I’ll correct even that. 3-5% versus the general population’s 1% would be plausible. But, there’s simply no evidence of that.

            On the other hand, if you find that their vote goes to friendly third parties at the same rate or at less than the same rate than that of the general population, you have to draw a fairly obvious conclusion – being gay friendly won’t, in and of itself, get you gay votes. No matter what you feel, this is just basic statistical methodology.

        2. By the way, the GOP plays its own brand of identity politics, don’t fool yourself. They aren’t quite as explicit about it, but it’s pretty clear that their messaging/rhetoric about “Real Americans,” family values, etc. are primarily catered to white Christians living in small towns and/or rural areas.

    5. “The LP has a longer history of supporting gay rights than either party.”
      Um, right…

      The thing is, while the LP might have a longer history, it’s history has been one of inefficacy.

      Yeah, we had to drag the Democrat party around kicking and screaming, had to punish our politicians, hold their feet to the fire, and continue to hound them after they’ve been elected. But we actually got something out of all that.

      The Libertarian party might have been vaguely in support of our objectives even earlier, but they never delivered.

      1. Making my point that it’s an identity politics game. Congratulations.

  14. “For not really making strong arguments…”

    WTF? That is some of the worst writing I have ever seen in Reason. How about you make it easier Scott and tell the truth that Johnson doesn’t respect religious freedom or the freedom of association and supports government mandated acceptance of homosexuality?

    That is your position as well. Why do you have such a problem being honest about it?

    1. Isn’t Trump pretty gay friendly?
      What’s Trump’s position on RFRA?

      1. Don’t know and really care. I pretty much resigned to bigots like you having won the day. It would, however be nice, if the small third party that claims to be for Liberty at least put up token resistance. That seems too much to ask. We are all Hazels now I guess.

        1. I won’t presume to speak for HazelMeade, but I believe his/her position is that there’s a right to free association, but in the present practical political situation defending that right should be at the bottom on the priorities list.

          1. I wish eliminating freedom of association was that the bottom of the progressives’ priority list.

            1. Then time-travel back to the sixties and tell them that.

              Otherwise, that battle is long over and freedom lost.

              1. Otherwise, that battle is long over and freedom lost.

                Of course, anyone could make such an argument about any freedom. Do we have the legal right to smoke pot? To traverse borders without government approval? If not, then the same would apply.

                Writing off a liberty as “already lost” seems an awfully convenient way of refraining from standing up for freedom.

          2. Seems stupid. Freedom of association is one of the key freedoms upon which the free market is built, so if you toss that, you’re pretty much tossing the better part of capitalism. You still have private property, I guess, but so does feudalism and fascism.

            1. We’re not getting rid of EEOC any time soon, so I don’t think the extension of anti-discrimination to gays makes that much of a difference. The key issue is the freedom of conscience religious issue. Not to many people think it’s immoral to employ black people, but making cakes for gay weddings is a step further. Really, I’m opposed to it, I just don’t think it’s a good idea for Johnson to take a controversial stance on it in this election year. It would end up being just like Rand Paul and the CRA. It would be manipulated to make it look like Johnson was anti-gay, and he’s trying to convey the message that he’s socially inclusive as a central part of his campaign strategy.

              However, I’m totally for people at the state level fighting it. I just don’t think Johnson should stick his neck out on *this* issue in *this* election.

        2. The Tea-totalitarian, prohibition and consta2shun parties all hate atheists, choice and faggots, and would welcome you with sheets outstretched.

          1. I like you. We should be friends.

    2. That is your position as well.

      Shackford’s made clear that he opposes public accommodation laws. In that regard, he has one up on Gary Johnson.

      As to Johnson, I don’t think it’s so much a matter that he doesn’t respect religious freedom or the freedom of association, as much as they’re low priorities for him.

  15. Giant Meteor’s comprehensive final solution for all life on the planet does appeal to me.. but maybe that’s because Cthulhu’s non-Euclidean platform had already melted my brain.

    1. Then there are those four candidates running on the same ticket.

    2. I’m pretty sure SMOD’s just exaggerating to get more votes. There’s no way he’d really follow through on his plans for mass destruction, and besides he wouldn’t be able to force his extinction bill through a divided Congress.

      As for Cthulu, his thoughts and plans for governance are incomprehensible to the minds of mere mortals, kind of like Trump. But this much is sure – his more destructive impulses could surely be reigned in with the sacrifice of a few virgins.

  16. Sorry GayJay, but the homosexual vote is as monolithic as the black vote. I guess whatever gene makes you attracted to the same sex also makes you love high taxes, lots of regulation, foreign interventionism and big government spending programs. And the only thing they think is worse than Team Red is the Libertarians, since they are pretty sure that all that Freedom of Association and States Rights talk is just code for wanting to go back and re-implement sodomy laws.

    Sure, there are a few gay members of the commentariat, but they are sort of like the Clarence Thomas’ of the African American Community – essentially viewed as traitors.

    1. The problem is people adopt the beliefs of those they associate with. Since Republicans have made it clear that gays aren’t welcome, that means gays tend to associate with Democrats, and thus adopt Democratic beliefs and values on other issues.

      There’s nothing inherently socialist about gayness. it’s just that the socialists let gay people hang out with them, like them, accept them, and make them feel like they belong.

      1. Some people hate me for bringing this up, but…Two different issues:

        (1) I’m a heterosexual woman, but sterile. Nobody blames me for that. I think there’s a high probability that overcrowded conditions are what sped up my hormone cycle to the point of sterility, back when I had a hormone cycle. I also think, scientifically, that overcrowded conditions are a factor that triggers same-sex attraction. So I don’t think homosexuality per se deserves any more blame than sterility does, and yes, in real life I’ve been known to hang out with people that (I knew, and others probably guessed) were actively homosexual. With lesbians. When that took physical courage.

        (2) *Publicizing* your sexuality, leading with it, shoving it in everybody’s face as if it were more of your identity than your job or residence or even religion, is a different thing. Heterosexuals do it too. In the 1950s the mass media demanded it. Personally, I classify all people who do it as “boring.” (And when I hear the word “gay,” what comes to mind are “the very most boring set of woman-haters.”)

        So, are youall saying that Candidate Johnson is a discreet, intelligent man, whom people can respect, who happens to be homosexual…or are you saying he’s a *bore* about it?

  17. Why would anyone care how the gay vote gets split?

    The entire lgbtqakbbqwtfasl salad makes up around 5% of the population (and that is the most generous estimate) There just aren’t enough of them to swing the election either way even if they went 100% for a candidate.

    1. In 16 of 57 presidential elections the popular vote margin was less then 5%, including 2000, 2004 and 2012.

      As far as the importance of a minority group based on population, I’d like to point out that the American Jewish population is about 5 million, or 1.3%.

      1. As far as shelling out cash to politicians, they punch above their weight.

  18. “An astounding 41 percent of Americans have recently said they are having difficulty choosing between Clinton and Trump because they believe neither would make a good president.”

    Perhaps, but what policies would appeal to even a good sized minority of them? It’s like the call for “Moderates” to form their own party or “Most people think America is on the wrong track.” One would expect to find dozens of disagreements on issues as to what constitutes moderation or what is the right track.

    Maybe the best way to win the votes of these 41% is for GJ just to say “I’m not Clinton or Trump.”

    1. “Moderate Moderates Moderately and not so Moderately Moderates Moderate Party.”

      Has a nice ring to it.

  19. It may also be an election where a chunk of LGBT voters just throw up their hands…

    Jazz hands?

  20. I am a gay man who is volunteering and sending money to help Johnson/Weld.

    I am doing it because they best represent me as an American, not specifically because I am gay.

    That being said, they are also the people who most understand and articulate where people like me come from and the blatant discrimination that we have had to put up with most of our lives.

    There is not one single litmus test for voting Libertarian.

    1. I’m a gay man that plans to vote for Johnson/Weld, but I’ll be honest: it’s in spite of the Libertarians/libertarians I’ve met and talked to, not because of them.

      1. Most are plants, impostors and infiltrators. The platform gives a clearer picture of how the party wants our candidates to vote if elected. The platform also tells the DemoGOP which laws they need to repeal to keep us in the background. Those repealed laws are the important thing, not the clueless shills trying to make us look bad.

  21. He wants to grab some gay guys? Won’t he get in trouble for that?

  22. LOL!

    Oh, you are serious?

    Is he going to promise to use government guns to bully dissenters?

  23. The whole point of the Soft Machine Court stopping ku-klux statehouse DemoGOP bigots from rolling, jailing, robbing, shooting and fining gays is to remove that incentive to vote libertarian. Those judges know perfectly well who nominated and confirmed them to a cushy government pretend job. Gratitude and self interest keeps them perpetuating the Hitler-Stalin parties and their European policies and worldview.
    The LP managed similar victories ditching the draft and when Roe v. Wade took rolling, jailing, robbing, shooting and fining doctors off the chessboard. The Libertarian Platform repeals bad laws with every vote we earn!

  24. Trump’s rather erratic campaign … has left gay conservatives somewhat divided.

    Gay conservatives? That’s a mythical creature. Why would a gay person oppose their own marriage rights?

    1. Well when 2 gay couples and 1 lesbian couple, friends I have known for years, know that they can for few dollars have made all legal documentation mirrored as if they had the state imprimatur, via marriage, on the same.
      Kind of like when my father was dying from cancer. Go to Office Depot, buy the “kits” have it notarized.
      All with minimal state involvement.

    2. Well, if s/he expected a normal lifespan, one valid reason might be that s/he were more concerned about ending any special “rights” for those currently married because such “rights” actively discriminate against the 49% of all couples (who stay married long enough) who become widowed! (Now that would be the kind of “gay person” for whom I might well vote.)

  25. Could Gary Johnson Grab LGBT Voters from Clinton, Trump?
    Could Gary Johnson actually win?

  26. Can’t see how it will make any difference. The LGBT community sounds influential, but that’s because they are so noisy. In terms of votes, they only account for 1% of the vote, so what’s the big deal?

  27. Christopher . if you, thought Maria `s postlng is astonishing… on thursday I got a gorgeous Honda NSX from having made $8819 this-past/5 weeks and-more than, $10 thousand this past munth . without a doubt it is the nicest work Ive had . I started this 8-months ago and pretty much immediately startad bringin home at least $78.
    +_+_+_+_+_+_+_+_+ http://www.factoryofincome.com

  28. My mothers neighbour is working part time and averaging $9000 a month. I’m a single mum and just got my first paycheck for $6546! I still can’t believe it. I tried it out cause I got really desperate and now I couldn’t be happier. Heres what I do,

    ———– http://www.Max43.com

  29. LGBTQs at The Pulse in Orlando didn’t care which restroom they were using to hide from those shooting everyone. This election has bigger stakes than cakes and rainbows.

  30. Calling Johnson Gay Jay is offensive to LGBTQ people.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.