[I’d rather vote for a Mormon who’s had one marriage and stood by his wife who happens to have multiple sclerosis, than say, support someone who’s been married three times and deserted their wife when she had cancer (hint - Newt Gingrich). My point is, a portion of the vetting process should be how the candidates have conducted their lives. (And yes, I know Gingrich is not a candidate).]
And that is quite a rational position I agree with. Now while it is true that anti-Mormons MAY be troglodytes, many of us have quite long first hand experiences that are different from the common Freeper and give us our own perspective on the problems Mormonism might well bring to the presidency. For example, my experience comes from knowing some of the backroom Mormon mafia in Nevada running from Harry Reid through Dario Herrera and many others. While it is easy to call someone like me a bigot, the other disturbing notion is that I may actually know what I am talking about.
I just wonder if it is wise to snuff out the canaries in the mine because they sing too loudly.
You cannot logically condemn Newt on that score with wife #1 without also defending all these gals in the public schools hitting on the boys.
So, may I ask what you think about female school teachers engaging in coitus with their male students?