. ,
I fully disagree. Most voters, like most people on the forum, are very partisan and neatly fall into the column on Republican stances on every issues or Democratic stances on every issue. But partisans are now irrelevant. It is independents, swing voters and undecided that will call this election.
I am NOT a partisan. Was INTENSELY anti Republican until a few months ago due to Republican stances on social issues. I like conventional and traditional Christians generally very much - married even to a very "churchy" conventional protestant. But I truly despise the religious rightwing, like I do ALL religious zealots wanting to tell others all they can't do because their God says so, almost as much as she despises fundamentalist zealots.
I am militantly pro-choice, fully support gay marriage, and think it is crap that corporations with a Catholic CEO should have a cost advantage over corporations with a Baptist or anthiest CEO. Law equally MUST apply to ALL corporations - period, no exceptions. Churches can do whatever the hell they want. For-Profit-Corporations equally comply with law. Even if owned by a religious organization.
However, I tired of the race-baiting by Obama, I think he is a racist in seeing people foremost by their race, and the extreme demands for political correctness Democrats now are even putting into criminal and civil laws are an intolerable afront to freedom and free speech at best.
I am oddly Hawkish on foreign policy, believing it more important our president is feared than liked, believe in all-in- or-all-out (our troops should never be another country's cops) if putting our military in other countries, and were I president I'd probably "accidentally" on rare occasion send a cruise missile loaded with napalm into a crowd chanting death to Americans. That way at least they would have something to really bitch about. However, Obama did FINALLY get us out of Iraq (a war Bush totally screwed up) and appears to be getting us out (in a dunderhead way) of Afghanistan. However Obama SUCKS! on how he had handled Libya - before and now - and is acting like a weak-ass whimp. It'd probably only be weeks before I would have bombs falling like rain on Iran because I do believe they want and will cause another Jewish holocaust and worse if allowed nukes. (I admit I should never be president.)
I like that Obama is more compassionate in my opinion towards the poor, weak and defenseless among we-the-people. But I don't think Obama's intellectual zippy pinheads have a clue about economics - and think Obama mostly is a shill for the super rich - domestically and internationally - more than Romney would because Romney is already super rich and wouldn't have to kiss rich people's ass - plus more understands how they do get around taxes in real terms. So I continue to favor Romney.
In short, I'm all over the board of what party I "identify with" and social issues cut Democratic for me - and I think a lot of other people. Economics and foreign policy MOSTLY breaks Republican. The sum total adds up to my voting Republican - in part because I do NOT think Romney is radical religious rightwing.
I understand that Obama has to mouth for the far left and that Romney has to for the far right. BUT if I believed as President that Romney was going to bow down to the pro-lifers, anti-gay righters, and religious zealots - I well could go back to Obama. Ultimately, I will obviously make my final decision for certain the instant I vote. Until then, I am persuadable and if you saw my messages until months ago RAGING at Republicans you'd understand I can change my mind - ie "independent" voter.
It is social issues that can kill Romney and, in my opinion, is why he is/was slightly behind in the polls. If Romney starts chatting religious right wing social issues like a zealot, women will defeat him along with my vote.
Hey, at least you're honest about where you come out.
Here's my thing, and it may shock your pants off. I too dislike "fundamentalist" Christians. I am very much a Christian, and believe my faith to be more important than my politics. Here's my take: Fundamentalist Protestants DO come across as demanding hypocrites. I believe many of them DO want to impose their "moral code" onto society. And while they may be right in principle, their approach is "off putting" to many people.
Christ never forced anyone to do anything, believe a certain way, pray a certain way, worship a certain way. However, Jesus DID hold the truth. As a Christian, I believe it's important to share Christ's message with ALL people, not just political allis.
On social issues, I also believe that there are universal truths in this universe. Those truths trump secular laws IMO. For example, our Founding Fathers also believed this, and it's apparent in our Constitution, when they said that our "inalienable rights" come to us, not from government, but from our "Creator". Rights like the right to life. This directly relates to abortion. Every single human being, or potential human being, is extended the "right" to live. That right isn't given to humanity by any government, it's given to humanity by our Creator. Belief and faith has nothing to do with it. Not all of the Founding Fathers believed the same things, but they all had the wisdom to understand that there are UNIVERSAL truths in our universe. Life being one of them.
On a secular level, I believe homosexuals should be afforded every single "secular" right there is available. Rights like legal guardianship, inheritance regulations, property ownership, transferment of property rights, ability to cover one another on health insurance plans, and the right to live together, file taxes together, etc. These are all "secular" rights. My contention is in the definition of such a union. You may ardently disagree, but I can offer you a very logical and sound explanation on why you cannot classify homosexual partnerships as "marriage".
"Marriage", as we know and practice it today within our society, is not a creation of Government. Meaning, government did not give society "marriage". The Church did. Therefore, the government has NO authority to define what "marriage" is. The government DOES have the authority to grant "secular" rights, or rights like I listed above. But they do not have the authority to define "marriage". Now, if the government wants to recognize "civil unions", or "domestic partnerships", great, let them classify them as such. Because by sheer definition, homosexuals can't "marry". By approaching this issue from the angle I'm offering, you appease BOTH sides of the debate. You no longer "secularly" discriminate against homosexual couples, and you have defended the sacred institution of "marriage" at the same time.
That's the kind of reaching across the isle that we need. Should homosexuals not be allowed to file taxes jointly? No, they should be. Pertaining to "secular" rights, they should be able to do all those things as a couple. But the ability to file taxes jointly, or cover one another on a health insurance plan, isn't what constitutes "marriage". I'll go further and state as a matter of fact, "marriage" is also NOT defined simply as "two people who love each other and want to spend the rest of their lives together". That's also NOT marriage.
When you get into a deeper conversation with most conservatives, they agree with what I just told you. By and large, Conservatives dont really want to discriminate against anyone on a secular level. What they want to do is find a solution that grants "equal protection under the law" (remember, the "law" is secular as well), while maintaining the sanctity of a very important institution; marriage. Can BOTH be accomplished? Certainly, and I just explained how.
Personally, I believe too many fundamentalist Protestants are legalists. Christ wasn't a "legalist". He taught compassion, mercy, forgiveness, and most importantly, love. I take that as instruction to have compassion, forgiveness, mercy, and love for homosexuals. That doesn't mean I accept their lifestyle, or agree with it. It simply means, they too are human beings who deserve compassion, forgiveness, mercy, and love. Will they be judged? Sure, who won't be? Do I believe they are sinners? Yes, but who isn't? Too many fundamentalist Protestants have a hard time seperating their "secular ideals" with their "spiritual beliefs". A secular society can accomodate everyone, and we can do that without trampling on the majority of American's "faith" or "spiritual beliefs".
How you debate this issue is what makes the difference. I'm not a biggot, nor am I a homophobe. I won't say that I have gay friends, because I don't. I won't say I'm any better than them, because I'm not. My goal is to point out that there is a difference between "secular rights" and "universal rights". Gay marriage is a secular issue, a societal issue. But it's not "marriage" by sheer definition. We can accomodate BOTH sides rather easily IMO.
Romney is Mormon, and while I'm fairly learned on Mormonism, I won't pretend to speak for him. The thing Christians need to remember, is sometimes Christ's message contradicts with our political ideology and philosophy, whether you're liberal or conservative. Obama's philosophy isn't anymore gracious towards the poor than Romney's. Look at Romney's charitable giving for instance.
Women who support Obama is kind of mind blowing to me. I truly don't understand how a species, who was created to be a "mother", could ever actually support abortion. Honestly. That is a different type of issue from gay marriage. Here, we are talking about life. We are literally talking about the propagation of the human being. Whether you define it as a fetus, a lump of cells, a baby, a zigote, whatever....we all have the intellectual capacity of understanding what THAT is inside a woman's womb. We know in our hearts what resides inside a woman's womb. We all know that truly, it IS more than just a clump of cells. We all know, that if nurtured, in 9 months, another living, breathing, human being will gracefully enter this world. To willfully, and knowingly destroy that is evil IMO. But what does the government do about it? Tough question.
.
