Count on my good friend and independent-thinking WTMA “Morning Buzz” host Richard Todd to give the Constitution Party’s presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin a better interview than most “conservative” hosts. Richard has voted 3rd party in the past and understands the importance of breaking up the two-party monopoly. And for the record, I am currently deciding between Baldwin and Bob Barr. Two solid choices that conservatives can feel comfortable with.
Courtesy of Third Party Watch:
11 Comments
I viewed Chuck Baldwin’s website, and could not find his stand on gay civil unions, gay adoption, hate crime legislation, or gays in the military.
I did look into the Constitution Party’s platform, however. If the platform had simply stated that such legislation should be determined by the state, not the federal government, I would have supported this party’s presidential candidate. But this party openly despises the three to seven per cent of our nation’s citizens who are gay, and makes no bones about their hatred of us. This is wrong. For this reason, I will never vote for Baldwin or any other Constitution Party candidate.
Why should sexual deviants be appeased? Accepting gays would be discriminating against other freaks like pediphiles and polygamists.
Prison is a perfect place for any man who commits sodemy.
I could care less about what homosexuals do. Most Constitution Party members are hard-Right Christians who look down on it. Yet, so long as they take the states rights’, local control approach (no federal laws or regulations) I don’t care – as that reflects my opinion as well. I would oppose pro-gay federal legislation on the same grounds. Same with drugs.
I like Barr, but am leaning Baldwin.
Jack
Our country was founded on Christian principles, not Christian dogma. That is why our nation’s founding documents are the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, not the Bible or the Ten Commandments. If this party came into power, they would do everything they could to dismantle the First Amendment and the separation of religion and government contained therein. They are evil, and I will do whatever I can to oppose their bid for power.
Baldwin is a theocrat. i can’t actually believe you’d vote for him.
Yeah i have no problems with Chuck, well none that I can think of right now.. Im still debating on whether Im gonna vote for him or Barr or even write in Ron Paul’s name.. As for the whole gay rights issue I was seeing in the comments, who f’ing cares? Do you hear me bitching and moaning just because I dont get any special treatment as a single white dude? No. And honestly Im sick of all these little groups complaining about minuscule things when we have much bigger and more important issues on the table to be worrying about. Also for Brad who says our country was founded on Christian principles.. Do you have any idea why the pilgrims and such came to this country? It was because they were leaving England and other countries that were creating a church run by the state and forcing people to go to that particular church or face persecution. It frustrates me to no end to see people just throw out the 1st amendment completely out of context and not to even know the history behind it.. Ok I’m done ranting now lol..
Obviously, you haven’t studied your history. The Puritan Pilgrims came here because they were such self-righteous prudes, no one in England would tolerate them.
The separation of church and state contained in the First Amendment is real and at serious threat from the Christian Right.
And equal rights for gays is not “special rights”. It is simply the same rights that you already possess. The right to a legally recognized union with all the legal and financial sanctions it provides, the right to serve in the armed forces, the right to adopt, the right to serve on police and fire forces, the right to visit my partner of 12 years in the hospital without having to seek permission from the biological family, who can have me legally barred from seeing him.
And as for who cares about gay rights—I do. At fifty years of age, I’m tired of being a second-class citizen in my own home state because of the unreasonable prejudices of Christian dogma. And I will continue to speak out against it until my dying day.
Self righteous prudes? haha yeah thats why they were being persecuted over there.. They wanted to be able to worship freely, the Church of England wasn’t allowing them to do that. Where have you been getting your information on the subject?
I will not go into why the pilgrims came over (because I, embarrassingly, do not know enough about the subject). As for the whole gay rights issue, I am happily married to a wonderful woman. Her brother is gay, and has a hard road ahead of him for the reasons Brad just listed (among others). I don’t want gay citizens to have special rights, but I have also not met a single gay person who asks for more than a straight citizen would ask for (most of them just want a fair shake at life). Those issues that Brad brought up are very real, they are not primary concerns for me because I am not affected by it daily. It is true, gays do not get the same tax treatment as married straight couples. Privacy rights become a nightmare when a partner is trying to access health or financial information (or visit in the hospital like Brad said). Also, in the state of Texas, there is only one insurance company (Aetna) that allows domestic partners to be covered under the same policy. I am not saying that these issues are more important than securing our borders or reducing the size of government, but it would be nice if people would at least recognize what the gay community struggles with on a daily basis. In my opinion, the government should stay out of our wallets and our bedrooms, just let people live they way they would like as long as they are not hurting others.
I believe that God speaks through others, and that He has spoken through you, Cory. God bless you and your loved ones. Sincerely, Brad
“The right to a legally recognized union with all the legal and financial sanctions it provides, the right to serve in the armed forces, the right to adopt, the right to serve on police and fire forces, the right to visit my partner of 12 years in the hospital without having to seek permission from the biological family, who can have me legally barred from seeing him.”
There’s a lot of “rights” being thrown around here. Neither you or I do have a “right” to serve on the fire or police forces anywhere. Those responsible for those forces have the liberty and responsibility to consider who they want to serve on them. Often, many apply and few are chosen. None have a “right” to serve on them.
If you want access to your partner’s room if they are incapacitated, be sure to have health care surrogacy documents filled out in advance that outline the will of your partner. This is a good idea for everyone, lest we find ourselves having people we do not approave of, or even worse, the government making life and death decisions on our behalf if we are ever incapacitated. Health care surrogacy documents (and durable power of attorney) filled out and filed – accomplished- problem solved.
Marriage did not used to be an issue that government was at the center of. (Neither Abraham and Sarah, nor John and Abagail Adams had to have a government issued license to become married.) Nor should it be the case now. Getting government more involved will not help. Getting it out of what should be a private covenant and sacred, will.
What legal or financial benefits are provided to any personal relationship should be up to people and companies freely to determine for themselves. Government should not force them to provide you or anyone else financial benefits. If people or companies choose not to provide you contractual benefits – for whatever reason, that is also their right. It is their property and their right to enter into the contract of their choice. This does not make whatever their choice is moral or immoral, it simply reflects true liberty and rights of property ownership.
No matter what you do, some people will not like your choices of lifestyle and belief. But consider that many do not approve of my choice of beliefs as a Christian…but I do not advocate the use of government force to force them to “approve” of my beliefs or lifestyle publicly- or to force others to grant me social status or financial benefits based on those choices.
If someone does not want to rent their property to me because I am a Christian, they should be at liberty to make that choice since it is their property, not mine. That does not make their choice moral, but rather it preserves liberty of conscience – which allows for choices, often including the choice between right and wrong.
Similarly, others should not be forced to sanction or approve of your choices or to treat you (or me) in a particular fashion that indicates moral approval of our (very different) choices of lifestyle and conduct.
It is not the proper duty of government to force anyone to accept or reject the morality related choices of others, for such are matters of conscience.
And that includes getting the government to rubber stamp your choices as “approved and moral” and then have government force others to treat you as if they personally approved of your moral choices.