Can A Catholic Vote For The Pro-choice Obama?

[DanielNegreanu 141]

Barack Obama has held himself out as a bridge builder across even divisive issues. No topic fits that description more than abortion.In the final presidential debate Wednesday, Obama had seemingly finished giving his view on abortion when he added these words: Abortion is "always a tragic situation," he said, and we should "try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred ... and providing options for adoption and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby. ... Nobody is pro-abortion. ... We should try to reduce these circumstances."On those words the election may turn. Some Republicans are telling Catholics that supporting Obama is a sin. Catholics are instructed not to cast a ballot for an advocate of abortion, but these partisans overstate the church's teaching to make an even broader claim: Namely, that a pro-choice candidate is off-limits too. Were this true, Obama's substantial lead in the polls might be subject to religious preemption among the 25% to 30% of voters who are Catholic in such battleground states as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri and Florida.So can Catholics vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is yes, but as I found when I publicly endorsed Obama, you've then got "some 'splain'n' to do." It's a matter of conscience, but had Obama proclaimed himself to be pro-choice and said nothing more, it would have been problematic. But there are those additional words about appropriate education as well as adoption and assistance for mothers who choose to keep their baby. This is not just debate posturing. It is consistent with Obama's successful effort to add language to the Democratic platform affirming the choice of a mother to keep her child by pledging pre- and post-natal care, funded maternity leave and income support for poor women who, studies show, are four times more likely to pursue an abortion absent some tangible assistance. Some might ask, isn't John McCain, the self-proclaimed "pro-lifer," still a morally superior choice for Catholics? Not necessarily. McCain's commitment, as he stressed in the debate, is to try to reverse Roe vs. Wade. But Republicans have been after this for decades, and the effort has not saved a single child. Even if Roe were reversed -- unlikely, in my judgment -- it merely transfers the question to the states, most of which are not expected to ban abortion. A Catholic serious about preserving life could reasonably find Obama's educational and material assistance to mothers the practical, stronger alternative. Of course, this alternative is less than the absolute legal protection for unborn life sought by the Catholic faith, but it is more than the GOP delivers, or can deliver, with its speculations about judicial vacancies and reconsidered precedents. And it is reflective of an inescapable truth: While Americans worship God in differing ways, we are also a nation that seeks a common political ideal. Pursuit of that goal, too, has shaped Obama's campaign, which has sought to lessen the division between red and blue states in order to restore the nation. Compelled support for one religious view over another, or compelled support for the Supreme Court's view, would inevitably leave us divided for years. The way out is to remember that when there are differences among religious creeds, none is entitled to be given preference in law or policy.Sometimes the law must simply leave space for the exercise of individual judgment, because our religious or scientific differences of opinion are for the moment too profound to be bridged collectively. When these differences are great and persistent, as they unfortunately have been on abortion, the common political ideal may consist only of that space. This does not, of course, leave the right to life undecided or unprotected. Nor for that matter does the reservation of space for individual determination usurp for Caesar the things that are God's, or vice versa. Rather, it allows this sensitive moral decision to depend on religious freedom and the voice of God as articulated in each individual's voluntary embrace of one of many faiths. Catholics know how to pick presidents. In the last nine presidential contests, Catholics have been with the popular vote-getter every time. Where are the Catholics lining up in 2008? A recent Zogby poll has the national Catholic vote as a dead heat within the margin of error. If Catholic past is prologue, this election will be far closer than general polling suggests, and Obama's few additional words in the final debate may prove to be his political salvation. Douglas W. Kmiec is a law professor and the author of "Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question About Barack Obama."

[nutzbuster 7]

Barack Obama has held himself out as a bridge builder across even divisive issues. No topic fits that description more than abortion.In the final presidential debate Wednesday, Obama had seemingly finished giving his view on abortion when he added these words: Abortion is "always a tragic situation," he said, and we should "try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred ... and providing options for adoption and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby. ... Nobody is pro-abortion. ... We should try to reduce these circumstances."On those words the election may turn. Some Republicans are telling Catholics that supporting Obama is a sin. Catholics are instructed not to cast a ballot for an advocate of abortion, but these partisans overstate the church's teaching to make an even broader claim: Namely, that a pro-choice candidate is off-limits too. Were this true, Obama's substantial lead in the polls might be subject to religious preemption among the 25% to 30% of voters who are Catholic in such battleground states as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri and Florida.So can Catholics vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is yes, but as I found when I publicly endorsed Obama, you've then got "some 'splain'n' to do." It's a matter of conscience, but had Obama proclaimed himself to be pro-choice and said nothing more, it would have been problematic. But there are those additional words about appropriate education as well as adoption and assistance for mothers who choose to keep their baby. This is not just debate posturing. It is consistent with Obama's successful effort to add language to the Democratic platform affirming the choice of a mother to keep her child by pledging pre- and post-natal care, funded maternity leave and income support for poor women who, studies show, are four times more likely to pursue an abortion absent some tangible assistance. Some might ask, isn't John McCain, the self-proclaimed "pro-lifer," still a morally superior choice for Catholics? Not necessarily. McCain's commitment, as he stressed in the debate, is to try to reverse Roe vs. Wade. But Republicans have been after this for decades, and the effort has not saved a single child. Even if Roe were reversed -- unlikely, in my judgment -- it merely transfers the question to the states, most of which are not expected to ban abortion. A Catholic serious about preserving life could reasonably find Obama's educational and material assistance to mothers the practical, stronger alternative. Of course, this alternative is less than the absolute legal protection for unborn life sought by the Catholic faith, but it is more than the GOP delivers, or can deliver, with its speculations about judicial vacancies and reconsidered precedents. And it is reflective of an inescapable truth: While Americans worship God in differing ways, we are also a nation that seeks a common political ideal. Pursuit of that goal, too, has shaped Obama's campaign, which has sought to lessen the division between red and blue states in order to restore the nation. Compelled support for one religious view over another, or compelled support for the Supreme Court's view, would inevitably leave us divided for years. The way out is to remember that when there are differences among religious creeds, none is entitled to be given preference in law or policy.Sometimes the law must simply leave space for the exercise of individual judgment, because our religious or scientific differences of opinion are for the moment too profound to be bridged collectively. When these differences are great and persistent, as they unfortunately have been on abortion, the common political ideal may consist only of that space. This does not, of course, leave the right to life undecided or unprotected. Nor for that matter does the reservation of space for individual determination usurp for Caesar the things that are God's, or vice versa. Rather, it allows this sensitive moral decision to depend on religious freedom and the voice of God as articulated in each individual's voluntary embrace of one of many faiths. Catholics know how to pick presidents. In the last nine presidential contests, Catholics have been with the popular vote-getter every time. Where are the Catholics lining up in 2008? A recent Zogby poll has the national Catholic vote as a dead heat within the margin of error. If Catholic past is prologue, this election will be far closer than general polling suggests, and Obama's few additional words in the final debate may prove to be his political salvation. Douglas W. Kmiec is a law professor and the author of "Can a Catholic Support Him? Asking the Big Question About Barack Obama."

Been saying this all along. I don't think that the Abortion issue is the one greatest weak link but I do know that no true Catholics could support a guy who looks sounds and talks a Pro Choice stance. I'll also say I feel that those who do not support Obama do so because of several things, with Abortion not really taking center stage. Whether those reasons are justified/fair/right or not will forever be debated. The main ones (if we are being honest) are Race, experience, ties to shaky associates, Abortion, and what is perceived as a strong move towards socialism and redistribution of wealth, with the last ones getting the most weight imo. It's a combination of mainly these several things, some or all, that will have folks voting away from him and for McCain.That said, I honestly feel that most of the McCain votes will not be so much a vote for him, but more a vote against Obama. I know so many Republican folks who are not very fond of McCain but feel the majority of his politics more inline with their upbringing and ideals. I'm reminded of Balloon Guy's sig a while back ... "vote Republican, even if you have to hold your nose to do it", or something like that. That is how I feel to be honest. Not a huge McCain guy....but...and I think many will begrudgingly pull the McCain lever wishing all along they were supporting someone else.But back to you question, will Catholics decide or seriously sway this thing? Possibly, if this becomes a big issue and gets tons of press. Obama has an uphill battle with them for sure on Abortion and most will not support him. How big a voice they have, how organized they get, and how many actually take the time to vote remains to be seen.

[checkymcfold 0]

Been saying this all along. I don't think that the Abortion issue is the one greatest weak link but I do know that no true Catholics could support a guy who looks sounds and talks a Pro Choice stance. I'll also say I feel that those who do not support Obama do so because of several things, with Abortion not really taking center stage. Whether those reasons are justified/fair/right or not will forever be debated. The main ones (if we are being honest) are Race, experience, ties to shaky associates, Abortion, and what is perceived as a strong move towards socialism and redistribution of wealth, with the last ones getting the most weight imo. It's a combination of mainly these several things, some or all, that will have folks voting away from him and for McCain.That said, I honestly feel that most of the McCain votes will not be so much a vote for him, but more a vote against Obama. I know so many Republican folks who are not very fond of McCain but feel the majority of his politics more inline with their upbringing and ideals. I'm reminded of Balloon Guy's sig a while back ... "vote Republican, even if you have to hold your nose to do it", or something like that. That is how I feel to be honest. Not a huge McCain guy....but...and I think many will begrudgingly pull the McCain lever wishing all along they were supporting someone else.But back to you question, will Catholics decide or seriously sway this thing? Possibly, if this becomes a big issue and gets tons of press. Obama has an uphill battle with them for sure on Abortion and most will not support him. How big a voice they have, how organized they get, and how many actually take the time to vote remains to be seen.

i wish you told me you were in vegas, BECAUSE YOU NEED ANOTHER MARTINI! :)first bolded: if you really think this is ultra important, you're pretty much choosing between ralph nader and ron paul every election.second bolded: literally every civilized country is socialist to some degree. every. one. it's a matter of how much, in what areas, and in what ways we're using public funds for the public good. it's a bit illogical--to my mind, at least--to suggest that any taxation is bad or even a "necessary evil" (as bg has said in the past), when everyone would acknowledge that we at least need public roads, plowing, etc. one could easily make the argument (and i will, presently ) that using public funds to increase salaries for public jobs like teachers, etc. (as obama has advocated) will attract higher qualified candidates and improve the quality of the services offered by the public sector. the problem now is that we're creating a vicious circle--we say taxes suck, so we fund stuff less, so the jobs pay less, so the employment opportunities there attract less qualified candidates, so people do a worse job in the public sector. there are multiple ways to fix that: either privatize everything and annihilate the public sector or pay the positions that are publicly funded a higher salary in order to attract higher quality candidates. we need to have the debate on that level--NOT on the level of "socialism bad, capitalism good, durrrrr."

[Zealous Donkey 0]

Barack Obama has held himself out as a bridge builder across even divisive issues. No topic fits that description more than abortion.

"There will always be people, many of goodwill, who do not share my view on the issue of choice. On this fundamental issue, I will not yield and Planned Parenthood will not yield." ~ BOhttp://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=11918Sorry, I just don't see Obama as much of a 'bridge builder' on this issue.

In the final presidential debate Wednesday, Obama had seemingly finished giving his view on abortion when he added these words: Abortion is "always a tragic situation," he said, and we should "try to prevent unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred ... and providing options for adoption and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby. ... Nobody is pro-abortion. ... We should try to reduce these circumstances."

tragic situation for who? Is he talking about the mother being inconvenienced? He certainly can't be saying it is tragic for the baby can he? Appropriate education? Does he mean abstinence only education? The Catholic Church is staunchly against Birth Control. Believing the sexual union should always be open to life. Do I even need to go any further? Come on, no good Catholic is going to buy this. Only Catholics that are already used to rationalizing away their sins.

On those words the election may turn. Some Republicans are telling Catholics that supporting Obama is a sin. Catholics are instructed not to cast a ballot for an advocate of abortion, but these partisans overstate the church's teaching to make an even broader claim: Namely, that a pro-choice candidate is off-limits too. Were this true, Obama's substantial lead in the polls might be subject to religious preemption among the 25% to 30% of voters who are Catholic in such battleground states as Ohio, Pennsylvania, Missouri and Florida.

Who is overstating the Church's teaching? Who is the Church authority? That would be the pope. I think Obama would be considered off limits, given his record on Abortion Rights and Infanticide.

So can Catholics vote for a pro-choice candidate? The answer is yes, but as I found when I publicly endorsed Obama, you've then got "some 'splain'n' to do." It's a matter of conscience, but had Obama proclaimed himself to be pro-choice and said nothing more, it would have been problematic. But there are those additional words about appropriate education as well as adoption and assistance for mothers who choose to keep their baby.

Appropriate Education? Again are we talking about Obama supporting Abstinence only Sex ed? This guy is supposedly talking about Catholic Voters, is he not? Is Adoption not already available as an option? Assistance for mothers again. Well that is fine but how about assistance to the infant especially when he survives an attempted abortion.

This is not just debate posturing. It is consistent with Obama's successful effort to add language to the Democratic platform affirming the choice of a mother to keep her child by pledging pre- and post-natal care, funded maternity leave and income support for poor women who, studies show, are four times more likely to pursue an abortion absent some tangible assistance.

It most certainly is. Why hasn't he already introduced a bill? He is a Senator, that would have been a perfect opportunity for him to reach across the isle.Really the whole article is just a Pro-Obama guy trying to get Catholics to rationalize a way to vote for the most pro-abortion politician in the history of the country. In fairness, what he said about McCain is the only valid point he makes. I don't think McCain will have abortion as a high priority if he gets elected. At least McCain wouldn't sign the FOCA which would roll back all previous limits on partial birth abortion and infanticide. Obama has said he will sign it first thing. That should really be enough for all good Catholics to make up their mind.edit. I am sure Obama is not in support of Abstinence only education, and neither his views on sex ed nor the fact that he is not against birth control would be enough of a reason for a Catholic not to be able to vote for him. I wonder how many women actually get pregnant in the USA who haven't heard of birth control. Not saying I am aganst education, but this same mantra has been recited over and over my whole life, do we not have all kinds of sex education programs all across the country. Is Obama introducing something new here? J

[LadyGrey 6]

I think it's a shame that Obama isn't building a bridge across the divisive issue of gay marriage. Like all the others he says he is against it, and still no one can provide a decent explanation of why. They all say that they "believe in the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman". Well, until 1870 the traditional definition of suffrage was white adult males only. Until 1920 it was adult males only. Traditional definitions can be changed and updated, and they have been in the past. The difference here is that 'traditional' is in many cases being used as a pseudonym for 'biblical'. It's clear that the opposition to gay marriage is largely a religious issue rather than a political one, as no one can explain in political terms why gay people are denied the right to the same marriages are heterosexual people.It intrigues me that Obama is pro-choice and openly so, as it will likely cost him some votes in the election. It disappoints me that he won't take the same risk with gay marriage.Also anyone who uses the word 'infanticide' in a discussion of abortion is blatantly trying to appeal to peoples emotions rather than be rational about the issue. There's a big difference between an infant and a blob of cell tissue.

[Zealous Donkey 0]

I think it's a shame that Obama isn't building a bridge across the divisive issue of gay marriage. Like all the others he says he is against it, and still no one can provide a decent explanation of why. They all say that they "believe in the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman". Well, until 1870 the traditional definition of suffrage was white adult males only. Until 1920 it was adult males only. Traditional definitions can be changed and updated, and they have been in the past. The difference here is that 'traditional' is in many cases being used as a pseudonym for 'biblical'. It's clear that the opposition to gay marriage is largely a religious issue rather than a political one, as no one can explain in political terms why gay people are denied the right to the same marriages are heterosexual people.It intrigues me that Obama is pro-choice and openly so, as it will likely cost him some votes in the election. It disappoints me that he won't take the same risk with gay marriage.Also anyone who uses the word 'infanticide' in a discussion of abortion is blatantly trying to appeal to peoples emotions rather than be rational about the issue. There's a big difference between an infant and a blob of cell tissue.

I don't know what else to call it. A baby survives an abortion, and then is denied medical care. What do you call it? Negligent homicide? Or are you of the belief that a baby outside the womb doesn't have rights.

[mcgroover 0]

Also anyone who uses the word 'infanticide' in a discussion of abortion is blatantly trying to appeal to peoples emotions rather than be rational about the issue. There's a big difference between an infant and a blob of cell tissue.

I do agree with the first sentence but I would like to make the point that I think the difference isn't as big as most might think. The big deal of killing of a 'blob' of cell tissue is that it already has a complete genetic structure of a human being and by killing the 'blob', you are killing the entire thing (as opposed to losing a limb which is also a chunk of cell tissue). All the genes are there, so you would be eliminating an entire personality and essentially a human without all the features. The fact that the blob is not self aware is kind of irrelevant imo since a baby is not also not self aware but killing a baby is wrong cause it is cute and 'more developed looking'.P.S. my sister in law is pregnant at the mo and it looks like a fish. Thought i would throw that in.

[Balloon guy 158]

Obama has many problems with his interpretations of the Bible, not just the abortion one.

Which passages of scripture should guide our public policy?" Obama asks "Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is OK and that eating shellfish is an abomination?

The Bible even slave traders in the same league as murderers, adulters, liars and perverts.He said eating shellfish was an abomination. Again, not the meaning, but more of a cursory fast read with no effort to understand the text. There is a dramatic influence from the New testement when it comes to Levitical laws for the believer.It's more like a person who wants to believe the Bible is false than a person who has had the Bible change his life.Then: "We are no longer a Christian Nation" At least not 'just', we are also a muslim nation, and a hindu nation and a buddhist nation.Even though over 75% of American's consider themselves to be Christian, and less than 2% consider themselves to be muslims, buddhist or hindus.Link to Obama saying these thingsSorry, it's on Foxnews, which of course distorted Obama's words I believe Obama has a saving knowledge of Christ, but I do not believe he sat in any serious Bible church for 20 years with this poor an understanding of what the Bible says. At least, not if he's remotely intelligent.I would say he uses religion now like a suit, put it on when you have too, and take it off and put on shorts and a tshirt as fast as possible when you get the chance. As such he shouldn't expect much support from people that actually read their Bible and hold it to be greater then the constitution.

[vbnautilus 48]

I think it's a shame that Obama isn't building a bridge across the divisive issue of gay marriage. Like all the others he says he is against it, and still no one can provide a decent explanation of why. They all say that they "believe in the traditional definition of marriage as between a man and a woman". Well, until 1870 the traditional definition of suffrage was white adult males only. Until 1920 it was adult males only. Traditional definitions can be changed and updated, and they have been in the past. The difference here is that 'traditional' is in many cases being used as a pseudonym for 'biblical'. It's clear that the opposition to gay marriage is largely a religious issue rather than a political one, as no one can explain in political terms why gay people are denied the right to the same marriages are heterosexual people.It intrigues me that Obama is pro-choice and openly so, as it will likely cost him some votes in the election. It disappoints me that he won't take the same risk with gay marriage.

Whatever their reasons are, two thirds of americans are not in favor of gay marriage, whereas with abortion we are evenly split 50/50. Also, "traditional" is not just a code word for biblical. The status of heterosexual union as the basis for family probably predates the bible by about 2 million years. That's a very, very long standing tradition to change in just a few years. With very few exceptions (sambia? greece?) homosexuality has been explicitly discouraged by human cultures around the globe. In fact there may even be an aversion to it built-in to our minds in the same way we have an aversion to brother/sister unions (this aversion is probably much stronger in men than in women, for evolutionary reasons). It's going to take some time for the "it's just wrong" feeling to change. My point is that religion is not the only obstacle for the acceptance of gay marriage.

[LadyGrey 6]

I don't know what else to call it. A baby survives an abortion, and then is denied medical care. What do you call it? Negligent homicide? Or are you of the belief that a baby outside the womb doesn't have rights.

I do not agree with abortion after a certain point, and there are legal limitations to how late a woman can have a baby which I completely approve of and support. However, a few weeks or even months into a pregnancy, that foetus is not a 'baby'. It is not alive, it is still just a blob of tissue that has the potential to become a baby. The blob could not survive outside of the womb because it is not yet a 'being'. It should have the same rights as the appendix, or tonsils, in my opinion. I don't agree with abortion at a stage where the foetus could survive out of the womb, so your scenario isn't an issue for me.Your last sentence is so incendiary that I am inclined to conclude that you are definitely the type to use emotional hyperbole instead of reason and fact on this matter. No sane person believes that a baby outside the womb has no rights, and it is childish of you to even suggest it.

I do agree with the first sentence but I would like to make the point that I think the difference isn't as big as most might think. The big deal of killing of a 'blob' of cell tissue is that it already has a complete genetic structure of a human being and by killing the 'blob', you are killing the entire thing (as opposed to losing a limb which is also a chunk of cell tissue). All the genes are there, so you would be eliminating an entire personality and essentially a human without all the features. The fact that the blob is not self aware is kind of irrelevant imo since a baby is not also not self aware but killing a baby is wrong cause it is cute and 'more developed looking'.P.S. my sister in law is pregnant at the mo and it looks like a fish. Thought i would throw that in.

The blob may have a genetic structure etc but it is still only potentially a human being. It is not yet alive, it is not yet a person. You can put all the ingredients for a cake together, but it isn't a cake until you bake it. It's just dough. A foetus is baby dough, it's not a baby until it's been in the oven for ~24 weeks. A foetus does not have personality, it has the potential to become a baby with a personality. Self-awareness doesn't even come into the equation at that stage.

Whatever their reasons are, two thirds of americans are not in favor of gay marriage, whereas with abortion we are evenly split 50/50. Also, "traditional" is not just a code word for biblical. The status of heterosexual union as the basis for family probably predates the bible by about 2 million years. That's a very, very long standing tradition to change in just a few years. With very few exceptions (sambia? greece?) homosexuality has been explicitly discouraged by human cultures around the globe. In fact there may even be an aversion to it built-in to our minds in the same way we have an aversion to brother/sister unions (this aversion is probably much stronger in men than in women, for evolutionary reasons). It's going to take some time for the "it's just wrong" feeling to change. My point is that religion is not the only obstacle for the acceptance of gay marriage.

That "it's just wrong" feeling is called intolerance, or homophobia. It's not something you should be basing policy on, unless you think it was justified to enslave Africans because white people felt that it was "just wrong" to consider them equal human beings. Up until the 20th century women were not considered suitable for political participation. That was a very, very long standing tradition that had existed, well, since humans came into existence. Women had never been granted franchise before, not in democratic city-states in Ancient Rome or Greece, not under Queen Elizabeth I in the 16th century, not in France after the revolution in 1789. Never had civilisation allowed women to vote, it just felt wrong. When the slaves were freed, when women were given the vote, most people did not agree with it. They still felt uncomfortable about it, they still felt it was unnatural, immoral, wrong. But the government recognised that those people had rights, whether or not it made other people feel queasy or embarrassed or angry. Human rights are intrinsic, inalienable, universal. They are not to be allocated according to convention, tradition, culture, or the demands of an intolerant majority.

[copernicus 0]

Obama's addition is exactly what the GOP has been saying. It added nothing to the discussion other than Obama trying to sound more centrist than he really is.

[85suited 0]

The blob may have a genetic structure etc but it is still only potentially a human being. It is not yet alive, it is not yet a person. You can put all the ingredients for a cake together, but it isn't a cake until you bake it. It's just dough. A foetus is baby dough, it's not a baby until it's been in the oven for ~24 weeks. A foetus does not have personality, it has the potential to become a baby with a personality. Self-awareness doesn't even come into the equation at that stage.

I have a cousin who was born at 24 Weeks and 14oz.... She is now 5 yrs old and a happy healthy beautiful girl...

[Balloon guy 158]

I have a cousin who was born at 24 Weeks and 14oz.... She is now 5 yrs old and a happy healthy beautiful girl...

Had your aunt chose to have an abortion, this would have been a blob.Any abortion for any reason is the law up until the child is completely out of the birth canal.Any reason.

[LadyGrey 6]

I have a cousin who was born at 24 Weeks and 14oz.... She is now 5 yrs old and a happy healthy beautiful girl...

So, you're agreeing with me that at ~24 weeks a foetus becomes viable to survive outside the womb? Excellent.

[vbnautilus 48]

That "it's just wrong" feeling is called intolerance, or homophobia.

I don't think that's fair. You can't really end the discussion by slapping a derogatory label on the opposition. One might say such an approach is not "tolerant". In particular I have a strong objection to the term "homophobia", which is both a misnomer and a slur. ( Those who suffer from real phobias know the debilitating fear associated with a phobia. ) But really it's just an incorrect characterization of the point of view I described to imply that it's simply driven by fear. Is one who opposes brother/sister marriages "incestophobic?" I guess I don't blame you for being a bit reactionary, but I do think that if you hope to make any progress on this issue that it will be worth the time to try and understand better where the other side is coming from rather than simply dismissing it as "homophobic". No doubt, there are people driven by hatred and religious dogma, but that doesn't describe everyone who isn't on the gay marriage bandwagon. I personally am an atheist and I have mixed feelings about gay marriage. That doesn't mean I don't treat my gay friends and family members with dignity, or that I am afraid of them. I do however take a broader view of the whole phenomenon which doesn't match the current conventional wisdom.

It's not something you should be basing policy on, unless you think it was justified to enslave Africans because white people felt that it was "just wrong" to consider them equal human beings. Up until the 20th century women were not considered suitable for political participation. That was a very, very long standing tradition that had existed, well, since humans came into existence. Women had never been granted franchise before, not in democratic city-states in Ancient Rome or Greece, not under Queen Elizabeth I in the 16th century, not in France after the revolution in 1789. Never had civilisation allowed women to vote, it just felt wrong. When the slaves were freed, when women were given the vote, most people did not agree with it. They still felt uncomfortable about it, they still felt it was unnatural, immoral, wrong. But the government recognised that those people had rights, whether or not it made other people feel queasy or embarrassed or angry.

Yes women were allowed to vote - so you want to compound one mistake with another?! j/k :)I wasn't attempting to make a justification for why gay people should not be allowed to marry. I was only trying to broaden the view of what forces are working against it -- my point is that the opposition isn't really coming from religion in my opinion. There's an older, more subconscious force at work.

Human rights are intrinsic, inalienable, universal. They are not to be allocated according to convention, tradition, culture, or the demands of an intolerant majority.

I can agree that there are some human rights which are natural (others here will disagree). But marriage is a cultural phenomenon. What we are talking about here is a civic issue of which relationships the government chooses to recognize with a legal status; at this point in history the culture is not actually preventing gay relationships, it is choosing not to recognize them with the same legal status as heterosexual relationships.

[85suited 0]

So, you're agreeing with me that at ~24 weeks a foetus becomes viable to survive outside the womb? Excellent.

Congrats..abort away blobs before that...FTW...Life begins at conception...no matter how you slice it...

[strategy 4]

it'd be nice if we could all agree on one thing: abortion is the biggest sham political issue ever.

[copernicus 0]

Had your aunt chose to have an abortion, this would have been a blob.Any abortion for any reason is the law up until the child is completely out of the birth canal.Any reason.

What law is that?

[nutzbuster 7]

i wish you told me you were in vegas, BECAUSE YOU NEED ANOTHER MARTINI! :)first bolded: if you really think this is ultra important, you're pretty much choosing between ralph nader and ron paul every election.second bolded: literally every civilized country is socialist to some degree. every. one. it's a matter of how much, in what areas, and in what ways we're using public funds for the public good. it's a bit illogical--to my mind, at least--to suggest that any taxation is bad or even a "necessary evil" (as bg has said in the past), when everyone would acknowledge that we at least need public roads, plowing, etc. one could easily make the argument (and i will, presently ) that using public funds to increase salaries for public jobs like teachers, etc. (as obama has advocated) will attract higher qualified candidates and improve the quality of the services offered by the public sector. the problem now is that we're creating a vicious circle--we say taxes suck, so we fund stuff less, so the jobs pay less, so the employment opportunities there attract less qualified candidates, so people do a worse job in the public sector. there are multiple ways to fix that: either privatize everything and annihilate the public sector or pay the positions that are publicly funded a higher salary in order to attract higher quality candidates. we need to have the debate on that level--NOT on the level of "socialism bad, capitalism good, durrrrr."

LOL! I actually thought some of Ron Pauls issues were valid. Guy looks a little crazy though.I appreciate your last point too. I'd be all for a flat tax scenario (fair to all imo) because I will admit that we do need to fund some major programs. It's just that I fear that programs can grow into monsters under National control, regardless of party. Less is more, keep Gov. small.And the wife and I did a enjoy Pumpkin Spice martini last night. Sick delicious, very festive sweet and refreshing (insert background dancing ghey chorus line here).And fwiw, the SW steak house at the Wynn offers one of the best hunks of dead cow tissue I have ever consumed. like, WTF?!! good. This place is in my top 3 for Vegas.Moooooooooo.

[aces1982 0]

Since you brought up religion and voting. DN please tell me what you think of this.www.snopes.com/politics/soapboax/hunt/leybrown.asp

[copernicus 0]

LOL! I actually thought some of Ron Pauls issues were valid. Guy looks a little crazy though.I appreciate your last point too. I'd be all for a flat tax scenario (fair to all imo) because I will admit that we do need to fund some major programs. It's just that I fear that programs can grow into monsters under National control, regardless of party. Less is more, keep Gov. small.And the wife and I did a enjoy Pumpkin Spice martini last night. Sick delicious, very festive sweet and refreshing (insert background dancing ghey chorus line here).And fwiw, the SW steak house at the Wynn offers one of the best hunks of dead cow tissue I have ever consumed. like, WTF?!! good. This place is in my top 3 for Vegas.Moooooooooo.

Ive eaten there 2 or 3 times and its great but I still like StripSteak better. The seafood at the Italian place in Wynn's is awesome too.

[Nimue1995 1]

Too friggin long to dl. Can someone give me the cliff notes?

[aces1982 0]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/huntleybrown.aspTry this one.

[85suited 0]

For those who support abortion, Why should I have to pay for yours?

[Nimue1995 1]

http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/huntleybrown.aspTry this one.

Each is entitled to their opinion including this man. And I'd have to say if this is his criteria in voting then he would have to abstain from voting for either of the major candidates. Both candidates have strengths and weaknesses. I've not seen any evidence of Obama being racist or sexist. But there are statements made by McCain early in his political career that are both. I have come to the conclusion that God is non-partisan.