Quote:
Originally Posted by Engine
Sorry for entering the conversation late but you do realize that Paul's version of libertarianism means that if you are gay or pro-choice or believe in separation of church and state and happen to live in a state or county or province that allows gay rights and abortion then everything's cool BUT that the flipside is that if you live in a state or county where they don't then .. you're fucked?
And of course this includes people who are too young to vote. Under this guy's rule I'd feel very sorry for a gay person or a woman of any age with an unwanted pregnancy (especially underage pregnant women) who happen to live in a pro-life, anti-gay state. That is, most of them.
And it costs a lot to move cross country.
I can't vote for that kind of leadership.
|
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Even the current President is leaving it up to the states, although he at least repealed that heinous DADT policy, and did something for the gay community.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.