Owlman wrote:First off, read the 10th Amendment.
The Federal government is bound by the Constitution as to what laws it can make. The state, not so much.
That is Romney's point. The Constitution says that the Fed can't make a law to force you to buy ANYTHING.
Owlman wrote:Second, while he wasn't pro gay marriage, he did say he supported civil unions, which to conservative Christians is the same thing.
Two men (regardless of their sexual orientation) can own property together be it a house, a business, or what-have-you. Two men sharing property and/or living together has always been lawful. You can call that a "civil union" if you'd like. That is what Mitt would call it. It doesn't make any difference what conservative Christians think of that arrangement. Conservative Christians do NOT like homosexuality. Period. End of story. Love the sinner, hate the sin. It's that simple. So no matter what laws we create in this country, conservative Christians are not going to accept anything that homosexual men want to do that will enable their existence to be mainstream.
Owlman wrote:And yes, he said he was pro-choice.
To win a Senate seat in 1994. That is it. He NEVER-EVER supported abortion. Mitt was the LDS Stake President in Belmont Massachusetts. You don't get to be that and be Pro-Choice.
Owlman wrote:It's his flipping that makes people on the right leary of him. If you can't acknowledge that he's flipped on multiple occasions, then you aren't in reality land.
The reality is he could veto things to his heart's content, and it wouldn't have mattered. He isn't "flipping" on the Massachusetts health care mandate. Would you rather he did?
Feminism: Eve eats ALL the apples, gives God the middle finder when He confronts her, and has the serpent serve Adam with an injunction ordering him to both stay away from her AND to provide her food and shelter because he dragged her out of the Garden.