President Clinton: My view on gay marriage "is evolving"..

[blueclown]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/05/presidents-bush-clinton-team-up-in-toronto-clinton-says-his-view-on-gay-marriage-is-evolving.html

And while President Clinton mostly kept to his promise to “thwart” efforts to get 42 and 43 to tangle with each other, he offered an interesting insight into his thinking on gay rights.

On the issue of gay marriage -- which Clinton, like President Obama, personally opposes -- Clinton said of his position: "Frankly, it's evolving" as he sees more committed gay couples raising kids.

As ABC political director David Chalian has pointed out, Clinton isn’t the only Democrat whose position on gay marriage is moving.

Clinton also expressed optimism that the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell policy” -- which he helped enact -- will eventually come off the books, allowing gay members of the armed services to serve openly.

"I think that time will lead to a repeal of this ban,” Clinton said.

Why can't you just come out for gay marriage, Bill? Why does everything have to be so calculated and political to you? You aren't running for president anymore. Do you realize how much of a bully pulpit you have as a former president who left office with a relatively high approval rating? Being on the forefront of calling for the legalization of gay marriage could provide Bill Clinton with a legacy he never got from his 8 years in office.

[pnwmom]

1. You're assuming that he doesn't mean what he's saying. I believe that

his views COULD still be evolving. Not many 66 year old Christians are in favor of gay marriage. He would be among the progressives just to say that his views are "evolving."

[Bluenorthwest]

9. You see, when folks with Bill's history

are said to be too 'christian' to favor human rights, I could quote verses from his Bible against what we know Bill has done all day long. How on Earth can anyone dare claim they are pious when they are famous for cigar handling and messing with the help? No, really. How? Bill's life, like the lives of the other politicians who spew religion against gay folks, does not hold up to the Scripture test. He's not got a leg to stand on as he speaks of a speck in my eye, while there is a Corona in his own. According to the guy that faith is named after, only a person without sin can judge another, and that man Himself refused to judge. But Bill can? And still claim it is about Christianity? Which teaches not to judge others, which teaches not to commit adultery, which teaches moderation in diet, and an endless list of teachings Bill and Hillary both reject in their own actions.
So hey, I say you should eat Kosher to be holy, and if you don't you are unworthy of basic rights and protections. I myself, however, will live on pork and cheese sandwiches while I berate you for your dietary uncleanliness. Explain to me how these people sleep at night?
It is like John Edwards, who testified about how his Baptist roots gave him values about marriage that he simply can not separate from his actions, so he just could not support my marriage, as only his is holy. He said all of this of course while having an affair, and his wife who knew all about it stood at his side nodding. When the affair came out in public, John never alluded to his Baptist marriage values being 'simply a part' of him. Never mentioned his 'faith' at all.
I can claim to be 7 feet tall, but if I can not reach the top shelf I'm just a liar.

[Dappleganger]

18. Quite true. nt

[craigmatic]

108. We've all known Bill was full of it for years. Personally I want to know what President Carter think

about it. I mean he's spent his life doing what Jesus said as opposed to bush who just liked to quote Jesus but do the opposite.

[Uzybone]

2. He is probably speaking his real thoughts

not every democrat who is against gay marriage is doing it for political purposes. Some actually believe its wrong (as wrongheaded that is).

[ProSense]

3. This is from the President who signed DOMA. n/t

[ShadowLiberal]

12. So, Harkins voted for DOMA, and is now in favor of gay marriage

I think Clinton's really speaking his mind this.

[wyldwolf]

15. so did Paul Wellstone

[ProSense]

42. So?

I never believed that Paul Wellstone was the most liberal Senator ever.

[wyldwolf]

43. So?

I don't care what you believed about him. :shrug:

Fact is, the left holds Clinton to a different standard. The black/white this/that with us/against thought processes gets tedious.

[ProSense]

45. Oh, I guess you were pointing that out the other poster.

My bad.

[wyldwolf]

47. direct reply to the other poster but really for anyone who...

... holds Clinton to a different standard. The black/white this/that with us/against thought processes gets tedious.

Here we have a former US president in his 60s who's opinions on gay marriage are evolving just like the rest of the country's, who helped enact DOMA at a time when the GOP most likely had the votes for a Constitutional Amendment, and there are those who would have rather had the man go down in flames over principle instead of holding the forces of hate at bay.

[ProSense]

51. "holds Clinton to a different standard."

Which standard: the one that attacks everyone who isn't for gay marriage up to attacks for being against civil rights?

[wyldwolf]

52. It's that mentality I just mentioned

A constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage or a law much easier to overturn. Those were the choices. There was no third option then. You do understand that, right? You do realize the choice of marriage rights was never on the table - the only choices were how solid and irreversible the laws against them were going to be.

But the all or nothing crowd, apparently, would rather have lost the war and not just the battle.

A different standard? Sure. Until May 2009, President Barack Obama's political platform included full repeal of the DOMA. As of May 2009, President Obama no longer explicitly supports full repeal of the DOMA. While Clinton's view is evolving, it would appear Obama's is devolving. Where's the outrage?

[ProSense]

53. That's nonsense:

It's no coincidence that after hiring Penn, Clinton signed the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act and then ran radio ads on Christian radio touting his support for DOMA.

From the Associated Press, October 17, 1996:

After angry complaints from gay-rights advocates, the Clinton campaign on Wednesday replaced an ad running on religious radio stations that boasted of the president's signature on a bill banning gay marriages....

The Clinton spot also touted his signing of the Defense of Marriage Act, in spite of earlier White House complaints that the Republicans' use of the issue amounted to "gay baiting."

DOMA wasn't something Bill Clinton was forced to do, it's something he chose to do, wanted to do, was happy to do. And that explains why Bill Clinton has never repudiated his support for DOMA. I thought at the time, and still thought up until a few days ago, that Bill Clinton was forced to sign DOMA. That the only reason he hadn't repudiated that support - hadn't said "look, it was GOP gay-baiting and I didn't have a choice, no Democrat had a choice" - was because it might put Hillary in a bind, forcing her to also repudiate DOMA, something she of course would WANT to do but couldn't because it might prove politically dangerous. But now it seems Clinton's Choice was much clearer, and more calculated, than that. Clinton thought DOMA was a great idea for him then, and thinks it's a great idea for his wife now. It's not a necessary evil, it's manna from heaven.

The final proof that legislative gay-bashing is still something President Clinton recommends as smart Democratic politics? Bill Clinton wanted to make sure that John Kerry's presidential defeat in 2004 would be blamed on Kerry's unwillingness to sufficiently bash the gays. That's the most sensible explanation for why he made the following leak to Newsweek within days of Kerry's loss (Kerry-Edwards campaign staff tell me that they were not the ones who leaked this to Newsweek, and Clinton and his people were the only other party involved).

link

[wyldwolf]

55. you're using a "progressive" blog's editorial as proof of something?

:rofl:
o... k

All I can say... based entirely on the editorial... is Clinton used the occasion to get votes.

Good thing his views are evolving... or does that matter? If it does, then where's your outrage over Obama's reversal?

No, this is just another example of the left using an a decade-old event to fire up theie troops while ignoring the reality of today - a President who could much more easily reverse this but chooses not to - and so-called "progressives" who were more than happy to vote for DOMA in the first place.

[ProSense]

56. You're claiming Newsweek is a blog?

Did you bother to go to the link to see the source?

Typical.

[wyldwolf]

61. ameriblog is a blog. Do you disagree?

The bulk of your post, starting with "...DOMA wasn't something Bill Clinton was forced to do" is not from Newsweek.

[ProSense]

63. Here:

Look at the sponsors of both the Senate and the House bills.

This legislation was introduced and pushed by Repubs.

[wyldwolf]

65. here what?

I've already established in this thread DOMA was a compromise to head off a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage that likely had the Republican votes to pass. It was introduced by Republicans but voted on by many many Democrats - it passed the Senate 85-14 and the House 342-67. The only thing you can do is throw up a blogger's opinion who has suddenly found faith in Bob Shrum and try to credit it to newsweek while avoiding leveling any criticism on Obama.

[ProSense]

67. It had the Democratic votes because Clinton wanted it.

In the 1993 case Baehr v. Lewin (name later changed to Baehr v. Miike<4>), the Hawaii State Supreme Court ruled that the state must show a compelling interest in prohibiting same-sex marriage. This prompted concern among opponents of same-sex marriage that the state might legalize it, and that eventually other states would recognize same-sex marriages performed in Hawaii. The Defense of Marriage Act is designed specifically to "quarantine" same-sex marriage and prevent states from being required to recognize the marriage of same-sex couples in other states.

The Defense of Marriage Act was authored by then Georgia Representative Bob Barr, then a Republican, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996, after moving through a legislative fast track and overwhelming approval in both houses of the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress. Its Congressional sponsors stated, "he bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex."<5> Barr has since apologized for his sponsorship of the DOMA.<6>

The legislative history of the bill asserts authority to enact the law under Article IV Sec. 1, which grants Congress power to determine "the effect" of such full faith and credit. Proponents made clear their purpose to normalize heterosexual marriage on a federal level and to permit each state to decide for itself whether to recognize same-sex unions concluded in another state. Opponents variously question whether the power asserted extends so far as to permit non-recognition altogether, argue that the law is unconstitutionally vague by leaving out essential details, assert a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, or some combination of the three.

Although Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law during his re-election campaign in 1996 and opposed same-sex marriage, he did not mention the law (or the controversy surrounding it) in his 2004 memoir, My Life.<7>

In a June 1996 interview in the gay and lesbian magazine The Advocate, Clinton said: "I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered."<8>

Until May 2009, President Barack Obama's political platform included full repeal of the DOMA.<9><10> As of May 2009, President Barack Obama no longer explicitly supported full repeal of the DOMA. <11><12>

link

Quit with the little convenient excuses.

[wyldwolf]

68. says who??

quit with your little unproven allegations.

[ProSense]

70. President's statement on DOMA

President's statement on DOMA

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement by President Bill Clinton

On Friday, September 20, prior to signing the Defense of Marriage Act, President Clinton released the following statement:

Throughout my life I have strenuously opposed discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans. I am signing into law H.R. 3396, a bill relating to same-gender marriage, but it is important to note what this legislation does and does not do.

I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms "marriage" and "spouse".

This legislation does not reach beyond those two provisions. It has no effect on any current federal, state or local anti-discrimination law and does not constrain the right of Congress or any state or locality to enact anti-discrimination laws. I therefore would take this opportunity to urge Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, an act which would extend employment discrimination protections to gays and lesbians in the workplace. This year the Senate considered this legislation contemporaneously with the Act I sign today and failed to pass it by a single vote. I hope that in its next Session Congress will pass it expeditiously.

I also want to make clear to all that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation. Discrimination, violence and intimidation for that reason, as well as others, violate the principle of equal protection under the law and have no place in American society.

[wyldwolf]

73. where does it say "It had the Democratic votes because Clinton wanted it?"

You keep running away from your own statements.

[ProSense]

79. Clinton wanted it. He said so himself. Didn't he? n/t

[wyldwolf]

80. where does it say "It had the Democratic votes because Clinton wanted it?"

[ProSense]

81. I said that because Clinton wanted it? Didn't he?

LOL!

You can't accept the fact that Clinton wanted this legislation, and expressed it in clear terms.

[wyldwolf]

82. have you shown Dems voted for it because Clinton wanted it? NO

You can't accept the fact that Clinton wanted this legislation, and expressed it in clear terms.

Sure I can, but you're making up shit about Dems voting for because Clinton wanted it. Face it. You have nowhere to run on this. Dems - progressive Dems - voted for this 16 years ago. Obama has backtracked on repealing it in 2009. That's cool with you. But you act like a jealous woman scorned by Bill Clinton so you're making shit up. :) I'm sure there's a psychological condition that could be diagnosed here.

[ProSense]

83. No, Clinton wanted it.

I don't care which Dems voted for it. Several real progressives did not.

[wyldwolf]

84. And progressive Dems voted for it. And Obama doesn't care to repeal it. That's cool with you.

but damn that Bill Clinton for standing you up for the Prom. :rofl:

[ProSense]

85. Pity you

You have no idea what Obama is going to do. How much longer does he have in this term: Three years and seven months?



On edit: At least, Clinton is "evolving."

[wyldwolf]

86. Pity YOU

You have no idea what Obama is going to do.

But I take him at his word.

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/04/white-house-website-doma/

[ProSense]

88. Oh goody

Last week, after bloggers pointed out Obama’s seeming hypocrisy on “don’t ask, don’t tell,” the White House quickly revised the language to once again pledge to “repeal” the policy, rather than just change it. Will the White House similarly fix this mistake, and reinstate Obama’s campaign promise to grant gay couples their full federal rights?

Oh yeah, the White House web master is at it again.

LOL!

Did I say three years and sevent months?

[wyldwolf]

93. so the white house webmaster acts independently of Obama?

Gotta link?

[ProSense]

94. Do you believe

Obama is standing there telling them to pull the language and then quickly put it back up?

:rofl:

[wyldwolf]

95. yes, I believe the Obama determines what goes on there. You have proof otherwise?

[ProSense]

96. So you think he pulled it down and quickly put it back up?

Seriously? It couldn't have been an error? You think he changed his mind and a few hours later changed it back?

LOL!

[wyldwolf]

97. yes, you have proof otherwise?

[ProSense]

98. Do you have proof that it

wasn't an error by the Web administrator?

[wyldwolf]

99. no, but there's no indication of that. But there's proof the position changed on the website.

[ProSense]

100. Changed to what:

On January 29, 2009, President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act to ensure that all Americans receive equal pay for equal work. The President is committed to expanding funding for the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division to ensure that voting rights are protected and Americans do not suffer from increased discrimination during a time of economic distress. President Obama also continues to support the Employment Non-Discrimination Act and believes that our anti-discrimination employment laws should be expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity. He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage. He supports repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell in a sensible way that strengthens our armed forces and our national security, and also believes that we must ensure adoption rights for all couples and individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation.

link

[wyldwolf]

101. from... to this...

to this:

"He supports full civil unions and federal rights for LGBT couples and opposes a constitutional ban on same-sex marriage."

Language reference repealing DOMA was removed.

Obama's position suxs worse than Clinton's.

[ProSense]

102. "Obama's position suxs worse than Clinton's."

You can't be serious? I know you are though. Clinton is wonderful.

Clinton is reponsible for DOMA and DADT. Obama will be responsible for repealing them.

Three years seven months.

[wyldwolf]

103. "Obama's position suxs worse than Clinton's."

Yep. Obama obviously can't bring himself to repeal DOMA with a Democratic congress and public opinion on his side. :rofl:

[ProSense]

104. Three years seven months to undo Clinton's damage. n/t

[wyldwolf]

105. with no indication that he wants to.

[ProSense]

106. LOL! n/t

[wyldwolf]

107. LOL! n/t

[jesus_of_suburbia]

57. Clinton and Obama both suck on gay marriage. Don't you agree? Gay rights ARE civil rights.

I think Bill and Hillary are shameless opportunists as far as gay rights go (I think Bill is worse than Hillary).


I think the same about Barack.


Do you agree that Bill, Hillary, and Barack are all wrong?




A yes or no answer... can you even admit that President Obama is wrong about anything? Or are you just going to say that this thread is about Clinton (and avoid the question)?

[wyldwolf]

69. "can you even admit that President Obama is wrong about anything?"

Prosense is too busy trashing a president out of office for 8 years to even consider such a notion. But I agree with your post.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

71. Thanks. It's ridiculous how some posters attack the Clintons for everything and can't see the thorn

in Obama's eye.


(by the way, I love the Clintons and Pres Obama).. I just can't stand how the Clintons are treated so horribly by certain posters! :toast:


Obama 2012 and Hillary 2016! (if she wants it)

[ProSense]

76. Ah, another disingenuous

poster trying to cover the tracks of Clinton excuses:

I think Bill and Hillary are shameless opportunists as far as gay rights go (I think Bill is worse than Hillary).

Yeah, just what the country needs in 2016 (if she wants it)

(by the way, I love the Clintons and Pres Obama).. I just can't stand how the Clintons are treated so horribly by certain posters!

Obama 2012 and Hillary 2016! (if she wants it)

[wyldwolf]

87. Prosense has gone about 10 posts now without acknowledging Obama's position

[ProSense]

90. Wyldwolf's

desperation is showing.

[wyldwolf]

91. that's #11

[ProSense]

92. #12 n/t

[ProSense]

72. Who the hell are you? n/t

[wyldwolf]

74. who the hell are you?

[ProSense]

77. Someone

who sees how desperate you are when it comes to Clinton.

[wyldwolf]

78. that's more descriptive of you... desperately obsessed.

[joshcryer]

116. Yep, epic fail on so many levels.

[ProSense]

41. It's Harkin, and that has nothing to do with Clinton. n/t

[polmaven]

21. When DOMA was passed and signed

it was very clear to most who actually listened that one of the top reasons for that was to prevent the filing and possible passage of a Constitutional Amendment to BAN gay marriage.

Is that what you would have preferred?

DADT was also done to stop the blatant demands from commanding officers about sexual orientation.

At the time, the country's views were really just waking up to the reality of homosexuality, and the vast majority were anti gay ANYTHING.

We have now move to the point of a much more - tolerant - attitude, and are moving toward nearly full acceptance.

[Beacool]

25. Yep, most either don't know or gloss over the proposed Constitutional ban on gay marriage.

Both DOMA and DADT were compromises. Were they ideal? Heck no, but the alternative was far worse. People are too quick to judge without remembering historic perspective, 1993 is not the same as 2009. Not only has Bill evolved, but hopefully so has the nation. Presidents don't operate in a vacuum and the America of the 1990s was different than that of this decade. Policies that Obama will find easier to get through would have been almost impossible 16 years ago.

;-)

[jesus_of_suburbia]

75. Beacool, I'm gay, and I realize that the 90's were a different time!

I know Pres Clinton was playing politics... but guess who else plays politics in 2009 (we all know).

Yet some people here love to put down the Clintons for what happened 15 years ago while giving a pass to those who play politics in 2009 (when the environment is much more favorable to GLBT'ers than it was in the 90's!)

[Bluenorthwest]

10. But bearing false witness to the entire nation

is just fine and dandy heterosexual behavior? "I did not have sex with that woman." Finger wagging. So that was not wrong? His adultery itself was not wrong enough in his mind to not engage in it.
Those who think they can do as they please and yet still feel the right to pass judgement on others are bad people.
He cigar fucked the help while his wife and kid were in the same house. And he thinks my marriage is wrong? Whatever, man.

[bunkerbuster1]

13. I was going to reply negatively, but then...

He cigar fucked the help while his wife and kid were in the same house. And he thinks my marriage is wrong?

It's kind of hard to argue with logic like that.

(and no, I'm not being snarky. Great point.)

[snowdays]

19. Good gawd. Get a life. His

problems are between him and his wife. The continues vile comments against Bill are wrong.

[BR_Parkway]

22. + 1,000

[Hippo_Tron]

39. Most Democrats who aren't elected officials tend to favor gay marriage

[RoyGBiv]

111. Just a note ...

Many of the respondents to this thread have no awareness of history.

[tomreedtoon]

4. He calculates because he's a calculator.

Remember, he's a guy who wanted to be liked more than anything else. And he's always trying to figure out what will make him liked by more people. How positive can he be towards gay marriage to avoid losing fans? How much more or less can he take that stand THIS week?

He may not run for President, but he's always running for something. That's the nature of politicians.

[ClarkUSA]

8. His calculation is that Hillary will run in 2016. She didn't want to fully repeal DOMA last year...

... unlike President Obama. No doubt Hillary got Bubba's input on that political decision. So I'm not surprised at the parsing his position. Once a triangulator, always a triangulator.

[Baby Snooks]

17. Or 2012

Depends on how much they can sabotage and then say "If you'd elected Hillary in 2008..."

[wyldwolf]

20. silly

:eyes:

Or paranoid.

[polmaven]

23. More like typical

For some, hatred of anything and everything Clinton is all consuming.

[Beacool]

28. That's why it's better to ignore them.

Not worth the time to respond to victims of chronic CDS.

;)

[ClarkUSA]

32. If Hillary thought she could win, she'd run in 2012. But as long as President Obama is around...

... she knows she has no chance until 2016.

[Beacool]

34. No she wouldn't.

She would never do to Obama what Kennedy did to Carter. You obviously don't know her.

x(

[ClarkUSA]

36. Um, you obviously didn't read through what I said: "...as long as President Obama is around..."

[provis99]

5. I can believe his views on sex and marriage have evolved...

after all, this is from the guy who told us that oral sex was not really sex, and that oral sex wasn't breaking your vows to your wife.

[Beacool]

6. Because his wife is SOS.

Bill has to tread carefully and not say anything that is opposed to the administration's policies and would place Hillary in a tough spot. Does Obama support gay mariage? I think not.

The Clintons are comfortable around gay people. They have had gays in their staffs since Arkansas, a state that is not precisely known for being progressive. They also count with quite a few gay friends.

;)

[Bluenorthwest]

11. Obma's been all over the map

Back in 1996 he campaigned for State Senate supporting gay marriages, and said he “would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages."
He has said since that he opposes equality because it is a State question, and at other times that he opposes equality because of his faith. When he says that, I have to assume that in 96 he was in another or no faith, right? Or maybe he was just lying, as allowed by his faith?
He has never explained how his thinking changed, if it did. He just says different things at different times. I see no rational thought in his various claimed positions, nor do I see any 'faith' at play. I see a man saying whatever will work in a given moment to help him achieve his own agenda.
As they used to say, Obama was for it before he was against it. He had one reason to be against it, before he came up with another claimed reason to oppose.

[Beacool]

24. Obama will go whichever way helps him politically.

Just like most politicians. In that respect they don't differ much. It's far easier nowadays to support gay marriage and gays in the military than it was in the 90s, for example, because it is more acceptable to the American public. For all the criticism of Clinton, I remember that he was fighting upstream on this issue. I was quite young but recall the hatred being lobbied at him over trying to get the military to accept gays. It was one of the first things he tackled and it ended hurting him politically. It's now so easy to criticize him, but the national mood in 1993 was vastly different from today. Ditto for Hillary and healthcare. I still think that her proposal back then was far better than whatever waterdown version of a health care bill we will end with in the future. The outline of the Kennedy Baucus proposal is not particularly impressive.

:shrug:

[ClarkUSA]

29. Really? Obama came out strongly against Prop 8 before the vote AND cut an ad for it, too.

No other presidential candidate did both these things: http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=He+was+the+only+presidential+candidate+to+come+out+against+Prop+8&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

He was also the only major Democratic candidate to endorse the full repeal of DOMA. In addition, obscure Senate candidate Barack Obama's unpopular stand against IWR before the 2002 vote proves that he is anything but a politician who "will go whichever way helps him politically."

[Beacool]

30. His speech in his liberal district didn't hurt him in 2002.

I still think that he would have voted with the majority if he had been in the US Senate at the time. He said as much to Russert in 2004, his backtracking later on it when he decided to run for president not withstanding. No drama Obama was not precisely known for being a risk taker in the state senate.

As for Proposition 8, he was already the party's nominee or do you think that McCain would have cut an ad for it? What was more telling was his invitation to Rick Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration. Some of my gay friends are still fuming over that gem.

;)

[ClarkUSA]

33. He was running a statewide Senate race with many not-so-liberal districts to be concerned about.

The polls prior to the October 2002 vote showed a large majority of Americans were for passing IWR. Barack was the only Senate candidate out of 12 to make such a strong denunication. Since he was not the frontrunner by any means, it was a potential game-killer. But he still made his anti-war, anti IWR speech prior to the Senate vote and followed up by appearing on state talk shows explicitly explaining his anti-"dumb war" reasoning, all of which proved strikingly prescient years later. His comment to Russert which you slyly spun was a Kerry/Edwards face-saving gesture. Oh and did I say that Sen. Barack Obama was the only major Democratic presidential candidate to endorse the full repeal of DOMA? :)

[keepCAblue]

38. Follow the news much?

Obama did not come out "strongly" against Prop 8. He very quietly sent a one-page letter opposing Prop 8 to the Stonewall Democrats months before the November 4th election, then never made any public statement thereafter. In fact, his and Biden's "I do not believe in same-sex marriage" statements were the only public soundbites the Obama team made prior to the election -- soundbites which were blasted loudly, far and wide, by the Yes on 8 organizers without so much as a peep of clarification or rebuttal from either Obama or Biden.

And Obama was not the only Dem candidate to endorse the repeal of DOMA during his campaigning--Dennis Kucinich also endorsed DOMA's full repeal and, even better, publicly stated his support for FULL LGBT equality, marriage rights included. And since the election, where does Obama now stand on DOMA? What of his campaign promise to LGBT Americans to fully repeal DOMA? {crickets chirping}...nothing. In fact, after Prop 8's passage, LGBTs and their friends, families and straight allies sent an open letter to Obama reminding him of his many campaign promises--to repeal DOMA, DADT, enact ENDA and more--and what was Obama's response? {more crickets chirping}...Cut through all that silence and you'll hear Obama backpedaling on his promises. And mention of the most critical of his long list of promises to LGBTs which were listed in detail on the whitehouse.gov website immediately following the election have more recently been either watered down (DADT) or deleted completely (DOMA).

Regardless of his IWR stance, when it comes to LGBT civil rights, I think it's blatantly obvious that Obama's flip-flopping on full LGBT marriage equality, DOMA and DADT proves he does, indeed, do and say whatever is necessary to further his political ambitions. Quite frankly, he threw LGBT Americans under the proverbial bus after taking our money and our votes under false pretenses.

[ClarkUSA]

40. More than you, apparently.

"Obama did not come out "strongly" against Prop 8. He very quietly sent a one-page letter opposing Prop 8 to the Stonewall Democrats months before the November 4th election, then never made any public statement thereafter."

I disagree. The letter was widely posted among the netroots. It's not his fault that Prop 8 opponents did a lousy job of publicizing/promoting it to their advantage to the statewide public at large.

"In fact, his and Biden's "I do not believe in same-sex marriage" statements were the only public soundbites the Obama team made prior to the election -- soundbites which were blasted loudly, far and wide, by the Yes on 8 organizers without so much as a peep of clarification or rebuttal from either Obama or Biden."

Did you forget that Obama was featured in a Prop 8 ad which the idiot anti-Prop 8 organizers never bothered to run? Blogger Andrew Sullivan, a vocal opponent of Prop 8, made a point of saying how stupid that was after Prop 8 was passed. He felt that running that ad could've made the crucial difference between defeat and failure.

"And Obama was not the only Dem candidate to endorse the repeal of DOMA during his campaigning--Dennis Kucinich also endorsed DOMA's full repeal and, even better, publicly stated his support for FULL LGBT equality, marriage rights included."

Reread my post. I said: "He was also the only major Democratic candidate to endorse the full repeal of DOMA."

"And since the election, where does Obama now stand on DOMA?"

The same as it was last year, unless you have a link to a definitive quote by President Obama where he states otherwise. I am not aware of any.

"What of his campaign promise to LGBT Americans to fully repeal DOMA? {crickets chirping}...nothing."

You do know there's 44 months left to his term, right? Did you really think he was going to do that this year, when he's never said he would because he's said repeatedly that passing healthcare reform would be his top domestic priority this year and after that, he'd focus on the energy bill? Did you "follow the news" on these facts?

"In fact, after Prop 8's passage, LGBTs and their friends, families and straight allies sent an open letter to Obama reminding him of his many campaign promises--to repeal DOMA, DADT, enact ENDA and more--and what was Obama's response?"

So what? Why should he respond to every "reminder" letter he gets from single-issue advocates?

Did you "follow the news" when he responded to a lesbian soldier who wrote him concerning her involuntary discharge where he reaffirmed his goal to repeal DADT but said it would take time because it needed Congressional approval. It was posted multiple times on GDP. Go check the archives if you don't know what I'm talking about.

"Cut through all that silence and you'll hear Obama backpedaling on his promises."

I disagree. Show me where he ever specifically gave "promises" to repeal DOMA, and DADT within 4 months of getting into office. He's always made it clear that healthcare reform and the energy bill were going to be his top domestic priorities this first year, after stabilizing the economy (which even Krugman has finally admitted President Obama has accomplished).

"Regardless of his IWR stance, when it comes to LGBT civil rights, I think it's blatantly obvious that Obama's flip-flopping on full LGBT marriage equality, DOMA and DADT proves he does, indeed, do and say whatever is necessary to further his political ambitions."

He wasn't for gay marriage during his presidential run (none of the major presidential candidates were or are) and he never promised to repeal Bubba's DADT and DOMA fuck-ups within four months, so there's been no "flip-flopping" at all.

"Quite frankly, he threw LGBT Americans under the proverbial bus after taking our money and our votes under false pretenses."

There were no false pretenses on President Obama's part, only false expectations on your part.

[keepCAblue]

54. Obama "cut an ad" against prop 8? I'd like a link to that please...

...no, really, I'd like a link to that ad, because if you're referring to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_eMXdliDGXs">this one, Obama nor his camp contributed anything toward this ad beyond the letter he wrote to the Stonewall Democrats -- the ad merely shows a photo of Obama and quotes from the same Stonewall Democrats letter I referred to previously. He and Biden did finally make an official public statement in opposition to 8, but not until November 1st -- the election was Nov. 4th, so it was a case of too little, too late and did nothing to counter the televised footage of Obama and Biden staunchly declaring their opposition to same-sex marriage during the debates, seen by millions.

Since Prop 8's passage, Obama has said nothing publicly in reaction. And, again, any and all references to DOMA or Obama's promise to repeal it have been wiped from the whitehouse.gov site.

As for this being a "single issue" concern, I beg to differ. This is a matter of CIVIL RIGHTS which encompasses a multitude of issues--marriage, basic freedoms, economic justice, defense policies, discrimination in the workplace and housing, federal protection from hate crimes and violations of both the First and Fourteenth Amendments -- violations which potentially impacts all minorities, not just LGBT Americans. The only people who see this a a "single issue" matter are those who are blinded by sanctimony and callous indifference.

[ClarkUSA]

58. I gave you the link. Splitting hairs on semantics is a tired ol' red herring.

I've made my points, which were quite factual, as well-known writer and blogger Andrew Sullivan can attest to, since he made the ones about Obama's Prop 8 ad first. His credibility exceeds yours by a far margin, so I feel safe in saying that so far as I can ascertain, you have offered nothing but baseless ad nauseum rhetoric based on false expectations... some indeed are "blinded by sanctimony". :eyes:

[keepCAblue]

62. LOL. "Splitting hairs" ... that's a duzy of a divide from reality. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

113. That's ironic, coming from someone who's litany of grievances have no basis in legislative reality.

[Beacool]

110. That's the famous ad????????

Oh, boy........

Yep, he went all out, didn't he?

:rofl:

[ClarkUSA]

114. How many Prop 8 ads did the Clintons appear in? Why doesn't Hillary want to fully repeal DOMA?

People who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

What he did was credible and noteworthy considering he was also in the latter stages of running for president
--at a time he knew his beloved grandmother was dying -- while other major Democrats like the Clintons were
completely ignoring the issue.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

7. Good points. Too bad Bill worries more about his popularity than doing the right thing.

[wyldwolf]

14. your spin on this story is a disgrace

Look at your avatar - ya think LBJ would have been for gay marriage? NO.

Why not take your pissy attitude and apply it to the current POTUS who can actually do something.

The constant Clinton bashing must some sort of initiation into the teenage progressive club.

[Forkboy]

26. The cultural climate is a lot different now than it was under LBJ.

I'm not going to go searching for some kind of poll from back then, but I'd be willing to bet the rent money that there wasn't even close to the amount of support for the idea of gay marriage then that there is now.

[wyldwolf]

37. no argument there

However, LBJ assisted an FBI witch hunt in his administration for homosexuals after someone is his administration was outed. There was no tolerance for it then politically.

I would also add there wasn't even close to the amount of support for the idea of gay marriage in the 1990s as there is now.

[ruggerson]

49. actually there was far less support for interracial marriage

in 1967 when Loving came down than there is for same sex marriage today.

People were against interracial marriage, according to Gallup, at about 70/30.

Same sex marriage currently runs about 50/50.

Difference is we had a big majority on the Supreme Court willing to do the right thing and we had a President using the bully pulpit to make the case for civil rights.

[ruggerson]

16. Honestly, who cares?

Nobody gives a rat's ass what past Presidents think. EVen the morons who pay them 100 grand to speak are only interested in their cachet, not their policy stands.

[ProSense]

44. "Nobody gives a rat's ass what past Presidents think."

Was that the problem during the campaign?

[ruggerson]

46. other way around

they paid far too MUCH attention to him.

[Enrique]

27. the people's views are evolving

support for gay marriage is increasing rapidly in polls.

People hear Clinton talk about his views evolving, they think about their own views and say well my views can evolve too, and then support for gay marriage increases even more.

Opponents of gay marriage want people to stay in the camps they're in, keep it "us vs. them", and not see the possibility of changing.

[CTyankee]

31. I see my grandkids in MA ages 8, 11 and 14 and see the evolution before my very eyes.

Their parents are heterosexual liberals. Being gay, tho, to them is nothing detrimental. Gay marriages are, just as hetero marriages are, what happens when two people love and commit to each other. Period. And this is the way it should be.

[Jennicut]

35. Peoples' views change over time. I use to think civil unions were fine but now think gay

marriage is the best way to go and civil unions just don't cut it.
Also, Clinton is in his sixties. The fact that he can evolve at that age is a good thing. And his evolving has been consistent over time.

[bluedawg12]

59. +1 Well said Jennicut! n/t

[LittleBlue]

48. The POTUS is irrelevant to gay marriage

It will be decided by the state and federal courts, and at the state level of government. Unless people expect him to rally support for amending the Constitution to specifically include a provision for gay marriage, his opinion on the matter is quite irrelevant as far as I know.

[ruggerson]

50. Considering he would have to push for and sign a repeal to DOMA

unless the USSC strikes it down, you are mistaken.

He is quite relevant.

[bluedawg12]

60. He's very relevant.

And accountable for his previous pledges in getting the party moving.

[keepCAblue]

66. Martin Luther King, Jr. disagrees with you: The President has the Power

crosspost:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=5750969&mesg_id=5750969

[MasonJar]

64. Clinton says his attitude is evolving. Why not believe that? It is true

of the majority of America. And as to "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," that was the best Clinton could get for gays at the time with the same (or carbon copies) despicable GOPers conspiring against his every move that Obama now endures.

[Jackeens]

89. Clinton's comments remind me of my late father

His views 'evolved' through his life too, he travelled from being an unthinking racist, sexist and homophobe to someone who actually started thinking about how his views impacted on real people's lives. By the time he died, when he was 82, he was unrecognisable from the man I knew growing up, and I adored him for making that journey. I know, the journey isn't speedy enough, but people like my father - and Bill Clinton - had and have a long road to travel from where they started out in life. I actually respect Clinton, considering his background, for those comments. I understand them, I think of my father.

[gauguin57]

109. Maybe Bill will marry Poppy Bush. Lord knows they look like they're in love.

Mazel Tov, you two!

[Zavulon]

112. What a steaming pantload. Shut the fuck up about this, Bill.

How much "evolving" is necessary? You're either for equal rights or you're not.

Personally, I'm against marriage as a whole - it fails half the time, I don't think government should regulate it, and I definitely don't think the tax code should have anything to say anything about it.

Still, as long as we're stuck with government having its foor in the marriage door, I think any two humans should be able to get married, regardless of preferences or plumbing. The idea of "they're gay, so that's sick" / "they're gay, and that will destroy the American family," or whatever other bullshit Rush is spewing forth this week, is fucking absurd.

When I was in my late 20's and a Republican, my attidue was "I'm straight, I don't give a fuck." Still straight, my attitude at 45 is "Jesus fucking CHRIST, are those assholes backwards in their thinking."

Even NEAL BOORTZ gets this. NEAL FUCKING BOORTZ.

[jody]

115. IMO the issue is "rights" whether its "pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy" or

"enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property". See CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

Those rights are "inalienable" or "unalienable". SCOTUS calls them "pre-existing" and said such a right is "not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

Government is obligated to protect those rights for a minority against the tyranny of a simple majority.

IMO the question for supreme courts is whether "same-sex marriage" is a right included in "pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy"?