Okay - I don't know why exactly I'm replying since clearly "mark" is a Mitt minion and a heterosexual who hasn't mastered the nuances of speaking to gay people as though you don't yourself hate them. But I guess I'm just feeling especially contentious today. So...

1. Keeping children from loving stable homes is not showing love for all people.

2. I actually don't care if he loves sinners and hates sin, since I'm not sure how that relates to how I love my boyfriend and hate bigotry. Oh - what's that? He thinks that me loving my boyfriend makes me a sinner? And even though he loves sinners, that won't stop him from passing hateful laws? Yes, I see. That's the part that makes him a bigot.

3. "Good leader?" "Proven record?" Here's a two-word soundbyte for you: "BIG DIG." If he can turn that around (while turning straw into gold) I'll believe the sycophantic crap spewing from your keyboard.

4. No Republican that is so close to towing the party line will ever figure out universal healthcare in a way that will benefit the American people. They will be too concerned with figuring it out in a way that will benefit insurance companies who line their pockets to benefit their campaigns. Don't fight me on this one. You'll lose.

5. I agree: "for presidential politics you never [sic] going to see a liberal win a [sic] national politics." At least, I agree in 2008. But that does not mean I am going to vote for someone who actively attempts to forbid me from having a family at the expense of abandoned children just to pander to his constituents. That is a weak leader. Instead, I'll vote for a candidate who will do what's best for the American people and who believes that our nation's strength comes from it's unity and diversity - not from division and bigotry. Because I believe in and live in America, not politics.

6. Voting is not only about winning. It's about being heard. And I think there are many other people who would do a good job. Gov. Bill Richardson comes to mind, as does John Edwards.

7. Also, you didn't address the part about him being a baby hater or a panda. You know why? 'Cause you can't. 'Cause it's true. Mitt Romney is a Baby-Hating Panda.

8. Finally, read through your Elements of Style. You need a grammar and syntax injection. STAT.

HA! Oh my god - look at the crazy perverts trying to raise babies in loving homes, fight for universal healthcare, and encouraging people to vote!

Evil, perverty perverts with their perverted lifestyle!

All righty, Mark - here goes...

1. I'm sorry, Mark, but you don't post a comment on a blog called Big Queer and start off by 1) calling its contributors and its readership sinners and then 2) telling us that we should take it lying down and never expect the country where we live, work, pay taxes, raise families, build communities, and - yes - go to church to seriously listen to what we say. You told all gay people to just suck it up (and basically shut up) and just vote for some guy because he could win.

Is that as bad as a homophobe marching out with a baseball bat and cracking me in the head? Physically, no. But it is the kind of homophobic language that tells those kinds of homophobes that it is okay to crack me in the head. Because my voice is unimportant, not worth hearing, and the voice of a loser.

This marginalization of my voice was perpetrated in a space clearly labeled "Big Queer Blog," which put me off and led me to lose my temper. So fine, maybe I shouldn't have called you stupid. But, personally, I don't buy this, "I can use whatever grammar I want on the Internet." Language is still language. The care we show for it is the same care we show for our ideas. It should be as well-formed and well thought as our own opinions.

2, 5 & 7. I didn't say he actually passed hateful laws; I said that his "sinner-loving" wouldn't stop him. As noted in the original post, he is attempting to circumvent the law (by passing new ones) that will allow Catholic Charities to violate his state's existing anti-discrimination laws so that GLBT people cannot adopt. He also said that he would support laws that would prevent anyone from having abortions, including victims of rape or incest. These proposed ideas help no one - not the unwanted children, not the gay people being denied their rights, and not the 12-year-old girls who have been raped and impregnated by their fathers. All they do is show religious conservatives that even though he is the governor of a liberal state, he will ignore his people's best interests in order to get the religious conservative vote. That is the very definition of pandering. And he is doing it.

I guess you're right on one point, though: he's not pandering to his current constituents. He's selling them down the river in order to pander to religious conservatives who haven't yet voted for him. is that the kind of opportunism you want in the White House?

3. I am judgemental, I admit it. As for the Big Dig, there has been so much talk about getting it under control and no actual doing of it. He can say what he wants, but he is Governor of MA and the project is still out of control. He doesn't get to say, "Oh, I've done everything I can; it's not my fault!" As long as he's in office he's responsible, no matter what media outlets are stroking his ego.

4. Howard Dean. Romney's MA health care plan actually sounds a lot like the one Dean perfected as governor of VT and then proposed nationally during his presidential candidacy. Were we not paying attention because the plan came from a fiscally responsible liberal with 16 years of legislative and executive experience and not from an opportunistic business man who is treating his 4 years of governorship merely as a stepping stone to the White House?

6. Finally: voting. Your statements exhibit exactly the kind of cynicism that keeps 50% of the country away from the polls in the first place. "So and so is going to win anyway, why should I vote?" Well, if that 50% voted and didn't vote for so and so, then voting wouldn't just be about winning, would it? Elected officials would actually have to listen to what their constituents were saying instead of just playing the right political game every four years.

As for being on the losing side: I've been of voting age in four national elections: twice I've been on the winning side, twice I've been on the losing. Most of the time, I'm on the winning side in terms of state and local elections as well. My opinion on voting has nothing to do with sour grapes, as you callously imply. It has to do with what our Founding Fathers intended the vote to be: a means for "we the people" to form a "more perfect union." Not a way for two parties to cut this country in half, manipulate us into choosing sides, and then trivialize our greatest civic responsibility into a win/lose contest.

Elections aren't a sporting event. They are your chance to be heard and to make policy on a national level. Don't tell me I should sell out my beliefs, my identity, and my life and just vote for the winner.

And don't do it and expect that I won't at the very least call you stupid.

Mark - just because our conversation has ballooned out of control, I'm going to rope things in a bit and only respond to the parts of your recent comment that I think are the meat of the matter. If there's anything I skip over, let me know and I'll gladly go back to it. I just don't think anyone is reading these comments anymore except for you and I

Yes. Let's agree on murder. MURDER = BAD!

The thing is no one mentioned sin until you did, not even Romney in this case. By suddenly pulling out "loving the sinner, hating the sin" it implied that Mitt (and by extension you) thought gay people were sinners. If I inferred too much, then I apologize.

As for Catholic Charities, orphaned and abandoned children in America are wards of the state. They are not the responsibility of Catholic Charities unless the US or MA Government allows them to be. By permitting a legal transaction to be committed by a religious group in an illegal manner (allowing Catholic Charities to circumvent state non-discrimination laws) violates our Constitution. Not just because of the seperation of church and state, but because it endorses an inequality by which one group is permitted to flout the law. If Catholic Charities cannot legally conduct adoption services, then they shouldn't be permitted to conduct them at all. And an elected official certainly should not encourage or endorse lawbreaking to anybody or any body.

I'm not being disingenious when I say that I understand all of your political strategizing - I really do. However, I feel like we (the American public) have fallen into a trap set by the two-party system. I include myself in that; I switched my registration from Independent to Democrat for the first time in my life during the last midterm elections so I could vote in the Democratic primaries.

We as a country have been divided, not by ourselves, but by the very candidates for whom we vote. Splitting us this way makes it a lot easier for Democratic and Republican candidates to interpret the polls, trash each other, and lump unrelated issues together and use those lack of relations to manipulate us, their constituents. So while I respect the idea of "smart" voting, it also horrifies me that we have gotten this far. We should be voting for someone who will actually do a lot of good for a lot of people, not for someone who can win and will incidentally do okay for a few folks.

Lastly, saying this: "You know for presidential politics your never going to see a liberal win a national politics. You can't get everything you wish for...." is telling people to take it lying down. Especially when the person you are asking queer people to vote for, or at least to allow to slip through, is someone who would deny us right to live our lives the way anybody else does.