HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Politics 2014 (Forum) » Chuck Hagel Was OK With G...

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 07:17 PM

Chuck Hagel Was OK With Gay Marriage In 2007:

I found an old but interesting interview from GQ in 2007--Hagel had exactly the same position on gay marriage as President Obama at that time, without making a "civil union" distinction:

"How conservative are you really? Tell me the truth: You don't care whether or not gay people get married, do you?

No. Personally, I think marriage is between a man and a woman, but that's because I see it as a religious union. As a legal contract, marriage should be up to the states. If a state wants to change the rules, that's up to them."


Read More http://www.gq.com/news-politics/newsmakers/200701/republican-senator-chuck-hagel-war#ixzz2Hu2woFEO

If he was a homophobe in the 90's (given his objection to Ambassador Hormel), he doesn't display that here. I wonder why the White House didn't use this interview to defend him, GQ isn't that obscure.

13 replies, 1170 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 13 replies Author Time Post
Reply Chuck Hagel Was OK With Gay Marriage In 2007: (Original post)
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 OP
MotherPetrie Jan 2013 #1
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #2
forestpath Jan 2013 #4
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #5
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #8
phleshdef Jan 2013 #3
fujiyama Jan 2013 #6
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #13
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #7
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #9
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #10
Bluenorthwest Jan 2013 #11
TwilightGardener Jan 2013 #12

Response to TwilightGardener (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 07:50 PM

1. And I wonder why the White House didn't pick a Democrat instead of a right-winger like Hagel

 

I've read a whole lot about Hagel's position on gays. Haven't read a single thing about his 100% anti-choice -- i.e. his consistent opposition to women having control over their own bodies -- record.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 08:34 PM

2. Because they didn't. Obama specifically wanted Hagel for the job.

If the gripe now is that he's pro-life, then I guess we've moved on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #2)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:09 PM

4. The "gripe"? Like it's just an insignificant matter that Obama's choice is as right-wing

 

as they come.

Watching Democrats defend Republicans with an anti-gay, anti-choice, anti-human rights record like Hagel's is surreal. It would be comical if it wasn't so bizarre.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to forestpath (Reply #4)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:39 PM

5. At this point, yeah, it's pretty insignificant.

Obama can fire him if he ignores the laws dictating military abortion policy or causes problems with DADT repeal. It's not a Supreme Court appointment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #5)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 10:37 AM

8. Gee, I guess you are not aware that those who harbor anti gay sentiments often are anti woman

as well? The two things share a great deal of common ground, Hagel being anti choice AND anti gay is typical of those who are anti either thing. Typical in fact of the Republican Party of which Hagel is a nearly text book example. Anti gay people and anti choice people are very often the same people, Hagel is one of those people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MotherPetrie (Reply #1)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 09:04 PM

3. Does his anti-choice stance really matter in this case?

The Obama administration is unarguably a pro-choice administration. And the Secretary of Defense has nothing to do with writing or signing abortion rights related legislation. And he/she has nothing to do with choosing Supreme Court nominees. That's all on the President and this President already chose 2 pro-choice nominees and he is unapologetically pro-choice himself.

Hagel is an old school Republican, a combat veteran and a great foil for the neocon hawks. He is a good nominee to see through the kinds of changes we need to see through in terms of cutting back the Pentagon and reigning in the Bush doctrine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Original post)

Sun Jan 13, 2013, 11:28 PM

6. Hagel won't be fighting policy decisions and rulings regarding gays in the military and abortions

He's being picked for this job precisely because he can be a roadblock to neo-con influences. I think the Hagel pick was among the smarter cabinet appointments Obama has made. I think he's better than most of the somewhat moderate Democratic establishment choices. Not one of the other "front runners" considered for the DoD was a clear opponent of the Iraq war. So in that sense, Hagel is no better or worse than Hillary or Kerry (or Flournoy or Ashton Carter the two others named as possibilities), both of whom also voted for the resolution. After all, it was Panetta that put up a hissy fit when he heard that Pentagon spending would be cut, so I don't think Hagel can be any worse.

I'm hoping this is an indication that Obama is sick of the boondoggery and waste at the Pentagon, and wants someone that can give a clear and independent voice on "wars of choice". I see Hagel being a bigger thorn when it comes to the idiotic procurement decisions (like the F-35 boondoggle). I also think his combat experience can lead to more cautious decision making when it comes to sending troops into harms way. But perhaps, my hopes are unrealistic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to fujiyama (Reply #6)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:20 PM

13. 23 in the Senate alone voted NO to Iraq invasion while Hagel voted YES. They are better than him.

Rewarding those who soaked our country in blood in error seems to me to be a poor choice.
Why anyone who voted for that war is in consideration for any part in future decisions about going to war is beyond me. Such grave misjudgement should carry a price. The fact that instead such misjudgement is rewarded with promotion and glory is indicative of a decaying political culture.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 10:27 AM

7. The duplicity does not end. Hagel says he is opposed to marriage equality, favors State's Rights.

Hagel saying he thinks marriage is for a man and a woman and that it is a religious matter is not being OK with marriage. He says 'marriage is for a man and a woman'.
This sort of strained reasoning is the same style that allows Hagel's YES vote on the Iraq Invasion and years of subsequent support for that war to be framed as being opposed to the war. He voted for it, but he was opposed to it!
He says marriage is for a man and a woman , but that means he is OK with gay marriage.

It is really sad to see the depths of rhetorical frenzy folks will attempt to defend an anti choice Republican homophobe who voted Yes on the Iraq War Resolution.

The States don't matter a bit, as the OP knows, as long as the Federal government continues to discriminate using law Hagel voted for. Yes, he voted for DOMA which means that he is opposed to actual equality. He voted against marriage equality when it mattered, just as he voted for the Iraq War in the one moment he could have said not to that horrifically stupid war. Hagel, Yes on DOMA, Yes on Iraq, No on Choice.

Yesterday the Pro Hagel crowd was pushing the lie that Hagel had left the Repubican Party years ago, years....this OP is at that level of dishonesty.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Original post)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 10:53 AM

9. Why they don't use his opposition to equality to 'defend him'? Are you really asking that question?

Break it down: he says he is personally opposed and says marriage is for a man and a woman only. Every vote he was asked to cast for equality he voted against equality. Best example is that he voted for DOMA.
So he is personally opposed and used every power at his disposal to prevent any progress toward equality of any kind, not just in marriage, in all things.
He has never once cast a vote that favors equal rights for all. He voted against equality every chance he got, just like the Republican he is. Anti gay, anti choice, anti this, anti that. Republicans are like that. When not voting to illegally invade some random nation they like to be 'against' various aspects of humanity in this nation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #9)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 11:32 AM

10. Well, thanks for that creative interpretation, but I can read for myself.

He makes a very clear distinction between his own religious beliefs and the law. He states he doesn't care if gays marry. It's not full-throated support for national marriage equality (he was where Obama was at that time), but it's pretty enlightened and non-homophobic for a crusty old Catholic Republican from Nebraska 6 years ago. Edit to add: He wasn't in the Senate when DOMA was enacted. He didn't start in the Senate until 1997.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TwilightGardener (Reply #10)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 12:46 PM

11. He says he is opposed to marriage equality because of religion. That's what he says.

The Federal law that dictates policy on marriage makes the 'States rights' argument deeply specious and of course highly selective. What he says it not enlightened, it is a typical Republican line, which is what Obama used as well and I pointed out then that he was opposed to equality and saying so.
What I'd ask you and Chuck is this: list for me other human rights you'd be willing to leave up to the various States. Voting rights? Schools should only be integrated if the States agree? Why is it that you and Chuck see our rights as being on some special list?
Hagel sounds very homophobic to me in that creepy and inaccurate statement.
Your headline is just false. He said he is personally opposed to equality and that the States should decide which would mean no marriage equality at all, ever. What he advocates is not equality. It is bigoted, homophobic and delusional.
The fact that you want to call opposing equality being 'ok with marriage equality' is hilarious, but fitting to the Hagel routine. He favored the Iraq invasion, yet you say he was opposed to that war. Voting YES means he meant no. Saying he is against marriage equality is saying he is ok with it...

Hagel is a Republican, they are mostly anti choice, as Hagel is and also anti gay, it should not surprise you that a Republican is a Republican.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #11)

Mon Jan 14, 2013, 01:17 PM

12. You can draw whatever conclusions you want. But if the Democratic

opposition to him at the DoD is because he will hinder the full implementation of DADT repeal and other Obama- or Congress-directed policies, because he is supposedly just incorrigibly anti-gay, this interview says otherwise--he's more flexible and open-minded on the issue (since 2007, anyway) than most Repubs, and he separates religion and personal beliefs from law--and this is why Obama is confident that he's progressed and won't be a hindrance in personnel issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread