I was not feeling so hot yesterday and opted for a Rescue Me episode on my DVR instead of subjecting myself to the GOP debate. Fortunately, Igor Volsky at Think Progress watched so I didn't have to. (Face it, almost none of these people will matter in six months anyway.) Volsky has helpfully compiled this two-minute condensation of the candidate's take on the question of marriage equality.
Thoughts, summary after the fold.
Volsky also sharply deconstructs Romney's dissonance on "Federalism" regarding marriage equality and health care. He simultaneously argues it's just awful that states should have their own policies on marriage equality, and there should be a Constitutional amendment to stop states going where his home state led.
But on healthcare, it's awful for the Federal Government to institute Federal standards. States should have the freedom to administer health care as they see fit. Which is of course why Romneycare was wonderful for Massachusetts but terrible for the country. Whatever, dude.
Though Ron Paul opposes marriage equality, he also thinks it's a question for states. I kinda liked how Ron Paul handled the polygamy aspect of question,
"It's sort of like asking the question 'what if states wanted to legalize slavery or something like that' that is so past reality that no state is going to do that."
A reality check that made Santorum look even sillier, when he the proceeded to concern troll that—"Oh noes! Sounds like Ron Paul supports polygamy!!"
I have tacked to telling people who present the polygamy slippery slope, "If you want to legalize polygamy, you're going to have to build your own movement and find a Senator to introduce the bills." That's not really going to happen is it?
Santorum also made some asinine critique of Iran for trampling “the rights of gays.” Yeah, I'm sure your heart just goes out to those gays swinging from the gallows in Iran's public square. I'm sure pressuring Iran to put an end to it will be a top priority for the Santorum administration.
Huntsman seems to have sidestepped the question by merely restating his support for civil unions. He also says—rather courageously in my opinion, given the audience—" I believe this nation can do a better job when it comes to equality." He doesn't apparently realize the GOP either thinks gay people are already equal, or that they have no righteous claim to the mantle of "unequal."
He sounded a little too nice and can pretty much kiss the Christian Fundamentalist vote goodbye. But, at least he may be strategizing from an actual reality base here, he didn't have much chance with Fundies with everyone else playing to the same crowd. Plus, he's not indulging in Romney's fantasy they'll overlook he's a Mormon aka, not a "real" Christian.
Bachmann was her usual self, banging the Federal Marriage Amendment drum. "Ratification campaigns! Rolling through your state in 2013!" At least she owned that she totally built her career on fighting the gays. Last month, the Concord Monitor reported:
Bachmann cut off an interview last week as she was being asked a question about gay marriage and emphasized that she is focused on rebuilding the economy and repealing federal health care reform. "I'm not involved in light, frivolous matters," she said. "I'm not involved in fringe or side issues. I'm involved in serious issues."
So in Michele's world, it will be incumbent for President to lead the charge to rewrite the Constitution over "light," "fringe" and "frivolous matters." Again, whatever, dude...
Locked out from the debate by Fox News was openly gay candidate Fred Karger. Horace Boothroyd III has more here. Over at LGBT POV, Karen Occamb also has a report. Karger added his two cents via Twitter (hey, it's a tactic that has kept Sarah Palin inexplicably relevant long past her expiration date).
And there you have it. A two-minute summary that is probably two-minutes more than it warrants. The bullet: GOP President, bad news for gays, lesbians and trans. But we all knew that didn't we?