It is morally permissible for Catholics to vote for Obama

I only hope that I don't embarrass myself, seeing as my opponent seems to be very well versed in Catholic theology. But enough of my awesome humbleness, on to Con's points. Con's arguments pertain to a specific guideline of issues which any candidate ought to stick to as close as possible, dictated by the current Pope. Obviously per the setup by Con, I won't argue with the truth value of any of these tenets, but only with whether they legitimately invalidate a Catholic vote for Obama. 1. On to Con's first point on respect for human life (with an emphasis on foetus life), I don't plan on denying that Obama has certainly made it clear that he is pro-choice. However, Con fails to invoke any causality in Obama's opinion/pre-Presidential actions and the carrying out of abortions. In the United States, abortion has been legally legitimized by the Supreme Court (via Roe v. Wade for the most pat), not by the President. Furthermore, the President has no way to directly repeal this decision. There are two ways to do so: by another Supreme Court decision or by a Constitutional amendment. Now one could counter that the President is charged with appointing Supreme Court Justices, and so could have influence (albeit indirectly) on the legal legitimisation of abortion. However, as past conservative and anti-abortion Presidents have show, even this is insufficient to repeal Roe v. Wade. There have been many instances since the famous decision where there has been a majority of conservative Judges on the bench (including at current) but never has the ruling been struck down. Out of the conservative Judges on the court at current, (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito): only Scalia and Thomas have explicitly stated opposition and willingness to overturn it[1][2][3][4]. The other three have either been inconsistent and ambiguous or supportive of the decision. Therefore, the only way the President could side the bench enough so that it could have a chance of overturning Roe would be if three Judges retired. And this is unlikely given that Kagan, Roberts, Alito, and Sotomayor were only just appointed and Breyer and Ginsburg (two liberals) almost certainly wouldn't retire with a sitting President itching to overturn Roe. I'm afraid that only Kennedy (giving anti-abortionists only three seats at best) or one of the two anti-abortion Judges (Scalia and Thomas) are even possibilities in stepping down, meaning regardless of who the President is, abortion will remain legal in the U. S. Therefore, Obama has no way of altering the legality of abortion, even if he wanted to. The next President will have about as much effect on whether abortion is legal as my opponent.2. Marriage as between a man and a woman will also not be threatened by the current President, seeing as his official position on marriage still grants that it be left to individual states to decide[6][7]. Obama could be pro- or anti-gay marriage, it still wouldn't mean he would attempt to invoke any reform measures. This means that as on the abortion issue, Obama is in just as much of a position to change these things as anyone else. So since these issues couldn't possibly impact his Presidency, I see no relevance here.3. Conceded by Con.4. Conceded, at the very least no argument and acknowledgement of even divide. In Con referencing abortion and marriage, see my points (1) and (2) for full refutation. HHS Mandate. -- On the contraceptive mandate, there lies within the Act a clear exemption[8]. Religious employers are those which meet the following requirements:(i)- has the inculcation of religious values as its purpose(ii)- primarily employs persons who share its religious tenets(iii)- primarily serves persons who share its religious tenets; and(iv)- is a non-profit organization under Internal Revenue Code section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii). 45 C. F. R. §147.130(a)(1)(iv)(B)[8]. The claim that the HHS mandate infringes on the freedoms of Catholics has been drastically overstated. No religious institution is forced to provide contraceptives to their employees and the Catholic outcry has originated mostly as a result of not fully understanding what the Act. ===Sources===[1] Scalia's dissent: (. http://www.cc.org...)[2] Thomas' dissent: (. http://www.ontheissues.org...)[3] Robert's ambiguity: (. http://www.ontheissues.org...)[4] Kennedy's affirmation: (. http://www.ontheissues.org...)[5] Alito's ambiguity: (. http://www.ontheissues.org...)[6] . http://abcnews.go.com...[7] . http://www.weeklystandard.com...[8] . http://www.uhc.com...[8] Ibid.