Huckabee angers some Catholics

[Jacey]

I also vote this way but a candidates stand on abortion plays a big part in how I vote.

You might as well choose a candidate on the basis of his favorite football team. It's a pandering point. The Repubs know how badly they would be damaged if they actually tried to overturn Roe v Wade.

 

[Jacey]

You mean all of Zilch times? Because his stance on abortion was just to trick single-issue voters into thinking he actually cared about their single-issue?

Ya think? But voters want to have a beer with George!

 

[Fantine]

Of all the candidates currently running, Huckabee comes closest to embracing all Catholic values.

He is pro-life--calling not only for the overturning of Roe v Wade but for a Human Life Amendment. He is against gay marriage, and, in his home state of Arkansas, actually established optional "Covenant Marriage" licenses through which a couple would voluntarily sign an agreement making it more difficult for them to divorce.

But, unlike most pro-life candidates, he has shown compassion to immigrants and uninsured children, and has been supportive of education.

Maybe Catholics should be more worried about the "pro-life" candidates who are courting support in the boardrooms of multi-national corporations.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

The Repubs know how badly they would be damaged if they actually tried to overturn Roe v Wade.

Yes woman would be dying from illeagle abortions.I really have a problem when I think of woman dying right after an abortion.I believe if someone want's abortion bad enough.They will find some way to get abortion leagle or not.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

. He is against gay marriage .

That's a problem I have is all this anti gay marriage.I think that it's none of my busness if gay people get married or not.Sin or not that between them and God.Not between me and them.

 

[flicka]

I find that insulting. I vote for the candidate whose stand on the issues most closely matches my own. I would imagine that most Americans do.

Exactly how do you choose a candidate?

Lisa

Unless the only thing you care about is a candadites postion on a single issue then I wasn't talking about you. But if that is how you choose, you still shouldn't be insulted because obviously it DOES make things easy for you ... once you discover their position on "fill in the blank" you really don't have to think about anything else. It's just a fact.

I usually choose my candidates based on their experience and ability to do what I am electing them to do, and what they can realistically change.

 

[Lisa0315]

Unless the only thing you care about is a candadites postion on a single issue then I wasn't talking about you. But if that is how you choose, you still shouldn't be insulted because obviously it DOES make things easy for you ... once you discover their position on "fill in the blank" you really don't have to think about anything else. It's just a fact.

I usually choose my candidates based on their experience and ability to do what I am electing them to do, and what they can realistically change.

I do not base it on a single issue but on all the issues that concern me.

What I found insulting was the broad brushing of such a statement. You do not know how "easy" it is for anyone to make a choice.

Yet, you say you base your vote on experience and effectiveness. Which candidates are you looking at right now?

Lisa

 

[Fantine]

That's a problem I have is all this anti gay marriage.I think that it's none of my busness if gay people get married or not.Sin or not that between them and God.Not between me and them.

The question is not whether gay people have relationships with one another. The question is whether the state should recognize that relationship legally, recognition which grants certain tax benefits, corporate spousal benefits, etc.

People are free to live with whom they choose, and people of every sexual orientation decide to live together unmarried every day.

There are different positions on this. Mine falls somewhere in the middle, probably to the left of Huckabee. I believe that the state can recognize their 'civil union' without calling it marriage. That would allow them to visit their loved one in ICU, and, perhaps, qualify for benefits in corporate health care plans, etc.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

The question is not whether gay people have relationships with one another. The question is whether the state should recognize that relationship legally, recognition which grants certain tax benefits, corporate spousal benefits, etc.

That one of many reasons why I think they should be able to Marry or even civil union.

There are different positions on this. Mine falls somewhere in the middle, probably to the left of Huckabee. I believe that the state can recognize their 'civil union' without calling it marriage. That would allow them to visit their loved one in ICU, and, perhaps, qualify for benefits in corporate health care plans, etc.

I agree civil union is better than nothing.BUT I see nothing wrong with them getting married.