Enjoy Your Daughter's Wedding, President Clinton.

[Kurovski]

If you had a gay daughter, this wouldn't be happening, and that would In part be due to your approval of the Defense of Marriage Act.

[NoPasaran]

1. Lighten up, Comrade Francis

[Kurovski]

2. Who's Francis.

I don't want to lighten up. When I lighten up it gets sent to the goddam lounge :rofl:

I wanna be a full citizen, for the sake of the christ!

Who is this "Francis"? I demand an answer!

[LuckyTheDog]

3. Here is a link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrllCZw8jiM

Watch this until the very end.

[Kurovski]

5. Or else what?

You won't give me my civil rights? Just kidding, I'll go watch.

Your name isn't John, is it?

[LuckyTheDog]

19. My name is not John

Why do you ask?

[Kurovski]

20. I knew a man with a dog

named Lucky & his name was John.

And I just Got you to kick the thread. :)

[Kurovski]

7. Hey, he's hot.

Oh yeah, he'd be out by now, wantin' that legal marriage shit. Oh yeah.

[Gidney N Cloyd]

4. This is 'Francis:'

[Kurovski]

6. Now that guy knows how to handle a situation.

Or pretend to.

[stevedeshazer]

10. I thought this was Francis

[Kurovski]

12. That's more like me.

but I'm right.

I despise talking animal literature. :rofl:

[stevedeshazer]

8. You're right.

I'm trying to think of a way I could disagree.

I can't.

I'm trying to like Bill Clinton.

I can't.

DOMA

NAFTA

GATT

WTO

:nuke:

[Kurovski]

9. Y'know Steve, money makes some people weird.

Look at where he came from.

I know we're supposed to be greatful, and if he hadn't come up from the ground, he'd have been a lot worse, but it's difficult to see how at the moment.

And it looks like Obama might be following in his footsteps.

I still support Obama, but I'm not married to him.


See that? see how I made a joke there? Yeah, I lightened up there at the end.

[stevedeshazer]

11. I hear that.

Things are just gettin' weirder, man.

:thumbsup:

[Kurovski]

37. "man"? You never write that way.

That's


That's


um, weird.

[Brickbat]

13. Huh. I recced it, and it's still zero.

I tried.

[Kurovski]

17. Thanks, Brickbat. (nt)

[Orsino]

36. It's okay. Me, too.

That's democracy.

[Kurovski]

46. It was up to +1, now down again.

I can see voting for some semblance of decorum on the day of, but the wedding was yesterday.

Some things, you know, they just aren't done in finer circles.

[noamnety]

40. I had the same problem.

And I am sick of hearing the phrase "their only daughter" as if that is somehow related to anything. What does that mean? Is the emphasis on "only" - like if they had more than one child the others would be sort of expendable?

Does it mean that because they have a daughter, they are more entitled to see her get married than if they had a son? Or more entitled than someone with a gay daughter? Or more entitled than someone with 2 gay daughters would be to see one of them get married?

I keep seeing that phrase "their only daughter" repeated again and again, and it seems to imply some sort of special precious status for her that other adults don't enjoy.

[Kurovski]

42. I think some people are concerned that the one wedding the Clinton's will ever experience

will be ruined by negative posts, As if someone was tracking the internet throughout the ceremony and with bullhorn in hand, blaring out the bad news.

Of course it's the fantasy that we are somehow a part of that experience that gets ruined.

Me, it's all a ruination. What the fuck do I care? :)

[Lord Helmet]

49. I rec'd too, still at zero.

[me b zola]

14. How sad that I recommended and it is still at zero

:(

I'm done with worshiping party or individuals--its about the ideas. If someone doesn't have the courage to stand for civil rights then they can go fuck themselves.

[Kurovski]

16. Love has no place in politics.

If a politician fails, it should be "Out they go"

[LostinVA]

15. Learn the history of DOMA

I'm gay, and do not blame Clinton for it, and am very glad we don't have a Constitutional Amendment barring marriage equality. The month it was passed was the same month I was fired for being gay. I know what it was like then.

[Kurovski]

18. But, you're in love. (nt)

[DURHAM D]

21. Exactly - the OP needs to learn the history.

I think DOMA is just too complicated for many to understand where this country was headed.

Meanwhile, the OP has a picture of Howard Dean like he is some sort of champion for our cause. Dean took down the gay help desk at DNC, refused to provide assistance to states and diminished GLBT representation in the party. After firing gay staff members that were working on our issues he added staff members just to raise money in our community. In other words, they wanted our money but not our issues.

Some people just can't buy a clue.

Dean and Leah Daughtery and Donna Brazile all need to be fully exposed for their hateful two-faced behavior.

[Kurovski]

22. Links on all of it, please.

Don't hit and run. don't just fucking come in here and tell me what I "need". if you got it, cough it up and enlighten us all.

Now that President Clinton has a married daughter, it's the perfect time for him to speak up on this bullshit. I hope he does it.

Pardon my French.

And Don't presume the reason why I have a picture of Dean up. If he's such a mother fucker against "the cause", then I'll take down his mug.

EDIT: you didn't even address me directly, were you hoping it would just slip by without my notice?

[AtomicKitten]

33. In a radio ad in 1996, Bill Clinton bragged about signing DOMA.

Ad Touts Clinton's Opposing Gay Marriage
http://www.nytimes.com/1996/10/15/us/ad-touts-clinton-s-opposing-gay-marriage.html

****

Also regarding the claim that Pres Clinton was avoiding a constitutional amendment:

"Bill Clinton + DOMA = revisionism:"
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/4887/

4) Finally, there was no discussion at the time (1996) about a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage. DOMA was not crafted as a defense against further assault upon LGBT families by an increasingly hostile Republican Party. National discussion about amending the constitution came in 2003 after the Lawrence decision by the US Supreme Court and the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts and the news that Canada would recognize same-sex marriage. This was 7 years after Clinton signed DOMA.

In my research of NY Times articles I found the following:

"Excerpts from Platform Adopted by Republican National Convention" 8/13/1996:

Individual Rights and Personal Safety - "We endorse the Defense of Marriage Act to prevents states from being forced to recognize same-sex unions..."

Does it say anything about the need for a federal amendment?? NO. If this were the impending doom predicted by Clinton in 2008 (following years of amendments that now inform his defense of DOMA) there is no evidence to support that he was at all public about the possibility of further federal action against LGBT families.

[Kurovski]

38. It was all politics.

which is fine, because back then I was a political "special interest", now that I'm an actual human being it's time to give big dog his props.

[dsc]

34. actually he already has

He came out for marriage equality months ago Sept 25, 2009 to be exact.

http://www.towleroad.com/2009/09/bill-clinton-i-was-wrong-about-gay-marriage.html

[Kurovski]

35. An actual campaign for gay marriage would be nice

to mitigate the 14 years of damage his signing contributed to.

He's a decent guy, I'm sure he sincerely feels the pain of hundreds of thousands of gays and lesbians, pain their families endured, the children of gays endured, pain that he contributed to? I know he understands these things. as a lawyer, he certainly understands these things.

It would do much to repair the damage he contributed to. Maybe even some DUers who have them, might examine their anti-gay feelings.

[Kurovski]

30. Concerning Howard Dean:

The two-faced asshole makes some very encouraging noise NOW.

His mug STAYS.

http://gayrights.change.org/blog/view/howard_dean_the_tide_is_turning_on_gay_marriage

And Clinton said in 2009

"Throughout my life I have opposed discrimination of any kind," Clinton said in the statement. "When the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, gay couples could not marry anywhere in the United States or the world for that matter. Thirteen years later, the fabric of our country has changed, and so should this policy."

(opposed when politically expedient, I understand that.)

http://www.bilerico.com/2009/09/doma_repeal_legislation_introduced.php


My OP still stands as truth.

I only regret that its passive-aggressive, drama queen tone is so off-putting. I have no talent for politics.

[treestar]

23. Unrec'd for pure meanness

Yes, they could still hold that wedding if she was gay. Maybe they couldn't get a legal certificate, but blaming Clinton for that as if he alone made an anti-gay dictate is OTT on his only child's wedding day.

[Kurovski]

24. No. Then it wouldn't be happening.

It wouldn't be legal. Chelsea's ass could still be thrown out of a hospital room if her partner was dying.

And yes, it's mean. It's super-fucking-goddamed mean.

[Kurovski]

25. ...and I stated "in part"

Of course the ol' horndog in chief wasn't alone. I made that clear.

Stop defending bullshit. he did what he did, i don't give a zap as to why right now.

Yes, My OP is tacky. You got me there, but please don't make up stuff about the rest.

[treestar]

26. I am not defending BS

But crapping on every straight wedding is hardly going to do any good. And you're attacking the wrong people. Ever heard of the right wing? Attack them, they are the reason it's hard to get anywhere on the issue.

[Kurovski]

27. No, I never attack the right wing. And I'm regularly crapping on weddings.

:)


"What is the bottom line? It sounds to me like same-sex marriage was a wedge issue in 1996 and it is again in 2008 - or at least that is how the Clinton's want to deal with it. Bill speaks of revising history in the video clip like he is a professional at the task...and it appears that he is. Which came first - the chicken (gay-bashing political scapegoating) or the egg (DOMA)?

Just imagine for a moment - since Clinton is relying upon the bills/amendments that were passed limiting the citizenship of LGBT Americans since 2003 as the basis of his defense of DOMA - what might have been the outcome of a veto of DOMA and a courageous defense by the Democratic Party regarding the veto as being constitutionally and morally sound instead of taking the low road and allowing the citizenship of LGBT Americans to be campaign fodder for the next 12 years (and counting)?

It is completely offensive that the Clintons package DOMA as their attempt to protect us from our own citizenship."



http://www.pamshouseblend.com/diary/4887/


"Clinton went on to explain why he signed DOMA: "We were attempting at the time, in a very reactionary congress, to head off an attempt to send a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage to the states. And if you look at the Levin referendum much later in 2004, in the election, which the Republicans put on the ballot, to try to get the base vote for President Bush up, I think it’s obvious that something had to be done to try to keep the Republican congress presenting that."


President Clinton at least says that he "doesn't like" the DOMA:

http://www.towleroad.com/2009/08/bill-clinton-heckled-at-netroots-nation-answers-on-dadt-doma.html


EDIT: The DLC is in fact the right wing of the Democratic Party.

[treestar]

31. It sounds like Clinton was doing what he could

Are you arguing that most of the voters are all for same sex marriage, because if not and there is big opposition, then it's a political fight and if you must attack, attack the bad guys, that is, the Republicans. Attacking the Dems for not doing enough fast enough doesn't get you anywhere until as long as there are any significant number of Republicans.

[Kurovski]

32. I have no idea what you're saying.

Yes, everything is "complicated", as was patronizingly stated further up in the thread, but my OP is true, no matter how complicated the "if's, and's and but's" are.


It's 2010, and it's still the truth. We do not have civil rights. He was part of why. I know he's not a courageous man, that's fine. But did he even bother with a signing statement? Did he protest? he opposes discimination, did he then?


I'm sick of this shit, what the fuck do you expect? I'm pissed off today. And I have the goddam right to be.

[EFerrari]

45. Attacking the Democrats for not leading is pretty much our responsibility

to the gay community. YMMV.

[Kurovski]

44. Treestar, I just had to come back and say that I'm not mad at you.

re-reading it, it looks like I'm directing a lot of nasty anger at you, and that is not what I meant to do.

Please forgive me for what clearly looks like a direct personal attack. I'm sorry.

[EFerrari]

43. Really? How many weddings of gay children

of national politicians have we celebrated? I can't think of one.

[Kalun D]

28. Enjoy the Multi $MILLIONS Spent on a One Day Event

After your NAFTA and GATT garbage that are decimating the middle class, our weddings will be lucky to be held at Burger King.

[Pathwalker]

29. The press was speculating on that amount. IOW: LYING!

But hey, believe the press... :rofl:

[Obamanaut]

39. With the divorce rate being what it is, think of the money you'll save. nt

[Kurovski]

41. Plus, I'm just IMPOSSIBLE to get along with!

It's a doomed proposition from the get-go.

Thank you Bill Clinton, for saving me from marriage. :D

[Dappleganger]

47. I'm sure that you would say that to his face...

Do you have proof that he would spend any less money on a marriage ceremony if his daughter (or you conveniently forgot, SON) was gay?

Nope.

[Kurovski]

48. Are you referring to the original post, or a response in the thread?

Sometimes DU's software mucks it up and makes it unclear.

EDIT: You've gone missing, so if you are responding to the OP: there is no mention of money, that is not the issue.

I will never meet Clinton, however, I would never say that to a man on his kid's wedding day, but if I was a friend I would suggest he has a way to repair the damage he's done in the past by now promoting gay marriage. Certainly he has a number of gay friends who could kindly urge that along.

But already rich and powerful people can protect themselves and their partners in ways the average person cannot, so they might not much care.

I'm at a loss as to how you formulate the bulk of your question from the original post. Daughter/son/what?

[mitchum]

51. Which one of his faces?

[mitchum]

50. K & R