Voting for a law is not the same thing as voting for a person. So this declaration does not prove that you must vote for Romney, who has over the course of his life expressed a variety of positions on this such laws. This lack of direct application is a counterbalance to the argument about proportionality with other issues.
No.
Every politician has a plan of what they would do/their views regarding marriage, abortion. If you vote for politcian know is pro gay marriage, pro abortion, you are voting for that platform to be enacted in to law just like any other issue such as health care that you would vote for them and then that be enacted
there was a way-they just didn’t want to do the hard work-and that brings to the question of WHY. If being against abortion is so important to the GOP, all those people we have been voting for since the 1970’s…why was that not a major priority as soon as they had that majority? Did anyone even try?
Not true. Politicians are people and they change their minds. They are a complicated combination of views toward many different issues. It is not as simple as a straight up or down vote on a single issue.
or more accurately-they say what they need to say on the campaign trail and it’s only after they get elected that we find out what their real priorities are. If I have a huge voting block that will vote for me if I say I will do this ONE thing-don’t you think I’m going to say it?
Right–you beat me to saying that. Also, it’s true that politicians, including democrats, will say what they need to say to be elected–we all know that. Plus, Romney has promised that he will attempt to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act (not the HHS) on his first day in office. Am I going to vote for someone whose first act in office will be to ensure that I, along with many I love and a large part of the country, including a huge bloc of children, will be denied healthcare because they cannot afford insurance or their work does not offer it? Not likely.Actually, that’s only true by the American definition of the term. Nelka is British, and by Commonwealth usage, the USA is all at once a federation, a republic, and a representative democracy. The three emphasise different aspects and are not considered exclusive. Any how, that’s just semantics.
Actually, gay marriage is officially part of the democratic party platform. washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/aug/11/democrats-officially-include-gay-marriage-plank-pl/
Did anyone even try what? A constitutional amendment? No. Legislation? Yes, a lot of it. A bill banning partial birth abortion was passed by GOP led congresses three times and vetoed by a Democratic president each time. In nearly every state in the union, over the past 40 years, attempts have been made to limit abortion through legislation. Those attempts have been fought tooth and nail by pro-abortion Democrats at every level, blocked in the legislatures, and when that didn’t work, lawsuits filed in the courts! Republican presidents have put in place the Mexico City policy to limit U.S. support for abortion overseas. Democratic presidents have overturned the policy. There has been a lot of pro-life activity going on, and it has been opposed nearly every step of the way by pro-abortion Democrats.
Romney’s stance on abortion,is probably the major consideration for faithful Catholics,however,even if that weren’t in the equation,he would still get my vote because I believe he and Ryan will be able to pull our country out of the economic malaise we are living,Obama wants to fundamentally change our country and not for the good of the people. His idiology is counter intuitive to the principles upon which our country was founded.
That is not how Catholic teaching on voting works, there is no route to voting for a pro abortion politician in the hope of that person changing their mind. There is no guarantee of that happening
A vote for a thrid party candidate is a vote for Obama.
The USCCB is NOT the catholic church. Take your advice and directions from Rome.