Really? Seriously, it is a sad, sad state of affairs when a man like this can be in competition for the presidential nomination. This man believes that women should no longer have access to birth control. And he said this:
"In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be. It is one thing. And when you destroy that you have a dramatic impact on the quality ... "
No need to hear the rest of the quote since the first part is so ripe with ridiculousness.
He later went on to clarify that he did not intend to equate homosexuality with incest (the child reference) or beastiality (man on dog reference), when, of course, that was exactly what he intended. What's more important is that he does not believe that the right to privacy as noted in the Supreme Court ruling Griwold vs. Connecticut prevents the government from regulating consensual acts among adults. He wants to make homosexuals head straight back to the closet and he wants women to have babies. We know where he stands on these social issues, and he will be a fervent advocate for getting legislation passed that would attempt to obliterate the gains women and homosexuals have gained over these many years.
I'm voting for Obama no matter what offering comes our way from the Republicans. But I just find it unbelievable that there is any significant portion of the populace that would be willing to push back advances for these groups.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment