quote Originally posted by frontal lobe: He SHOULDN'T let his religion dictate it. Even being VERY religious, he should have known what the office was like when signing up to run for it. HOWEVER, he SHOULD let his RELIGIOUS BELIEFS (not his religious denomination) effect who he is and what he decides about things. Otherwise, it isn't much of a religious belief. So how he believes about things, whether that came from his/her religion, upbringing, life experience, etc, SHOULD be rolled into and reflected into his behavior. And there is NOTHING wrong with that.

I agree.....to a point. His religious beliefs should effect his decisions in his personal life. They should NOT effect his decisions in running this country. He needs to be able to separate his religious beliefs from his secular duties and make decisions that are best for the country and the people, not because it's what his religion says to do.

quote Originally posted by texasfiero: I DO want a leader who has a good moral foundation. I want one who won't lie to me...

Keeping in mind the subject heading you gave this thread, are you suggesting Obama is gay?

quote Originally posted by texasfiero: He said he is Christian, yet he didn't know when life begins. I don't understand why many Christians don't know the answer to this 'perplexing' question. Jeremiah 1: 4-5 makes it clear that Jeremiah had a personality and was 'known by God' in the womb. Life must be existent at that moment. Scott Peterson was charged and found guilt of murder of his unborn son. If it isn't life, then it wasn't murder. http://www.courttv.com/tria...y/guilty/index1.html "Jurors found Scott Peterson guilty of first-degree murder in the slaying of his pregnant wife, Laci, and of second-degree murder in the death of his unborn son, Conner. The conviction means Peterson will face the death penalty." Once again, evidence of who Barack Obama is, what he believes, and how he will likely govern. Seeking advice from a gay pastor: http://www.onenewsnow.com/P...fault.aspx?id=315364 Who the pastor is: http://americansfortruth.com/ http://www.queerty.com/gay-...acks-first-20081106/ Who is this man? What does he believe? How will he govern? Based upon his past and his current actions, I have some concerns, and they're not irrational ones.

He has promoted legislation that would allow what has been called infanticide.

He is seeking counsel from a gay pastor. These issues are some of the most divisive and destructive that we have ever faced and are only getting worse. The Supreme Court of California has demonstrated that it is willing to over-ride the will of the people of the state. Massachusetts court has imposed gay marriage without allowing the citizen to vote on the issue. Connecticut is following along in the same path.

Liberals of Obama's type legislate through the court. His appointments to the Supreme Court will likely create more law that bypasses our ability to have a say in its enactment. Liberal judges tend to find things in the constitution that were never there.

I'll ask the question again, just so you can understand what this thread is about. Considering his past associations, his history as a legislator, and his confusion about what he believes:
Who is this man? What does he believe? How will he govern? Based upon his past and his current actions, I have some concerns, and they're not irrational ones.

quote Originally posted by texasfiero: Massachusetts court has imposed gay marriage without allowing the citizen to vote on the issue.

The majority of Massachusetts citizens did not want it on the ballot, so it didn't make it that far. This was after it was already legalized. A measure came up to put it to public vote to see whether to keep it or not. There wasn't enough interest to ban it to even bring it to a vote.

[This message has been edited by Jaygee79 (edited 11-13-2008).]

From an outsiders viewpoint I doubt that. I would actually suspect a bit of behind the scenes fancy footwork.

This is taken directly from www.hrc.org
----------
On June 14, 2007, a joint session of the Massachusetts Legislature defeated, by a vote of 151-45, a proposed constitutional amendment that would have ended marriage equality in the Commonwealth. The Legislature’s vote eliminated any chances of the proposed amendment getting on the ballot in November 2008. Because fewer than 50 of the state’s 200 legislators supported the ban on marriage by same-sex couples, it will not appear on the 2008 ballot. This is a major victory for supporters of marriage equality.

Massachusetts was the first state to recognize marriage equality under state law, but has since been joined by California, in June 2008. Same-sex couples who marry in Massachusetts continue to be denied federal rights and benefits, thanks to the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

quote Originally posted by Jaygee79: This is taken directly from www.hrc.org ---------- On June 14, 2007, a joint session of the Massachusetts Legislature defeated, by a vote of 151-45, a proposed constitutional amendment that would have ended marriage equality in the Commonwealth. The Legislature’s vote eliminated any chances of the proposed amendment getting on the ballot in November 2008.

Oh sorry I thought you meant the public were of the opinion that it didn't need to be voted on by them. I just misunderstood.

quote Originally posted by Jaygee79: This is taken directly from www.hrc.org ---------- On June 14, 2007, a joint session of the Massachusetts Legislature defeated, by a vote of 151-45, a proposed constitutional amendment that would have ended marriage equality in the Commonwealth. The Legislature’s vote eliminated any chances of the proposed amendment getting on the ballot in November 2008. Because fewer than 50 of the state’s 200 legislators supported the ban on marriage by same-sex couples, it will not appear on the 2008 ballot. This is a major victory for supporters of marriage equality. Massachusetts was the first state to recognize marriage equality under state law, but has since been joined by California, in June 2008. Same-sex couples who marry in Massachusetts continue to be denied federal rights and benefits, thanks to the so-called Defense of Marriage Act.

I personally don't give a rip what my legislators think. Do they know what I think? If my opinion is in the majority, are they responsive? They aren't sent to office to legislate according to their whims. What part of representative don't they, or you understand?

quote Originally posted by texasfiero: I personally don't give a rip what my legislators think. Do they know what I think? If my opinion is in the majority, are they responsive? They aren't sent to office to legislate according to their whims. What part of representative don't they, or you understand?

Again, not sure how other states work...I would assume they'd all work the same. Here in Massachusetts we are able to voice our opinions to our Legislators. We expect them to vote on our behalf. Granted, sometimes they don't...but like I said, it's an imperfect world.

[This message has been edited by Jaygee79 (edited 11-14-2008).]

quote Originally posted by Jaygee79: Again, not sure how other states work...I would assume they'd all work the same.

I am a states rights guy, so they are almost the same but not exactly.

You in Mass. don't have a way to bypass the representatives like California, with their "proposition" deal. We don't have that in Wisconsin, either. Maybe someone from California could give us a BRIEF synopsis of how that works in your state.

We, the people, in Wisconsin, have to pass state consitution amendments to bypass the elected representatives. Pretty hard to do it. In general, I think it is a GOOD thing it is hard to do.