TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Much less undecided on a candidate
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Much less undecided on a candidate  

post #1 of 21
Thread Starter 
I had help just a moment ago narrowing down my list of candidates to support, from Sarah Palin herself. She has announced that she supports an amendment to the US Constitution to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

The moment that we allow discrimination to be written into the US Constitution will mark the beginning of the end of this country. So wherever my votes ends up going, it doesn't appear that it will be going to the McCain/Palin ticket.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...JutNgD93UJBU81
post #2 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
I had help just a moment ago narrowing down my list of candidates to support, from Sarah Palin herself. She has announced that she supports an amendment to the US Constitution to deny homosexuals the right to marry.

The moment that we allow discrimination to be written into the US Constitution will mark the beginning of the end of this country. So wherever my votes ends up going, it doesn't appear that it will be going to the McCain/Palin ticket.

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...JutNgD93UJBU81
Me neither. I don't believe in legislating morality or denying personal liberty and certainly not making it a federal law.
post #3 of 21
Yep, that's ridiculous. You can't stop people from being homosexual, it's who you are, not a choice. It's fine to not be happy with it, and not support gay marriage (well, it's not fine, but I accept that some people have issues with it), but banning the right to marriage between two consenting adults at a Federal level is ridiculous.

All they're doing is alienating even more voters. I would imagine most people who would support this type of change to the constitution are already voting for McCain.
post #4 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahp View Post
Yep, that's ridiculous. You can't stop people from being homosexual, it's who you are, not a choice. It's fine to not be happy with it, and not support gay marriage (well, it's not fine, but I accept that some people have issues with it), but banning the right to marriage between two consenting adults at a Federal level is ridiculous.
Believe it or not, with me, it's not even the gay marriage subject. It's the fact that she wants to use the Constitution as a means to implement discrimination. Once that bar has been lowered, then it has opened the door for future amendments of even more discrimination of even more groups of people. To amend the constitution to ban gay marriage would be cracking the very foundation this country is built on
post #5 of 21
Since Biden was against it til he was for it (according to the article above), does that mean they're not getting yuour vote either?

Biden, meanwhile, said during an appearance Monday on "The Ellen DeGeneres Show" that if he lived in California he would vote against a ballot measure that seeks to ban gay marriage. DeGeneres, who is gay and newly wed to actress Portia de Rossi, has urged Californians to reject Proposition 8.

"I think it's regressive," the Delaware senator said. "I think it's unfair, and so I vote 'no.'"

Biden added that he and Barack Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, opposed a similar initiative nationally. In the debate with Palin, Biden said he supporters partnerships rights for gays and lesbians, although he also opposes same-sex marriage.
post #6 of 21
Who's the Libertarian candidate this year?

Laurie
post #7 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by LDG View Post
Who's the Libertarian candidate this year?

Laurie
Bob Barr apparently.
post #8 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
Since Biden was against it til he was for it (according to the article above), does that mean they're not getting yuour vote either?

Actually, I answered that question before you asked it, right here;


Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Believe it or not, with me, it's not even the gay marriage subject. It's the fact that she wants to use the Constitution as a means to implement discrimination. Once that bar has been lowered, then it has opened the door for future amendments of even more discrimination of even more groups of people. To amend the constitution to ban gay marriage would be cracking the very foundation this country is built on
Allowing the states to decide to whom they will sell marriage licenses, and writing bigotry into the constitution, are two entirely different things!
post #9 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahp View Post
Bob Barr apparently.
He left the Republican Party in a black cloud but has found new life as a Lib. They are gaining popularity as some Repubs leave the party. We had a candidate here who was a progressive Libertarian and he did surprisingly well. At least it gives people some choices so that they can still vote and not support the big party nominees if they want.
post #10 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
Actually, I answered that question before you asked it, right here;




Allowing the states to decide to whom they will sell marriage licenses, and writing bigotry into the constitution, are two entirely different things!
And just look how the folks in CA have retitled their vote on it for this election (in spite fo the fact they already voted it down once)

http://townhall.com/columnists/Denni...e_name_of_love

It had been listed as "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Now the title has been changed to "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment."

First off, marriage is not a "right." Getting people to vote against taking a right away is a pretty sleazy way to get what you want. Why rename the bill?

The best part from the article:

Why won't those who favor redefining marriage accord the same respect to the millions of us who want gays to be allowed to love whom they want, live with whom they want, be given the rights they deserve along with the dignity they deserve, but who still want marriage to remain man-woman?
post #11 of 21
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
And just look how the folks in CA have retitled their vote on it for this election (in spite fo the fact they already voted it down once)

http://townhall.com/columnists/Denni...e_name_of_love

It had been listed as "Amends the California Constitution to provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." Now the title has been changed to "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry. Initiative Constitutional Amendment."

First off, marriage is not a "right." Getting people to vote against taking a right away is a pretty sleazy way to get what you want. Why rename the bill?

The best part from the article:

Why won't those who favor redefining marriage accord the same respect to the millions of us who want gays to be allowed to love whom they want, live with whom they want, be given the rights they deserve along with the dignity they deserve, but who still want marriage to remain man-woman?
All of which has exactly, what, to do with Palin wanting to write bigotry into the Constitution of the United States?
post #12 of 21
Morally, I'm against gay marriage. BUT, I don't agree that our constitution should be rewritten to allow, or deny it. I believe each state should make that decision.

I really think our federal government is spending way too much time inside our homes, lives, and bedrooms.
post #13 of 21
I can handle a candidate having "moral issues" with same-sex marriage. Whatever. If Obama and Biden have religious or moral objections, that's fine. They're certainly entitled.

Just like I'm entitled to equal protection under the law. Just like I'm entitled to marry the woman I love and take on the rights and responsibilities of that marriage.

Obama/Biden have not supported this pathetic amendment, and that's what matters to me.

Now if they really wanted to win brownie points, they could support an amendment specifically protecting my right to marry.

But I have no illusions that anyone is going to have my back, there. Unfortunately, I have to settle for supporting the candidate that doesn't specifically want to deny me.
post #14 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaete View Post
I can handle a candidate having "moral issues" with same-sex marriage. Whatever. If Obama and Biden have religious or moral objections, that's fine. They're certainly entitled.

Just like I'm entitled to equal protection under the law. Just like I'm entitled to marry the woman I love and take on the rights and responsibilities of that marriage.

Obama/Biden have not supported this pathetic amendment, and that's what matters to me.

Now if they really wanted to win brownie points, they could support an amendment specifically protecting my right to marry.

But I have no illusions that anyone is going to have my back, there. Unfortunately, I have to settle for supporting the candidate that doesn't specifically want to deny me.
Unfortunately, in this day and age, you'll probably have to settle for that, but candidates not supporting the amendment is at least a step in the right direction.
post #15 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Skippymjp View Post
It's the fact that she wants to use the Constitution as a means to implement discrimination. Once that bar has been lowered, then it has opened the door for future amendments of even more discrimination of even more groups of people. To amend the constitution to ban gay marriage would be cracking the very foundation this country is built on
I heard a remark about Palin that was (paraphrased): the thing that disturbs me the most about her is that she doesn't know what she doesn't know. That comment spoke volumes about her and appears to apply here. She has no back ground in law and my bet is that she has limited understanding of the constitution. When she makes these remarks, I honestly don't think that she even knows what she is talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by emrldsky View Post
I really think our federal government is spending way too much time inside our homes, lives, and bedrooms.
And this is coming from a party who claims they want less government intervention in our lives.
post #16 of 21
I don't even really understand why this is an issue. Who someone else marries has no effect at all on me. I can understand laws against minors marrying, we as a society have the duty to try to protect children and laws against bigamy which is a type of con game. Beyond those two situations I just don't think we should be legislating marriage.
post #17 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momofmany View Post
And this is coming from a party who claims they want less government intervention in our lives.
i think the government should get out of the marriage business altogether.
have civil unions for everyone [opposite sex or same sex] & have churches perform the religious ceremonies.
alternatively - don't have anything other than religious ceremonies. everyone would be legally single.
post #18 of 21
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denice View Post
I don't even really understand why this is an issue. Who someone else marries has no effect at all on me. I can understand laws against minors marrying, we as a society have the duty to try to protect children and laws against bigamy which is a type of con game. Beyond those two situations I just don't think we should be legislating marriage.
Apart from people's religious or moral sensitivities (although in a country that grants religious freedom, this is really something I totally agree MUST be decided by the States), it is an issue because it has a lot of economic implications. Family healthcare vs. healthcare for two individuals. Different tax implications for joint filers vs. two individuals. Inheritance tax. Legal stuff like that.

Laurie
post #19 of 21
Ok, I will go on the record and admit I think Sarah Palin's statement about wanting that constitutional amendment was a bone headed thing to do on her part.
post #20 of 21
Both of the presidential candidates agree and that is the most important thing.
post #21 of 21
I think the thing in California is mean and hurtful to gay people and totally unnecessary.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
This thread is locked  
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Much less undecided on a candidate