What lies beneath, the party of bigotry and hatred.
What we see this election cycle is a GOP desperately trying to hide it's darker side with already failed economic policy, Romney has pledged to amend the constitution to make same sex marriage illegal (so much for small government huh) and the GOP has put the prohibition of ALL abortions including of pregnancy due to rape on it's party charter. Knowing full well how repugnant most find these measures they have refused to discuss them by crying "it's the economy stupid" as if that compensates for a platform based on discrimination and an antithesis to freedom.
Josak, really, more "they're all Bush" rhetoric. It is not an already failed economic policy. It hasn't been implemented. The failed economic policy is that of the last four years. The slowest recovery EVER since WWII. The unemployment rate just went UP again. The true unemployment rate is 14.6. We didn't even create half the jobs we need just to sustain let alone grow the economy last month. These are proven failed policies.
Nice line about the amendment however, you leave out this little tidbit, that he also supports the recognition of domestic partnerships which would include shared health benefits and right of survivorship. In other words, all the rights of a married couple. If it is about rights and not about forcing a belief system on those who believe otherwise, then why isn't that alright?
There was a movement for an amendment to define rape. It did not make abortion in cases of rape, incest or the mother's life illegal. Nor is there anything at all in the GOP platform about it. You can read the entire platform here:
http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-platform_home/What makes me laugh about this is that economic policy has stayed essentially the same since Woodrow Wilson.
Abortion:
national level
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politic … story.html
State level
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ … story.html
Yeah he supports "domestic partnerships" separate but equal right? The language of segregationists and bigots everywhere EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW is the only acceptable solution in any just society.
As for the economic bit it is a slow recovery because it is a global recession the second worst in history and the depression recovery was largely due to WW2 a slow recession compares awfully well with the crash and massive spending increases we had last term but this thread is not yet another rehash of the economic debate.What is funny is that you have stated the very reason for the slow recovery within your answer. The reason why this recovery has been the slowest recovery ever since world war II is that it is the worst economic disaster since the great depression. Bush's policies of deregulation carried over from Clinton and the escallation of two unfunded wars did nothing to keep the crash from coming. Hoover did nothing to avert the crash of '29 citing market corrections world prevail on their own and the recession that ensued would be a short but sustainable one. Was he ever wrong and Romney is no different. We stared into the the abyss in 2008 and people have short memories especially when it comes to the fact that the market did not crash due to Bushs' and Obama's efforts to bail out wall street. The recovery being slow is relative only to being too slow for the impatient who forget where we came from. Romney has no new plan and I would rather have a slow recovery than going back to the failed ways of the past.
You posted the link. You did not read it, apparently. Suggest you look up the Personhood Amendment and re-read the party platform. Please take note of the platform portion that talks about abortion. Keep reading it until you actually comprehend it...
Such drama. Which part are you speaking of? The one that bans the use of Federal funding for abortions? (already law). Or the one that makes it a crime for a doctor to NOT treat an infant who survives an abortion attempt? Or the ban on late term partial birth abortions, which by any sane person's standards is murder, plain and simple? You spoke of a ban on abortions in the platform. There isn't any such thing mentioned at all. Perhaps you should read it until you understand it. One is already law, one is about leaving viable infants who survive abortions untreated, and one is about not pulling 7 month old fetus's from the womb and slicing their spinal cord. Which one of those are you in favor of that you are taking such issue with?
SassySue,
Download the PDF and go to page 13. It carries over to page 14.
"...The Sanctity and Dignity of Human Life
Faithful to the “self-evident” truths enshrined in
the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity
of human life and affirm that the unborn child
has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot
be infringed. We support a human life amendment
to the Constitution and endorse legislation to
make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment’s protections
apply to unborn children. We oppose using
public revenues to promote or perform abortion or
fund organizations which perform or advocate it and
will not fund or subsidize health care which includes
abortion coverage. We support the appointment of
judges who respect traditional family values and the
sanctity of innocent human life..."
For your information and just so we are clear: This is directly from the download of the document. It, for all intents and purposes, is the same as the Personhood Amendment ---NO EXCEPTIONS, period. None. Guaranteeing 14th amendment rights to a ferilized egg carries with it charges of murder for "killing that fertilized egg".
You think that means tax-payer subsidized abortions only? No. It means ALL!For your perusal, an explanation of the intention behind the vague wording. Also why there are no exceptions given directly.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezr … maybe-not/
You do realize that a born individual can still be legally killed correct? That there are exceptions to the 14th amendment rights?
Sassy Sue- no drama just fact; someone already brought up the WWII reference, thank you so I didn't have to...but as far as your stance or rather Romney's; He has been endorsed by NOM. National Organization for Marriage. He is a major contributor. Now, you may say; well, that is about marriage. True, he also said " I want to leave it up to the individual states' (as to hospital visits, benefits, and the ability to adopt children). Now you probably could call me out on the aforementioned statements only because Romney has indeed said the polar opposite to various news agencies, like for instance; he told Fox News he believed in gay marriage but the next day on a CBS affiliate program-he said no, he meant that he " was observing a national consensus", that that was not his belief. You see when he thinks he is stating what someone wants to hear-his party says, Nay! He then, usually within 24 hours, says 'Oh I (1)mispoke, (2) didn't understand the question or (3) it wasn't eloquently spoken-that one is my favorite. Look up on the last debate on Lilly Ledbetter. Romney had been trying ferociously to avoid that question. But the night of the debate he said he would NOT repeal the act. The next day his top adviser said no, he would appeal it. The next day he back stepped and said, " well he never weighed in on that'. The NEXT day a Romney aide said;, he opposed it! Look it up. Check Independent sites, PLEASE. In this campaign most people are not spot checking. They are drinking the Kool-Aide instead. Oh, and please, please, do yourself a favor. In your favorite search engine; plug in Governor Romney justifies no jobs as governor; well here, try this: http://youtu.be/ArRj-dQXX3Y
You see even he knows job creation is not up to the President but Congress and he feels 3 1/2 years is not enough time to measure growth anyway. The man is a designer of flip flops. I'm not saying that Obama didn't have rose colored glasses on, because I think he thought he really could reach across the party lines-he was naive. The party didn't want to reach anywhere to fix the state of the country. Their only agenda was to make sure the President had only 4 years. Too bad, I'm not rich enough to divert my millions to offshore accounts......I hope you do. If not your are voting for someone that has absolutely no intention on fixing us, protecting our seniors, our youth, and our middle class. He will, however, protect his assets as he always has. Ask the Republicans of Massachusetts.I have a post further up I believe running through all the different misquotes from the media, that states the far right criticizing Romney because they believe he is too left on the issue of gay marriage and gay rights. I have never stated that Romney is for same sex marriage. He is not. He would indeed sign into a law an amendment to define marriage between a man and a woman. Only that he advocates for same sex couples to be afforded the rights of marriage in a domestic partnership. As for flip flopping, really? Do you know how long the list would be for Obama? The most obvious one being the mandate? Which he lashed into Hillary Clinton for during the debates, called unconstitutional and a host of other names, and then a mere 6 months later, decided was great?
Josak, I am a very liberal minded perso yet personally my values are very conservative. Last night I was watching the news as they were talking about Billy Graham removing mormonism from the cult list, and his son was speaking of our government going in the wrong direction, we have heard the "rhetoric," about this all year, but his point was not the economy but the social policy....I struggle with this greatly. I believe, by our Constitution, the Governoring bodies have no place in our personal liberties, I stand by the Seperation of Church and State, I am pro-choice and pro-gay marriage and to me these are basic human rights, no-brainers. However, after watching that on he news, I can see their point from a different perspective....The point of a country headed into an immoral abyss, and the impending doom of that reality. At this stage of the game, with the players lining up around the globe to play out that last chapter in the Good Book, I have found myself in an awkward conundrum...I believe in personal rights and liberties and I also believe in God, and can see what the Rev. Graham was speaking too in this country....
There is nothing wrong with having faith so long as it's accepted as a personal choice that affects only those who consent to be affected by it.
I also don't really see the immoral abyss, people marrying those they love aside I see crime statistics falling especially in violent crime and I see an increasingly tolerant public, personally I think people are getting more moral.I understand and agree with your points, as they are the points I use when agruing for human rights...The problem being that it is a distinction in the Bible. I do not believe my faith should be imposed and shoved down the throats of others, another reason I have been a long time democrat...Also by the Bible itself, all sins are the same, and I always argue this point with my family members especially as it pertains to gay rights in this country...My point only that Rev Graham, and obvious other universal signs are pointing to a place in time that causes my soul to cling to my faith, and pray deeply for our people and others...just a soul stirring time I suppose, and feeling so in the middle of my own personal beliefs and faith, thought it may show a middle ground of the dueling outliers.
Oh, thought you were talking about Democrats.
It is simple. GREED. Republicans forget that Ronald Raygun lifted restrictions and legalized white collar crime. They also forget that GW Bush emptied out the treasury and gave it to the "private sector". I don't think anything like that has ever occurred in the history of the world.
Curious your comment on Bush giving to the private sector? . I thought I was part of the private sector. Do you work for the Government? If you don't are you part of the private sector?
The current GOP rhetoric makes Bush look like a moderate.
Last time I checked, the president cannot change the Constitution. The GOP is no more racist than the Dems. Can you say Robert Byrd, among others?
'Antithesis to freedom'
Agreed! Now, if I was American, who should I vote for instead to give me freedom?... *crickets*
I am voting Stewart Alexander.
I see your point but in my book the freedom to marry who you choose, have equality under the law and choose if I want to have a child are more important than certain economic liberties.Gay couples have children (through surrogates or adoption). There is nothing at all in the agenda to promote a law that prevents that. Sure, you might have a Senator here or there, or on State by State levels, that are promoting such legislation, but that does not make it an agenda of the GOP. How is there inequality under the law if all marriage rights are granted? You are making it about rights, and they are not being infringed. Which means it is not about rights at all but about restricting the freedom of religious institutions who hold a different belief and requiring them to perform religious ceremonies.
*sigh* Marriage is not a religious institution and I am certainly not advocating forcing anyone to marry anyone (that would be as massive an infringement on personal freedoms as the GOP stance) marriage is a government granted license in the eyes of the law, going to a church is completely irrelevant to your legal status as married besides which there are I am sure plenty of churches willing to marry same sex couples.
Equal but separate isn't equal and everyone should have equal rights an protections under the law therefore if one person can get a marriage license and one cannot that is discrimination and it's intolerable and immoral.See here's the rub. I am inclined to agree with you. I see no reason for gay couples not to have civil unions just as heterosexual couples do. I see no reason they cannot have the ceremony, if the Church is not against it, either. However, I also can see the concerns from the other side. If you amend the Constitution to advocate marriage between same sex couples, they then have the right, under the Law, to force any and all religious institutions to perform such a ceremony. If they refuse, a lawsuit will be filed (and we both know in our current sue happy mindset, someone will indeed file such a lawsuit) and the Church will lose because it is now guaranteed under the Constitution. Which is why I think a domestic partnership, with all rights of marriage, is not discriminatory at all. No rights are being denied. And there is no possibility of using it to infringe on the rights of others.
Actually I don't see any reason to put either in the constitution, equal marriage should simply be part of the law, churches do and would continue to have the right to refuse to marry anyone they wish (quite recently even an interracial couple in Mississippi, perfectly legal) while same sex couples can get marriage licenses as equals and be married in those churches who are OK with marrying them. Win win.
I am Southern Baptist, mt preacher had to appear befor his board and council to attain permission to marry my husband and I because we have both been divorced. Yes, churches can always have the last word about their participation as they already do...
First off, it wasn't an interrracial couple. It was an African American couple. Second off, people ARE calling for the government to get involved. Do you know it fits the definition of a hate crime? That the Church can be prosecuted under that Law?
Now, I completely find it revolting however, it is my point regarding gay marriage. You believe it is fine for the Church to decline based on their beliefs, however, it only takes one person. Look at the things we sue about at the drop of a hat. You don't think some couple who was refused would file a civil rights violation claim if it was law? I completely disagree. You are making a talking point out of a piece of paper. If all rights are granted, then there is no discrimination because of an absence of a simple piece of paper. Which makes it not about rights at all but about having the ability to force others to adhere to your personal belief system. That is my opinion. You have yours.I understand but to me it's not just paper. I do not believe any church should be forced to marry anyone, I do believe that gay persons wishing a true marriage have the choice to find a place that will honor that request. The language of the law need not tie a church to any practice, and the Church should not be able to tie a person to any practice...
Well said, Tammy.
Church should not dictate laws that govern all citizens of the country.
If you choose to belong to and abide by the rules of your church, that's your right (as protected by the First Amendment).
But every one of us has to abide by the laws of this country. Not just Christians. Not just members of any one particular church.
Interesting, if the board ruled in favor of not allowing you to get married, would you have done so anyways? Of course, I'm assuming they allowed it.
Yes, I would have found a way, in a beautiful garden or such, with a preacher of a different opinion, I would have found a way.
"but that does not make it an agenda of the GOP."
How many members of the Republican party endorse gay marriage? The GOP platform calls for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. It is part of the party's platform. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/gop-oks-p … 47742.html
Oklahomans voted in 2004 to amend the Oklahoma constitution to re-define marriage as between one man and one woman. True to form in most conservative states, bigotry won.
Why is it that the only states that allow gay marriage are liberal ones? Is this just a funny coincidence?
I'm sorry, but it's false to claim that discriminating against homosexuals is not on the GOP's agenda.Please stop reading biased BS reports. I've already posted a link here to the ACTUAL platform. There is nothing in there at all about banning gay marriage. They do not support it, that's true, but Romney does support a domestic partnership granting marriage rights.
You failed to answer why the majority of GOP politicians do not support gay marriage, including Mitt Romney. I guess it's true that it IS on the agenda...
The yahoo article stole its information from the Associated Press.
Do you trust Fox? They use the same Associated Press article. - http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08 … -marriage/ Is this a "biased BS report"?
Furthermore, it's odd you would deny something that is easily verifiable. The GOP platform is available online here- http://www.gop.com/2012-republican-plat … ing/#Item1
"The institution of marriage is the foundation of civil society. Its success as an institution will determine our success as a nation. It has been proven by both experience and endless social science studies that traditional marriage is best for children. Children raised in intact married families are more likely to attend college, are physically and emotionally healthier, are less likely to use drugs or alcohol, engage in crime, or get pregnant outside of marriage. The success of marriage directly impacts the economic well-being of individuals. Furthermore, the future of marriage affects freedom. The lack of family formation not only leads to more government costs, but also to more government control over the lives of its citizens in all aspects. We recognize and honor the courageous efforts of those who bear the many burdens of parenting alone, even as we believe that marriage, the union of one man and one woman must be upheld as the national standard, a goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage. We embrace the principle that all Americans should be treated with respect and dignity."
What does it mean to uphold it as a national standard, and a "goal to stand for, encourage, and promote through laws governing marriage? I'm rather confused how laws can be used to maintain marriage as between one man and one woman without ensuring that homosexuals are not given the same right as heterosexuals. Would you please enlighten me?What did I just say? They do not support same sex marriage. Romney (I can't speak for every politician in the GOP because they have not all spoken out one way or another) supports a domestic partnership with all rights of marriage. Josak and I just had this entire conversation. All rights of marriage, including, but not limited to, healthcare and survivorship. Once again I ask, if it is truly about rights, and not shoving one's lifestyle upon those who disagree with it, what is the problem? A lack of a piece of paper? Josak countered with the whole "separate but equal" line. Which doesn't apply because no one is saying you can't eat, go to school, use rest rooms, water fountains, etc just because of your life style.
I might also add that I already stated on a personal level, I really have no issue at all with same sex marriage. The issue becomes if it is law, it can be used to force churches whose beliefs differ to perform same sex marriages.
I must say that I find it ironic that it is fine with the left leaning visitors here to shove one's beliefs down the throat of Christians by wanting to force them to fund abortions (by way of tax dollars) and force religious organizations to provide for healthcare that funds abortions, things countering their very core beliefs, but withholding a piece of paper, even if all rights are granted, is somehow discriminatory and bigotry and hatred.Sue the continue struggle for them is to try and make us sit down and shut up and let them reign.
I only ask you look at California and Greece.It is illogical thinking and it just makes my brain go ouch. They have forgotten the word "compromise" . It means nothing to them. I thought granting all rights of marriage under a domestic partnership was a good compromise. It gave all rights of marriage to same sex couples yet did not mandate same sex marriage under law to be used against churches who believe differently. Which only proves it is not about compromise at all, nor rights they believe they are being denied. It is about shoving same sex marriage down the throats of anyone who holds a different belief.
No compromise is supposed to mean agree with them in all things. Just ask Harry Reid, He can tell you.
What did I just say? They do not support same sex marriage. Romney (I can't speak for every politician in the GOP because they have not all spoken out one way or another) supports a domestic partnership with all rights of marriage.
So Romney is in favor of giving homosexual couples all the benefits married couples receive, minus calling it marriage? I'd like a citation for this.
Mitt Romney's own website claims he will defend the Defense of Marriage Act, which excludes same-sex couples from receiving federal benefits.
"Marriage is more than a personally rewarding social custom. It is also critical for the well-being of a civilization. That is why it is so important to preserve traditional marriage – the joining together of one man and one woman. As president, Mitt will not only appoint an Attorney General who will defend the Defense of Marriage Act – a bipartisan law passed by Congress and signed by President Clinton – but he will also champion a Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman."- http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values
Once again I ask, if it is truly about rights, and not shoving one's lifestyle upon those who disagree with it, what is the problem? A lack of a piece of paper? Josak countered with the whole "separate but equal" line. Which doesn't apply because no one is saying you can't eat, go to school, use rest rooms, water fountains, etc just because of your life style.
IT IS ABOUT RIGHTS! Why would you even claim such a thing? Furthermore, if you are refusing to put one group of people on equal footing with another, it is discrimination. 29 states still allow employers to fire people for being gay. Your claim about equality already existing is demonstrably false! http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/p … ill-legal/ Of course, Oklahoma, where I live, again makes the list for bigotry.
I might also add that I already stated on a personal level, I really have no issue at all with same sex marriage. The issue becomes if it is law, it can be used to force churches whose beliefs differ to perform same sex marriages.
I am glad to see you have no problem with it. You are farther along than half of the people in this country.
Do you think churches should have the right to refuse to marry interracial couples? I personally believe any church should have the right to accept or refuse to perform a ceremony for anyone, since there are alternatives to getting a license. However, for those who do refuse, they should have their tax exempt status revoked, and they should be forced to put up a sign in front of their church that claims they don't perform same-sex or interracial weddings, that way inquiring parties can know where their time will be most effectively used. Furthermore, they would not be allowed to make protesters leave their property, until they decided to wise up.
I must say that I find it ironic that it is fine with the left leaning visitors here to shove one's beliefs down the throat of Christians by wanting to force them to fund abortions (by way of tax dollars) and force religious organizations to provide for healthcare that funds abortions, things countering their very core beliefs, but withholding a piece of paper, even if all rights are granted, is somehow discriminatory and bigotry and hatred.
Welcome to the modern era. I don't want my tax dollars going to fund a bloated defense budget, corporate subsidies, or bailouts for banks. Yet, that is the reality of the situation.
In addition, most opposition to abortion is based on a RELIGIOUS belief. There is no secular basis to say a fertilized egg is equivalent to a human being. Any argument that attempts so is absurd. We don't live in a theocracy. Sorry to burst your bubble. Institutions of illusion (churches) are becoming less and less relevant as people realize they are offering nothing in terms of morality that is unique to their status in society. Evaluating moral principles is much more elucidating than blindly following what a priest or pastor says about how to interpret a book that condones slavery and sexism.
I'll finish by returning to my previous point about interracial marriage. Is it bigoted and discriminatory for a church to refuse to marry an interracial couple? Or, another hypothetical: would you have preferred the interracial marriage debate to be solved by claiming the couples could enter into "civil unions" with all the same rights as married couples, but just not call it marriage?" However, for those who do refuse, they should have their tax exempt status revoked"
Thank you for making my point in this entire argument. YOU are the very reason that it should not be law. YOU would have your beliefs shoved down the throats of people who simply do not share your beliefs. Or else! YOU are no different than those you denigrate. Congratulations.
And there you go Josak. Exactly why there should not be a law.
There is a fundamental difference in the eyes of the church in regards to race and same sex marriage. One is still between a man and a woman. One is not.
I never said everything was equal now. The question was regarding Romney's stance and he states he is for a domestic partnership with marriage rights. So tell me again what right you would be denied?
You've already proven your underlying agenda with your paragraph on forcing churches to accept this or else! And that was my entire argument anyway. That it only takes one such as yourself to turn it into forcing your belief on those who believe differently.You dodged almost every single point I made. I'm not responding again until you actually decide to engage.
I believe in equality for all people, the same way MLK did.
Also, why do you keep completely avoiding my post from Romney's own website? Do you like to pretend it doesn't exist? Or how bout the GOP platform? Is that something to avoid also?
As for calling it "my agenda," equality for all is not MY agenda. It is the moral failing of our society that causes me to advocate change. If advocating for the equal treatment of all is, in your eyes, "my agenda," you have a long way to go in understanding what advocates of same-sex marriage are pushing for.
The fact you would even claim such a thing means you are not actually for marriage equality at all.You just stated in your post that any church that refrains based on their beliefs should no longer be tax exempt, should have their right to remove trespassers taken away from them, and have to put up a sign. Basically, you have stated that it is fine for them to refuse, but they must be punished. That is forcing your belief system on them.
The Defense of Marriage act defines marriage as between a man and a woman. I said that Romney was against same sex MARRIAGE. What he proposes is a domestic partnership. Which would grant the rights of healthcare and survivorship, among others.
I am calling it your agenda because there are perfectly rational people who would find a church which did not oppose the marriage, and get married there. Without the vengeful aftermath you have outlined in your post. Just because you hold a disdain for religion (calling it illusions) and outdated, does not give you any right to shove your belief system on those of faith.
Same with abortion. You don't want them shoving their views on you, but you proclaim it is perfectly fine to force them to fund something that goes against their very beliefs. I never said it was not based on religion. In fact, that is the point. Freedom of religion is a guaranteed right. That the government can make no law that interferes with that is in our Constitution.
Defense spending and the other examples you mention are not religious in nature are they? Which makes it unconstitutional to force religious organizations engage in practices which go against their religion.The Defense of Marriage act defines marriage as between a man and a woman. I said that Romney was against same sex MARRIAGE. What he proposes is a domestic partnership. Which would grant the rights of healthcare and survivorship, among others.
Oh really? "Section 3 of DOMA codifies the non-recognition of same-sex marriages for all federal purposes, including insurance benefits for government employees, Social Security survivors' benefits, and the filing of joint tax returns." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
You still fail to provide any citation for Romney's support of "all the same benefits" minus marriage.
I am calling it your agenda because there are perfectly rational people who would find a church which did not oppose the marriage, and get married there. Without the vengeful aftermath you have outlined in your post. Just because you hold a disdain for religion (calling it illusions) and outdated, does not give you any right to shove your belief system on those of faith.
Should churches be able to refuse to marry interracial couples? Or, should a business be able to refuse service to interracial couples?
Also, basing your (general your, not YOURS personally) morality on a God that kills without thought and sends people to hell who doubt his existence is hardly worth serious consideration. Illusion could be too kind of a description.
Same with abortion. You don't want them shoving their views on you, but you proclaim it is perfectly fine to force them to fund something that goes against their very beliefs. I never said it was not based on religion. In fact, that is the point. Freedom of religion is a guaranteed right. That the government can make no law that interferes with that is in our Constitution.
Defense spending and the other examples you mention are not religious in nature are they? Which makes it unconstitutional to force religious organizations engage in practices which go against their religion.
Most opposition to abortion is religious in nature (believing a fertilized egg has a soul at conception). I am not advocating forcing an abortion on any women. I am simply supporting a woman's right to self-determination.
All opposition to gay marriage is religious. Why should we live in a theocracy? I'm fine with people expressing their bigoted views about homosexuals. However, they don't get to engage in actual discrimination. That is a bridge too far."critics falsely paraphrase Romney, who in reality made his statement in reference to Kennedy's "considerable record in the area of civil rights," speaking of civil rights in general terms, not gay rights exclusively. Only then did Romney go on to argue that part of achieving civil rights goals is to "make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern," stating that he could do what Kennedy "cannot do," because "the gay community needs more support from the Republican Party." Romney said he could "be a voice in the Republican Party to foster anti-discrimination efforts," which Kennedy clearly could not do."
"Critics also point to Romney's disagreement with a proposed constitutional amendment concerning gay marriage, House Bill 4840, which was both proposed and shot down prior to Romney becoming governor. However, Romney's disagreement with the amendment was not over its clause which banned gay marriage, but over a separate clause, which Romney feared "would outlaw domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples"(25)."
The critics mentioned here are actually those from the far right, claiming that Romney was leaning too left on the issues of gay rights and gay marriage.
He is opposed to gay marriage and any amendment which makes gay marriage a right. However, he believes same sex couples should be allowed the economic rights under marriage, including health care and survivorship, but not limited to those.
My reference to abortion was not even about Roe vs Wade or a women's right. It was about the current health care law forcing religious institutions to fund abortions because they are self insured and the Democrats wanting to allow federal funding of abortions.
A secular business is not a religion. Once again, freedom of religion is a right guaranteed under the Constitution. To try to compare a business refusing a gay person to eat there to a church not marrying someone is comparing apples to oranges.
It's not just economic liberty that I'm concerned about - there is also growing militarism and police state that both major parties support. If I were gay, I think I could wait to get married if, theoretically, these issues were tackled first.
Every American has the same right to marry.
I am struck by the fact I am never given a reason to want to keep Barack Obama(Bronco Bomma...love it).
But there is always a message that projects as much fear as is possible.
I am old enough to know at the end of the day they are both just politicians.
Someone needs to get me to actually believe there is a good reason for a particular man and so far I see none.
I am perfectly happy in the belief that no matter who the Republican nominee was it would be the same rhetoric. It's the ideology.I understand what you mean...to me however this election is different than any other in history. I am concerned with my rights as a woman for myself, my 4 daughters and all of our daughters....I also trust Obama's economic policy to be the better choice, I also believe we are a safer country under the leadership of Obama, and agree with his foriegn policy. I have done a lot of research and found him to be the better choice. I guess you should vote for the person you believe has your best interest.
Are you a centrist feeling that the rhetoric on both sides is too extreme for you?
Or do you not feel that the candidates have done a good job stating what they represent?
If the total package is lacking for you, is there not one issue that strikes your heart in such a way that you feel the need to either protect it or change it?I feel like the fact that I am looking at news reports from New York where the people are given cookies and hot chocolate by the Red Cross, no food or blankets or anything.
When someone actually steps up and does something,
And yes.....they CAN do something I may pay attention.
The media has electricity....the people don't.
Please don't tell e who did what there because obviously they haven't.
And no....there is no difference in the parties except who is willing to create what level of fear this week. They are all full of it. You know that too.What I am is tired of the white hat/black hat rhetoric when it's a lie.
I vote for policies that I believe represent myself and myideology of what our contry should represent as per our constitution, I don't see it as black and white hats. I pay attention to how they vote, and what they therefore believe.
Well I am glad you do. The OP of this forum does not line up with that.
We agree more than you might think as Tammy pointed out I am not voting for either party/candidate, I just can't abide bigotry which is why I made this post, neither side is entirely innocent but on this issue there is a clear line.
I think you are seeing the line that was put there for you to see. It does not necessarily exist in the form you have been led to believe.
It's called prestidigitation.I grew up campaigning for and speaking out on these issues more than 50 years ago in a Catholic country with five other long haired nuts who read too much, we were generally laughed at even in leftist circles. Fast forward and in 2010 gay marriage was legalized in my home country. Yeah I see a line but not because it was put there to see but because I have always hated injustice and inequality, there is a big difference between partisanship and conviction.
Now you do realize I am slapping both parties here right?
Of course I do, and believe we need more choices, as well as does the author of this forum, who I believe has said he will vote for neither of the top parties
Yes but only one is ever an issue...............
people in New York are freaking out. I am struck by how quickly it developed into a complete breakdown,a cautionary tale for all.
They need help. We have Katrina in reverse. If Barack wants back in he better step up.Wow, I haven't read the papers this morning. I know how hard hit NY was, and with there infrastructure in a shambles I knew this would be very difficult and expensive...I have donated to the Red Cross, are you guys up there not getting what you need? How can citizens help more?
I am not up there.
Union electricians in New Jersey won't let non-union workers from Alabama who came up to help work on their lines.
So have I been missing out and there is no bigotry or hatred in the Democrat party?
Do you think me stupid?
A large part of my problem is THIS continual diatribe which I once again am old enough to know better and was raised Democrat so I REALLY know better.
I hope after this election cycle is over with we find some other message besides GEORGE BUSH and FEAR FEAR FEAR FEAR!I am sorry you lost me, I am not voting on fear. The Romney ticket said they would overturn Roe V Wade and they do not believe healthcare insurance should cover birthcontrol...that is their position, it doesn't represent what I believe, so I would not vote for them mysef...you should vote for the person you believe represents your beliefs.
Now Tammy do you really think they will do those things? i don't and not because I believe good/evil I believe it's a politician playing to a base.
Just saw anther article where Harry Reid laughed at the idea of co-operating with Romney. There ya go. four more years of nothing. Courtesy of the most partisan Senate Majority Leader in the history of the nation.
Of course it would work the same the other way around. All they want is the money and the power. You and I don't matter and I don't care what party you are that is true.I do understand the corruption, I do believe we must pay attention. I have actually joined a group called the house fire project that was put together by another hubber who is a conservative by the way and voting for Romney, but his organization is beginning to take shape, and tthe goal is to fight abuse and corruption at the top...This being said, I also have witnessed Obama do many things that represent my beliefs, therefore I will vote for him.
Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong/Right
I seem to recall - The recent Democratic National Convention. Where they removed all references to GOD from their platform. Then "BOOed" when the Ohio delegation ask for GOD to be reinserted. That sounds like the party of tolerance and inclusion to me.Come now, BloodRedPen. They are very tolerant and inclusive. As long as you're not Christian, or at least, not THAT Christian where you feel the need to express it. Or hold any Christian beliefs.
Once upon a time, a man in a tie & suit was considered dignified. Here, they decide that makes him "stiff" and "uncaring".
I'm sure that Bomber Jacket of the President's wasn't brought out for any other reason than he just liked the way it looked either. *rolls eyes*
Sorry, but my vote for President isn't bought by "cool".I am THAT Christian, who states it regularly, and I am a democrat, go figure
"That sounds like the PARTY of tolerance and inclusion to me."
As an individual, I'm certain you are, and do state it regularly.
As a Party, it is not deemed acceptable nor encouraged by the Democrats. Why do you think they removed God from their platform?
A serious question for a Christian Democrat. I 'd really like your take on that.I was happy to see this replaced in the Platform, and have since noticed his dedication to Isreal. Being a Democrat I naturally support the Constitution and the Seperation of Church and State, I do not feel the need to cram my faith down others throats. I also am the type of person to recognize that actions speak louder than words.
Yes, I figured as a Christian you were glad they replaced it. I meant, why do you think they took God out in the first place?
Actions speak louder than words. Good. I would think the actions of removing God from the platform, and booing the return of God to the platform, should be enlightening to you about the Democratic Party and where the Party stands on that issue. Not everyone, naturally, but enough to make a lot of noise on National television.My personal belief is the booing was sensationalized. I do know however many Americans have different faiths and many do not believe in any God. I would make a guess and say that Obama, as a leader, made the call to not let those of different faiths etc. to feel unincluded. The DNC had a plethora of different faiths and ethnicities; I believe he truly wanted all to be in a welcoming enviroment...inclusion of all.
Did you watch? Did you hear? Clearly there was not a majority for putting God back in. Clearly, they ignored that fact and did it any way. So very democratic of them. No it wasn't sensationalized. It happened and it's on video. Really can't dispute it.
Inclusiveness. Really. So what was the reason for putting it back in then? We could go round and round here. Basically, they removed it because they just really do not support God. Not all, there are some such as yourself, but you are fast becoming the minority in your chosen Party. They put it back in because it became a political problem for the President.Sassy, Actually it is not only the D party, I heard a report a couple of days ago on my local news that people are moving away from "religion" in droves...I believe this is a sign of the times, not just a D party problem. I feel no need to shove mt beliefs on anyone, but I also will not change them for anyone...Anyone I talk to about God in the forums for instance, if they are curios I ablige, if not, it is not my place to save the world. I live my life for my God, I pray for others to open their eyes, as for politics and government, I hold to the constitution and seperate the two.
Well see Tammy, that is where I would beg to differ. Separation of church and state within government & law is necessary. Individually, we have a responsibility to live our faith. Individuals should always practice their faith. That doesn't mean shoving it down others' throats, trapping people in elevators and handing out sermons. It does mean standing up though, even if it isn't popular. Just my opinion.
I agree and I do stand up for my beliefs as I have just said.
By the way Sassy, remember, it was the religious leaders of the day that killed Jesus.
As for removing "God", etc...whose God are you talking about? Do you think the Christian God is the only God? If so, you are wearing blinders. The government is supposed to represent ALL of the people, not just Christians. Removing the word God and references to it is an attempt to separate Church and State...which is exactly the way things are supposed to be. Doing so doesn't mean the politicos don't believe in God, it just means they respect the beliefs of others, including Atheists...ALL of whom are Americans.
Yes...I believe the God of Abraham Issac and Jacob is the only God.
What's wrong with that?
That is not what happened at all, the booing was about the support for Israel which was in the same sentence.
I believe in large part religious extremism has taken over the far right wing of the GOP. It is hardly recognizable as the Republican party that my parents generation were a part of. And I say, a part of, meaning they voted in elections. They didn't brand themselves with a party label. They were decent human beings who voted at election time. They would be amazed at what has happened to the GOP.
Sometimes I wonder if comments left such as yours are read over by their authors. Do they ever re-read them and become enlightened as to how their own bigotry shines through with such comments?
I am always amazed that anyone who supports the right of a child to live rather than die is immediately branded a "right wing extremist". If I had time, I'd make a list for everyone. The extremists within the Democratic Party would be miles longer.Sassy, my problem with your statement here and the right wing in general as to this subject, you are not pro-life, you are pro-fetus...because once the child is born the Republican party no longer has any interest in the actual LIFE of this child! Whether it eats or has healthcare, or goes to school, only that the child must be born...That is ridiculous...When the right comes out with a plan that will actually care for the life of the child then I will listen...otherwise it is a talking point and rhetoric.
Tammy - I would have to say It's not a political party or the governments responsibility to care for that child. It's the parent and if (and only if) the parent doesn't have the ability to do so should the community (church and charity) step in.
Which is the case for many, and I am sorry, but the church is not that big brick building, it is the people and those same people pay taxes that help those children, but you can not have it both ways...you want to support a real pro-life approach, then you take the responsibility for that life, period.
And I would say Tammy, my problem with your attitude is any lack of responsibility. There are a plethora of birth control methods available, some 99% reliable, use them. Abortion should be a last resort of extreme duress. Mothers' life in danger, rape or incest. Not the Termination department for those too irresponsible to obtain birth control.
Any child in America can get healthcare for free or rates based on income. In PA , it is called CHIP. Not sure the name is the same in every state, but it is available in every single state. And that was well before ObamaCare. There are all sorts of programs in place to aid unwed mothers' both during pregnancy and after birth.Sassy, first I have had three children, I was taking birth control with each and every one...so there goes that arguement, And to the rest of your arguement, just give me a break, wow, what a great life, be shoved through poverty and systems of abuse, but by goodness your here! Give me a break! You must never have seen poverty in front of your face, or abuse, or known someone sexually abused in the system to make such statements...So some crack prostitute, who is irresponsible, should have that poor crack addicted child that nobody wants to grow up in a life of pain! I tell you what, you go adopt a bunch of crack babies and I will respect your arguement, otherwise your whizzing in the wind!
So wait, let me understand this. If you make a mistake in choices, if you engage in activities that you know can result in certain undesirable results, it is the Government's job to bail you out? And if they don't, you then have the right to choose life or death for another? So any mother who makes a bad choice and finds herself in a tough spot should then be allowed to terminate her children's lives if it is inconvenient for her now? Or if because of that choice her children could go hungry? That is the argument you are making. If Joe punches Jane in the stomach, killing her unborn child, he is charged with manslaughter (at the least, he could be charged with murder). If Jane kills her unborn child it is choice. In essence the entire pro-abortion argument is one of whether or not the mother WANTS said child. That is the only thing that gives that life value.
Sassy, as you know I am a Christian and do not support abortion, personally...but, I am a realist who does not live in a fantasy land that believes if the government, unconstitutionally by the way, outlaws abortion and birthcontrol, this WILL NOT make bad people be good people! It will just be the same way it was in the 60's with a backroom and a hanger...Republicans need to get out of people's personal business, if they want small government, keep you social policy out, it is contradictory
Don't put words in my mouth. Never said anything about outlawing birth control, in fact, I said it was readily available and to use it. Personal business is one thing. Like forcing people to purchase things then taxing them if they can't afford it. I'm not sure how the termination of a life is considered personal business. If that is the case, wouldn't many crimes fall under that category? If outlawing something doesn't make bad people be good people (not saying it does btw) and is considered living in fantasy land, why have laws at all then? If no law is going to stop bad people from being bad people, what is the point? You are still advocating that line of no responsibility for actions you choose. (not you personally, just general you). As an example, I'm sure that what transpires between a couple would be construed as personal business, yet, we have laws regarding the treatment of one's partner do we not? So the Party of tolerance and inclusion, somehow has no place for God and no care for unborn life, unless their mothers' want them.
This could be your best post ever.
This deserves a prize for not only the most circuitous logic, but the highest number of circuitous arguments within a single post.
Anyone got some beer to go with all these pretzels?Sassy, This is what I see, I see divorce rate at 50%, I see children having children, I see poverty stricken ignorant people becoming pregnant, and I see abuse,I would rather support a law that relieves a child the pain of a predestined destructive hurtful life. I believe my view sends that fetus straight back to Jesus, where there is no pain, and that is how this Christian woman can support abortion rights.
Here are some stories from people who might be offended by your view.
http://www.theabortionsurvivors.com/abo … r-stories/Can you imagine the links I canprovide that will have people offended by yours? I don't care who is offended Sassy, I care about babies being beaten and killed by the people they love, I would rather that child never experience the horror! I saw another one on the news tonight, and it's every night Sassy, in this small town, with small town local news...tonight , a 2 year old murdered by his father, blunt force trauma to the head Sassy! Damn girl, which do you think is worse, really!?!
And yet Tammy, abortion is perfectly legal. These people had the choice to abort these children, and did not. So your argument that legal abortion somehow prevents these horrid actions does not hold water. There are horrible people in the world. Children born in perfectly loving homes get abducted by these people, abused, murdered. Your answer to this is what? Everyone should kill their unborn children because there is the possibility that something horrible could happen to them? Something horrendous could happen to any of us, Tammy. Perhaps none of us should be here then.
I provided the link because it is the only view from the babies' perspective that we can get. As abortion survivors most suffer horrible and debilitating after effects but you know what? They are still glad to be alive rather than dead.Sassy, it will escalate this problem, you know that! Take off you red hat for a minute and be a woman! It tears my soul apart, I broke down after the last post! I would take them all! I would, if I could, I would love them all, but that is not the case and you know it! Have you ever studied serial killers Sassy, MOST, are children of abuse...mental illnesses like personality disorders, chilld abuse...You can hate me if you want, but I would rather those irresponsible crack whores have abortions than force those children to live a life of pain...And may God forgive me if I am wrong, but that is what I think.
It would depend on how it was handled if it would escalate the problem or not. It is why some states now have immunity clauses for leaving babies safely at hospitals or churches. I don't hate you at all. I understand what you are saying, and, in the end, everyone chooses their conscience. This began however, as an assessment that those in the pro-life position are trying to advocate some religion onto women and are right wing nuts. I was simply pointing out that it isn't about advocating religion, but protecting innocent life.
Now, I'm sure no one would agree with my opinion on what should be done with those perpetrating those horrendous attacks on children. I'd admit it wouldn't be very Christian at all.We agree there sassy, oh I would wish some evil things upon such people. It hurts me so deep. Child abuse has grown drastically! I have watched my own mother being abused. People believe what they believe for many reasons. I have seen many children in this lifetime that I wish I could take home with me. The immorality in the world today is crushing. It breaks my heart. But especially little ones, defensless poor little babies. I can not stand it! It makes me cry, it makes me feel helpless. This is why I stand where I do on this issue. I do believe in in choice because it is a right, but it goes way deeper, as I have shared with you tonight. I am 41 yrs old with a 4 yr old up in the bed. I did not plan for that and would not change being given that gift for anything, any amount of money, nothing means more to me than children. I believe I am protecting innocent life, and appreciate you for not hating me, because this is a hard for me, it really is a struggle in my soul.
The muli-generational poverty the children having children the divorce rate (encouraged by welfare) All can be traced back to L.B.Js war on poverty. The government bleeding heart theory worked great didn't it.
I don't see bigotry at all in my post. If you see it, it's not mine.
I was responding to the OP."It is hardly recognizable as the Republican party that my parents generation were a part of. And I say, a part of, meaning they voted in elections. They didn't brand themselves with a party label. They were decent human beings who voted at election time."
Do you think the Democratic Party would be recognizable to one of your parents' time? Do you think all GOP voters brand themselves? Your parents were decent human beings compared to what exactly? All current members of the Republican party?
I'm sure you're going to say that isn't what you meant but that is what I was referring to when I said about re-reading posts.
Just wanted to share this video here, it is Romney talking about abortion and mormonism on a radio show, so the content fits the forum discussion, however most noticable to me is the demeanor in which he speaks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxMD02zU9SEI like how your choice for that video comes in at the middle lol
Here is the bit from the beginning, you'll see that he is told how he distanced himself from his faith...which is the reason for his demeanor. Also, I might point out this is from 2007 as well.
http://video.theweek.com/video/Romney-l … 20launchedSassy, I think that is the wrong link, I am just way too nice of a person not too just be quite and let it stand, but all I saw were Obama endorsements
Thanks Tammy. That's what I get for visiting the forums while talking on the phone at the same time lol
http://video.theweek.com/video/Romney-l … -with-radi
Related Discussions
- 48
Is Chic-Fil-A getting a raw deal?
by IDONO 11 years ago
Is Chic-Fil-A getting a raw deal?In reading other answers to this issue, I say yes. The remarks are ridiculous. Chic-Fil-A never said they hate gays. Never said they wouldn't hire or serve a gay person. They just don't believe in same sex marriage. Now people want to boycott and Chicago refuses new...
- 107
Supreme Court Decision - Bakers Rights Upheld.Due To His Religion
by Sharlee 5 years ago
My question - In general, how do you feel about the right to religious freedom being used in this specific Supreme Court decision? Does one have the right to discriminate due to a religious belief? The Supreme Court ruled today in favor of a Colorado cake baker who refused to make a...
- 4
Why don't gay and straight couples get domestic partnerships under the law?
by Daniel J. Neumann 13 years ago
Why don't gay and straight couples get domestic partnerships under the law?Leave marriage to the Church. If you want to hear more about this, read my hub: http://hubpages.com/hub/Marriage-Defined
- 22
Does it matter that women are not equal to men? Why or why not?
by Barbara 11 years ago
Does it matter that women are not equal to men? Why or why not?A fellow hubber commented on my hub "I am not equal in 15 states", "How has this hurt you? Why do you care?" How would you answer this question?
- 496
Chick-Fil-A and their alleged discrimination.
by kathleenkat 11 years ago
Context reference:http://money.msn.com/business-news/arti … =ansmony11I am curious as to what my fellow Hubbers think of Chick-Fil-A.I personally believe that as our country is founded on the principles of FREEDOM (of religion, of speech, of choice, etc.) that Chick-Fil-A is well within...
- 76
Another Same-Sex Marriage Thread?
by Specificity 14 years ago
I know we already have a same-sex marriage thread in Politics, but that one has already grown so large that I thought I would start something different here. Generally, my political leanings are Libertarian, which means that I think government should work to maximize liberty for all people by...