Replies

"He believes morality should be a strictly private affair. He is for the separation of morality and state."

I don't see the word "morality" or "morals" anywhere in the Constitution. I think it's wrong to confuse what the government does with anything that's moral. We might wish that what government would do would be to make laws that are informed by morality as we see it, but I think that's really way too much to hope for.

We don't elect philosopher-kings. We just elect politicians. If we're really lucky, we'll have on the ballot somebody who can beat Hillary. I'll be thankful enough for that. I'm not going to get picky, quibbling over stuff that's not even mentioned in the Constitution.

There's also the idea of render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's. We're picking a Caesar, not a god. We're picking a guy to collect the taxes and run the military. We're not picking a moral arbiter. Don't overcomplicate the problem and wish for things you'll never get.

Just my humble opinion. The MSM is baiting Romney to see if he'll step in it on some PC issue they can bash him with. Who cares what he answers on a question like this, it's the MSM's game, it's like some carney sideshow designed to entertain suckers.

Men without morality are barbarians, and not fit to lead or make laws for civilized men. It isn't optional, it is a minimum of decency required of responsible adults.

And it is evaporating daily.