|
|
I will just add this to my list of reasons not to vote in the Nov. elections.
Maybe you have plenty of company.
This is still the primary after all, and there ARE other choices.
Our Lord always leaves an alternative to temptation.
Caving into fear serves as a temptation.
Don’t not vote. Surely you can find a third party or write in candidate. Not voting counts as a vote for “I don’t care” whereas voting third party says both major candidates are unacceptable. It may not help this election but who knows what seeds may be planted.
Lou. I’m not going to quote scipture to you.However, The Book tells us to render unto Cesar... We are bound by his words to obey those in government power. So you chose to let others select the one to publish the proclmations that you will be required to obey. Check a little closer and make a more informed decision occording to The Book. Analize the whole man. Which do you have more in common with? May His Words reveal to you.
I cannot blame you for thinking you are standing up for principles, but what is our alternative?
We don’t really have a choice - that went out 2 centuries ago. We are only given a highly limited choice. Write-ins don’t happen. So, as they say - the lesser of 2 evils.
Bear in mind a certain segment is going to be out in force as it never is, again for Uhbama, and probably tips everything for him. The fewer vote R, the MUCH more likely D this election, almost like ‘08.
I feel the same way. We should ask people with children, “If something happened to you , would you want the government to turn your children over to a couple of queers to be raised?
Oh puleeze.
First off, despite Romney’s statement I don’t believe the president has a damned thing to do with state adoption laws.
Next, to the extent the federal courts weigh in on the Constitutionality of state adoption laws, you sure are not going to get more conservative judges with Obama.
Third, Obama is for gay, in fact LGBT, everything, marriage, adoption the whole nine yards.
Finally, this is not a one issue election. The list of issues is a mile long, and they are important. They include whether religious institutions will be forced to engage in stuff they do not believe in, like gay marriage. So with Obama your church eventually will be harrassed and accused of hate crimes.
I agree. There so are many alarmingly liberal/statist positions that Romney has supported that are screaming warning-signals all over the place. But this “gay adoption” thing is the one that truly makes me want to wretch the most. Sick, sick, sick.
I’ve never in my entire life voted for a damned liberal, but THIS is what the GOP is serving up for us? They’ve gone out of their ever-lovin’ minds. I’ve grown convinced that the whole upper-echelon Republican Party apparatus is being run by fifth-columnist style Democrat saboteurs.
Here in New Mexico we do not have a ‘primary’ to choose from as well. I’ll be writing in a candidate. It really sucks and is disenfranchising. Makes me want to donate to the RNC...
If Obama gets in you probably have unless you consider voting "Da" for the only candidate that will be allowed on the ballot as they did in the Soviet Union for several generations as meaningful voting.
This is who Romney is...
In 2005, the Boston Globe revealed that Catholic Charities of Boston had placed a small number of special-needs children with homosexual couples for adoption. The Archdiocese of Boston responded in early 2006, stating it would no longer place children with homosexual couples (as the Church considers homosexuality “gravely immoral”). A media storm quickly followed.
Responding to charges that it was illegally discriminating against homosexuals, the Archdiocese then asked the state to grant a religious exemption to Catholic Charities, but the Legislature balked. Existing Massachusetts non-discrimination laws referencing “sexual orientation” plus “legal gay marriage” would not allow the Church to follow its moral precepts, it was claimed.
Governor Romney said his hands were tied by the law, the Legislature’s refusal to act, and the Supreme Court ruling which had forced same-sex marriage on the state. All he could do was to file a bill to “protect religious freedom” in Massachusetts, specifically targeting the laws covering adoption, and hope for the best. The Legislature then killed his bill, and the Church had to end its adoption services in order not to violate its own tenets. But Romney had done all he could for religious freedom!
But that’s not exactly what happened. In fact, Romney erroneously blamed the Church’s predicament on non-existent law and could have rescinded the administrative regulations that would not let Catholic Charities deny placement of children with homosexual couples. Romney also failed to point out that religious freedom was already protected in both the state and federal constitutions. The Archdiocese could have fought this in court but did not — perhaps out of fear of losing major donors with liberal views (who were well represented on Catholic Charities’ board). In the end, the homosexual activists and their allies got their way, and it was another public whipping for the Catholic Church — all of which Romney could have prevented.
Romney falsely claimed the law required Catholic Charities to place children with homosexual couples. ...
This story is significant because it lays bare Romney’s hypocrisy and self-contradiction. He simultaneously accepted homosexuality and laws or policies banning discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation,” yet blamed those very laws or policies for threatening “religious freedom.” If he understood that conflict in March 2006, how could he ever have supported laws banning discrimination on the basis of “sexual orientation”? (It is unclear whether he still supports such laws; see Chapter II.) Did he (and does he) not see how they set up conflicts with basic constitutional rights?
Romney blamed Massachusetts law for the problem. But there is no overarching law in Massachusetts concerning “sexual orientation” discrimination. The phrase “sexual orientation” appears in only certain specific Massachusetts statutes (signed into law by Democrat Governor Michael Dukakis in 1989). In any case, these statutes do not trump freedom of religion, constitutionally protected both the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and the Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution.
One could even question Romney’s motives. He had said in 2003 that he favored “adoptive parent rights” for same-sex couples, but on many other instances tried to sidestep that question. In a clear statement at the height of the Catholic Charities adoption story, he said that same-sex couples have “a legitimate interest” in adopting children...
...and you felt compelled to eat up bandwidth on this site to put this up?
Vote for whoever the hell you want to vote for, but keep it to yourself in the future.
This site is better than this high-school crap.
Then write someone in. We need to take back the Senate. Not voting in NOT an option.
Jeez, we’ve all known it since September 10, 2004!
Join the club.
No Romney, no way.
He’s always been a pandering homo-hugger.
You can still vote in down ballot races.
Some of us will do that and leave the Presidential line blank