You might check out Gary Johnson - he's the libertarian candidate and is getting shut out of a lot of debates. He is fiscally very conservative but is pro-marriage equality and pro-choice. He is also pro-legalization of marijuana and has some less traditional (but in my opinion, quite logical) views on immigration, which also tie into his views on legalization of marijuana. He was New Mexico's governor for 8 years, and re-elected for his second term (as a Republican!) in that majority-democrat state. I don't love every single one of his policies, but he is far more in line with my beliefs than either of the major party candidates.
Originally Posted by susirene

Gary Johnson is not pro-choice. He wants to overturn Roe v Wade. He's not pro-gay-marriage either. He's only pro-civil-union. Not the same thing at all.

A vote for a third-party candidate is usually considered a waste of a vote....but if a person wants to waste their Romney vote on Johnson, I'm all for it.
Originally Posted by RedCatWaves
You are mixing up what Johnson believes should morally be permitted and what Johnson believes the role of the federal government should be. He would like to overturn Roe v. Wade not for pro-life reasons but for limitation of federal government - that legally it should be decided on the state level. He has said in many arenas that he believes in a woman's right to choose up to fetal viability. And he believes that government should stay out of "marriage" altogether - allow that to be defined by private religious/social groups and allow civil unions with all the legal rights that entails for all consenting adults of any sexuality. I would encourage you to watch his responses to the primary debates (he was shut out but answered all the questions on a YouTube video). His opinions are nuanced and well thought out, even though they are not straightforward. Which, in issues as complex as abortion and sexuality, I think is very appropriate. Would much rather have someone who really considers these things than someone who makes a blanket statement to keep the most vocal of its party members happy.

Whether or not a third party vote is a waste depends on where you live - my state will almost certainly go red regardless of my one vote, so I am choosing to use my vote to say that I dislike the direction my former party-of-affiliation is headed rather than just vote for (in my opinion) the lesser of evils. But those who live in a heavily contested state may not want to use their vote that way if they have a strong opinion about who should NOT be president.
Originally Posted by susirene

Then I definitely won't like him. Abortion used to be governed by the individual states, but the states were so descriminatory against certain groups of women (mostly poor and minorities), and those women were DYING because of it, so the federal government had to step in. I'd prefer not to have dead women in anti-abortion states.

As for marriage being the property of religion...I'm against that. Marriage has historically always been a legal agreement, not a religious one. Let the churches have civil unions and the gov't can keep marriages and make them legal for all consenting adults.