I am not sure this letter will be printed, but I have sent it to the newspaper; we will see.
Letter to editor,
The newspaper declares that “Mayor Rahm Emanuel Tuesday ranked legalizing gay marriage as his No. 3 legislative priority in Springfield — behind pension reform and a Chicago casino — and said he plans to get “very involved” in passing a gay marriage bill” (Chicago Sun-Times).
And there are those who maintain that the support of a particular candidate does not mean that they support the moral vision of that candidate. These same people are, most likely, confused about other things also. There is no way to sugar coat it: those who voted for such people have directly contributed to the moral failings of our society as they support those who themselves have promoted legislation that is contrary to the standard of the Lord.
Argument 1: 1) Objective morality is beneficial to man; 2) God’s will is objective morality; 3) Thus, God’s will is beneficial to man.
Argument 2: 1) That which is opposed to God’s will is immoral; 2) Homosexuality is opposed to God’s will; 3) Thus, homosexuality is immoral.
Argument 3: 1) That which is immoral is evil; 2) Homosexuality is immoral; 3) Thus, homosexuality is evil.
Those who support that which is immoral also support that which is evil
The logical arguments can be sustained in the crucible of debate.
People have convinced themselves that they are not guilty of making a direct contribution to evil, but try telling that to the Lord.
etsop95 
How could “He has cast down the mighty from their thrones, and exalted the lowly; he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent away empty” relate to voting Republican? Tax cuts for the Rich? Not Christian at all.
Arguably.
Did any candidate entirely fulfil your moral criteria?
Can you imagine that a Christian might be a Democrat, prioritising the Speaking for the Poor message of the Gospel?
Is it not interesting that some equate moral values like this:
1. It is a priority to oppose “tax cuts for the rich.”
2. It is a priority to oppose homosexual marriage.
Number 1 has no biblical standing or teaching to support it. There is nothing in Scripture pertaining to “republicans,” just like there is nothing in Scripture pertaining to “democrats.”
On the other hand, homosexual marriage is a compromise of God’s sanctity of marriage as revealed in Genesis 2:21-24; moreover, the behavior is explicitly condemned in Romans 1:26-27.
Does not the Scripture say something about the rich? It does, in both a good and bad context. The Scripture says that the “love of money is a root of all evil” (1 Timothy 6:9-10). This phrase does not apply to only one political party in the United States of America, does it? No, it applies to any and all that have the love of money.
Thus, the equivocation of these issues as moral is remarkable for its ignorance.
The question was asked concerning Luke 1:52-53 and how it relates to voting republican? How does it relate to [giving] “tax cuts for the rich”?” Of course, it relates not at all. In fact, it relates only to the context of the passage within which it is found: Mary’s “Magnificat” (Luke 1:46-55). It has NOTHING to do with politics in the USA, and to bring the passage in is to pervert the context in which it is found.
I was asked whether I can imagine a Christian being a democrat. Sure I can; being a democrat in name has nothing to do with support or non-support of an issue or issues; this also applies to one who is a republican in name. How one votes, on the other hand, is another matter; the person who votes can be a republican or a democrat in our political affairs, but when one is a partisan, then their god has been chosen.