Election2016: The Movie, the Legend, Part 2

[Chase]

The last time I wrote a thread about the American presidential race, we had an army of various "conservative types" running for the Republican nomination, and what is essentially #TeamHillary over on the Democratic side of the aisle.

Now, it's....well a little different. There's still several names in the hat for the GOP, still being headlined by Donald Trump, the former 'Apprentice' star and still-celebrity-businessman. Former Secretary of State and First Lady Hillary Clinton still is in the pole position for the Dems as well.

However, both races are closer with the big race officially underway - as the Iowa caucuses are just around the bend.

DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION

Leader: Hillary Clinton, Challenger: Bernie Sanders

Hillary Clinton is sitting quite nicely with a 49 percent stranglehold for the Blues, and if you're one of the folks that think President Obama's two-term stunt as Commander-In-Chief was mostly successful. There's really no reason -not- to vote against her.

Hillary hasn't been holding serve as well as her national support seems to give off however. She faces a very popular and surging opponent in Bernie Sanders, who is facing her as a radical leftist in comparison.

She's also having to fend off opportunistic Conservatives and opponents over her involvement in an e-mail scandal as well as areas of foreign policy mishaps such as the Benghazi incident. Fighting a two-front war should be good news for the Bern, except for the fact that Sanders is facing two problems of his own that are also causing him to miss on capitalizing as much as he could be.

Firstly, there is talk of former New York City Mayor Micheal Bloomberg potentially entering the Democratic sprint. This would seriously hurt the Sanders camp due to Bernie's highly socialistic agenda clashing with two popular and more moderate figures. Second, there's the socialism in itself not being so compatible with the way the Democratic Party wants to approach this election cycle. As the GOP is having to bare the burden of radical right-wing insurgents, a more moderate liberal might be too much of a boon to pass up, which means Bernie's smoke and mirrors may not be as effective when facing off against a Republican in the eyes of the DNC.

The smart play for the Dems is to nominate Clinton, regardless of how likable Sanders is. Hillary will by default put a lot of pressure on whoever is destined to win the GOP at this point in time due to being a well supported moderate candidate.

REPUBLICAN NOMINATION

Leader: Donald Trump, Challenger: Ted Cruz, Establishment Challenger: Marco Rubio

While the Democrats are at liberty to back a moderate candidate, the voter base behind the GOP isn't giving it's party the same luxury. At all.

Trump and Cruz, the party's highest scoring candidates, are outsiders. The Donald is a "newly born Conservative" with a big mouth, big money, and zero filter. His opponent, the Cruz Missile, is a guy who doesn't do what he does "to be liked." and cares more about the evangelical, Tea Party, and libertarian voter blocs than he does Washington.

Both of them are not "establishment" guys. In fact, both men are quite despised by the Elephants wearing the suits in D.C.

Those suits on the other hand, would prefer the infighting between candidates Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio to cease so they can unify their efforts in taking out the grassroots candidates.

The Republicans are facing a dire identity crisis. Party infighting is one of the major reasons candidates didn't show well in previous election cycles as of late, and those demons are most definitely back. The problem is - it may take picking the shinier of what the GOPers deem - of two turds.

So there you have it. Clinton v. Sanders, and Trump v. Cruz.....v. "the Republican Party?"..... What are your thoughts?

[Deleted User]

Will read more and give more in depth analysis tomorrow, but a quick few notes.

Hillary's National number lead is very misleading.

Two of the crucial primary state battlegrounds Iowa and New Hampshire

Iowa

Sanders: 46.0

Clinton: 45.8

New Hampshire

Sanders: 53.1

Clinton: 39.3

These two states are huge because they set the tone of the campaign, on top of that Bernie is surging while Hillary very well may be indicted any day now for her E-Mail scandal according to articles I've read.

The Dems, it's a coin flip at this point.

With the GOP, I'd say Trump is the front runner, but it's not as big of a lead over Cruz as you'd expect. Once others finally get the memo and start dropping, all the GOP anti-Trumpers will shift to one of the two leading candidates in Rubio and Cruz. With Cruz being the next closest, I think the majority will switch to him simply because they don't want Trump.

All in all, it's a 4 candidate race right now. Trump, Cruz, Clinton, Sanders. With Rubio hanging on for dear life. No one else has a chance and honestly should call it quits to save us all a bunch of time.

[Eviora]

I don't agree that Clinton is the smart choice for Democrats. Justified or not, she has a reputation of being dishonest and pandering to corporations. A Clinton nomination would result in some Democrats staying home out of disgust and some Republicans being drawn out of the woodwork just to spite her come November. Based on what I've seen, Sanders is more likely to have the opposite effect; people who don't usually involve themselves in politics are enthusiastic about him and even those who disagree with him ideologically may be willing to let it slide in the hopes of reaping the benefits of the systems he wants to put in place. But that's just my opinion, I suppose.

[mde2001]

From what I've read about it, I feel like Clinton is the right choice for the democrats. For a conservative country like America, Sanders is a little too far left to really be electable. I don't mind him, or what he stands for, I just feel like it would be hard to get moderate voters to vote for him.

Then again, the republicans aren't going to provide any sort of moderate for them to enjoy either. An election of Trump vs Sanders would be interesting (and slightly terrifying). I honestly don't have any clue who would win that match up as both seem to far down their respective sides of politics and unable to swing the moderate voters. I'd hope Sanders would win in that case (as if Trump wins I will be very afraid about world safety).

Things are clearly going strangely when a Bush is the moderate candidate (even though by this point he has literally no hope of being nominated).

In the case of that election I can see a lot of people not voting (although I do still think America should have compulsory voting, that's for a different time).

I still can't believe Trump's idiotic remarks haven't knocked him out the race. All of those people saying "he's honest and says what he thinks unlike all of those other cryptic politicians" are looking past that the opinions he's being honest about are racist, dangerous and idiotic. He is proud of the fact that he thinks he wouldn't lose voters if he shot someone. That is him acknowledging that his voters are devoid of morals and mindlessly voting for someone no matter what he does. That doesn't seem like something to be proud of for me.

Clinton certainly isn't perfect, but I think she is clearly the right candidate for the democrats and I think she could beat any of the current republican front runners. I want a democrat to win, if Sanders can do that, I'd be okay with his nomination, but I just don't think he has the potential to win over swing states.

That being said, in a country where Trump can be the front runner for a nomination it is pretty hard to judge who people will vote for.

[Chase]

Yeah, it's definitely a four man race.

Living in a very big "red-state" area in Texas - I can understand why people THINK Trump is a good candidate.

• Being one of the most successful (or most invested depending on who you ask) business mogul around means you can throw your weight around without needing the help of Super PACS and other fundraising shenanigans. This also make Trump out to be incredibly frugal (or again, invested on, depending on who you ask.)
• As a Republican voter, there -IS- a substantial amount of displeasure toward the GOP within the voter base. Essentially, Donald Trump is siding with the Republican voters against the Republican Party - as is Ted Cruz. Knowing Trump's sense of bravado and lack of empathy - he's proud to flaunt not having the "D.C. Stench."
• Donald Trump is -nothing- if not the most "transparent" candidate in the field. Yes, this means that what he says sounds REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY related to "hate speech" and "villianous" at times, but pairing this point with the one above it, the voters are not in a very empathetic mood towards President Obama, the Democratic Nominees -OR- the Republicans in Washington - so any time Trump speaks against any of those people (and their voter blocs, regrettably women and minorities) the voter base seems to believe "He's saying what we're all thinking!"

So, you don't like that Trump is being so successful? Democrats can GENUINELY blame the Republican Party for pissing off it's own voters. Free of charge. The only catch being - you have to admit that the current GOPers are "too liberal" for the conservative base to tolerate much longer in doing so.

This is where a Bernie Sanders nomination becomes problematic for the Democrats. As Mde above pointed out, it would be a TERRIFYING scenario if it's Trump/Cruz vs. Sanders because of how polarizing both of the general election major party candidates would be. Sure, it might pull both ENDS of the political spectrum out to vote, but the Moderates are either going to go third party, -OR- stay at home because they don't have ANYONE to side with.

With Clinton, barring the event in which she gets indicted and has to drop out, the Democrats have an advantage in that they can easily scoop those moderate votes up even those who typically vote Republican - should their opponent's conservative values come off as too radical. Any time you can reach across the aisle and steal voters without having to NEED a third party candidate's help, you're having a good election year. As for the hyper Libs, all it takes is Bernie openly supporting Clinton and the base is bolstered by the former Sanders' voters even more.

It's a good year to be a Democrat, -IF- you vote for the right person. Bernie's a hot commodity with some sexy ideas for the individual American, but can he appeal to the moderates enough to keep them from flipping a coin and going with presumably Trump? Hillary damn well would.

I really enjoy primary season, because it brings out EVERY type of political ideology this great nation boasts. As a moderate Conservative watching from the sidelines, my mind changes all the time. I've recently referred to Clinton as "the Not End of the World" candidate - when previously I was rather against her camp in all aspects.

I'm also one that is tabling not fulfilling my civic duty to vote because of all the uncertainty that remains in this race. I would -love- to see Marco Rubio come out of tonight's debate with a head of steam and give the Donald and the Cruz missile some heat.

Ideally I would want my four men left standing to be Cruz, Rubio, Clinton, and Mayor Bloomberg Sanders.

[Eviora]

I think you might be surprised by how much appeal Bernie has to some moderates. Members of the middle class who are willing to vote for themselves rather than serve an ideology stand to gain if he is elected. In a way, Cruz vs Sanders, horrifying though it certainly would be, represents a battle for America's soul. Are we a country that's willing to take a risk to build a society that treats everyone fairly, or do we keep the poor poor, deny rights to those who have long been deprived of them, all in the name of fear and doctrine? Are we going to find ways to offer everyone a fair chance to prosper, or will we find excuses to exclude the people we don't like?

[Chase]

Members of the middle class who are willing to vote for themselves rather than serve an ideology stand to gain if he is elected.

The key word about Sanders' campaign here is "themselves" - which is the main reason various people find Bernie appealing. He's not America's candidate - he's MY candidate.

Providing some personal background - I can tell you all that I am a conservative who has seen liberalism work in bits and pieces. As someone that until VERY recently was swamped in student debt - having debt forgiveness and free schooling is a PERSONAL dream come true.

I can even take it a step further and say it's a good thing for lower class if the class system evaporates.

However, the CEOs, the Lawyers, the Doctors, the Collegiate Professors, and so on and so forth out there are ALSO a part of this great nation - and when we're voting for a President, we're not voting for a personal savior, nor are we voting for a class takeover. We're voting for a person to represent everyone, from top to bottom. Keeping that in mind - Sanders' socialist approach contains the possibility that employers lose too much ability to fight off workers' unions and are forced to retain unproductive employees. It will most definitely result in higher taxes - especially on those that do their part in generating money. If it gets too far to the left, innovation will be less motivated than before because it comes with no personal gain to the innovator, and the freedom of choice becomes limited for the sake of equality.

In other words, the "American Dream" where one can achieve prosperity and success through determination and hard work - DIES under the socialist ideology.

in the polarized election - voters are forced to "pick the lesser of two evils" and pray that their legislative branch and judicial branch can check whoever takes the White House enough to provide something for everyone. A country that -does- care about it's poor, while caring enough about it's high end earners to grant them the opportunity of choice. A country that tries to offer benefits to it's citizens, without doing so in a reckless manner economically. A country that is for it's people from matters of faith to matters of equality.

---

I would definitely admit that either Republican nominee would breed a clash of ideals come time for the general election, but your scenario sounds more akin to Trump. Cruz - who is most assuredly a Conservative whereas Trump may be paying complete lip service for some un-discernable reason - has an understanding of the pros and cons of each ideology and probably wouldn't approach the general message with a message of hate - but one of equal hope for a better future with Sanders.

The difference though - is that his values make up the slack caused by Sanders' - Just as Bernie's ideas make up for the failures of Conservatism. In this "fight for America's soul" - the Moderates get no dog in the fight - which is silly, because America has been for a long time as centrist as they come.

That's why Hillary is the smarter pick - especially with Republicans trying to eat their own young for the sake of finding someone like her.

[Eviora]

No one, including Bernie, is talking about making America a purely socialist society. Sure, educated people - and I am one of them - should get some returns on their time investment. But a lot of CEOs and the like get returns so disproportionately huge that they make a farce even of a doctor's salary. That's where we can make some cuts. We don't have to sacrifice the "American Dream", whatever that is, just the dream of becoming morbidly wealthy and lording it over the peons. No candidate represents everyone, but one who takes a sizable cut from the very rich and uses it to help everyone else is doing more of us a service. Besides, it's silly to suggest we shouldn't vote for our own benefit. The whole point of voting is that everyone gets a say, so when you give yours, why wouldn't you make it about you?

As for Cruz... he's a man who spoke at a conference (or something) held by a pastor who thinks gay people should be put to death. He views marriage equality as a "moral crisis". Regardless of how he frames it, ultimately his cause is a matter of "you live according to my holy book." A vote for Cruz is a vote to ruin the lives of those who would be most affected by his rules. That alone disqualifies him in my books.

Sanders' message, extreme though it may be, is one of equality. That's why I think he's so appealing to so many people. If, by saying "Hillary is the smarter pick", you mean "Hillary is more likely to end up president in January than Bernie," then you may or may not be right. But I think Bernie is the smarter pick because I think, if he does win, we'll be better off in 20 years than we would be if Hillary wins. My guess is moderates will be glad to have voted for him if he wins and manages to get anything through the Senate.

[Chase]

Of course Sanders is a champion of equality. Equality is one of the strengths socialism provides - and in many cases you -are- right about equality being the biggest draw to the Bernie camp. However, from my experience - the people I most talk to are students and young adults who have a very short sighted world. It's a relevant distance of sight, but one that is completely ignorant of the effects and only spotlights the causes.

Most people -I- know see Bernie as the candidate that best represents their individual needs. The issue is, we're not voting for the President of the United State of Myself, we're voting for the President of the United States.

I'm not here to to defend conservatism and it's candidates as right answers. Remember, the point of discussion is that I think Clinton is the best hope for the Democrats in the field at this point the way things are shaping up - precisely because I think it's a year she can easily take the camp all the way to the White House.

I personally am leaning toward Cruz for the following reasons:

• Currently, he is the Anti-Trump candidate for a conservative voter.
• Cruz won't make -nearly as many, campaigns ALL have their gaffs- incendiary remarks and has one of the better shots of beating Clinton should she be nominated, and would be a very stout challenge for Sanders.
• Cruz is the best debater of the four realistic candidates in the field.
• Cruz isn't treating this like a popularity contest - and wants to be President because he simply believes he can do the job better than anyone else.
• He's an experienced lawyer and politician - making him more attractive than his felllow anti-establishment candidates Trump, Carson, and Fiorina.
• He's not "of" the Republican establishment, meaning he doesn't operate on slimy politics or pretending to be what the voters want him to be.

Essentially, I'm leaning toward Cruz because I believe he's an honest guy (not likable, but not billigerantly so either.) and that he's someone who can work better with Congress from the get go. In two-four years, if both the Legislative and Executive conservatives spoil the country - they pay for it in the Congressional races and Democratic lawmakers will be able to check Cruz as such. A vote for Cruz is a vote for the states to reclaim their ability to hold referendums and for the citizens to make active decisions on things like recreational marijuana use and same-sex marriage. Where you believe Cruz wants to burn down the bridges Obama built - it's only the ones he built by executive order - because this man is incredibly passionate about the Constitution and the American people. If he truly is so - we would see things be fought slowly by conservatives out of fashion.

One of the strengths of conservatism is simply giving power to the people instead of the state. If something is what most Americans want - I'm quite certain their state referendums would reflect that. (and then get challenged the state's minority and get sent to the Supreme Court - where Cruz's conservative values are able to be checked by the Judicial Branch - a la Proposition 8 from the state of California - where the minority used the Court's constitutional interpretation to quell the majority and instill same-sex marriage in the state.

I think it's fair that the Republican Party doesn't want him -OR- Trump in their respective rights. Imagine how close a race between two moderates would be? Imagine how close a race between Cruz and Sanders would be? They most certainly see Hillary Clinton to be the biggest threat to their ability to re-taking the presidency and they need a candidate that they feel can beat her. She is strong in being empathetic not only to her constituents but to moderate conservatives who are not amused with the Trump show and aren't much enthused about the other outside-the-box candidates most radical conservatives seem to rage over these days.

I'm not advocating Clinton because she's more conservative than Sanders - but I do think if the Dems want this election, they should support their front-runner as much as they can - as she's a serious threat to the opposing party.

[mde2001]

I don't think Sanders would do a bad job as President (although I do feel like his ideas are sometimes not particularly well thought through in terms of their practicality). It is possible that you are right and that Sanders would be better for America 20 years on. However, if he can't get elected in the first place, then he will make no real difference to America's politics.

The smarter pick doesn't only include opinions on whose policy is better and who would do the best thing for the country. When picking a candidate you have to think of their viability in a general election. Like it or not, big businesses and the most wealthy people not only hold a lot of votes but a lot of influence. Sanders alienates a lot of these people as he is just too far left for a lot of them and wants to even out the country's wealth. While this isn't a bad thing, it effects them in a negative way, making it more unlikely for them to vote for him.

I have a similar opinion of Cruz to you. I don't like him at all (he may be better than Trump but they're both completely awful). I think that a lot of the things he says and does are unacceptable and that he would be a bad President. That's why I think that it is important the democrats to provide a candidate who is able to stop our next President from being Cruz or Trump. Having Sanders as the nominee for the democrats puts the risk of having an election that swings to someone who is prepared to speak at events run by people who believe that gay people should be killed, and that is a risk that I believe is too high for the possibility the Sanders is a slightly better President than Clinton.

It isn't an ideal view by any means. In a perfect world the best candidate would be nominated and win, but unfortunately politics means that often you have to go with the safest choice to avoid someone who would actually be a problem.

Edit: While I was typing this post, Hunter posted. The you I'm referring to here is Eviora rather than Hunter.

[Eviora]

Hunter, you think too much in terms of systems and too little the people they're supposed to help. As John Maynard Keynes said, in the long run we are dead. It's not acceptable to elect people who will try to mess up others' lives just because "if they go too far the system will correct it later". Discriminating against gay people because the people of your state will it is no better than doing the same to black people, or Muslims, or anyone else. That's part of the point of the Constitution - to protect individuals from the tyranny of the masses. And, incidentally, Cruz is all smoke and mirrors. He may do well in a debate, but that's just because formal debates are more about manipulating the rules to avoid having to answer the tough questions than about getting to the bottom of the issue. In an all out discussion he would get eviscerated.

Mde2001, I definitely see your point when it comes to wanting to elect a "safe" candidate to avoid ending up with someone like Cruz. The thing is, if we always vote that way, we just perpetuate the status quo and all the problems it entails. If we want to rise above that, then eventually we're bound to have to take a risk - and I find Bernie sufficiently superior to Clinton to warrant it, but that's just my opinion, I suppose.

[Deleted User]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/price-tag-of-bernie-sanders-proposals-18-trillion-1442271511

I'd like to point out that Sanders is promising more than is feasibly possible.

$18 Trillion in additional spending in the next decade. Taking into account the growth and inflation, we can reasonably call that about $1.5 Trillion in additional value in today's monetary value on average over the next 10 years.

That'd require a federal budget increase of about 40% in order to make sure we're not creating even higher deficits on a yearly basis than we are now. The real show of how much more we are spending then taking in as a whole on a year to year basis can be looked at by comparing the national debt on a yearly basis. Over the past four years we've had on average $940 Billion in new debt added.

To cover Bernie's new expenditures and the additional debt added (balancing the budget) you'd need to increase tax revenue by 65%. Small businesses would be the ones who'd be bearing the brunt of it and their effective tax rate would likely rise from about 20% to probably over 40% if we wanted to balance the budget. 30-35% if we were just looking to fund Bernie's new programs. It could very well be higher, unless the corporate are really put on lock down.

The thing that I've always found amusing is that no one seems to realize that even with in the top 1% there is still a very large income discrepancy, the corporate big wigs are at the top .01%, small businesses who are hurt the most are usually from the top .5%-5%. The big wigs are able to take advantage of loopholes and lower their effective tax rates in ways small business owners can not. This isn't me clamoring for any specific direction, I just felt that it was necessary for you to know that line behind the rich and the poor isn't quite as cleanly defined as many would have you all believe.

EDIT: For all of you who are curious, my ideal candidate would have been Rand Paul. I firmly believe we should not be getting involved in foreign wars, and that we should be reducing spending across the board, from military and social security to welfare and social programs. The one exception being education. If we are able to educate the masses, MANY other problems would diminish greatly in turn.

[Chase]

First of all, I never advocated any such form of discrimination. I don't personally care how the vote for that would go either way either - but let's not pretend that it's never happened before in the past either.

Once upon a time, the Democrats and the Republicans we know today had the opposite agenda and constituent base as they did now. The Republican party was the party that favored strong national government over granting states' rights, and the Democrats vise-versa. To the point where the country split into two.

Constitutional "discrimination" has been a recurring theme. We have the issues of enslavement and segregation of those black citizens you pointed out. You have people with disabilities later on. You have the Japanese Internment Camps, and so on and so forth.

There's actually THREE functions to the Constitution.

1. Creating a system of checks and balances shared between three bodies of national government - each with equal power. (Meaning, we don't need a Commander-In-Chief who ignores this!)

2. Dividing power between the Federal Government and the State governments. - which means each State has a bit of it's own governance as granted by the Constitution.

and 3. Protecting various liberties of individual citizens.

Point to me which amendment gives an individual the right to marry someone of the same sex. If you can't find it, then the determination is up to the individual states. Yes - the current Supreme Court panel narrowly believes it -should- be granted in every state - but the Supreme Court doesn't amend or impact the Constitution - it only interprets it.

Back on topic - the Constitution isn't even remotely about protection from the masses. It's protection from a tyrannical government and is the guideline for which the country's government is to operate. Keep in mind that this document was a major deal in ensuring that the United States wouldn't be a carbon copy of the British Empire after having fought for it's own independence.

My hope for government isn't that it messes up anyone's life - and it's definitely not my personal volition. However, the things that I do find mess up my way of living are things like threats to religious freedom and life itself. Equality is a second tier must for someone like me behind ensuring as many Americans have the autonomy to live as they wish. Is it important? Absolutely.

It's not the end-all-be-all. The American Dream isn't to be exactly as well off as your neighbor. It's to be as prosperous as possible. If were ever a father - that would be what I would want for my children over keeping up with the Jones'es.

I'm not here telling you who you should vote for - and while I am trying to shed some light on the conservative angle (as it seems you seem to think we're all about segregating the white and well off from the other and not so only.) I'm not telling you to ascribe to conservatism either. I just want every potential voter I see to know the ramifications of their candidate/party's agenda.

If your major point of improvement is to pull up the lower class into the rest of the minivan? Then sure, Bernie is a great guy to vote for. You better have a net for the kind of fallout something like that continuing 20 years down the line would entail.

[Eviora]

Jericho, I'm sure the logistics of all the things Bernie would like to have happen would be quite trying. However, you can be sure that even as president he wouldn't get everything he wants all at once. The process would certainly be gradual, and we'd be able to reflect on what it's costing us as we go along. I don't think it's his intention to hyper-tax everyone - just the very rich. Loopholes can be closed and shady pseduo-tax-evasion strategies banned.

Hunter, I'm no Constitutional scholar. I'm sure you know what Justice Kennedy and his peers' reasoning for the decision back in June was, so I won't bother trying to one up them. However - and I imagine this will irritate you to no end - for the purposes of this discussion, I just don't care whether the Constitution currently protects it or not. I care about what's fair to all members of society. If the document is inadequate, we should amend it. You talk about protecting "religious freedom" and life, but the former case literally boils down to "stop discriminating against my right to discriminate against people" in the context you probably mean it, and in the latter case you seem to care little about the quality of the life you're so adamant on preserving.

I'm quite familiar with the "conservative angle" and all that, but at the end of the day I care more about the results - discriminatory laws and gross income inequality - than the ideology that informs them. I don't just want my hypothetical children to be as prosperous as possible, but for the average level of possible prosperity to rise. That's why it appalls me a bit that some people can so nonchalantly discard the needs of dissimilar people and why I could never support a candidate who in effect seeks to give certain states the right to impose the religion of the majority upon everyone else, even though my own home state (Massachusetts) isn't at all likely to do such a thing.

Aren't us feely types frustrating to talk to? =p

[Chase]

On the contrary, I actually think you've been quite cordial. Feely, yes, and in this context as a fellow American I don't have any bones to shake at you over it.

I'm not entirely familiar with the efforts of LGBT progressives - but I feel like there are definitely lobbyists and action groups that feel the same way you probably have indicated - that the Constitution - if inadequate (and as I've described -does- inadequately from the proponent's point of view.) SHOULD be amended to address the issue in black and white. I wouldn't be surprised to see an amendment in the future address marriage as open to same-sex couples nationwide.

However, when mentioning religious practices, there's always going to be cross-hairs between people of different ideologies and passions - and while I could easily blow a gasket on what is essentially saying I have the opinion that I am for any type of discrimination as a part of my rights as a believer in any religion, I'm essentially saying I should be entitled - as an American - the right to practice my faith without government interference so long as it doesn't actually break any level of law.

I assume you refer to anyone potentially giving a majority vote on a referendum (like what happened with the Prop 8 case proceeding that June decision.) on leaving a state's marriage laws as "man-and-woman only" as an action of "religious doctrine enforcement." While several people will indeed vote because homosexuality to them is seen as "sinful" and shouldn't be something encouraged in their eyes, many others will vote for various other reasons - such as outright homophobia, which is not what I would hope causes someone to vote at all.

No state can actually impose a religion or theocratic doctrine as THAT is a violation of the First Amendment. - ...shall make no law respecting an establishment of Religion. This side of the amendment is referred to as "The Establishment Clause" - and it prevents the government for enforcing any belief system - from Deep Southern Baptist Christianity to enforced Atheism - from ever becoming law. It's the liberal-friendly part of the amendment even. The flip-side of the amendment is what Conservatives feel - and rightfully so - is also being threatened - ...impeding the free exercise of Religion. This part of the amendment is where "the Free Exercise Clause" comes from - which determines in case-by-case basis if a person's right to practice their faith is being unconstitutionally infringed upon.

Using the Free Exorcise Clause, I can safely say voting against Same-Sex marriage in a referendum does NOT mean that someone must become a Christian or a Jew or adhere to any religion that opposes the concept - and therefore, that I am not telling anyone who believes that same-sex marriage is a good thing and should happen to accept my Christian doctrine. You -did- say it yourself. If you get to vote for something, why wouldn't you vote to with your interests in mind, am I right?

I'm not saying I'm one who would vote against it for someone -of- my own interests, but in the case of the genuine homophobe, if they were worried in an increase of it due to such law, it's in their best interest, so as to not trigger fear, to vote against it. That has -nothing- to do with religion. In the case of the religious nay voter, the person likely isn't voting because they have a kick for depriving their fellow man, but because they are being questioned as to how THEY feel on the subject. To -them- it wouldn't be something of their interest. Essentially, the voter can then decide if they want to be completely selfless in voting "Yes" - which is good for your equality cause, but denies the voter the right to vote how they feel - or vote "no" while putting their interests in mind (in this case, exercising their OWN right to practice their faith by being true to their belief in the concept being sinful! - NOT enforcing religion on anyone else.)

If the state does end up nixing the same-sex marriage vote - the couples that do get the short end of the stick have various options available to them - albeit making the process of being wed more painstaking. However, at the end of the day, their dreams are not completely crushed, as not every state is going to enforce that kind of referendum vote at all in the foreseeable future. If it matters so much to the individual couple, the door isn't shut for them.

Be very careful how you phrase "religious freedom". For some folks, that freedom is as precious AS their children, just like those who would like to be married to their same-sex lover would be for those looking to get that coveted marriage amendment on the official document.

[Eviora]

I've yet to hear any convincing reason to bar sex-same marriage that doesn't boil down to religion and/or homophobia. The fact is, those who don't intend to partake in such a marriage are all but entirely unaffected by it. Therefore, I really have no clue what interests you're talk about. Trying to stop others from doing something you deem sinful is most certainly enforcing that belief on them, even if you mean it in the best way possible. You would be open to referendums on interracial marriage? Inter-religion marriage? Marriage between two people with different eye colors? If not, what's the difference, and if so, what harm is being done to you by the offending practices?