I Flip-flopped on My Choice of Breakfast This Morning

Thursday, 10 May 2012

 Yesterday, during a news interview with ABC’s Robin Roberts, President Obama finally came out of the closet, declaring his support for same-sex marriage.

I’m glad he did. In the past, he had stated his support for such unions, but ever since he began his run for the White House, he’s been in some sort of middle ground. I assume that Obama, like most politicians, was trying to do what he felt would give him the greatest chance of getting elected.

The big word he used for the past four years was “evolving,” like in this article from last June. I was a bit disgusted that Obama would take that spineless middle ground for so long. Obama – moreso than any previous Commander-in-Chief – should recognize the harm in slighting one particular group of Americans.

Alas, he finally came out. This article by the Huffington Post cites several reasons, but basically, Biden had already expressed his support, so the pressure was on. Additionally, it’s an election year, and Obama’s stance likely solidifies support from, well, many people who were probably going to vote for him anyhow.

Making this sort of stance is often termed “flip-flopping.” I absolutely hate that politicians and reporters use this word in referring to candidates’ and politicans’ changing views. In fact, I hope that our politicians flip-flop on matters over time. As people – me included – learn new information or accumulate new experiences, our ideas change. If they don’t, then we’re dead…and while a corpse may be preferable to some live politicians, I am still hedging my bet that the best person for President is a living person.

In the 1960s, Nixon indicated he did not care for environmental issues. But then he signed the bill creating the EPA. Guess he flip-flopped. Good for him! Either he realized that enviromental issues were important, or he realized he needed the support of constituents who did care about the environment.

In 1988, George Bush, Sr. said: “Read my lips: no new taxes.” But then he got elected and created new taxes. Again, good for him. I’m glad that once he came into office, he realized he couldn’t get the support of Congress and get the budge to work without raising taxes.

A bunch of congressmen recently signed some pledge saying they wouldn’t raise taxes. I’m glad they feel that way; I’m not crazy about taxes going up everytime the government needs more money, but I think signing a pledge is a bit excessive. Surely, you never know what might happen or what might change in the future. So, please, flip-flop.

Of course, since it’s an election year, GOP candidate Mitt Romney had to make a stand in response to the President’s. He said: “I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender, and I do not favor civil unions if they are identical to marriage other than by name.”

This, of course, is a flip-flop from his stand back in 1994, when he claimed to be sthe better choice for gays among Senatorial hopefuls (his competitor was supre-liberal Ted Kennedy). Here’s a chart that shows Romney’s and Obama’s evolving  flip-flopping.

And notice how Romney states he only supports civil unions, as long as they’re not equal? Wow. That’s crazy. During the first half of the 20th Century, the United States tried out “separate but equal.” It didn’t work out, primarily because separate never was equal (and because complete implementation would’ve been cost-prohibitive), so they dropped it. But this…this is worse. Romney has no pretenses that gays should be treated equal. He wants them separate AND unequal.

I’ve said this before and I’ll say it again: I wish certain parties would join the 21st century: GLBTs deserve equal rights, we need to protect our environment, and women should get final say over their own bodies. Can’t we just agree on that? Because then, we can debate things like foreign policy and the economy and it would actually be interesting to hear the different views and to have to think about who I will vote for.