In reading up on some of the candidates for the coming Presidential election, I came across this quote by Huckabee when asked about his views on gay rights:
"What people do in the privacy of their own lives as adults is their business," Huckabee said. "If they bring it into the public square and ask me as a taxpayer to support it or to endorse it, then it becomes a matter of public discussion and discourse."
It made me think. For the last while, my standpoint has been this: I believe it would be acceptable to provide the same privileges of married couples (such as health insurance, tax benefits, ect) to a same sex couple, even though I believe that the act of being gay is morally wrong. I do not feel that the person is a bad person, or that they should be denied based on their choice of a mate. (There are plenty of straight people that I feel THAT would apply to, if brought up.) I felt that what a person does in their bedroom was their choice, and as long as it did not hurt me, it was not my place to refuse them.
However, Huckabee's statement has brought me to re-consider my standpoint on it. The part where he states "ask me as a taxpayer to support it or endorse it" brings it to my attention that that was exactly what would be happening. If I were to support a person with a same-sex relationship to be given privileges that I, as a taxpayer, would be paying for, then it DOES become my business. Which basically means that I need to re-evaluate what I feel about this situation.
At this point, I have not narrowed my decision down to one candidate. I know where I stand on most issues, and I am researching where each candidate stands.
For the Democrats, I would choose Barack Obama. He just seems real to me. He's friendly. He's straightforward. He's willing to play around and be one of the people. His attitude states that he is not better than us, he is one of us. To me, that says he would have the best interest of all the American people in mind.
For the Republicans, I would choose Mitt Romney. Although I don't particularly care for his "Utah attitude", I am very impressed by his business and financial background- which I feel would greatly benefit our country considering it's situation right now.
If I had to choose between those two, I would be back and forth for quite a while on the decision.
As for some of the other candidates:
Hilary knows what she is doing. She's very much a politician, and certainly knows how to raise finances. The amount of money she has spent on her campaign interests me for this reason: a candidate that has that kind of money must know how to raise that kind of money. If she did that while President, it would make a huge difference. The down side to Hilary is her baggage- she doesn't have a great history there- and . . . well I can't put my finger on it exactly, but her power. She seems too strong, too powerful, just too . . . much.
Rudy, I'm not too thrilled with. I don't feel fired up at all when I watch him or read about him. I am grateful for what he did during Sept 11, 2001. I don't really have anything bad to say about him, but I don't have anything good either. If he wins next month, I will do more in depth research about him. For now, other candidates are so much more interesting to me.
Huckabee is a new light to me. I didn't see anything special about him until recently. I will be watching him more closely for the next little while and doing more research about him. I don't have an opinion one way or the other yet, but I am interested in him, what he has to say, and where he is going.
No one else has caught my eye enough to make mention of.
"What people do in the privacy of their own lives as adults is their business," Huckabee said. "If they bring it into the public square and ask me as a taxpayer to support it or to endorse it, then it becomes a matter of public discussion and discourse."
It made me think. For the last while, my standpoint has been this: I believe it would be acceptable to provide the same privileges of married couples (such as health insurance, tax benefits, ect) to a same sex couple, even though I believe that the act of being gay is morally wrong. I do not feel that the person is a bad person, or that they should be denied based on their choice of a mate. (There are plenty of straight people that I feel THAT would apply to, if brought up.) I felt that what a person does in their bedroom was their choice, and as long as it did not hurt me, it was not my place to refuse them.
However, Huckabee's statement has brought me to re-consider my standpoint on it. The part where he states "ask me as a taxpayer to support it or endorse it" brings it to my attention that that was exactly what would be happening. If I were to support a person with a same-sex relationship to be given privileges that I, as a taxpayer, would be paying for, then it DOES become my business. Which basically means that I need to re-evaluate what I feel about this situation.
At this point, I have not narrowed my decision down to one candidate. I know where I stand on most issues, and I am researching where each candidate stands.
For the Democrats, I would choose Barack Obama. He just seems real to me. He's friendly. He's straightforward. He's willing to play around and be one of the people. His attitude states that he is not better than us, he is one of us. To me, that says he would have the best interest of all the American people in mind.
For the Republicans, I would choose Mitt Romney. Although I don't particularly care for his "Utah attitude", I am very impressed by his business and financial background- which I feel would greatly benefit our country considering it's situation right now.
If I had to choose between those two, I would be back and forth for quite a while on the decision.
As for some of the other candidates:
Hilary knows what she is doing. She's very much a politician, and certainly knows how to raise finances. The amount of money she has spent on her campaign interests me for this reason: a candidate that has that kind of money must know how to raise that kind of money. If she did that while President, it would make a huge difference. The down side to Hilary is her baggage- she doesn't have a great history there- and . . . well I can't put my finger on it exactly, but her power. She seems too strong, too powerful, just too . . . much.
Rudy, I'm not too thrilled with. I don't feel fired up at all when I watch him or read about him. I am grateful for what he did during Sept 11, 2001. I don't really have anything bad to say about him, but I don't have anything good either. If he wins next month, I will do more in depth research about him. For now, other candidates are so much more interesting to me.
Huckabee is a new light to me. I didn't see anything special about him until recently. I will be watching him more closely for the next little while and doing more research about him. I don't have an opinion one way or the other yet, but I am interested in him, what he has to say, and where he is going.
No one else has caught my eye enough to make mention of.
2 comments:
I learned more about the candidates through this post! I guess I haven't really taken the time to learn about all of them since I can't vote in the US but it is still good idea for me to be aware of them.
I don't know that it is really important to be involved quite yet. However, next month, after the caucasis (sp?) THEN it will get heated.
Post a Comment