Voting with a "Good Conscience"  

Obviously with the election less than a week away, alot of people are throwing in their "two-cents" worth on who and how to vote.

The Vote

It's is our civic right, and duty, to vote. So I would never suggest, or even think about, not voting.

So for those of you who are even considering not voting, realize that that does not do any good. You aren't making a stand, you aren't protesting, you're being lazy and selfish. Get off your high horse and take a side.

The Candidates

Abortion is the single most important issue when it comes to an election. This is what bishops from the USCCB had to say on the issue:

"The only moral possibilities for a Catholic to be able to vote in good conscience for a candidate who supports this intrinsic evil [referring to abortion] are the following: (a) if both candidates running for office support abortion or "abortion rights," a Catholic would be forced to then look at the other important issues and through their vote try to limit the evil done; or, (b) If another intrinsic evil outweighs the evil of abortion. While this is sound moral reasoning, there are no "truly grave moral" or "proportionate" reasons, singularly or combined, that could outweigh the millions of innocent human lives that are directly killed by legal abortion each year. To vote for a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion or "abortion rights" when there is a morally acceptable alternative would be to cooperate in the evil-and, therefore, morally impermissible."

For those that do not know, this is Obama's official position (found on his website):

Barack Obama understands that abortion is a divisive issue, and respects those who disagree with him. However, he has been a consistent champion of reproductive choice and will make preserving women's rights under Roe v. Wade a priority as President. He opposes any constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court's decision in that case.

Certainly, if one has any grasp of a logical progression, one can see that Obama is "a candidate who supports the intrinsic evil of abortion." And as stated by the bishops, one cannot, in good conscience vote for such a candidate.

I recently spoke with some friends about who they're voting for, and why. They stated that they were voting for Obama. I told them that Obama was pro-choice and that position is against Church teaching. They then went to say that, "but I've done my research, McCain's voting record shows he is pro-choice too. So it's okay for me to vote for Obama"

First, this is wrong. There are other candidates you can vote for that are not pro-choice. So if you really believe McCain and Obama are both pro-choice, you shouldn't vote for either of them. But obviously, this person never bothered to look up McCain's actual voting record. But that's okay, I did the research for them.

The following is McCain's voting record as reported by OnTheIssues.org

• Supports repealing Roe v. Wade. (May 2007)
• Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
• Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
• Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
• Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
• Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
• Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
• Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
• Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
• Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
• Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
• Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
• Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
• Rated 75% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)
• Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008)

In '99 McCain was voting yes to ban partial birth abortions, in '00 he was voting to continue the ban on abortions on military installations. I would really like to see the research that this person did that shows McCain is a pro-choice candidate.

On the other side we have Obama's voting record.

• Opposed born-alive treatment law because it was already law. (Oct 2008)
• Supports Roe v. Wade. (Jul 1998)
• Voted NO on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
• Voted NO on prohibiting minors crossing state lines for abortion. (Mar 2008)
• Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
• Voted NO on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
• Voted YES on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
• Sponsored bill providing contraceptives for low-income women. (May 2006)
• Rated 0% by the NRLC, indicating a pro-choice stance. (Dec 2006)
• Ensure access to and funding for contraception. (Feb 2007)

We can see that he has a rating of 0% by NRLC, which indicates a pro-choice stance.

It isn't difficult to see that Obama has a clear stance (0%) of pro-choice, where as McCain's stance, at worst, is 75% (which shows a mixed record according to NRLC).

There are actual bishops in the United States who have spoken up AGAINST Obama. These bishops do not, and cannot, endorse a candidate. But you bet they have every right to speak out against them.

This is what Bishop Rene H. Gracida had to say (radio ad at: http://www.randallterry.com/):

"This is Bishop Rene H. Gracida, reminding all Catholics that they must vote in this election with an informed conscience. A Catholic cannot be said to have voted in this election with a good conscience if they have voted for a pro-abortion candidate. Barack Hussein Obama is a pro-abortion candidate."

As the Bishop states, "A Catholic cannot be said to have voted in this election with a good conscience if they have voted for a pro-abortion candidate. Barack Hussein Obama is a pro-abortion candidate."

The next objection I've received from people is, "but I have a clear conscience in voting for Obama." This means absolutely nothing; except, perhaps, that one might say you have a mal-formed conscience.

According to this logic I could easily go out and fornicate 1,000 times and not goto confession; just so long as my conscience was clear. We know this is obviously wrong because of the faith we profess. So why then would one accept the same logic in voting for Obama?

Proposition 8

Another very important issue in the upcoming election (for Californians anyways) is Proposition 8. Prop 8 will change the constitution to define marriage as only recognized between a man and a woman and nothing else.

The biggest complaint from the No on 8 side is equal rights. But this isn't even an issue. Read the California Family Code (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=fam&group=00001-01000&file=297-297.5).

297.5.  (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.

Domestic partners are already afforded equal rights, protection and benefits under California law. So the "equal rights" argument is null and void.

The No on 8 side states that "schools won't have to teach homosexual marriages." Again, this is wrong. Look at the California Education Code (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=edc&group=51001-52000&file=51890-51891).

51890.  (a) For the purposes of this chapter, "comprehensive health
education programs" are defined as all educational programs offered
in kindergarten and grades 1 to 12, inclusive, in the public school
system, including in-class and out-of-class activities designed to
ensure that:
[...]
  (D) Family health and child development, including the legal and
financial aspects and responsibilities of marriage and parenthood.

If marriage is only between a man and a woman, then the school curriculum can't change in this regard. However, if it is not defined as one man and one woman, then it is safe to conclude that its just a matter of time before a homosexual sues because their marriage isn't being taught in schools.

As a side note, there are already cases in California of lesbian teachers taking their students on "field trips" to their homosexual marriage. How on earth is that a field trip? It's not. Also, if you want to see whats going to happen if Prop 8 isn't passed, feel free to read up on what's happening in Massachusetts where a few judges decided that it was the schools duty and obligation to teach about homosexual marriages (http://www.massresistance.org/docs/marriage/effects_of_ssm.html).

Conclusion

1. Freaking vote!
   
2. It's a grave moral issue to vote for Obama.
3. Yes on Prop 8