If it comes down to Hillary and Mitt who would you vote for ???

[jonny]

So would you support the notion that all civil marriage, even heterosexual ones, should just be called unions, and leave marriage as a religious term?

That's my personal position. I actually think that all americans should have the same rights - regardless of their marital status. I'm with Kathryn on this one. Marriage is a deeply religious institution for me, but so is non-discrimination. I wish that the government would stop using the term marriage all together and just have legally recognized unions.

 

[NoahideHiker]

I won't vote for either of the two parties in '08. Nader doesn't excite me either.

 

[jamaesi]

I'm not even going there. If you really think I was saying you aren't good enough for God, you don't know me very well.

Then why don't I deserve the right to get married?

And if you really think I was saying you shouldn't have the same civil rights as I do, you didn't read my post very carefully.

Seperate but equal is not equal.

 

[Katzpur]

Then why don't I deserve the right to get married? Seperate but equal is not equal.

Jamasei, I'm sorry but I am not going to get pulled into a debate on this topic. I have already done my best to explain my position and apparently failed miserably. Please don't ask me to compound the problem. I'm not the self-righteous, uncaring bigot you perceive me to be. I wish you could see that.

 

[Ody]

What is religious about marriage as defined by American law?

 

[Ody]

And why do we maintain this ******** legal fiction?

 

[NoahideHiker]

I personally think if someone's religion allows gay marraige then they should be able to marry and be recognized the same as anyone else's.

 

[lizskid]

Jamaesi, unfortunately, it is the right of any church, or denomination, to set rules for it's membership, leaders and rites. They have the right to discriminate against anyone they wish in marriage, funerals, etc. We had a church here recently refuse to marry a couple because, although she was a widow, he had been divorced. This is a Christian, and not Catholic, church. They can do that.

The government, however, in my opinion, cannot discriminate in any way. So, now that the sodomy, etc. laws have been struck down by the Supreme Court, human rights are being violated every time a same sex couple is refused a civil marriage license or civil ceremony. THAT we can change in time, and will.

For the religious part, you will have to find a church whose polity allows it, or find a minister who will do it anyway. I have done it for people and will again, but my state has made same sex marriages illegal, so I call them commitment ceremonies and do them.....but they have NO legal standing. That all goes back to the government part of the puzzle. I think whatever they call the licenses and legal unions, it should be called the same for all couples, and the churches can do what they want....it's called religious freedom....however much I disagree with the stance of those who say it's a sin or not allowed by God or whatever. It's the legal end of it that ensures benefits, survivorship rights, etc....so THAT is where we have to start. Hopefully, religious organizations will follow in time.

 

[Sunstone]

Gov. Mitt Romney of Massachusetts filed a lawsuit asking the state’ s highest court to order the legislature to vote on a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Ny Times 11/25/06

Gov. Mitt Romney' s case for pulling out of a regionwide plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is unconvincing NY Times 12/28/05

The Massachusetts House soundly rejected Gov. Mitt Romney' s death penalty bill on Tuesday, dashing his hopes of establishing a national " gold standard" for capital punishment. NY Times 11/16/05

Gov. Mitt Romney said that he would propose legislation to outlaw a type of embryonic stem cell research that is being planned by institutions in the state. NY Times 2/10/05

Gov. Mitt Romney began cracking down on same-sex marriages by out-of-state couples, taking steps to invalidate their marriage licenses. NY Times 5/21/04

These actions don't make him a presidential canidate: They make him a fossil.

 

[Ody]

These actions don't make him a presidential canidate: They make him a fossil.

No.

They make him an example of idiotic American culture.

 

[Ody]

I find it somewhat sad that the pro war Romney has gotten 50% without any offerings of any thing new for the military crisis.

 

[Fluffy]

What I find most interesting about Romney is his almost complete reversal on some very key issues (for me) over the last 10 years. 10 years ago, I would have voted for him.

As usual, I would vote democract by default. I just disagree with their policies less.

 

[koan]

I'm just glad I'm not an American. Their politics stink.

 

[PureX]

I think I'd go with a third party candidate.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I would vote for Nader.
If he doesn't run, if the Indiana ballots have a write in area, I would write in Gunner, but I don't think they would take his radio alias. His running slogans;
"Less than an ounce, and the cops won't pounce."
"While in the booths, smoke a blunt, and don't vote for that Hillary ****."

I only have one issue with Hillary, and that is her standing on censorship for video games. If it starts thier, whos to say it won't move to music, movies, and other forms of entertainment?

 

[astarath]

what about obama

 

[Booko]

I actually created a poll like this awhile back, FFH, except that instead of "neither" or "undecided," I listed Ralph Nadar as a choice. As I recall, he won. Mitt came in a strong second, and Hillary was left in the dust.

You're right, I probably would choose Ralph Nader before the other two.

He hasn't a chance to get elected, but I'd vote for him just to send a message to our two oligarchic "major" parties.

 

[jamaesi]

Jamasei, I'm sorry but I am not going to get pulled into a debate on this topic. I have already done my best to explain my position and apparently failed miserably. Please don't ask me to compound the problem. I'm not the self-righteous, uncaring bigot you perceive me to be. I wish you could see that.

This is the debate section and not one did I call you a self-righteous uncaring bigot, nor do I think you are one.

I just don't understand how someone can go "well, it would be nice for them to have the same rights I do, but how dare they want to be equal to us or be able to do it in the same places!" Civil "unions" are not marriage. Civil MARRIAGE is. There are many religious buildings that will perform the same-sex wedding ceremony and there I will go- I'm not trying to force all religions to do our ceremony, but I deserve every right to get legally married.

I'm not doing seperate but equal and I never will. I'm not having a union, I'm getting married. Same system, same benefits, and thus... equality.

Jamaesi, unfortunately, it is the right of any church, or denomination, to set rules for it's membership, leaders and rites. They have the right to discriminate against anyone they wish in marriage, funerals, etc. We had a church here recently refuse to marry a couple because, although she was a widow, he had been divorced. This is a Christian, and not Catholic, church. They can do that.

The government, however, in my opinion, cannot discriminate in any way. So, now that the sodomy, etc. laws have been struck down by the Supreme Court, human rights are being violated every time a same sex couple is refused a civil marriage license or civil ceremony. THAT we can change in time, and will.

For the religious part, you will have to find a church whose polity allows it, or find a minister who will do it anyway. I have done it for people and will again, but my state has made same sex marriages illegal, so I call them commitment ceremonies and do them.....but they have NO legal standing. That all goes back to the government part of the puzzle. I think whatever they call the licenses and legal unions, it should be called the same for all couples, and the churches can do what they want....it's called religious freedom....however much I disagree with the stance of those who say it's a sin or not allowed by God or whatever. It's the legal end of it that ensures benefits, survivorship rights, etc....so THAT is where we have to start. Hopefully, religious organizations will follow in time.

I don't want to come any old church and get married. I want to be able to go to the government, get my MARRIAGE license, and then go to my UU Church or wherever else to have the ceremony- the same thing that straight people can do.

 

[Booko]

*** MOD POST ***

The OP of this thread concerns North American Politics and a choice between Mitt Romney and Hillary Clinton.

If anyone wants to discuss issues surrounding marriage, civil union, and various sorts of relationships, please start another thread.

Thanks!

 

[Mercy Not Sacrifice]

At this stage in the game, assuming these two will be the candidates, I am very much a swing voter.

If it weren't for the fact that the American public has shown distinctly reactionary voting patterns--they don't like the current party in power, so they vote for the other party for the mere sake of change--I'd take Hillary all the way. Cut through the spin, the distortions, and the untruths, and I think America (and the rest of the world) could use her leadership at the helm. Unfortunately, therein lies the problem: I fear that she will spark an intense backlash against the Democratic Party just as her husband did back in '94, and we DON'T need to go there.

That said, I am not impressed by some of these revelations about Romney in regard to gay marriage. He also scores big negative points for his veto of the morning-after pill. I wish he would do there what he does with abortion: he is personally anti-abortion, but he will allow it written into law. That said, he favors a national health care plan, but...man, OK, just looking at some of this stuff, maybe this isn't going to be that hard of a decision after all?

Even so, we come back to the heart of the matter: the reactionary voters. I guarantee you that the Democrats would experience huge setbacks in the 2010 midterms if Hillary got elected, but I can see them achieving modest gains if Romney were president. Therefore, I see a Republican president kept in check by a Democratic congress as not necessarily a well-running solution, but one that would work for the meantime.