What's the point of having a blog if you can't create a little controversy now and then?

I apologize to my mass of readers for not blogging regularly.

Aw, just kidding. I don't have a mass of readers and I'm not sorry.

What can I say? The gaggle is boring as of late. Ho-hum. *Yawn.*

I was thinking of something I could write today and I have a couple of topics I'm currently working on (why gay men are ALWAYS late, what is the meaning of a relationship). I know. You're like totally excited now, right?

But for today's subject, I thought I'd talk about something pretty bland: the future POTUS.

So, I'm kinda involved with the Democratic party here in Utah (a teeny, tiny bit) and it always shocks some of my fellow democrats when I tell them that I am a McCain supporter. I voted for him in the 2000 presidential primary--not because, as I usually do, I thought the Democrat (boring Al Gore at the time) would beat him more easily--but because I really like what he stands for.

I saw him speak at the U in January 2003 and someone asked him why he wasn't a Democrat. His response was that he could not be because while he may be considered a social liberal, he was a very fiscally-sound conservative. And yet, some of his fiscal conservative leanings could be deemed as liberal. For example, his opposition to all pork spending on Congressional appropriations bills. Not matter the bill, if there is ANY pork, he votes against it. (For those of you who don't know what pork is, we'll chat later).

Currently, none of the Democratic presidential hopefuls really get me excited. Sure, Hilary would be great. She would be the first female president and her husband is kinda cool too. Edwards is still hot. Obama is very intriguing but he's only been a Senator for 2 years now!

There is one candidate for President that I just could not vote for--AT ALL.

Mitt.

Of course, me being here in Utah, most people here love him! With the largest percentage of Marmons and Mitt being Marmon, he'll win Utah with 75% of the vote. But precisely because of that fact, I could not--and will not--vote for him. Now, I know what you're saying: but he's quite moderate. If he ran in Utah, he'd be a Democrat. True, in some respects. But his social conservatism beats out all other qualities he may have.

As an avid reader of Andrew Sullivan (yes, yes, I know, another Republican), I've enjoyed his latest subversive attack on Mr. Romney. I've been waiting and waiting for someone to say, "Hello! If Mitt runs, he's going to totally run using the wedge platform of 'Gay Marriage is Bad for Society!'' I mean, he's still doing it in Massachusetts. He just won't let go of getting the Legislature to overturn the State Supreme Court decision.

Here's an article from the local weekly alternative paper that expresses this opinion much better than I have.

It frightens me that he will continue to be overtly vocal on this issue as he gears up to run for President. If he's not planning on using gay marriage as an issue, then why bother? He's a lame duck governor so no one would be surprised if he just let it go.

But he can't. And I just won't vote for him because of it.