Is the race really this close? Who do you think will win?

[v-girl]

I don't want to continue to fund things like welfare to the hilt, but I would like to see all marriage in our country deemed civil unions and leave marriage to churches.

This. I don't know why we don't do like other countries. All united couples have a civil union from the govt and you can get married in church if you want.

[niener]

I agree on the marriage issue - actually, I think we should keep the term marriage for a marriage granted by our government but have church marriage be a separate event.

This, 120%. I literally can't understand it. Separation of church and state is such a joke in this country.

[Deebs]

This is my other point (and then I need to go clean my house)...

Why is contraception, etc a church issue to republicans, but marriage and abortion is not? I don't personally believe in abortions for myself and I don't want to pay for them with my tax dollars directly, but I do think it's a choice between a woman's God, her doctor, and herself. Same goes for marriage. It's basically an incorporation between two individuals. Why do we care who marries whom? Let that be a church/religious freedom issue. I think both parties use religion and separation of church and state when it's convenient.

[GrayMatterWife]

This. I don't know why we don't do like other countries. All united couples have a civil union from the govt and you can get married in church if you want.

Agree. Defining marriage is just yet another way the government wants to insert itself where it has no business. Butt out! I don't say this often unless talking about coffee, cheese, or pretentious wine, but: France does it right. Civil unions are a state function and marriage is a church function.

[SoonerTexan]

As someone who votes Republican primarily because of abortion ( it absolutely pains me that it also means supporting capital punishment, gun rights, etc) I can tell you my reason. I may not believe in contraception or gay marriage, but I also believe in free will and people can do as they want with their lives. In the case of abortion, I believe there are two lives involved and it is no longer a completely personal decision.

[poky]

Agree. Defining marriage is just yet another way the government wants to insert itself where it has no business. Butt out! I don't say this often unless talking about coffee, cheese, or pretentious wine, but: France does it right. Civil unions are a state function and marriage is a church function.

I'm very confused by this. From what I've read, France (like most European countries) requires people to be married in the eyes of the government (and I believe they still call it "marriage", not "civil union"), and if you want, you can ALSO get married in a church...which is pretty much how most states do it here, right? Their government just this month introduced legislation that would allow same-sex couples to get married in the eyes of the government, and the Catholic church there is adamantly opposed. What are they doing differently than we do here in the states?

[HouseofWool]

Agree. Defining marriage is just yet another way the government wants to insert itself where it has no business. Butt out! I don't say this often unless talking about coffee, cheese, or pretentious wine, but: France does it right. Civil unions are a state function and marriage is a church function.

Amen.

So, my wish list for ideal government:

1. simplify the actual drafting of bills and don't have any extraneous crap in there. If is in regards to Transportation? Then allocate the money to the states and let them duke it out internally. Don't include anything about healthcare, education, or dancing pigs.

2. Abide by the separation of church and state. You collect taxes from gays, let them get married and provide them with the same legal benefits. Use the same word to define that union no matter if it is straight or gay. Let the churches deal with the union before God.

3. Do away with the 2 party system. So many people I know would actually like to vote for a third party candidate, but they realize that with our two party system it is the same as not voting at all.

4. Abolish superpacs. There is no reason to spend that much money on an election. For those who are donating 6 figures to superpacs - create and endowment for a charity who is doing good work.

[SoonerTexan]

Btw I'm just answering your question Deebs and not trying to start a debate. I dont think that is a good idea.

But yes the two party system sucks

[Auspicious]

Yeah, the non-religious are not going to take it lightly if there are attempts to throw them out of the marriage tradition. Atheists will not accept civil union any more than same-sex couples do, and you will be trading one public ruckus for another.

[diggitydot]

As someone who votes Republican primarily because of abortion ( it absolutely pains me that it also means supporting capital punishment, gun rights, etc) I can tell you my reason. I may not believe in contraception or gay marriage, but I also believe in free will and people can do as they want with their lives. In the case of abortion, I believe there are two lives involved and it is no longer a completely personal decision.

While I absolutely respect your opinions, I'm curious why what someone else chooses to do in their own life and regarding their own health and family affects your voting behavior? I'm in no way being flip -- I'm truly curious. I understand it being against your belief system, but why allow it to dictate your vote when there are MULTIPLE other issues that are also counter to your belief system that are promoted by voting that way?

Does something else stop you from being an anti-abortion dem?

I'm truly not trying to start a fight or offend anyone. I'm really curious and don't really have anyone else I can ask who won't flip their shit and call me a baby killer for asking.

[HouseofWool]

I'm very confused by this. From what I've read, France (like most European countries) requires people to be married in the eyes of the government (and I believe they still call it "marriage", not "civil union"), and if you want, you can ALSO get married in a church...which is pretty much how most states do it here, right? Their government just this month introduced legislation that would allow same-sex couples to get married in the eyes of the government, and the Catholic church there is adamantly opposed. What are they doing differently than we do here in the states?

From what I understand the biggest difference is that in Europe and parts of Latin America the civil ceremony and the religious ceremony are two different things, officiated by different people. So, you have a government representative doing the civil union and a religious figure doing the religious union. Whereas here, we've tied the two things together by having just one officiant. And in this part of the country, a quickie courthouse marriage is view negatively.

[poky]

And in this part of the country, a quickie courthouse marriage is view negatively.

OK, this part I wasn't aware of, probably due to where I grew up, plus getting married in Vegas.

But what I get is that the biggest difference is that they've never invested religious leaders with the rights to perform "in the eyes of the government" marriages over there, and that does make the difference more clear, but they still call it marriage even if they never have a church ceremony, right? And they're still not allowing same-sex couples to get married, and now that they're trying, churches are throwing a fit even though it doesn't affect their ceremonies AT ALL. So, my question remains. What are they doing that's so different than what we're doing here?

[bobk]

While I absolutely respect your opinions, I'm curious why what someone else chooses to do in their own life and regarding their own health and family affects your voting behavior? I'm in no way being flip -- I'm truly curious. I understand it being against your belief system, but why allow it to dictate your vote when there are MULTIPLE other issues that are also counter to your belief system that are promoted by voting that way?

Does something else stop you from being an anti-abortion dem?

I'm truly not trying to start a fight or offend anyone. I'm really curious and don't really have anyone else I can ask who won't flip their shit and call me a baby killer for asking.

The reason is that the pro-life side believes voluntary abortion to be murder, plain and simple. If some group came along promoting the right for a mother to kill their children up to the age of, say, three years old for any reason, wouldn't you view that as a grave injustice to the children and fight it tooth and nail rather than simply accept it as a personal choice?

[Sheherezade]

My take on the marriage issue here is that the word "marriage" and the term itself is used in so much existing law that in order to extend protections, the government version has to be "marriage". It can't be some new "civil union" that could be argued to differ from our traditional view of marriage. This is why I'm (now) against civil unions but favor government marriage and separate church marriage. I don't think the church should be able to tell out government that they can't marry same sex couples any more than I think the government can tell a church that they have to marry same sex couples. I support government offering marriage to all.

On abortion, I've always favored the government debating and deciding on when legal life begins. If you say that abortion is murder, that implies that the fetus is a separate life with the rights applied to an individual. If you say life begins at conception (like the personhood amendment in Mississippi), then both birth control pills and IVF are now illegal as "murder" because they affect the lives of individuals with rights. That's why I'm against the "life" movement; they stress conception as a start date and I can't get behind the repurcussions of that decisions for women. I would prefer that they define life in the second trimester. I also don't think they can define it as when the fetus can support itself; 7 mos. seems WAY to late in a term to offer abortions to me. I think that's a debate we need to have. When do we extend protections to a fetus? Can we all agree on that - ever? I think the Mississippi vote suggests that conception would not pass in most places.

ETA: Birth control pills work by stopping implantation after sperm has met egg and division has begun. IVF has obvious ties to conception.

[Michele]

I thought most pills stopped ovulation from occurring. IUDs prevent implantation, but the copper one is supposed to prevent sperm maturation (capituation) such that the sperm can't fertilize an egg and the hormonal one prevents ovulation.