Bazooka wrote:But Droopy,
If you were in the UK and voted for one of the major parties, you would be voting FOR the ratification of same sex marriage (as they all wish to put policies in place to let it go ahead).
That's just pointing out that when I voted for George Bush, I knew that I was probably going to get bigger, more expansive, intrusive government. I also voted for Romney knowing that he was a marginal conservative, at best, with no real agenda of substantial government reform with the idea of moving the nation toward limited, constitutional government, save perhaps in the sense of tweaking things around the periphery. both these, however, were much preferable to the neo-Marxism/liberal fascism of the Democratic Party.
This would mean you have supported a group whose beliefs/teachings are in opposition to those of the Church which invalidates your temple recommend.
A political party, at least in free societies, is a cornucopia of policy prescriptions and stated positions on numerous issues, and always involve trade-offs, not clear solutions or perfect amalgamations of pure doctrines. Indeed, nothing like that exists in the mortal, human world.
At some point (coming closer by the day), I probably will be forced to bow out of voting altogether, as a matter of principle, but that day is not yet.
Also, you're butting up against a core principle of "middle way," big tent Mormonism here, by making a single issue within a broader mix of issues in a democratic nation a sign of apostasy. A number here, and even at the FAIR board, will tell you that one may be a socialist, communist, or fascist, and still be a good Mormon. One's core political philosophy and worldview don't matter. I assume this also applies to Nazism, but I've never been able to get a straight answer from any of the liberals who hold this big tent view of the Church to engage me on that (though it would certainly, it appears, have to apply to revolutionary Marxism-Leninism).
Really, you should leave this kind of sophistry to Darth, as he's much more entertaining in his presentation.
The answer, of course, is that in voting for a party who's mix of issues and policies is preferable to those of another party, and which contains a preponderance of policy positions generally compatible with way in which the Church indicates I should lean, I'm actually not voting for any particular policy, but for the mix, while reserving criticism (as I have for the Republicans) on specific issues.
Single issue voters (such as certain pro-lifers) who refuse to participate in the political life of the nation unless a pure position is represented by the broader coalition that makes up a political party, have left the field of battle and given ground on a plethora of issues, not just the one on which they have focused.
I'm not like that, although, to be clear, at some point, as the Republicans continue to follow the Democrats like seagulls behind a cruise ship, I will be forced to bow out, sit back, and watch events unfold, hopefully from a front row seat in Zion.
I don't want to miss any of the action, I just don't want to be any part of it.