Playing the “Democrat Card”: Utah County Politics

We’ve heard a lot this campaign season about playing the gender card or race card. But there’s another kind of card-playing that is unique to highly conservative areas, such as Utah County, Utah: playing the “Democrat card.” This is the story of a Utah County Republican who is playing the Democrat card in order to distract voters from the real issues surrounding his campaign for reelection.

Republican Stephen D. Clark, a four-term representative for Utah House District 63 (East Provo), has never had a challenger printed next to his name on a November ballot.

Until now.

Donald K. Jarvis, a higher education consultant, former BYU professor and administrator, and former LDS mission president, is taking on Clark this year as his Democrat counterpart. Jarvis considers himself “a different kind of Democrat,” though. He is a social and fiscal conservative who is a proud champion of the values of traditional families and the rights of the unborn. In fact, Jarvis says that if he were running in Massachusetts, he would run as a Republican.

There are, however, enormous differences between Jarvis and most Republicans in the Utah legislature. Jarvis is fighting for issues that the ultra-conservative, Republican-dominated legislature has not taken seriously: ethics reform, adequate funding for public education (including Utah Valley University), improved environmental measures, and more affordable health care coverage (see Jarvis’ website). Jarvis is also the first House candidate in a long time to make a sincere and concerted effort to reach out to the BYU students who make up the majority of the district’s population (one of Jarvis’ campaign slogans is “Students Matter”).

What is Steve Clark’s number one case for himself in this election? You guessed it. He’s drawing attention to the R next to his name. This is evident in Clark’s red campaign signs that read, “Join Republican Stephen Clark” as well as his short website video where he makes it very clear that he is running [in slow, accentuated speech] “as a Republican.” Clark’s tactics are hardly surprising in a state as historically red as Utah.

What is repugnant, however, is Clark’s playing of the Democrat card in his recent blog post, “Distinguishing Republicans from Democrats in Utah.” Clark begins by saying,

It is only fair that candidates be honest and declare their party affliation [sic] beyond the ballot designation on election day. The voters need to know which party the candidates represent because party affliation [sic] is a good indicator of a person’s persuasion.

Here Clark is taking issue with the fact that Utah County Democratic candidates, including Jarvis, “do not use the party name or logo in their presentations or literature.” Clark’s observation is correct, but he appears to be quite out of touch concerning these matters. The reality is that most politicians do not include their party name or logo — and for good reason. They are running in a general election and thus are seeking for the votes of people across parties and persuasions. This is why you don’t see “Republican” or “Democrat” all over John McCain’s and Barack Obama’s advertisements and literature. Same thing for hundreds of state and local political campaigns across the nation. These politicians, like Jarvis, are seeking to be the representatives of all their constituents, not just those in their own party. These politicians seek to focus on real issues and strive to bring our country together, rather than drive us further apart with divisive labels.

But Clark’s card-playing gets much worse. He argues,

If you are a Utah County Democrat you are a standard bearer of Bill and Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Al Gore, Nancy Pelosi and John Edwards.

Apparently, for Clark, all Democrats must be basically the same. If you’re a local Democrat, even a Mormon Democrat in Utah County, you must be the same as those radical pro-choice liberals in Washington (of course, Clark neglects to mention pro-life, pro-family national LDS Democrats such as Jim Matheson and Harry Reid).

There are big problems with Clark’s assumptions here, which I touch on below.

Clark continues:

Utah’s Constitutional Amendment 3 that defined marriage as a legal union between a man and a woman was nearly defeated because a 2/3 vote was needed in the House and Senate to make changes to the constitution. In the Senate the amendment passed by one vote. All Republicans voted for the Amendment and all Democrats voted against the Amendment. In the House three Democrats crossed over to pass the amendment and they paid for their defection.

Illogical scare tactics, and nothing more. What Clark fails to say is that his own opponent, Don Jarvis, is in support of traditional definitions of marriage. For this reason, Jarvis’ Democratic standing means nothing on this matter. Clark quite likely knows this, but he’s trying to take attention away from Steve Clark vs. Don Jarvis (where there appears to be little if any difference on this matter) — and turn the attention to bipolar generic boilerplates of Republican vs. Democrat.

Clark concludes with the following audacious claim (in bold):

Republicans have provided protections to traditional families since they took over in 1970. If Utah County Democrat [sic] cannot take over and control their party in Utah, trading Republicans with Democrats will only weaken these protections. Why take this risk?

This is ridiculous. Clark is exaggerating the power of party politics to make voters think that any Republican is better than any Democrat. Perhaps he’d be in favor of taking the politicians’ actual names off of the ballots? There are plenty of local and even national politicians who vote contrary to their party on a consistent basis. At any rate, we hardly need to worry about Amendment 3 getting overturned in Utah!

It is true, though, that if this were the only issue that mattered — if the only reason we elected and paid politicians was for them to pass occasional constitutional amendments to support traditional families — then there would be little reason to vote for a Democrat like Jarvis rather than a Republican like Clark.

But there are many more issues that matter — issues that Jarvis calls “Real Utah Values.” These values are being squelched by the ultra-conservative Utah legislature. On all counts, Jarvis proves the better, more moderate candidate. I will highlight two major areas here, education and ethics reform.

1. Education. Utah County Democrats may be downplaying their party affiliation, but this is minor compared to the way that incumbent Republicans, including Clark, are downplaying how they voted for the education voucher program that was crushed by Utah voters. This program was voted down in every Utah county, as well as Clark’s district. The defeat was a clear testament to how Utah representatives have grown out of touch with the values of their constituents. Fortunately, Utah voters saw what vouchers would do: damage public schools and diminish the middle class. Voters saw vouchers as a distraction from Utah politicians’ failed commitment to our public schools. Jarvis, on the other hand, is willing to do what a majority of Utah voters want: to pay our school teachers what they are worth, and to rid Utah of its embarrassing teacher salary rating (45th in the nation, in spite of having the highest number of students per teacher). Clark, on the other hand, has earned low ratings from public educators (an average rating of 26% since 2001, including a 0% ranking in 2002). Do we really want to keep this man in office? To borrow Clark’s own words, “Why take this risk?”

2. Ethics Reform. It is refreshing to see Republicans and Democrats alike speak out for ethics reform. Sadly, the Utah legislature remains “the best legislature money can buy,” with over 98% of campaign finance for incumbents coming from special interest groups. Jarvis will fight for the change we need (and 3/4 of Utahns want) in this regard, and will strive to shake things up in Salt Lake City. And Clark? Well, it’s hard to fight for ethics reform when you are wedded to special interests. Most notably, Clark – like many Utah legislators – is uninterested in conflict-of-interest reform because he, though a member of the IHC health care board, has been on a task force that has handled several bills and discussions on IHC (“Tempers flare at IHC talks,” Deseret Morning News, 22 July 05). As of now, “Legislators are … allowed to serve on committees that deal with their occupations, introduce legislation that would be to their benefit, and even hop over the committee table and testify on matters that serve their self-interest” (Editorial, “Conflict of Interest,” Salt Lake Tribune, 1 Feb 08). Don Jarvis — not Steve Clark — would fight to end these conflicts of interest that plague our political process.

I could go on and talk about how Jarvis is the superior candidate in terms of managing Utah’s growth. I encourage voters to consult Jarvis’ website for more information.

I cannot fail to mention, however, Steve Clark’s low productivity rate. In the 2008 session, Clark attended only 63.5 percent of his committee meetings, making him 90th out of 100 total legislators. Clark also had a 33% pass rate (2 of his 6 proposed bills passed), ranking him 56th out of 71 legislators. Maybe he needs a rest. Why take the risk of reelecting a representative whose energy appears to be waning, especially one who hasn’t prioritized our public schools or ethics reform, not to mention such details as cleaner air or alternative energy?

It is time for Utah County voters to show that they’re not willing to be swindled by candidates who wave a Republican sign in their faces. It is time for voters to follow the example of Gordon B. Hinckley, who “voted for men [Republicans and Democrats] and not party.” And it is time for Clark’s constituents to remind him that this race is not about Republican and Democrat. It is about Steve Clark and Don Jarvis.

Email a friend


20 Responses

  1. If nothing else, one has to admit that Mr. Clark is a shrewd campaigner. His use of the “Democrat card” is disgraceful, but will undoubtedly be effective in Utah County. I predict he’ll win in a landslide.

    Mr. Jarvis also seems to be taking a big risk on BYU students. They are notoriously apathetic about local politics.

  2. Well done, Dennis.

    I also find Steven Clark’s argument that all candidates should make their party affiliation obvious and that republicans need to continue to dominate Utah politics highly problematic. For two reasons–

    The very fact that people like Jarvis feel the need to be careful about how they portray their party affiliation in Utah signals a problem in itself– with Utah voters. We have been lazy and indifferent about who we are voting for, obviously not taking time to become informed (or to think about what we should value in a politician).

    The purpose of a bi-partisan government is balance/wise choices/moderation, isn’t it? We need more of this in Utah. For example, when I compare the urban sprawl and horrible billboards (which ruin the view) all over Utah county to the more careful development of more bi-partisan states, I am depressed.

  3. Steve M,

    Jarvis is certainly the underdog, but I think the political landscape is changing and that he has a chance. Some of this is due to how Obama has energized a lot of young people. I’m not involved with the BYU Democrats, but I’ve heard that there were remarkable unprecedented numbers at their opening social last week (standing room only in a fairly large auditorium style classroom at BYU). Other factors include a growing number of Utah voters who are dissatisfied with the Utah legislature (read: vouchers and immigration) and the Bush administration. There are lots of registered Republicans who have already committed to voting for Jarvis and have put his signs on their lawns. A possible third factor is an increasing recognition of, as well as an outreach towards, a bipartisan Church membership. These factors could also combine to cultivate a “feel good” factor: voters, I think, are growing increasingly guilty about voting for a straight party ticket and so they (perhaps subconsciously) look for reasons to support one or two candidates from the other party.

    You are certainly right about BYU students’ apathy about local politics, historically anyway. But this is a two way street — local politicians also have not cared much for BYU students. I think that a lot of students will vote for Jarvis simply because he’s someone who has taken an interest in them. At any rate, I don’t see how this is a “big risk.” I don’t see Jarvis’ interest in students as taking away from his politicking in the more residential areas. It does go without saying, though, that Jarvis needs student votes to win.

  4. If BYU students are somewhat apathetic about politics, its for the following reasons
    – lack of choice – really – republican or republican – arguing over street signs
    – temporary – a lot of students are there only for a short time, before moving to other places – even if moving to salt lake or other parts of UC, who the mayor or representative is from provo doesn’t matter
    – lack of reg – since many are from out of state – many will want to maintain their homestate residency for grad school or other benefits
    – Typical lack of youth involvement

  5. Dennis,

    Thank you for this well written analysis of Steve Clark’s blog. It does my heart good to see that other people are as concerned as I am about the ‘red herring’ political party affliation has become in a government that was designed to be run by the People.

    I am yet another candidate running in Provo as a Utah Democrat. I was very disappointed and frankly discouraged by Clark’s blog. I know and respect the Clark family tremendously, but in reading Clark’s blog, “Distinguishing Republicans from Democrats in Utah” I came face to face with the untrue rhetoric of “you can’t be a good Mormon and a Democrat” rhetoric that I believe the Republican Party in Utah has promoted.

    Thank you for shining a bright light on the truth – you can find good people in each party. But if we truly want a government that is for the people, of the people, and by the people – we have got to stop focusing on Party Politics.

  6. Dennis,

    You may be (and probably are) right about BYU students’ increased interest in local politics and increased likelihood of voting for a Democrat.

    Re BYU student apathy toward local politics, I was just thinking of the one guy (his name escapes me) who ran and lost against the incumbent Provo mayor twice over the past several years. As I recall, he made a big effort to reach out to BYU students, but that demographic twice failed to vote him into office. I got the feeling that most students just didn’t care.

    As Jay S touched upon, another complicating factor may have been that most BYU students are from out of state, and hence may not have been registered to vote in Utah. I imagine that this has not changed.

    For these reasons, I think that banking on BYU students’ votes in a local election is a risky campaign strategy. Young voters are notorious for not voting, even in presidential elections. I imagine that trend is even more pronounced on the local level, especially when transient students from out of state are involved.

  7. Jarvis, on the other hand, is willing to do what a majority of Utah voters want: to pay our school teachers what they are worth, and to rid Utah of its embarrassing teacher salary rating (45th in the nation, in spite of having the highest number of students per teacher).

    Out of curiosity, where does Jarvis propose we get the money to do this? Utahns already pay some of the highest state taxes in the nation. And the state devotes a higher percentage of its budget to education than any of its neighbors do. Per the US Census Bureau, in 2006 40% of Utah’s state expenditures went to education. Compare that to Nevada (34%), Arizona (31%), Colorado (35%), Idaho (34%), and Wyoming (27%). (California, in case you were wondering, is at 31%.)

    Utah’s education woes (such as they are) don’t arise from heartless Republicans. They arise from the fact that Utahns of both political parties tend to have a lot of kids. The state simply can’t afford to educate all those kids while simultaneously giving teachers the kind of salaries they’d find elsewhere.

  8. Oh, I left out New Mexico in my analysis of Utah’s neighbors’ education spending. For anyone interested, the figure is 33%.

  9. I was recently a BYU student and its probably true that students there are somewhat apathetic towards local politics, but probably more likely is that most are not local residents and don’t vote there. Most people I knew were not from the area and maintained their legal residences at home. I’d like to know what percentage of BYU students are actually registered to vote locally.

  10. The Utah Republican party lost me a long time ago. I remember as a freshman reading an article where a prominent LDS politician said that he wasn’t sure how any member of the church could be a Democrat and reconcile that with the belief that they’re a good member.

    You know, despite evidence to the contrary or statements from our leadership.

    I realize it’s quite bogus of me to use one lame comment from a cruddy politician to write off an entire party within a state, but this sort of thing makes me really wary of all of the members that vote according to a cultural belief like that.

  11. Utah spends the least per student on education, yet is somewhere in the middle of the pack based on various measures of being the best educated state. Think where Utah might rank if it ramped up educational spending per capita to something closer to the national average. It is hard to do that because of the reflexive opposition of Republicans to taxes. But taxes are the price we pay for civilization.

    Utah Democrats need to differentiate themselves sharply from the national Democratic Party and then challenge Utah Republicans to sharply differentiate themselves from the national Republican Party, which has agendas (e.g. vouchers) at odds with view of most of Utah’s citizens.

  12. Just in case there was any question about Stephen Clark’s heavy partisanship, here is the latest from his blog:

    The battle of signs has begun in district #63. Campaign strategists tell me that signs do little to garner votes or even change votes but it’s fun to compete for yard locations. I find it interesting some folks will have both candidate’s signs on their lawn. It’s OK. I believe the reason for this is some candidates don’t put their party affiliation on their signs hoping people will think its a non-partisan race. The “battle of the lawn signs” goes on but the most important sign will be the D or R on the ballot in the voting booth.

    I beg to differ, Mr. Clark. The most important sign is the candidate’s name. Utah voters are tired of this kind of us-versus-them politics.

  13. More from Stephen Clark.

    This is his latest post in its entirety (verbatim, without strange errors corrected), entitled “Who is your choice for president?”

    I am voting for the McCain/Palin ticket?

    I would like to know who the Utah County Democrats are voting for – it may be a great questions to ask them when you see them.

    If they are joining me supporting the McCain/Palin ticket I hope they will be willing to plant a McCain/Palin sign on their front lawn.

    More guilt by association. The fact that this is what Clark continues to focus on really convinces me that he has little to say beyond these petty games.

    At any rate, the Utah County Democrats (regardless of who they are voting for) are hardly alone in not putting a McCain/Palin sign on their lawn. Perhaps Clark should be more concerned about all the Republicans in his district without such a sign.

    And about who he is voting for. Given the question mark, that is.

  14. Now – all of my thoughts below being said, I am totally dismayed that Obama seems to support the Freedom of Choice Act and is opposed to the Defense of Marriage Act. So, do we vote for him or not?
    And did you see the latest article in the October Ensign by Russell M. Nelson entitled “Abortion, an Assault on the Defenseless”? In 2006, there was 1.8 million LDS member in Utah (that’s 72 percent of the population). With a torrent of lies coming in from the Republicans about Democrats, and now with this article essentially making this a One Issue Only election again, I feel we are doomed in most of our elections, no matter what other wonderful blessings our candidates have to offer the people. It is wrong to base our choice of candidates on this one issue only, but it will be the case here in Utah.
    I truly, really feel that until we let go “of the bloody hand of abortion”, we will not ever get elected by the majority in this state. We can, we must, change our position on it!!
    “The wrongness of centering the election of public officials around this one issue only.”
    OK, here is what my research has brought: Please refer to the following statistics on abortion rates from Johnston Archive (stats compiled from CDC, Dept of Health, Office for National Statistics, Census Bureau, etc.):
    Republican, Nixon, 6 years, 11%
    Republican, Ford, 2 years, 23%
    Democrat, Carter, 4 years, 28%
    Republican, Reagan, 8 years 28%
    Republican, HW Bush ,4 years 27%
    Democrat, Clinton, 8 years 23%
    Republican, W Bush, 5 years 20%

    From 1969 to 2005 (last year of National Records), Republicans have been in office for 25 years, Democrats for 12. The Republicans have been “in power” twice as long as Democrats, yet we still had about 760,000 abortions in the US (2005). If the Republicans are so against abortion, then why does the abortion rate during the years of Presidency for Republicans and Democrats seem to rise and fall regardless of which party is in office?
    For one thing, the President does not have executive power to change it. Only the Supreme Court can over turn Roe V Wade (1973, during Republican Nixon’s Term) and none will do so based on the Constitution, and the Republicans who have been in office have given no legal cause for it to be over turned, whether they say they disagree with it or not. So even if the next president gets to add judges, the law will not be changed.
    But the biggest reason is this: each and every election year the Republicans use Abortion as a wedge issue to try to win votes from those of us who are anti-abortion. It doesn’t matter that their other policies have disastrously hurt the American people nor do they seem to care about anything except helping the rich. And when they win, they don’t really do anything about abortion. (There were almost 4000 abortions in Utah in 2006!) Why should they, when it’s one of the most powerful issues they lean on to help them get elected. If they actually did something about it, then all the other important issues would actually be emphasized, and they would be judged on their other selfish issues, as they do not really represent the best interests of the “you’s and me’s” in this nation.
    McCain has said “… in the short term, or even-the long-term, I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.” (And he also said “Ban on same-sex marriage is unRepublican; leave it to states.) McCain is also much less pro-life because he feels that the bottom line of a corporation is more important than the health and well-being of people when it come to environmental choices. Education is not one of his priorities – but war is. McCain’s life seems so centered in himself, graduating from Naval Academy because of his father, being able to be a pilot because of his father even though he graduated about last in his class of over 600, marrying a swim-suit model, coming home from that horrendous five years in prison, then marrying beauty-queen Cindy (after we know he had an affair with her), and then just a few years ago almost getting “involved” with young lobbyist Vicki Iseman until told to ‘back-off’ by his advisors. That, to me, does not represent family values. Nor does beauty queen Palin’s decision to leave her family to politically aggrandize herself.
    Obama has said “We can find common ground between pro-choice and pro-life. (Apr 2008)” (And he also said “Gays should not face discrimination but should not marry.”) Obama also is much more pro-life in that he wants to curtail environmental toxins and pollutions that assault our defenseless little children and cause birth defects, cancer, and other major health problems and the pre-mature death of thousands of people every year. And 3/4th of women who get an abortion do so because they feel they can’t afford a child. Obama wants to make it less likely that women will need an abortion because he will ensure they get the support they need to raise that child. Obama also values and will ensure education as one of his top priorities. Obama’s life has been one of truly caring about people and trying to make a difference for good, of helping people, of taking the “high road” of integrity, bettering himself through education so he could be more useful for others, and having a sincere desire to truly bless the lives of the American people.

  15. Thank you for your post- very well informed- i think if all Christians vote based on this one issue, (abortion) about which Republicans have been doing nothing more than paying lip service for many years, they will be doing themselves and their country a great disservice. There are many other issues to consider and – even President Monson issued a statement reiterating that the church does not endorse any political party and that policies that are in accordance with the principles and teachings of the church can be found in all (read both) political parties- so study ALL the issues, the ones that are important to you as an individual and the country at large and don’t believe ads and propaganda- really search and study and ponder for yourselves.

  16. If Clark feels lawn signs are ineffective and a silly game, why does he have a sign strategically placed right outside the temple (I’m assuming it’s still there), for those leaving to the parking lot to see? Frankly, I question whether he had permission to put it there, and am disgusted he would choose this spot. It isn’t in a yard and thus doesn’t even demonstrate that someone is supporting him.

  17. The latest partisan talk from Steve Clark:

    Here’s the entire text from a post called Palin Biden Debate:

    In tonight’s debate it was clear where the Democrats stand on the definition of “marriage.” Gov. Palin made it clear that Republicans defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Sen. Biden defined marriage as a union or contract between anybody. The sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman must never be compromised. A vote for Obama/Biden and Democratic candidates is a vote against preserving marriage.

    The logician in me can’t resist tearing apart this fallacious argument. Let’s start with the ridiculous claim,

    A vote for Obama/Biden and Democratic candidates is a vote against preserving marriage.

    This claim rests on several premises. I want to pick apart just a few:

    1. Those who do not define marriage as “a union between a man and a woman” will not preserve marriage.

    2. Biden (and Obama) do not define marriage as “a union between a man and a woman.”

    This is not true, considering that both are explicitly against gay marriage. Nor did Biden define marriage as “a union or contract between anybody.”

    3. All Democrat candidates agree with Obama/Biden’s views on marriage.

    To dispute this premise, we only need to find one Democrat candidate who does not agree with Obama/Biden’s views on marriage (while recognizing that these views are not as extreme as Clark makes them out to be). There are many, but I will specify only one: Clark’s own opponent, Don Jarvis, who defines marriage in the exact same way that Clark does. Clark, of course, does not want to tell you this, because he’d rather focus on generic boiler plates which deceive and divide.

    4. Any person who votes for Obama/Biden is voting against preserving marriage.

    This premise, of course, is fallacious due to the refutation of premise 2.

    But who cares about logic? All Republicans are God’s servants! All Democrats are Satan’s spawn! Join Republican Steve Clark! I am, after all, a Republican. If fact, I promise that, if elected, I will remain a Republican throughout my tenure. That is all you should really care about. Because traditional marriage cannot be compromised, I will do nothing except be a Republican in order to keep the wicked Democrats out of office who will destroy marriage!

    Forgive the hyperbole, but this is, in all seriousness, the message that Clark seems to be sending.

  18. It gets more even more laughable over at Steve Clark’s blog. Here’s the entire text from a post called, “Differences between Democrats and Republicans are starting to show!”:

    Today I noticed in a Democrat handout some differences between Utah County Republicans and Democrats. Hopefully, we can now start seeing the differences to help voters chose [sic]. Hopefully, voters will soon be able to distinguish between the parties and candidates. Hopefully, voters will find out Democrats are not Republicans regardless of their Utah County platform. I believe the Democrat strategy to disguise their Democrat affiliation in their campaign presentations, literature and signs is questionable campaign ethics – a campaign issue Democrats are using against Republicans.

    I love how Clark vaguely refers to “a Democrat handout” and does not specify what the differences are. Is it possible that Clark simply wants to scare simple-minded voters into thinking that there ARE differences, and those differences must be BAD! Don’t worry what they are — trust me, Republican Steve Clark, and I won’t lead you astray.

    But what is hilarious is Clark’s questioning the ethics of Democratic candidates who don’t put their party on campaign material! He can’t be serious! I’ll tell you what, Mr. Clark, if you agree to be upfront to voters about your conflicts of interest, then I’ll grant you this point. Until then, you have to nothing to say. Especially considering that it is standard practice to NOT put your party on campaign materials for a general election. If this is unethical, then a vote for Obama or McCain (who you openly support) is supporting this, considering that neither put their party affiliation on their campaign material. Nor do hundreds of local candidates, Republican and Democrat, across the nation.

  19. Dennis,

    “This is not true, considering that [Obama and Biden] are explicitly against gay marriage.”

    I disagree, I would argue that Senator Obama is implicitly in favor of same-sex marriage, despite what he claims, for four reasons:

    1. He is opposing Proposition 8 in California – The California Supreme Court forced Same-Sex Marriage on California. The only recourse that Californians have is to put an amendent into their Constitution to put the issue out of the hands of the judges. Obama is being two-faced, he is claiming to be against SSM and then fighting against the only way to prevent it.

    2. He wants to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act – This is the law that is protecting states from being forced to recognize same-sex marriages in other states. This is also the reason that many justify not putting a Marriage Amendment into the Constitution since DOMA should protect states. But Obama wants to repeal it. So I guess that means we need to go the amendment route right? Well onto number 3…

    3. Senator Obama opposes putting a Marriage Amendment into the Constitution to protect traditional marriage. His opposition differs from Senator McCain as Senator McCain has indicated that while he opposes the amendment on Federalism grounds he would be in favor of it if the courts ever forced SSM on the nation. Obama on the other hand considers the amendment divisive. So once again he claims to be against SSM, but will do nothing to stop it from happening.

    4. He favors the type of judge that will find a constitutional right to SSM. He wants to fill the US Supreme Court with the same kind of judges that decided California and Massachusettes had to allow same-sex marriages. This is the liberal mode of operation. Instead of trying to convince the public to support controversial social positions, they pack the court with like-minded individuals that will force the unpopular position on the nation.

    I really don’t understand how anyone can take Obama at his word regarding his opposition to Same-Sex Marriage. He talks one way but his actions always go the other way. Isn’t it obvious that it’s all an act?

  20. Obama’s facade is transparent to a lot of people, Aluwid…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: