Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheldonrs
Well, then, I guess I should vote for Romney and the GOP because they would never dream of changing the constitution. Oh, wait! What's this?
|
The subject of gay or homosexual marriage, was not mentioned in the Constitution. So any amendment would be an addition, not a change in any existing part of the Constitution. Similar to the 14th amendment, etc.
Again, this is political posturing to get his conservative base more motivated to support him and come on out and vote!
Romney wasn't even in Congress, so the writer is making a huge flight of fancy that Mitt was serious about a Federal Constitutional Amendment.
I thought a good way to go was to have civil unions with full marriage rights, for gay couples. Thus "protecting" the word "marriage", for those more likely to produce the next generation.
That term "marriage" seems to be a huge sticking point, so I'm looking for a compromise here that gives our gay brothers and sisters full marriage rights, but provokes the least angry backlash from our hetero brothers and sisters.
I'm not sure this is the best compromise, but I'm thinking it's one of the better ones and could be done.
Mormons are strongly against abortions except for medical necessity or rape. I don't believe Romney will budge on his anti-abortion stance.
That one is NOT a political posture.