Posted on 01/05/2014 11:09:17 AM PST by JeepersFreepers
Although the Republican Party Platform opposes abortion and same-sex marriage, the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) is backing and promoting through its "Young Guns" program two congressional candidates who are homosexual, and who support same-sex marriage and abortion.
Richard Tisei, who is “married” to his male partner Bernie Starr, in Edgartown, Mass., is running for a congressional seat in the 6th District in the Bay State. Carl DeMaio is running for a congressional seat out of San Diego, Calif. DeMaio, who is openly gay, supports abortion and same-sex marriage.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
This is why I am not a Republican. They give me no motivation or reason to become one either.
Haven't you done any due diligence?????
I can believe he may have said and done some things as Governor of Massachusetts that he would not have said or done as President of the United States. I think it's really crucial to have a good legislature, and I won't fault Romney for making the Democratic-controlled state of Massachusetts better than it would have been with a progressive socialist Democratic governor. IMHO, that's not a "compromise", that's what you can possibly do to improve a bad situation.
My question always is: which President would be better on the issues of gay adoption rights, gays in the military, abortion, guns, health care, the environment, and all other issues...a Romney-type or an Obama-type???
Like it or not, those were the choices we had in 2012, and you see the results.
Do you honestly think we'll be better off for the next three years with President Obama than we would have been with a President Romney?
It does matter who you vote for, or who you don't vote for. Again IMHO, there were only two candidates that could realistically win the Presidential election in 2012. Obama was duly elected. Why?!
You should look into his record. Maybe you don't think supporting "Gay Youth Pride" politically, legitimizing homosexuality to kids in sixth grade, for crying out loud, egregious. I do. Maybe you don't think his statement that homosexual couples have a right to adopt children -- and understand that what it really means is that he thinks the government has a right to punish adoption agencies that refuse to cooperate when a "married" gay couple comes in to adopt kids entrusted to them. Maybe you don't think that's egregious. I do.
Maybe you don't find embracing in any part the concept that the state should be in control of health insurance and ultimately health care, egregious. I do. The "state's rights" vs. Federal argument is moot. It's the principle that is an egregious intrusion of government, unconstitutional certainly.
Romney embraces that principle the same as Obama, right down the line. Look at his record, see his deeds. He didn't raise taxes, no! He created fees.
He is philosophically and principally on board with the environmental movement, with great need for government oversight to safeguard the environment.
Limited government principle sails right over his head. So YES, I do honestly believe that having a Republican President do that is a worse thing than having a Democrat President do it.
That offends you, I know. Oh well.
You don't get to vote "against," FRiend. You only get to vote for. It's like a light switch, on or off. You didn't vote against Obama, you voted for the GOP to move left, when you voted for Romney. You didn't mean to, and I didn't mean to when I voted for Arnold Schwarzenegger. All past done and gone, but what remains: when you vote for liberalism, you get liberalism.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.