I absolutely HATE this mentality. I remember reading something about this in a book, and I agreed 100%. Why do they have to be "flip floppers"? Why must politicians be expected to make their mind up about issues a decade ago, and never change their position? Why do we expect our politicians to keep the same mentality their entire life, regardless of their experiences, changes in the world, evolving science and wisdom which comes with age?
I'm not picking you in particular, I just hate that mentality. Our lives are filled with experiences which determine how we think and feel. Why do we not allow politicians to feel differently about a subject based on their experiences? I absolutely detest the term "flip flopper" and all the negative connotations which go with it.
I think it has to do with the nature of the "conversion". If its the result of some life changing event, outside of political expediency, I don't consider it flip-flopping. For example, a politician who was adamantly opposed to helmet laws for motorcycles changing his or her mind to be in favor of them after a loved one gets in a motorcycle accident or something, that wouldn't be a flip-flop to me. They changed their mind because of something personal, not to win votes. I am totally okay with that. My issue is when politicians do it to maximize their vote counts. When the position change is done for political reasons, not because of any real life changing events. I don't know how pro-life Mitt Romney actually is, the timing of his "conversion" seemed to mesh pretty well with his decision to run for public office as a Republican. It makes me skeptical of his original motivations. The timing is convenient.
Same with Barack Obama. In 1996, he was in favor of gay marriage while he was a local politician, from a district that is heavily liberal where it wouldn't have mattered much...then when he starts running for national offices like US Senator and President, where the voting base is much more diverse, suddenly he has a deeply rooted philosophical epiphany that tells him marriage should be between a man and a woman, which coincidentally matched the prevailing majority opinion, and then when those attitudes shift more towards the way he originally believed, he has a second philosophical epiphany to reverse the first one? C'mon. I don't think it's really a huge stretch of the imagination to believe that these changes in his position were politically motivated rather than an actual change in beliefs. Obama has ALWAYS been in favor of gay marriage, he just lied about it for awhile to garner votes. That's certainly much easier to believe than he was for it before he was against it before he was for it. But, because the "change of heart" was politically motivated, I would label that flip-flopping, just like I would label Romney's conversion. I hope that Romney's politically motivated conversion to the pro-life camp ended up becoming real, and that he genuinely is pro-life now...but I have little doubt that his position change initially was politically motivated rather than because of a deeply rooted philosophical epiphany.
Basically, I ask myself, what would they believe if they were just a private citizen, with no aspirations to ever run for political office, with no voter constituency to try to appease? Would their position be the same as stated? When it comes to both Romney and Obama, the answer to that question is muddled at best.
How about instead, we just call ALL "marriages" a "civil union" and be done with it? If people are going to get so concerned about the institution of marriage where they will deny rights to people who are homosexual, then marriage should no longer be granted government privileges. It should be a religious ceremony only. If heterosexual people wish to receive government benefits, then they have to engage in a civil union.
I would expect nothing less.
I already support this. I would favor the US Government or individual state governments to relabel all future marriages civil unions for the sake of legal benefits, etc. I believe that the last time we had a discussion like this in the Cigar Lounge/Newswire, I came up with something along the lines of the following:
All marriages are civil unions, but not all civil unions are marriages, like all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.
If I remember right, I made the case that it would be convenient for the states to continue to recognize existing marriages, simply to avoid all of the red tape that would be required to force already married couples to redo everything to convert it into a civil union, but that the states and federal government should recognize civil unions as the legally binding event, not a marriage. Basically, existing "marriages" would be grandfathered in just to avoid all of the bureaucracy bullshit, but that marriage licenses would be replaced with civil union licenses for new ones.
I would consider "marriages" to be a subset to civil unions, not a term of equality.
-Government recognizes civil unions for conveying of legal benefits, which can be entered in to by any two consenting adults, as determined by whichever governmental body presides over such things.
-Domestic Partnerships (or some other terminology), a secular arrangement devoid of any religious connotations performed by a Judge/Justice of the Peace, act as a subset to the overarching concept of a civil union.
-Marriages, (using the standard religious definitions as being between man and a woman, or the alternative Covenant between a man, a woman and God) act as a subset to the overarching concept of a civil union.
As far as the governments would be concerned, the two subsets are 100% identical in how the law treats them, because it recognizes the civil union, not the particular method used to create that union.
