So as of today the current main contenders for the Presidency of the United States of America are:
Republican Party of the United States of America
Confirmed Nominee: Senator John McCain (Arizona)
Democratic Party of the United States of America
Final Contenders:
Senator Hillary Clinton (New York)
Senator Barack Obama (Illinois)
Out of these 3 who do you want to see become the next President of the United States of America?
And please think about this before you post! If your not an American citizen what does it matter about the parties/candidates' *domestic* policy, when it wouldn't affect you anyways as a non-American? Therefore if your not an American citizen, when voting the poll (above) it would make most sense to consider foreign policy, trade, global economy, etc.
----
My Pick:
Senator John McCain
Why?
First off I live in Canada, and free trade with the United States is very important to the Canadian economy. Obama and Clinton, as well as the Democratic Party as a whole are becoming very protectionist and anti-free-trade in their views and policies. They have made calls to re-negotiate N.A.F.T.A. (North American Free Trade Agreement), which could very much hurt the Canadian economy. John McCain has answered to media and said he fully supports N.A.F.T.A. and won't change it. John McCain is also supportive of Canada's combat role in Afghanistan, and has been very Canada-friendly when speaking about my country. The Democrats would hurt Canada with their protectionist leanings.
Another thing (by the way I am a Gay Conservative...yes, we do exist) I like about John McCain is he is more of a social moderate. In the Senate he was one of the few Republicans who voted against the Federal Amendment Act (and act that would ban same-sex-marriage across the U.S.A.), and still today supports the notion that the issue of Gay Marriage is up to each individual state. Which is also my position. Let conservative states ban it, and liberal states enact it, then everyone is happy. He also has a more decent reasonable immigration stance then the hard-right faction who just wants too deport everyone. He supports securing the Mexico-USA border, while offering a path to citizenship (not a walk in the park, but still a path) for Mexicans already in the U.S.
John McCain represents, what I call the "Decency Wing" of the Republican Party. He is generally a moderate with centre-right leanings who wants to do whats best for America.
He also is a very honourable man with great integrity. In Vietnam he was a Prisoner-of-War, where he was tortured (another good thing is he is against torture), he was offered to get out early because he was an Admiral's son. He refused, and stayed with his fellow soldiers until they were all released together.
McCain has proven countless times to work with Democrats to come to reasonable compromises which are best for America.
I like the guy, and hope he wins.
Thoughts?
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
•
I think it would be great it it were a woman, for a nice change and / or a coloured man... That would shake America, and remind the country that it's really multicultural and also "bisexual"... Lol. Not sure that Barak Obama has the experience though... but he certainly has charisma.
•
An interesting and thought-provoking post. Cheers.
Canucker Wrote:... Gay Marriage is up to each individual state. Which is also my position. Let conservative states ban it, and liberal states enact it, then everyone is happy... Can't readily agree with this, though. By "everyone" you presumably mean everyone except those who will be most affected, i.e. our gay brothers and sisters? Why should equality of opportunity not be a national issue? Individual states are too small (in more than one sense of the word) and prone to pressure groups to be allowed to make such decisions.
•
The thing is thats the general way the U.S. Confederation works.
The U.S. is a large country with 300 million people, and therefore it can't be a big national government that sets policy for everyone, because their is a cultural divide in different regions.
Traditionally in the U.S.A. its always been the states determine most issues on a per-state basis, and the national government is mostly concerned with foreign policy, military, economy, general national regulations, public safety, etc.
The reality in America today is the majority (about 54%) of U.S. citizens are against Gay Marriage, and want a ban on it. The good thing is this number is slowly sloping. In the 90s it was near 70%, and it was 60% in 2004, and now its down to 54%.
The Gay Marriage debate is a very divisive one...but I have seen some good in it....in 2004 (i know this is shocking but its true) a Gallup Poll showed 40% of Americans wanted gay sex to be illegal. Its shocking I know...but now in 2008 that number has dropped to the low 30s. The Gay Marriage debate...in a way...has made the anti-gay people moderate a bit into the position of:
"I don't care what 2 consensual people do in their bedroom, even though its wrong, I just don't want the traditional institution of marriage screwed up"
So in a way, the gay marriage debate has moderated out some people into a more libertarian position on sex in America.
--
And unfortunately in 2004, during the U.S. Presidential Election 9 states held referendums on whether to ban Gay Marriage or not, all 9 states in that vote, voted to ban it, even some of the more liberal states who were holding ballots on the issue.
So we have be realistic here marshlander, the most realistic situation in the U.S.A. at this time (will hopefully change in the future) is that Gay Marriage be a state-by-state issue, and over time more states will enact it (currently only Massachusetts has gay marriage legal). And the other scary part is only a handful of states have legal domestic partnerships/civil unions for gays. That should be nationally mandated that any 2 people be able to access a civil union, because that is basic human rights. For a gay person to make health decisions about their partner, to get tax breaks, etc.
---
So in conclusion its about taking small baby-steps at a time, and slowly (but surely), the poll numbers will get more liberal and eventually gay marriage can be legalized in the U.S.
Its just you'd cause out and out chaos if you legalized it nationwide in the U.S. Guaranteed the southern red states would be up in arms and in protest, States Legislatures would be doing all they can too stop it...there are very homophobic very right wing U.S. states that would never stand for it. Thats why it has to be a state-by-state issue for now.
•
Oh and another interesting point. Neither Obama or Clinton support gay marriage.
There is a faction in the Democratic Party what we call "Blue Dogs" in the U.S. They are Democrats who are socially conservative (anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro Christian traditional culture, etc.) and economically liberal (social programs!)
These "Blue Dogs" make up about one third of the Democratic Party, and along with the General Population, the Democrats and both Hillary and Barack have the:
Gay Marriage is a state-by-state issue, and I support civil unions
Thats their stance.
McCain is very similar to their stance, but he wouldn't probably mandate national civil unions, but leave it as a state-by-state issue as well.
•
Oh and African Americans (Blacks) are your traditional "Blue Dogs" in the Democratic Party.
Black People in the U.S. are quite socially conservative, and very Christian, but they are economically liberal and are in the Democrat's camp.
•
Although that's probably what is happening and what will happen, I still can't accept that this be a state decision rather than a federal one. Our friend Michael who got his marriage (partnership) in Germany was shocked, as an American that his husband could not go through the same gate or booth upon arrival in America because of this so called state of affairs. It is shocking that two married people, cannot be a married couple in countries that allegedly support the Bill of Human Rights and also like to remind other countries (like China) that they are retarded in those matters...
No, any citizens who are married in another country should be considered as such by a whole nation, not just by each state, because this doesn't make sense. This is backward thinking. I know what you're saying is the reality of the situation, but it doesn't make the thinking right, in my opinion. We're not talking about taxes here. We're talking about people's lives and their right to live it decently, even honourably. Wouldn't a sheik or head of an Arab state with several wives (if that is still the case in the Moslem tradition) be asked to choose which one of his wives was the official one, when all of them are married to him? I don't think so. And yet I don't think that the U.S. condones or permits polygamy.
I'm glad to think that were I to go to Canada with my husband or civil partner, we'd be considered as a couple and welcomed as such. For the States to do otherwise is just silly, as there is nothing that can possibly endanger the holy state of matrimony. The only thing gay marriage does is reinforce its value. I know some gay currents of thought hate the idea of gays marrying, but it ought to be a choice, just as heteros can choose to live together without marrying. That is true progress, and surely, the only way forward.
•
Canucker Wrote:Oh and another interesting point. Neither Obama or Clinton support gay marriage.
...
They might well be personally opposed to it, or maybe it is just that they sense it is not politic to admit that they support it, for political and electoral reasons... It's too much of a gamble to say openly that they support gay marriage, given the general public's opinion in the States... By not mentioning what is maybe their real position, they are keeping those votes that they might lose otherwise. It may have nothing to do with what they really think, just a "safe" political measure and stance. That's what they might consider diplomatic. Of course, more extreme gay activists would probably ask them to be more outspoken on the subject, but since they need to win the election over the Republicans, they might just have thought it more reasonable (in terms of numbers of voters) not to annoy the hoi polloi.
•
Your correct, I think personally Hillary and Barack support it, but again the reality is most Americans don't want Gay Marriage, so because the Democrats want to win, they say they won't enact it.
I agree completely with what you said before princealbertofb, but I'm trying to look realistically at this. National recognition of gay marriage will not happen in the United States (unless they get a Democratic President in their who stacks the Supreme Court with liberals, and they change it) for at least 10-20 years, maybe longer.
Look not even all of Europe has it...I mean U.K., France they don't have gay marriage. And Europe is very liberal and progressive.
So its about being realistic and having things better than the status quo, then nothing at all.
A realistic hope is to get civil unions legal for all Gay people and have Gay Marriage be a state-by-state issue for the time being.
•
Great conversation so far.
As a gay American the thing that scares me about the conservative idea against gay marriage is that it hurts the traditional marriage. I think Canucker even said this somewhere.
I just dont get that concept. Maybe the conservatives are worried that seeing two men or women in TRUE love will harm the young eyes. I just dont get it. It is like the concept that the gay lifestyle is a choice - scratch head...
Eight years ago I liked John McCain more than Kerry but Bush bashed him leaking that he had a black child scandal... My problem with McCain is that he has sided with Bush on too many issues - not all (thank Goddess) but way too many.
I do think it would do the world good to have a USA woman or black president = it is about time... Hillary is trying too hard and is too establishment. Things are slowly coming out about Barack that worry me a little bit. It seems that not all he says about himself is the complete story = little fibs to make it all sound better.
I am in Pennsylvania which is now becoming a very important state in deciding the Democratic candidate and I dont really know who I am going to vote for.
I am glad to read that a Northern conservative neighbor believes USA should have civil unions down here.
OK, I hate talking politics (I live in such a boring, political area)... lots of racism here... nice people worried about uppity blacks???
•
|
