Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhanastasio
To be fair, it's already like that. I'm personally gay, and gay marriage is not legal in my state. I believe that was voted on in 2000 or 2004 - can't remember. The point being, it was before I was allowed to vote anyway.
Gay marriage also isn't legal across either of the state lines within twenty minutes of me (Ohio and West Virginia), and I really doubt that in my state, it's going to change anytime soon. Ohio, though - I remain optimistic. It's a better shot than West Virginia and Kentucky, anyway.
With that said, which of these candidates would be better viewed in my eyes, in terms of what they're offering to the LGBT populace? Mitt Romney, who awkwardly stammered through a claim that he supports gay rights, but not gay marriage because marriage is between a man and woman...but he thinks they should have any rights but those? Or Newt Gingrich, Mr. Mashed-Potatoes-in-a-Suit himself, who has himself been married three times, yet opposes gay marriage - and even gay couples' rights to adopt?
Even the current President is leaving it up to the states, although he at least repealed that heinous DADT policy, and did something for the gay community.
I don't believe that there's anyone offering the gay community anything better, so I'd say that candidates who are willing to just leave things as they are seem infinitely more appealing than candidates who want to strip rights away.
I really don't think that gay rights are as important in this election because, again, it's either taking them away, or leaving them as is. Not much to gain.
|
To be fair, it's not. Obama upholds federal rule over that of states (or tries to) as dictated by the Constitution. That is to say that he does not want a gay or pregnant kid in Bu
mfuck, Wherever to be beholden to the laws of that particular b
umfuck town. I mean try to have an abortion in a major city like Salt Lake City under Paul and see what happens. A non-libertarian administration would at least have a chance of allowing it. Paul would say "go ahead and prohibit it, it's your right as a state/local government." Bring that down to the city or county level and it's even worse. The ACLU and those like them would have zero power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blastingas10
6? You're right but he gives more of a chance than the others and that's my main point.
|
Again, not as long as the ass-backwards local governments have more power than the US Constitution which is upheld by the federal gov't when they feel like upholding it. Paul's Fed would give up all rights of all people to the trust of their local governments. And if you know America then you know how dangerous small town government can be.