In an article on Bob Casey Jr.
…Casey, meanwhile, has flip-flopped on adoption of children by gays. (In a 2002 questionnaire submitted to the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference — the state’s Catholic bishops organization — he said he opposed "legislation allowing homosexual couples to adopt children." In a 2004 questionnaire submitted to PCC, he reversed course, saying he opposed "legislation prohibiting homosexual couples from adopting children.")
…I don’t support gay marriage, but I also don’t support a constitutional amendment banning it," Casey told The Philadelphia Jewish Voice in October 2005. "However, I do support same sex unions that would give gay couples all the rights, privileges and protections of marriage."
That position put Casey at odds with the proposed Pennsylvania Marriage Amendment, which, like Ohio’s, prohibits legal recognition of same-sex unions. The amendment was approved 137-60 in the Pennsylvania statehouse in June, but then stalled in the state senate when it was stripped of the language prohibiting recognition of same sex unions, before passing 38 to 12. (In Pennsylvania, an amendment cannot be placed on the ballot until it has passed both legislative houses in identical form in two consecutive legislative sessions.)
This race has been hailed as one between two pro-life Catholics and it is in fact a good thing that the Democrat saw that they needed to run someone pro-life against Sen. Santorum. For quite a while Casey had been leading Santorum by double-digits, but the gap has recently been closing to be within six points. As of yesterday, finally Bob Casey Jr. has agreed to four debates with Sen. Santorum. His tactic of coasting in without opening his mouth was probably a good idea while he led decisively. But this has failed him in the past in other elections he lost while initially leading. Unfortunately Bob Casey Jr. is no Bob Casey Sr.
5 comments
My last vote as a Pennsylvanian was 12 years ago… and it was for Santorum. Casey Jr. is an empty suit. If I could, I would vote for Santorum again. Unfortunately, now that I’m in California, I’m stuck with voting for Mountjoy – yet another lame California Republican candidate tilting (once again) at the windmill of Diane Feinstein.
*sigh*
If only this were 2 years ago and it was Casey running against Arlen Specter, even with Casey’s recent flip-flops I would be more than happy to vote for him over Arlen. Think of the shake up a pro-life (even a nominal one) Democrat beating a pro-choice Republican.
he’s not a “nominal” pro-lifer. he may be having a difficult time figuring out what to do with the gay marriage issue, but he’s not wavered on life issues. That’s all the more important because practically speaking it’s a tougher issue to break with party lines. You make more enemies. We should applaud a pro-life Democrat. Unless, that is, there are people here who at bottom are more Republican than Catholic. A final note: this race is over.
It’s not rocket science, Bob(both of you!)just follow Church teaching, and condemn the abomination! While praying for it’s participants, of course!
Sounds like you’re a dyed in the wool DEM.
I campaigned twice for my Republican Congressman, Mike Forbes who was 100% pro-life. Then he met with Bill Clinton, and changed to a Democrat. I told him that he would be the first DEM I ever voted for. And I did, but his new party savaged him, and he lost. Do ya think Bubba had something to do with that? Naaah!
If the Democrats can get over themselves and get their act together by nominating more candidates like Casey, they stand poised to capture very large numbers of disaffected conservatives. This may be a sign that the democratic party is eventually going to return to some modicum of sanity (which would be interesting, because the republican party shows som early signs of starting to go off the deep end).
Comments are closed.