that no way in the world will blacks and libs fail to turn out to vote for Obama, no matter the state of things in November of 2012. Their greatest fear now is that if he fails to win a second term, the first black President of the United States will be viewed as a failure, something they feel will undermine his historic election. In their eyes, better he had never been elected at all as to have been elected and then defeated–they fear that would be a way for America to say,”There, see: Blacks really can’t be a successful as Whites.”

After all, you know as well as I do that many Blacks who are nowhere near as left as Obama are still his ardent supporters. They will turn their backs on their own political beliefs in order to support him, no matter his positions. Race, not policies, comes first.

About gay marriage–I used to be a ib myself so I know how they think, and many of my friends are still either fairly liberal or moderate Dems. They aren’t keen on gay marriage, but it will never be a defining political issue for them. However, here is one way of putting things to them that really gets them thinking. In fact, I have managed to change a few minds with this simple argument:

If gay marriage is allowed, that means that when a child is available for adoption, the county adoption authorities will be forbidden to give preference to heterosexual couples–they will have to give equal “marks” to two men or to two women. For all we know, there may even develop a kind of affirmative action for gays when it comes to adoption since they will, no doubt, sue and claim that they are not awarded children as often as they should be.

Liberal eyes grow large, and my friends begin to argue what everyone knows from all the social science studies that have been done: children who are raised with a mother AND a father are much less prone to criminal behavior, do better in school, and have fewer teenaged pregnancies. The stats are overwhelming.

“Ah,” I answer, “but once you call a homosexual union “marriage”, you have placed it on the same legal and moral footing as the heterosexual union you call “marriage,” and once you have done that, you can no longer argue that the homosexual couple is somehow an inferior choice as parents to the hetero couple.

They think long and hard about this and their expressions show that they don’t like the handwriting on the wall. Very few infants and young kids are available for adoption in this country, and all my friends seem very much aware of this. Almost all of them have someone in their family–a daughter, a son, a nephew ,a niece, a granddaughter, a grandson, who has tried to adopt through public agencies. They know the red tape, the interviews, the scarcity of kids, the plain hell these couples go through to adopt a child.

That a man and a woman should have to compete against not just other hetero couples for a child, but also against couples who cannot provide the child with both a mother and a father seems absolutely the most unfair of situations. In this instance, even the most liberal of them has spurted out, “But the man and the woman make the most natural choice for the child.”

Ah, yes, that word “natural” actually spews forth from the most liberal among them when this notion of the competition for the adoption of a child is put to them.

I suggest that groups opposing gay marriage put this out there as often as possible. There are already pseudo-scientific studies out there that have been sponsored by GLTB groups. The studies argue that kids raised by lesbians actually do better in a number of areas than kids raised by hetero couples. On the science blogs, these “studies”" were derided for their small samples, their shoddy research techniques, their bias and their obvious political intent. Nonetheless, they are organized. The other side seems not to be.