|
|
Charlie Crist on Civil RightsRepublican |
Crist said that he felt uncomfortable with his previous party affiliation. Republicans are perceived as "anti-women, anti-immigrant, anti-minority, [and] anti-gay," he said, and they refuse to compromise with Obama. The ex-governor said he feels, "liberated as a Democrat."
"I couldn't be consistent with myself and my core beliefs, and stay with a party that was so unfriendly toward the African-American president, I'll just go there," he said. "I was a Republican and I saw the activists and what they were doing, it was intolerable to me."
Crist left the GOP
As the primary campaign heated up, people starting floating rumors that I was gay. I denied those outright, telling an interviewer, "The point is, I'm not. There's the answer. Not that there's anything wrong with that, as they say on 'Seinfeld.' But I just happen not to be."
"We've got this new law," I said. "Let's go use it."
What could be more important to our democracy than basic civil rights? The right to vote. The right to equal protection under the law. The right to fair treatment in employment, housing, and public accommodation. If these rights aren't in place, we don't have a democracy. That's not liberal or conservative opinion. It's not Republican or Democratic. It's an American value that everyone should embrace.
As the primary campaign heated up, people started throwing all kinds of stuff at me. They floated rumors I was gay. I denied those outright, telling interviewer Jim DeFede on WINZ radio: "The point is, I'm not. There's the answer. How do you like it? Not that there's anything wrong with that, as they say on Seinfeld. But I just happen not to be."
I wanted to let individuals & families make their own personal life decisions. She was deeply suspicious of abortion, contraception, and alternative lifestyles.
I believed that diversity was one of our strengths in America. She seemed to consider it a threat.
She was a member of the same party John and I were, but our worldviews couldn't have been further apart.
After being pressed further, Crist once again addressed his evolving stance on the topic: "I made a mistake. I'm not perfect," he said. "That's the journey I'm on, and I'm still on it."
In 2010, he stood by the ban and said that he believes marriage is "a sacred institution between a man and a woman." Crist said he was inspired by President Obama to finally come out in support of marriage equality. "Everybody deserves to love who they want to. Everybody deserves to marry who they want to. Even the Pope has said, 'Who am I to judge?'"
"Some great news: On Tuesday, Delaware became the 11th state to allow marriage equality. And just a few days ago, RI adopted a similar measure, which followed victories last fall in ME, MD, and WA. I most certainly support marriage equality in Florida and look forward to the day it happens here."
Seems to us he still has some explaining to do about his position. Was it an evolution or an acknowledgement that he felt the need to discard his true feelings in '06 to avoid antagonizing social conservatives? Crist back then called himself a "live and let live" Republican and at one point suggested he backed civil unions (back then that position still carried some political risk). And yet he signed the petition for the gay marriage ban initiative, and sent campaign mailers touting his support for "traditional marriage."
"Charlie Crist stands on a wet paper box," Meek said. "You don't know where he is."
Rubio said neither Crist nor Meek would oppose the Obama administration.
The Christian Coalition Voter Guide inferred whether candidates agree or disagree with the statement, 'Make sexual preference a protected minority status under civil rights laws' The Christian Coalition notes, "You can help make sure that voters have the facts BEFORE they cast their votes. We have surveyed candidates in the most competitive congressional races on the issues that are important to conservatives."
H.J.Res.17: Removing the deadline for the ratification of the equal rights amendment: This joint resolution eliminates the deadline for the ratification of the ERA, which prohibits discrimination based on sex. The amendment was proposed to the states in House Joint Resolution 208 of the 92nd Congress, as agreed to in the Senate on March 22, 1972. The amendment shall be part of the Constitution whenever ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.
Opinion to vote YES (Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL-7): The ERA was first proposed in 1923, shortly after women gained the right to vote. [The original] 1979 deadline was later extended before it expired. By the end of 1982, 35 of the 38 required state legislatures had voted to ratify the ERA. Nevada ratified the ERA in 2017, Illinois in 2018 and, in January 2020, Virginia became the 38th and final state required to ratify it. If passed in the Senate, H.J. Res. 79 would remove the arbitrary 1982 deadline.
Opinion to vote NO (Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA-1): H. J. Res 17 would retroactively remove the deadline for the ratification of the Equal Rights Amendment. Regardless of your thoughts on the ERA, the deadline for the states to ratify the amendment expired four decades ago. By passing this resolution, House Democrats are virtue signaling and trying to take a shortcut around what is required in our constitutional amendment process. Those who want to pass an ERA will need to start this process from the beginning. Today's vote mocks the intentionally high bar set by our Founders to make changes to our precious Constitution.
Legislative Outcome: Passed House 222-204-4 on 03/17/2021; received in the Senate and read on 3/23. [OnTheIssues notes on the duration for ratification that the 27th Amendment to the United States Constitution was passed by Congress in 1789 and was ratified by 3/4 of the States and became law in 1992, a ratification period of 202 years].