No, Mike, we do agree

My cousin wrote:

"I still disagree with you - I think personal morals and values should determine how we vote. That includes issues of abortion and homosexuality. "Government was never meant to mandate personal choice on such a level." I think we do so all the time - child molestation, consensual underage sex, etc. The government gets involved in personal things all the time.
I don't think we can make abortion illegal. But I agree with what the platform of the Democratic party says - we should make them rare. And I think that government absolutely should get involved on that level - not in mandating, but in encouraging the right choice and discouraging the wrong choice, rather than just saying whatever you want is ok."

We do need to take into account the moral character of the politicians we elect. But simplifying morals to their stance on abortion and homosexuality is an ineffective measure for a few reasons:

1. Bush rallied evangelical support by being anti-abortionist, and throughout his term he acted as an inspired man. However, with his approval, government officials tortured those who were not proven guilty of any crime, spied on citizens on a mass scale, invaded another country without justification (though they had their reasons), and appointed men who, at best, had questionable reasoning abilities and memory, but who were likely liars.

I would say that those who based their judgment of the man's morality on his stance on abortion made too shallow a call.

2. Does abortion need to be available in cases where a birth would kill the mother?

If not, we could try to institute a theocracy where such women would be abandoned to fate.

If yes, then abortion should never be fully outlawed and should be available. We should, of course, encourage a cultural attitude wherein convenience abortions are considered wrong. And I would like them to be punishable.

If abortion should never be fully outlawed, then we should not establish it as our basis for voting. It is a moral issue, that has been politicized by conspiring men who would manipulate your faith to get your vote.

3. Homosexuality is a hard subject. I think a greater danger to the family than homosexuality is adultery. But insofar as redefining marriage is a threat to the family, it is still a complex subject.

Those who support gay marriage think that they are taking part in another march for civil liberties, akin to the struggle for women's rights and black rights.

Those who oppose it may be pure in heart, but may also may just hate gay people.

If we are trying to choose a man who has a good heart, and sound moral judgment, we must be wary. We are likely to fail, for only the Lord sees the heart, whereas we look on the outer appearance.

Someone who opposes gay marriage and abortion may simply be pandering for the votes of the religious right, making a political, and not a moral decision. Whereas someone who supports gay marriage may be truly acting on moral impulses. That a man may make the wrong decision with a pure heart is personified in Saul, who persecuted the saints with pure motives until his conversion and name-change. So who should we choose?

An anti-abortionist in office may pass laws that limit the ability for civilians to make terrible choices. But while the citizens may not do as many terrible things, the government may do terrible things, that do not seem so terrible since they do not directly affect us.

So, you see, I too take these things into account. I think Ron Paul was the best fit for my moral and political ideas, but I voted Obama because this is a two party system. So far, I am grateful that Obama has, in his first two weeks, taken a stand against torture, reached an olive branch to the Middle East, and selected an Attorney General who speaks plainly.