Quoth the President to MTV:
"For us to try to legislate federally into this area is probably the wrong way to go."
Now I realize several things: First, Mitt Romney wasn't even going to give lip-service to marriage equality, and would have presided over attempts to roll back the gains that have already been made. Second, we have a very good chance of passing true marriage equality here in Delaware next year, given the margins of victory the Democrats piled up.
But there is an important point to be made here: there is a distinct difference between passing marriage equality one state at a time and acknowledging that marriage equality is a Constitutional right.
Mr. Obama has just shown that his support of marriage equality during the campaign was more likely than not an opportunistic response to the hole VP Biden put him in rather than a profound personal evolution on the subject.
There was only one candidate on the ballot across the nation who made a point of saying--in every stump speech--that marriage equality is a Constitution right.
That was Governor Gary Johnson.
I am used to responses I know I will get from Obama supporters (who say them to me even when they don't write them here): Romney would have been worse. I'm not a single-issue voter. Gary Johnson could not have gotten elected anyway.
But please remember that this past election cycle in Delaware ONLY the Libertarian Party of Delaware put marriage equality into its platform. Only the Libertarian Party of Delaware candidates spent hours at the Delaware State Fair collecting signatures for the marriage equality petition drive. Individual Democratic candidates (Pete Schwarzkopf, who answered the question fully and frankly when I put it to him) were straight-up about their support, but many were quite squishy.
Remember that when there are votes in the General Assembly next year.
Without Libertarians this year, it would have taken longer.
Comments
I DID NOT say it would not happen without us. I said it would have taken longer.
Quit spouting latin and actually read what I said.
The Libertarian platform is for legalizing discrimination in the private sector, including all businesses and contracts. Touting the Libertarians as champions of protecting civil rights when they support rolling back laws outlawing discrimination by private businesses is ridiculous.
In the Libertarian world, private property rights trump civil rights in every case.
Not to mention that the Libertarian Congressional Candidate, Scott Gesty, was the only candidate who wanted to tax "everything" including food.
We gathered several thousand signatures for the petition for marriage equality, appeared at numerous LGBT events, actively campaigned for marriage equality, and otherwise actively promoted the cause.
Your other comments about "the Libertarian world" are your usual claptrap . . . .
And Scott's consumption tax is, ironically, very similar to those used in many parts of Europe and the rest of the developed world.
But continue your rants.
Nowhere on Scott's site or other literature does he give any specifics about what his consumption would apply to, or how it would be implemented, aside from the statement that it would replace the Income Tax and IRS.
If a1 is assuming that Scott was talking about the Fair Tax rather than some similar plan of Scott's own invention, then a1's comments are demonstrably malicious, because a1 has been accused several times of substantially misrepresenting their position.
Even if a1 wasn't just lying about Scott's intent, he would hardly be "only candidate who wanted to tax "everything" including food" because the Federal Government already taxes "everything" including food, so that should be considered the default position of any candidate for Federal Office who doesn't explicitly state otherwise.
http://gesty4congress.org/content/issues
Nowhere on Scott Gesty's site does he say or suggest there would be any exemptions to his consumption tax.
Therefore, A1 is not unreasonable in concluding that Gesty's plan, in fact, taxes everything.
I think that the Green Party Senate candidate was collecting signatures with his Libertarian friends.
Got any other good ones? ROTFLMAO
cite?
My criticisms of his alignment with Libertarians notwithstanding, I voted for him anyway.
Tom, I don't see a way to search this site for comments, but Scott's position on taxing "everything" was clearly stated in a comment of his here. If I am wrong about this, he has had a number of opportunities to refute this, but he hasn't because it is true and he believes it.
http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=7893272060787897238&postID=8511062517012497393
although my point still stands that w/o knowing the full details, or even a basic outline of how Scott's plan would be implemented you can not make any valid statements about whether it would be better/worse or more regressive/progressive than the
Federal Government's current regime of taxing "everything" including food
I do not think you stand corrected. Scott's comment said food was "on the table." That means a discussion of the legislation could include food. It doesn't mean it would have to.
Moreover, we already have multiple taxes on food, though many of them are hidden. Dairy price supports function as a tax on consumers, as do ethanol mandates (by artificially removing x% of the corn crop from food production each year), as do sugar tariffs, etc, etc,
While individuals can make an argument for any of these programs by itself, the reality is that there has never been a government commitment to keeping food prices low for poor people. Food prices have always been a tool used by government without any regard for the regressive impact on the poorest among us.