1) Obama believes in the right to abortion and has voted repeatedly in support of this right. Although there is some controversy, Obama has also given evidence that he has opposed legislation that would protect babies who survived abortion from their right to life. Without adding insult to the injury, or to inflame those who wish to attempt to dismantle the argument, we will deal strictly on the issue of abortion (not infanticide) as Obama has eliminated debate on his stand on abortion. In an Illinois state test given to its legislators on the issue, Obama's answer stated, "Abortions should be legally available in accordance with Roe v. Wade." Additionally, Obama has reduced the social status of children to being punishments to the women conceiving them. There is no secret that the church stands openly and consistently against the practice of abortion for personal or social convenience and consider children to be holy. So much so that "Church members who submit to, perform, encourage, pay for, or arrange for such abortions may lose their membership in the Church." This is strong language supporting the sanctity of the church's position that life is of the highest value and that murder, or the taking of life against one's will, is the second greatest sin that a person can commit. On this stand alone, one could make the argument that Obama is supporting a woman's right to violate the law of chastity without social or economic recourse, as well as the death of innocent children. Two of the strongest issues that a politician can take stand on, are issues that Obama stands in clear conflict with church policy.
2) Gay Rights: This is an issue that the Church has taken very public issue with. The Church does not support homosexual lifestyles, the practice of homosexuality, and does not support homosexual marriage. With that being said, the church has also recently supported an ordinance in Salt Lake City that would not allow for discrimination against an individual in the arena of housing and employment based on being gay. With that being said, one could summarize the Church's stand in saying that being gay is a moral issue where God is the supreme judge and employment and housing are temporal issues that no human being should be denied based on the issue of personal or private moral conduct. Barack Obama is actually closer to the church on this issue than some think. While Obama clearly supports gay lifestyles as not being a choice (the church opposes this idea), Obama is quite in line with the church based on this statement, "Now, with respect to marriage, it’s my belief that it’s up to the individual denominations to make a decision as to whether they want to recognize marriage or not. But in terms of, you know, the rights of people to transfer property, to have hospital visitation, all those critical civil rights that are conferred by our government, those should be equal." (Source: 2007 YouTube Democratic Primary debate, Charleston SC Jul 23, 2007)
So while Obama clearly does not oppose the homosexual lifestyle, his reasoning on a social level is inline with the church to a certain degree. This is a religious matter. So perhaps on this issue there is "recommend neutrality". Although one could make the argument that the issue of spiritual significance is that Obama supports a sinful lifestyle that the church has openly opposed.
These are the clear issues, abortion and homosexuality, where Obama stands opposed to the Church under official acts or declarations of the Church. If we were to turn to statements made by church presidents/prophets that stand against Obama's actions the list could go on for miles.
Based on two of the most significant and current intersections of where Church policy and social policy meet, Obama teaches and endorses practices and principles opposed to those being taught by the church. These are also issues where the Democratic party are inline with Obama's feelings. So this does beg the question, does someone who supports Barack Obama or the democratic party stand in violation to the question in the temple recommend interview? This is a deeply personal judgement call and is made ONLY by the person or people who are given inspirational authority to judge. But ultimately is the agency of the individual who is disclosing their worthiness to the Lord's representatives in the temple recommend interview.
For this writer, I feel that there is ample evidence that agreement with Barack Obama or the democratic party on these issues is a direct and clear violation of the temple recommend worthiness interview. I see no accord with supporting and sustaining the church, promising to keep the commandments that uphold the principles of chastity in marriage between a man and a woman as well as the sanctity of life, and do so without hypocrisy in supporting Barack Obama on these issues. One can be a democrat and not be in accord with these principles of the party. However, considering the significance of these platforms to the democratic party, I would question as to why one would be a democrat if they disagreed with their party on these issues of utmost significance.