Going Team Fiorina

It's still early to really, 100%, completely go all-in with a candidate. After all, there is still way too much time left for skeletons and dark marks to appear. Unless, of course, you are Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, and you are your own skeleton.
But as much as you can get behind a candidate this early on, I've decided I'm Team Fiorina.
I like Carly Fiorina's stance on abortion. I feel it's level, fair, and moral.

She's strong on education, and practices what she preaches. She has a master's degree. "You know one of the things this president loves to do is to distract us so I think he is trying to distract us from the fact that we have too many failing high schools in this country by offering community college for free. If we want to educate our children let us make sure that every parent has a choice and a chance to educate their children so that they can fulfill their potential." (Source: Forbes Magazine on 2015 Conservative Political Action Conf. , Mar 24, 2015)

Religious liberty is one of the most important topics on my list in this election cycle. Again, I think Fiorina has one of the most level, honest, and balanced answers to the gay marriage questions.

And personally, this interview on CBS This Morning sums up everything I feel about biased media questions and reporting. She completely nails exactly how I feel about voting and women. (And I can't stand Rush Limbaugh!)

So put me down in the Carly Fiorina column. I'm sold!

Polygamists Use Gay Marriage as a Defense or Right

The infamous polygamist Kody Brown family of the TV show “Sister Wives” has done what conservatives (particularly Mormons) have feared would happen ever since the gay marriage debate began to take hold. They used the same-sex marriage rulings to argue the legality of polygamy.  

The Browns have used this argument before in lower courts with some success. That includes the U.S. Supreme Court case of Obergefell v. Hodges, in which the court upheld the fundamental right of same-sex couples to marry, and Kitchen v. Herbert, the case that brought same-sex marriage to Utah. Turley also cites a Supreme Court case that decriminalized all gay sex as sodomy, Lawrence V. Texas.

In short, the Browns’ lawyer is arguing for the decriminalization or rejection of morality legislation. For the same reasons homosexuality was considered immoral and illegal, polygamy has as well. Now that the gay marriage contingent has convinced the world that this was an archaic belief, the polygamists want to make the same argument. If the argument on behalf of gay marriage is that any two people who want to be married should be allowed to do so, why can't polygamists legally marry? Polygamists don't marry one wife to another. They marry the woman to the man. It's still just a marriage of one woman to one man, but the man happens to also be married to another woman. If all parties are clear on the facts, using the gay marriage defense, why shouldn't it be legal? 

"From the rejection of morality legislation in Lawrence to the expansion of the protections of liberty interests in Obergefell, it is clear that states can no longer use criminal codes to coerce or punish those who choose to live in consensual but unpopular unions," Turley wrote in his answer to Utah's appeal.

When U.S. District Court Judge Clark Waddoups overturned Utah's ban on polygamy in December 2013, same-sex marriage wasn't mentioned in the ruling. The Browns want the want the U.S. 10th Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold Waddoups' ruling. The state has argued that polygamy is inherently harmful to women and children and that the Browns have not suffered from the law, because they haven't been prosecuted. (They were just threatened with lawsuits and run out of the state.)

It's an interesting legal argument. Why shouldn't polygamy be legalized? 

Ted Cruz Will Not Be President

Ted Cruz will not be the next GOP nominee for president. Neither will Ted Cruz be the next president.
Why?
Because he fumbled the ball. Big time.
He doesn't command a room. He isn't charismatic. He's not quick on his feet. And when asked while under the spotlight about a major tenet of his campaign platform, he couldn't give a coherent, straight answer.
Write Ted Cruz off. He's going nowhere.

Let's Connect! 

https://www.facebook.com/AuthorErinAnnMcBride 

http://twitter.com/erinannie 

https://instagram.com/erinannie17 

https://www.linkedin.com/in/erinmcbride 

https://www.goodreads.com/erinmcbride 

https://www.pinterest.com/erinannie/ 

http://www.amazon.com/Erin-Ann-McBride/e/B0094UQZSS/

Gay Marriage Part Two

If you are wondering why this is titled "Gay Marriage Part Two" and you can't recall part one, it is because part one was written over two years ago here - "I Can't Back the Gendered Marriage Fight."

It's fascinating how what I wrote two years ago regarding the Supreme Court and Prop 8 is still completely relevant to the current newsworthy DOMA decision.




Don't miss my new novel, "You Heard It Here First!" on Amazon, Nook, and Kindle!

Keep Discrimination Out of the Boy Scouts

Last week I read something so prejudiced, so full of self-righteous bias that it made me sad for hours. I had to stop reading it and walk away. For hours the thought haunted me that someone could be so blinded by their uneducated, prejudiced beliefs, as to proudly put it in print, and think that others would agree and sympathize with them. They probably even think that God will bless them for being so much more righteous than the rest of us. It depressed me for hours that this person is out there representing my religion and all that I hold dear. I knew I had to say something, I had to put my thoughts into print, and make it public, that such discrimination does not represent me, or the official position of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
The words left on www.ldsmag.com, in response to the official Church statement on the decision of the Boy Scouts of America to not discriminate or exclude gay young men from the program, were simply, “I’m so glad my boys are out of Scouts now. I would not want my little boy in the same troop as a gay 10 year old boy.” (The comment was moderated and deleted.)
To this person, and anyone else who has criticized the Church’s position, I ask you this- Why would the Church not support the BSA decision to allow gay young men in the program? After all, the Church allows gay young men to be members of the Church! A young man can be gay and pass the sacrament, so why should his sexual orientation keep him from obtaining a merit badge?
How Does the Church View Homosexuality?
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints acknowledges that same-sex attraction is a sensitive issue which requires kindness, compassion, and understanding… Not exclusion and discrimination.
The Church’s doctrinal position is clear: Sexual activity should only occur between a man and a woman who are married. However, that should never be used as justification for unkindness. Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation of sexual immorality, but never cruel. His interest was always to lift the individual, never to tear down. (https://www.lds.org/topics/same-gender-attraction?lang=eng)
In short, the Church firmly believes that all people are equally beloved children of God and deserve to be treated with love and respect. Church apostle Elder Quentin L. Cook stated, “As a church, nobody should be more loving and compassionate. Let us be at the forefront in terms of expressing love, compassion and outreach. Let’s not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender.”
Let’s repeat that last line. “Let’s not have families exclude or be disrespectful of those who choose a different lifestyle as a result of their feelings about their own gender.”

Love the Sinner, Hate the Sin, Know the Difference
Maybe it needs to be re-stated and explained in a more direct format for those who cannot separate down the difference between opposing gay marriage and a gay 10 year old boy.
The Church opposes gay marriage.
The Church does not oppose gays, regardless of age.
The Church does not oppose 10 year old boys, regardless of sexual persuasion.
The Church opposes pedophilia, sexual harassment, and discrimination.
Pedophilia, sexual molestation, and sexual harassment are crimes.
Homosexuality is not a crime.
Acts of discrimination are crimes.
Not all gays are men.
Not all pedophiles and sexual predators are gay. Many are straight.
Not all gays are pedophiles or sexual predators. In fact, most are not.
A ten year old boy is unlikely to act on feelings of attraction, whether straight or gay. Any ten year old boy who makes inappropriate sexual advances on another boy or a girl, needs emotional counseling and assistance. This is a child that needs help, not hate.
A young boy will not “turn gay” or suffer from any sort of malady by sitting next to a gay young man at a troop meeting. He is, however, likely to learn discrimination, bias, and prejudices from his parents.
Not all gay individuals are out to convert you. They will not all be attracted to you. They are not attracted to every member of the same sex in the same way that you are not automatically attracted to ever single member of the opposite sex. To assume that a gay young child will "hit on" or "try to convince" your child of the same sex is not only naive but delusional.

Elder Jeffrey R. Holland said, “You see, same-gender attraction is not a sin, but acting on those feelings is—just as it would be with heterosexual feelings.”
To those individuals who feel that the second a man looks at another man “in a gay way,” and thinks that just the natural feeling of attraction is a sin, might I remind you of Matthew 5:28, “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Do you intend to hold yourself, and all other straight individuals, to that same standard? Are you without sin? Can you cast that first stone?
President Boyd K. Packer made the point equally clear when speaking to Church members with same-gender attraction. “‘We do not reject you…We cannot reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We will not reject you, because we love you.’”
With the Church’s position so openly and obviously clear, why would anyone doubt the continuing alliance with the Boy Scouts?

Help! There’s a Gay Child in the Scout Troop!
If you are uncomfortable with your child being in the same troop (or classroom, car, or at a birthday party) with another child (for whatever reason- whether it be sexual orientation, behavior, language, etc.), you are always welcome and able to sit in and watch or supervise the proceedings. Watch and see if your concerns about the other child are warranted. I have never found or heard of a troop or classroom that had too much parental involvement.
Parents, what will you tell your son when you pull him out of Boy Scouts? “I’m sorry, but there may be a gay little boy in your troop someday, so we can no longer support this organization. Don’t listen to anything the prophet and apostles have said about not rejecting others with same gender attraction, or whether or not it is a sin. I know better.”
Or will you teach your son that we, like Christ, choose to love all of God’s children? And that you hope he will join his voice “with others in unreserved condemnation of acts of cruelty or attempts to belittle or mock any group or individual that is different – whether those differences arise from race, religion, mental challenges, social status, sexual orientation or for any other reason. Such actions simply have no place in our society.”
Will you remind your son that in this Church we believe that regardless of sexual orientation, “any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, and we define marriage as between a man and a woman. However, that should never, ever be used as justification for unkindness. Jesus Christ, whom we follow, was clear in His condemnation of sexual immorality, but never cruel?”
I can only sympathize with and pray for parents of a gay little boy (or girl). It must be hard to know that your son or daughter will grow up in a world full of prejudices against them, even within the Church. How hard must it be for a loving parent to hear ward members or neighbors say that they would rather remove their children from the Scouting program, than let them socialize with a gay child. My heart breaks for the parent of the gay child.
In my personal experience, a ten year old boy, eight year old, or even twelve year old boy, is highly unlikely to express preferences of sexual attraction, even if he has already experienced them. Ten year old boys are highly unlikely to share deep feelings about anything at all! Ten year old boys are more likely to avoid contact with girls, let alone talk to them, or about them. Ten year old boys are just not known for sitting around and talking about what kind of girl they are hoping to spend some alone time with. A ten year old boy with an attraction to other boys is just as likely, if not more likely, to avoid discussing his feelings. He knows that others view such feelings with prejudice, and will not share them openly. How sad that such a young boy must already know prejudice and that adults don’t like him, just because he exists.
Considering the lack of emoting and sexual activity of most young boys, the BSA decision is irrelevant to the regular operations of the Scouts. But it must bring some comfort to parents to know that their son will not be kicked out or left out, if he has indeed expressed a sexual identity at such a young age.
Again, with the Church’s position so openly and obviously clear, why would anyone doubt their alliance with the Boy Scouts?
“We do not reject you…We cannot reject you, for you are the sons and daughters of God. We will not reject you, because we love you.”


  http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-mormon-responds-to-human-rights-campaign-petition-same-sex-attraction
  https://www.lds.org/liahona/2007/10/helping-those-who-struggle-with-same-gender-attraction?lang=eng
  “Ye Are the Temple of God,” Liahona, Jan. 2001, 87.
  http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-mormon-responds-to-human-rights-campaign-petition-same-sex-attraction
  http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/church-mormon-responds-to-human-rights-campaign-petition-same-sex-attraction

Don't miss my new novel, "You Heard It Here First!" on Amazon, Nook, and Kindle!

I can't back the "gendered marriage" fight.

At this exact moment as I sit here typing, the US Supreme Court is debating gay marriage. The Court will weigh 2 different cases this week. Today it is the appeal of California Proposition 8 (Prop 8), which banned gay marriage. The second case will be heard tomorrow regarding the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

I am personally somewhat torn on the issue(s). I'm a conservative [mostly] Republican, as such, one might expect I would be completely in favor of "defending" marriage, and opposing gay marriage. 

However, I do not. I was opposed at some point in the past, when all things gay were distasteful to me. I have changed and matured, and realized that was a petty, ignorant, and small-minded way to think. I do not in any way, shape, or form, hold bias against, or discriminate against my homosexual fellow humans. 
The official position of my church is "We firmly support the divinely appointed definition of marriage as the union between a man and a woman because it is the single most important institution for strengthening children, families, and society."  And as such, I choose to stand on the side of my church. 
However, I do not agree with anyone who uses the well-being or protection of children as their reason for fighting gay marriage. If your reason for opposing gay marriage is based in religion and the belief that marriage is "divinely appointed... between a man and a woman" then say so. That I can support. That I believe in. 
But I cannot support  the Religious Right, (RR), or "defenders of marriage," that have this strange desire to legislate the world into what they want it to be, where every child has a mother and a father, and lives in the suburbs, with a dog and a cat. That is not what the real world really looks like. I don't condone them for wanting it to look like that, but it isn't realistic, and it doesn't actually help anyone.

Let me explain. 

Most families will never fit the RR's vision for what a family looks like or should be.  Of couples that marry, not all will produce biological children. Not all couples will stay married. Most homes do not fit the "traditional" mold. 

And yet, all of the RR arguments are to encourage that mold. 

This is small-minded thinking. you cannot legislate to make everyone look or act like you. To think that blocking gay marriage will create these perfect families is like trying to put the toothpaste back in the tube- it just won't work. Most homes are already divorced, or single parented, or adopted, or fostered. They are not perfectly little Cleaver Clans. We cannot legislate with the idea and goal that we all want or have that. It's great that that is what they want (to be the Cleavers), but most households don't, and won't, ever look like that. 
So instead of blocking gay marriage, and pretending this somehow is better for children, I choose to not take side. I choose to focus on charitable activities and actual legislation that really would help less fortunate children. (You want to make a difference? Donate $18 to RiverKids, and feed a child in Cambodia for 2 months, and help protect the child from the very real possibility of sex trafficking.)

The following article was printed in a conservative publication. I choose to not cite it or link to it, because I don't want to send traffic to it, or attract the attention of the writers to my own blog.  It is a perfect example of using emotional rhetoric and claims with no basis in reality or facts. One major reason I cannot support the RR fight is their lack of credible, scientific facts and claims. 
 
The following article ran with the title "The Inequalities of "Equal" Marriage." I have inserted by retorts and rebuffs in red. The largest failure of this article is to make any mention of adopted children, step-children, children of divorce, abandoned children, foster children, etc.

Same-sex Marriage vs Religious Freedom

Today in Meridian Magazine I ask the question, how long will it be before advocates force a discussion on which "right" is more important- the right to same-sex marriage or the freedom to exercise religion?

At first glance the question may seem outlandish and extremist to those who have not closely followed the issues. But the truth is, we may be asking that question within the next year.

Normally I do not like to make statements such as, "If we get four more years of Obama we'll never..." But this is an exception to that rule. If President Obama is re-elected, it is very possible that there will be a religion versus sexual orientation debate in the near future.

The Democratic National Committee drafting committee voted unanimously on Sunday to include same-sex marriage on the party platform. Despite the excitement from same-sex marriage supporters, the vote still has to be approved by the full DNC platform committee in two weeks, and then be voted in by convention delegates in Charlotte before the plank officially becomes part of the platform.

“There was a unanimous decision in the drafting committee to include it in the platform, which I supported, but everybody was for it,” committee member Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) told the Washington Blade.

In addition to support for same-sex marriage rights, the proposal included provisions that rebuke the Defense of Marriage Act and affirm the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. The specific language remains under wraps.

Needless to say, if Governor Romney wins, these issues will get discussed, but not at the same level as if President Obama wins. Same-sex marriage is not a plank in the Republican platform.

Obama supports gay marriage. Wait. You mean he didn't already?

I'm not sure which part I am more surprised about - the fact that President Obama had not yet come out in favor of gay marriage, or the fact that everyone is so surprised that he did.

Is it really all that shocking that a liberal Democrat, in an election year, is for gay marriage?

Let's discuss this one on straight up facts for a second.

Apparently until yesterday, he had publicly been against it, but his feelings were "evolving." Now let's be honest, how many people in this country can really and truly say that their feelings over same sex marriage and same sex equality haven't evolved over the past few years? Even the most ardent of anti-gay marriage opponents have let up a little on same sex equality when it comes to partner benefits, etc. Many have even come around to say that "they have no problem with gays," but for religious reasons oppose same sex marriage.
Because "evolving" feelings on same sex marriage is completely normal, you will not hear me complain about that.

So here's the thing, Republicans and media types, are already saying this will "hurt" the president. Really? How exactly? Were the conservative, pro-family types going to vote for him and won't now? Exactly what demographic did he just lose?

For those who will somehow say that Obama's gay marriage announcement was all staged and planned out starting with the VP Biden flub on the subject last week, I say again, really? You think that? Seriously? You think the President wanted it to come out via his VP, and not in a big, showy speech before a table of fundraisers or on television somewhere? No, Obama got outed accidentally, and no, I don't mean that in a gay "outing" sort of way. Not a play on words.

Obama had little to gain by coming out on the subject, except for a few more fundraising dollars. But he was going to get the support of that demographic already, because you know they weren't going to support Mitt Romney.

Personally, I think this may be a big story today, but when everyone wakes up tomorrow, they'll realize, it was anything but a big story.

Live Commenting on Mini Tuesday Results

If CNN and Fox News can be believed an hour before the caucuses even start, we may be in for an upset tonight. I'll be periodically live commenting throughout the night.


(You'll want to read this post from the bottom up!)

1:08 am:
To cap off the night, I just had to share my little Twitter moment of fun and fame for the night-

1:02 am- CNN gets the Colorado GOP Chair to call it live on air for Santorum. 
WOW!!
But we do not have the final exact number.
Oops, I typed that, and they gave the number immediately-
Santorum- 17,623 38%
Romney 17,169 37%
Gingrich 6,046 13%
Paul 5,745 12%
They still don't have 100% reporting in, but the state GOP says it is good. Considering the break down of proportional delegates, its more a tie. But good for Santorum! And wow, what a CRAZY upset!!

12:25 am - CNN has been warning for several hours that the results coming in from CO were not going to be a trend for the state. And they were right. Santorum had a hefty lead all night, but here at 12:25 am, we have -
Romney 37%
Santorum 35%
Gingrich 14%
Paul 13%.
Which is a serious change from the last update where Santorum had 41% and Romney was under 33%.
51% of precincts reporting. This is again another time to remember the difference between "51% of polls," 51% of votes, and 51% of precincts. The majority of precincts up to this point tonight were in very rural areas, with very small populations. All it took was one big precinct to completely overturn all the numbers.

12:05 am- An Occupyer just tried to glitter-bomb Romney, and got the full Secret Service escort out. You don't mess with the Secret Service!

Also, are we ready to declare Newt moot?


11:25 Updated Delegate Counts!
Remember, all delegates are proportional. So Santorum isn't taking all delegates from Minnesota.
Romney- 102 (picked up 2 in MN)
Gingrich - 35 (unchanged)
Paul- 17 (up 2)
Santorum- 16 (up 5)
That's actually a little sad. Santorum finally "wins" "2" states, and he's still in fourth place behind Paul who hasn't won anything.


11:25- Colorado 26% reporting: Santorum 42%, Romney 31%, Gingrich 15%, Paul 12%
But everyone is pointing out that no one believes we are close to being done in Colorado.

11:15- Apparently when Obama declared Super PACs good, Santorum decided to concur. Check out this picture-

The man with the white hair standing next to Santorum while he delivers his MO and MN victory speech is none other than Foster Friess, the head of the Santorum Super PAC. He's a Wyoming based investment manager, leader of Brandywine funds, and donor to Christian causes.
(Speaking of which, where is Jim Bob Duggar?)
Considering the laws about mixing campaigns and Super PACs are pretty specific about not mixing them directly, this is an incredibly gutsy, if not stupid, move by Santorum (who has also been out campaigning with him by his side for the last few days).

10:45- Funny comment seen on Twitter-
"To be fair, Mormons have never fared well in Missouri. #ExterminationOrder"
(you probably have to be Mormon to find that funny)

10:35- Minnesota officially called for Santorum. Assuming the stats stay true, and Santorum gets 46% of MN delegates, he's won 17 delegates tonight for a grand total of 28.  That's seven delegates behind Newt.

For the record, I'm happy for Santorum. I think he deserves a win after getting denied his victory lap in Iowa.

10:10- Food for thought - Winning huge in nonbinding contests is kind of like being undefeated in preseason football.
Noteworthy- Mitt Romney won Minnesota 2008 Primary with 41% (19% lead) or 25,990 votes.

Also, CNN is sitting around surmising that we'll Romney "deploy his surrogates" to start attacking Santorum now.  Specifically, Gloria Borger said that. I like most of the "experts" on CNN, but I swear G Borger is an idiot. Other than the one week of retaliation attacks on Gingrich, Romney has stayed focused on Obama. I look forward to seeing maybe tops, 1 day of comments about Santorum (he won't attack him, just comment), and Borger being wrong.

9:50- Someone updated Wolf Blitzer! With a whopping 1% reporting in (yes 1), it is exactly what CBS said. Why we care about 1% as anything other than a novelty is behind me. They have had only 406 votes actually counted in Colorado. I'm calling CBS crazy for calling anything based on 406 votes.

9:45- Missouri (and its zero candidates) goes to Santorum with over 50% of the vote.
In CO, with 5/76 precincts reporting, CBS estimates Santorum 50%, Gingrich 21%, Romney 19%, Paul 9%. And CBS is calling it for Santorum. Notably, CNN has not called it. In fact, while I'm typing this, Wolf Blitzer just said, "We know Romney is doing VERY well in Colorado." Either he needs an update, or CBS is out in left field.

The question has been raised on Twitter a few times tonight, what happens if Santorum does win tonight. Well, the answer is easy. If he were to take a full sweep which he won't because they are all proportional states, but let's just say he did, he would still be 29 delegates behind Romney.