Hillary, Growing

Watch Hillary grow on the gay marriage issue:

Absorbing Gay Pain & Praise, Clinton Says She's Evolved

In an appearance early Wednesday evening in front of roughly three-dozen LGBT leaders, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton indicated that she would not oppose efforts by Eliot Spitzer, the odds-on favorite to become the new governor, to enact a same-sex marriage law in New York.

She also suggested that language she used when she first ran for the Senate in 2000 explaining her opposition to marriage equality based on the institution's moral, religious, and traditional foundations had not reflected the "many long conversations" she's had since with "friends" and others, and that her advocacy on LGBT issues "has certainly evolved."

On Wednesday, Clinton presented her position on marriage equality as more one of pragmatism.

"I believe in full equality of benefits, nothing left out," she said. "From my perspective there is a greater likelihood of us getting to that point in civil unions or domestic partnerships and that is my very considered assessment."

Our future President is especially impressive on the power of leading by hiding:

Allen Roskoff, the president of the Jim Owles Liberal Democratic Club, worked to hold Clinton's feet to the fire. ...He also criticized the senator for volunteering her support for the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, even if not asked, and for not speaking during the Senate marriage amendment debate in June regardless of the work she did behind the scenes.

...Clinton went on to defend both DOMA and her decision not to speak during the marriage amendment debate this past June, and in fact linked the two. She said that without being able to point to the U.S. law which bars federal recognition of gay marriage and allows states to similarly refuse to acknowledge such unions from other states, many more members of Congress would have voted to amend the Constitution, especially when that effort had its first vote two years ago.

She explained that her choice not to speak on the Senate floor about the amendment this year was strategic.

"Very few Democrats spoke, because maybe you thought one way, which is that you want people out there speaking for us. We thought as-force the Republicans out there, make them look like they're trying to enshrine discrimination in the Constitution. We don't even want to dignify it."

Let's have a Shorter Hillary: "I wasn't going to let the Evil Republicans trick me into publicly opposing gay marriage just because I opposed gay marriage!"

You go, girl.

Jiminy - I happen to be opposed to the Federal gay marriage amendment also, but I would like to pretend that, in some Alternate Universe where I am a US Senator, I would have the confidence to say so.  Sort of like John McCain.

Comments

[GayGuyWithOpinion]

As a gay man, I have an opinion.

I DO NOT WANT GAY MARRIAGE.

Gay marriage is about the benefits ascribed to married couples, primarily through the IRS tax code and several other mechanisms. I MIGHT SUPPORT REPEALLING THE INEQUITY OF THE SYSTEM.

The purpose of benefits ascribed to married couples is to promote breeding, and thus the birthing of new taxpayers to help shoulder the burden of the country.

The continued purpose is to promote monogamy for the sake of the children. The even further continued purpose is to provide a way for a spouse to stay at home and raise said child.

The real issue for me is IT'S NOT WORKING, as seen with the divorce rate and the single parenting thing.

Therefore, I only support special tax benefits and the like for those people with children, regardless of sexual orientation and marriage status.

It's really that easy.

[Jane]

I MIGHT SUPPORT REPEALLING THE INEQUITY OF THE SYSTEM.

Now you are talking!

Left with the choice of repealing the system, or allowing gay marriage, I wonder what most people here would do - perhaps argue it's a false choice and avoid the subject entirely.

[MayBee]

Therefore, I only support special tax benefits and the like for those people with children, regardless of sexual orientation and marriage status.

How does supporting single parents with children further the goals of:

The continued purpose is to promote monogamy for the sake of the children. The even further continued purpose is to provide a way for a spouse to stay at home and raise said child.

additionally, your argument that:

The purpose of benefits ascribed to married couples is to promote breeding, and thus the birthing of new taxpayers to help shoulder the burden of the country.

again falls short of repealing inequity.
If we are going to do that, shouldn't there be a test for those that breed and produce new taxpayers and those that breed and produce new tax expenditures?

I mean, if we're getting all cold and everything. Let's get cold.

[Bob]

Gay Guy... you are spot on. One of my dearest friends, who is gay, says exactly what you've said... and I think the majority of Americans would also agree.

[Robert Speirs]

It does seem unfair for those who don't have children to pay for those who do. Those who can't or won't have children pay for others' children's schooling and health care and nutrition through food stamps, ad nauseam. But why should gay "marrieds" be the only ones to be excused from paying for other people's children? Why not extend the "benefits" of marriage to everyone, meaning tax exemptions and health insurance benefits? If gay "marriage" is all about getting government benefits, why should these benefits be available only to those who break our society's oldest and most heartfelt taboos?

[Rick Ballard]

So the outers have the goods on Hillary. I wonder who put the hidden cameras in the lair at Chapaqua? Brave soul, that.

[Patton]

I agree, and my children shouldn't have to pay your Social Security benefits.

Whats good for the goose....

[Jane]

Maybee,

Given the divorce rate let's ask the question in reverse. How does awarding benefits protect the insitution of marriage?

[boris]

GayGuy: The purpose of benefits ascribed to married couples is to promote breeding, and thus the birthing of new taxpayers to help shoulder the burden of the country.

Jane: Left with the choice of repealing the system, or allowing gay marriage ...

The public school system is a benefit for children everybody pays for. All the same justifications for that seem to apply for government to support and encourage the formation of nuclear biological families, known to work best at having and raising children. If the government is going to spend a lot of money and effort to educate the little munchkins, spending a little effort to promote a better home environment is not too much to ask.

Or is it? Shall we privatize the entire thing? Or provide both school vouchers and marriage vouchers?

IT'S NOT WORKING, as seen with the divorce rate and the single parenting thing

Suppose an increase in scientific understanding in the evolution of human nature and it's interaction with human culture produces an effective government strategery to increase the proportion of biological nuclear families through a combination of targeted benefits and restructured marriage law. Would not the new gay constituency of marriage law or it's exact equal have a say in that process? Does that group have a history of influence and activism far beyond their number? Might that be worst case an impediment to improvements in marriage law targeting biological nuclear reproduction? Or at least an added unnecessary complication and expense.

[MayBee]

Maybee,
Given the divorce rate let's ask the question in reverse. How does awarding benefits protect the insitution of marriage?

It wasn't my assertion that the benefits are the sole protector the institution of marriage, or that marriage is desirable because of the benefits.

In fact, I've been making the argument that marriage is- and should be- about much more than the benefits that whatever state or federal government it exists under bestows upon it.
People have been getting married for a host of reasons long before it was an equitable situation even for the parties involved.
The benefits change with time, but marriage as an institution endures. I want it to.

I like to think it has to do with the parties entering it wanting to have lasting emotional commitment, not just financial benefits.
If you think I'm happy with the current state of society in the US, I'm not. But taking benefits away from being married isn't going to help that.
If it is (as Gay Guy proposes) to be all about financial benefits- about children rather than marriage, then as I said, let's get cold about it. Let's not pretend all kids are beneficial to society. Maybe we can give tax breaks only to those people that produce really great kids.

You can see how fast society breaks down when it becomes all about dollars and cents.

[maryrose]

Hillary will continue to triangulate and say whatever suits her political purpose. That's why like her husband she would make a lousy president. Thank God someone is holding her feet to the fire for the first time ever. Her initial run for the Senate was a cakewalk because the media handled her with kid gloves. Her recent debate with Spencer shows her weakness in a public forum where she is held accountable. I don't see her surviving the primaries because at her core she is a lousy candidate. Oh and by the way- she is ugly.

[Jane]

Suppose an increase in scientific understanding in the evolution of human nature and it's interaction with human culture produces an effective government strategery to increase the proportion of biological nuclear families through a combination of targeted benefits and restructured marriage law.

Suppose pigs fly.

I gotta tell you. I'm not terribly impressed with your vaunted "biological nuclear families".

If that's what you are pushing I say repeal divorce. Make all those biological families stick together when the going gets rough. Otherwise it all just sounds like a perch from which to discriminate.

[Jane]

In fact, I've been making the argument that marriage is- and should be- about much more than the benefits that whatever state or federal government it exists under bestows upon it.

I think it is. But that doesn't justify the disparate treatment in my book.

[Jane]

Compare:

"I believe in full equality of benefits, nothing left out,"

with

Clinton went on to defend both DOMA

These positions are completely and irrefutably irreconcilable.

DOMA prohibits federal benefits from applying to married gays. So she sure as hell does not believe in "full equality of benefits, nothing left out", or she doesn't believe in DOMA.

If I were a betting woman I'd say that as always with the Clintons (and most liberals it seems), they will again sacrifice the gays while pretending they support them.

[MayBee]

Well, but the only way to sanction something special is to make it so not everyone is qualified. Which means disparate treatment for some.
I'm with you that I want to change who is defined as qualified to be married, I want gay people to be able to marry. But I don't want it to be a right that anyone that wants to get married can. I'm not ready for that, and I know the rest of America (and the world) isn't ready for that either.

[Extraneus]

OT: We interrupt this program to bring you a brief message that rocketed from the top AP story down to number three in slightly over five minutes:

Diminished Violence in Baghdad Holding

Interestingly, it seems Bush has already reconsidered the body-count issue.

[boris]

I'm not terribly impressed with your vaunted "biological nuclear families".

How might gay marriage harm society? How about letting people who have little respect or understanding bordering on open hostility for traditional forms make changes to instutions that affect everybody.

Always seems to be the ones who don't like the traditional culture institutions, don't respect them and disdain any understanding for them who want to be at the forefromt "making changes" THEY CLIAM will do no harm. Yeah ok, for some utterly destroying traditional culture is a GOOD THING so that by definition is doing no harm.

[windansea]

looks like we can put Virginia in the safe column

[Steve]

Man, it sure would suck if Hillary's Manhattan Machine rode to power on "Gay" issues.

The media-savvy know that the gay-marriage issue is a contrived, 'pop' issue that would founder without the active and incessant agitation by gay-ghetto, media-types.

Still, it is telling that America's McGovernite socialists think they might ride onto the scene again, just by striking the "right" pose on urban-gay issues. Either they have played a winning wild-card, and their congressional candidates win big in local, urban races - or, they've saddled-up a blind-mule for a short ride off a cliff.

I hope it's the latter. If the Dem's gain power they'll start to reform America to match the pacifistic, French socialist model.

And that's just too creepy to think about right now.
-Steve

[Barney Frank]

What else could you expect from Hillary, when the way she extricates herself from the "I was named after Sir Edmund" mire is to blame it all on her mommy, as though she suddenly remembered years later it was a treasured family myth, not some typical nutty lie she and Bill dreamed up?

Typical lesbian.:)Just kidding. Only being a wise ass for Jane's benefit.

[ken]

OK, let's get practical for a minute.

"In an appearance early Wednesday evening in front of roughly three-dozen LGBT leaders"

How do you address the audience?

[Rick Ballard]

"Gentlefolk"

I think that "Hillary, Growing" is a fattist slam. Her weight is her concern alone and drawing attention to it is very unkind.

[Bob]

Looks like over at the DU their not buying it either. Doesn't seem that triangulation thingy works anymore!

DU's take on the Witch

[windansea]

hey...where's all our Foley trolls and their concern for the chillen

perhaps TM can do a post on Webb's novel writing style??

[Bob]

Yeah... after Clinton was able to convince the world the a BJ is not sex, I now want to see how they spin this one.

I guess Republicans are the only ones having sex. With a liberals concept of sex, you wonder why they think abortion is even an issue.

[maryrose]

Since Allen is secure in VA. I hope the RNC will put money back in Ohio for DEWine. Even the local rag-The Plain Dealer has endorsed DEWine. Dems made a big mistake in 2000 pulling money for Gore. It cost him the state.

[SmokeVanThorn]

I'm with Jane - and I bet she'd agree that food is not all that impressive either - otherwise there would be no garbage.

[Patton]

GuyGuy says: ""As a gay man, I have an opinion. I DO NOT WANT GAY MARRIAGE."""

Gee, I am sorry GUY, but Jane has allready decided what is best for the collective gays and you are not allowed to stray.

The radical gays have decided that gay marriage should be forced on the Nation by judicial fiat so you are out of luck.

Its kind of like those radical gays in the late 70s and 80s that demanded the bath houses remain open even though their was this new unexplained disease spreading amongst the gay community. Yeah, that sweet little radical gay position - cow towed to by the poliians and the medical community - only killed about 350,000 gay men.

Sorry about that little slip up, but they do know whats best for you, because they CARE more then others.

[Patton]

If it was Iraq and the War on terror that was going to win Congress for the Democrats, why did they all the sudden switch to Gay sex (Foley), Gay Marriage and embyronic stem cells.

Were they trying to energize religious conservatives??

[Patton]

I wish Jane could inform me about all these great government benefits I am receiving as one of those biological nuclear families vice a gay lab produced family, because I have yet to see them.

In fact, if my wife works, they tax her income at a much higher rate because it is added to my income. I was not aware gay people couldn't deduct children from their taxes, don't use schools or any other government benefit..this is all news to me because my sister who is gay gets all those benefits.

My sisters company pays all of her partners and the kids medical bills etc. they don't seem to care that they are adopted.

By the way, my sister is also a libertarian and doesn't want the government involved in marriage at all....guess she's just another lost sole that the radical gays will get her mind right when they get the chance.

[Jane]

Well, but the only way to sanction something special is to make it so not everyone is qualified. Which means disparate treatment for some.

Maybee,

Yeah but that has traditionally meant single people, like me. Nothing in marriage was created to deny it to a certain group of people. After all, if my goal was benefits I could marry. But as you have said before, that's not why people marry.

But I don't want it to be a right that anyone that wants to get married can. I'm not ready for that, and I know the rest of America (and the world) isn't ready for that either.

I agree, marriage should involve a committment and an obligation. Too often it is short on both. I'm not sure that is something we want to legislate tho.

[Jane]

I'm not terribly impressed with your vaunted "biological nuclear families".

How might gay marriage harm society? How about letting people who have little respect or understanding bordering on open hostility for traditional forms make changes to instutions that affect everybody.

That's it? You feel misunderstood by the gay boris, and thus discrimination is in order.

Thanks for the laugh of the day.

[Jane]

Typical lesbian.:)Just kidding. Only being a wise ass for Jane's benefit

Barney,

Make that "typical moonbat lesbian" and I'm right there with you.

[boris]

sarcastic Jane: is not terribly impressed with your vaunted ... [nuclear family]

boris: sounds like someone with little respect or understanding bordering on open hostility for tradition

confused Jane: You feel misunderstood by the gay ...

Jane, I am neither a tradition nor a nuclear family. You seem to be confused. As usual.

[boris]

In fact it would appear the only one boris is actually misunderstood by is Jane. Jane, are you "The Gay"?

[Barney Frank]

Jane,

How might gay marriage harm society?

I've said before that I view the normalization of homosexual behavior as one piece of a larger puzzle which has very much harmed society over the last forty to forty five years.
But to address your question directly I think Stanley Kurtz, among others, has pretty decisively demonstrated that in Sweden and the Netherlands, the extension of gay marriage has significantly impacted heterosexual marriage for the worse, both by accelerating the rate at which traditional marriages breakup and by inhibiting their formation in the first place. Both of those things are bad for children. Things that are bad for children are bad for society, especially down the road when they have their own children.

Like it or not, gay marriage has the effect of devaluing and weakening marriage overall.
And as imperfect as traditional marriage and the nuclear family are, they are, and always have been, the bedrock on which socieities stand or fall.

[Yef]

Hillary already said she was gay.

[Extraneus]

When was that?

[Jane]

I've said before that I view the normalization of homosexual behavior as one piece of a larger puzzle which has very much harmed society over the last forty to forty five years.

Barney,

As I've said, you are entitled to that belief, but that ship sailed long ago. Do you hold similar beliefs when it comes to the gains women have made over the same time frame. Forty-five years ago, my mother was a single parent raising two kids, working 3 jobs - and the only ones available to her were that of secretary, nurse or teacher.

I was lucky enough to be in the generation where people decided women should be allowed to compete - and boy those doors opened wide for us. Almost obscenely wide. There were men who for years and years disapproved of women getting those opportunities. And many women were horrible at seizing on them.

I see so many similarites between what women experienced then, and what gays experience now. And thoughout the same principal is true - if you have to work twice as hard to be half as good, that's okay. Women have long-sinced broken the glass ceiling and now participate fully in setting the rules.

And the same thing is happening with gays. You know it's tough to discriminate against people you respect. And even tougher if they own the company.

Stanley Kurtz, among others, has pretty decisively demonstrated that in Sweden and the Netherlands, the extension of gay marriage has significantly impacted heterosexual marriage for the worse

Wow. Kurtz blames heterosexuals failures on gays? Am I the only one who sees the humor in that? Long before gays began coming out of the closet, hets were making a complete mockery of the institution of marriage.

Seems to me Kurtz notion is very strong evidence that straights shouldn't be dictating anything about marriage, since they are such apparent failures at it and so easily influenced to their detriment.

[boris]

hets were making a complete mockery of the institution of marriage

Clearly Jane is not actually interested in evidence of harm to traditional marriage and considers it a lost cause already. A perfect reason to let those with attidutes similar to hers have a go at turning marriage into a complete flaming farce.

[boris]

Ok Jane, send in the clowns.

[Yeg]

She said she slept with another woman. She also said, Bill won't, that at Bill was an abused child.

[Patton]

Jane you ignorant .......

You seem to have the odd concept that someone government created marriage and government insists its only for one man and one women and uses marriage to oppress gay people.

It wasn't too long ago that gay people said they just wanted to be left alone...now their in everyones face and in the courts trying to change the society and the country.

Marriage evolved as part of culture, society and civilization. It wasn't a fluke. Marriage was created to create an environment for offspring where you had a nurturer and a provider. It also provided much more security for women.

Heterosexuals procreate normally, without the need of the government or technology. Gays are incapable of natural creating the same natural environment, bonds and commitments so they want to act like they are married and act like they produced offspring...but it all a charade.

In fact, the first gay marriage in Massechusetts just a couple years ago already ended..so much for any stability on that side of the yard as well.

I ask again, do you support two heteosexual men marrying each other? If not, why not?

[Patton]

I guess when it really gets to the heart of the matter, gay people hate straight people because they will never have what straight people have no matter how hard they try, no matter how far they march and no matter how many laws they pass to force society to their will.

They will never have it, because a gay relationship is about sex and sexual satisfaction and gratification and not about procreation. They will never have that bond that a man and a women have when they create a child. They will never have that feeling, that commitment. And no matter how many bad marriages there are and no matter how screwed up some heterosexuals are, it doesn't change the simple fact that heterosexuals are the only people endowed by their creator to come together and create a new life, a new person and a helpless life requiring their commitment not just to it, but to each other.
You can't buy it, you can't adopt it, you can't contract that Jane, its too real and too deep.

Homosexual men are even a little more pathetic because they go to the extremes in many cases with sexual gratification mostly to cover for the lack of other bonds in their relationship.
And even you doctor friend will tell you that a rectum is design to expel waste, not
as a sexual organ for intercourse. But we're all supposed to sit nicely and say two guys having an-l sodomy or two lesbians using toys to penetrate each other is just the same as a man and women having real sex.
Its not, and it never will be, no matter what the courts proclaim.

So save your excuses for the politically correct crowd, the fact is no matter how hard gay people try, no matter how many government benefits and government proclamations they are bestowed, it still isn't a marriage, because that's really not what marriage is about. A marriage is when I see my baby son curled up in his mothers and my arms and when we look at each other and understand how insignificant we have become and what real joy, sacrifice and unconditional love is all about.

Bottom line, they just don't have that basic biological commitment and never will.

[MayBee]

Jane:
Yeah but that has traditionally meant single people, like me. Nothing in marriage was created to deny it to a certain group of people.

Hmmm, I don't know about that. Marriage, since its creation, has been between men and women.
Even so, as I've been saying, there are laws that prohibit certain heterosexuals from marrying each other. If the argument is that people have the right to marry the partner they love, then there is no way to exclude anyone from getting married.

[boris]

Its not, and it never will be, no matter what the courts proclaim.

This is exactly why it's not being left to the legislature. Proponents are well aware this is political suicide for elected politicians because everybody knows what marriage is and what it isn't. What marriage is does not come from custom, religion, or law. It is a facet of human nature, like language, and its existence certainly predates the written word and may even predate spoken language.

[boris]

Italiacto!

[Patton]

Marriage, by definition is a union between a man and a women, this is simply because that is the ONLY union capable of producing offspring and continuing the families
progeny.

Gay marriage is like saying I have a really good friend with sex privileges. There is no chance that the two people can come together and continue the two families
progeny together.

So from day one the gay relationship has no chance to be what a real marriage has been.

When parents have been asked for permission for children to marry one another, and the entire extended family has come together it is for a recognion of the continuation of the two families. Gay marriage would simply be the two families recognize that two people are capable of sexually satisfy each other, but doesn't join the families
in the futherance of their families descedants.

Gay people just don't seem to get that...its not about honoring their relationship, but honoring the generational significance of the union.

[Barney Frank]

This thread is dead but I'll give it one last stab just to make sure it doesn't come back to life.

Jane,
What do equal job opportunities for women have to do with gay marriage? Gays already enjoy a substantially higher standard of living than heterosexuals and I'm not aware of any reasonable person that would begrudge it. You're comparing apples to oranges, or put another way, you're mixing up your fruits. :)
You further state that straights have already messed up marriage so its irrelevant whether gay marriage makes the state of marriage even worse. That is not actually an argument as much as a form nihilism, which of course is what underpins many of the movements unleashed in the sixties. If marriage is a public good that is in disrepair then society's duty is to repair it not promote its complete disintegration.

What marriage is does not come from custom, religion, or law. It is a facet of human nature....

boris,
I have to disagree with this. Reproduction is a facet of human nature. The form the family takes after the birth of children is very different in many different cultures. The ideal of marriage as one man and one woman in a monogamous relationship for life, is very much a product of custom, religion and law. Christian and Jewish marriage customs as opposed to Islamic ones being the most well known, but far from the only example.

[boris]

is very much a product of custom, religion and law

Sorry, no sale. English is very different than Farsi, Chinese, or Aztec. That does in no way discredit the claim that language is a facet of human nature.

C'mon.