Hillary Clinton Wants The Supreme Court To Strike Down Marriage Bans
Source: Buzz Feed
UPDATE
Hillary Clinton supports marriage equality and hopes the Supreme Court will come down on the side of same-sex couples being guaranteed that constitutional right, Adrienne Elrod, spokesperson, Hillary for America, told BuzzFeed News.
April 15, 2015, at 11:23 a.m
Read more: http://www.buzzfeed.com/chrisgeidner/hillary-clinton-hasnt-said-how-she-thinks-the-supreme-court?bftw&utm_term=4ldqpgc#.lbX6vWL6x1
Larry Engels
(387 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Rand Paul raises the flag of separate but equal, and tells people to see a lawyer to incorporate.
Cruz is telling us gay marriage will bring the wrath of God down on our assets.
Everyone else on the right falls somewhere between these two biased assholes.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)it's possible that she might have said either that she hopes the opposite, or has no interest one way or another?
She's really going through a remarkable media blitz of making carefully worded statements of support for positions that the large majority of Americans have already taken...
I wonder how long it will take before her advisers indicate that she should come out against something? I give it at 6 months at an absolute minimum.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)And she is on the correct side.
Bookmarked.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)They have evolved.
Meanwhile, Republicans continue to fight to deny equal rights.
Yes, she is on the correct side.
PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)now think supporting same-sex marriage will not result in a net-loss of votes.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)real feeling on the issue since 2008 rather i think they just no longer believe their
true position now costs them net votes.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)would we be better off today?
closeupready
(29,503 posts)pnwmom
(108,990 posts)RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)Politicians should never take up causes before voted into office unless their support is almost certain to either gain them votes or increase voting turnout among those who would likely cast their votes for them.
In fact, no politician should ever signal support for any cause or take a position on anything prior to an election. This would make the whole agonizing process of elections so much easier on the American people who otherwise may have to devote some time and energy, and sometimes even a bit of angst!, to their voting decision-making process.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Are you under the banner that politicians are all phony all the time?
These are intelligent people who have their thoughts. Maybe they have been convinced.
IMO if they were being dishonest it was when they said they were opposed, not now.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)They can either 'evolve', or they can lead. I guess it depends on what one really feels is a gut conviction, as opposed to waiting for a focus group to tell you what to believe.
pnwmom
(108,990 posts)to represent them, or to lead them.
I'm not sure I prefer to be led.
customerserviceguy
(25,183 posts)used to be called "statesmanship", gender reference aside, it wasn't seen as a bad thing back in the day.
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)Then there is the Republican Party.
I grew up in the 50's and 60's Oklahoma where sex between two men was punishable by jail time.
I had an uncle who was a "Confirmed Bachelor" who had another "Confirmed Bachelor" as a roommate. I was in my 30's before I put it together. I think my grandparents knew, but they would never talk about it. My Uncle and his roommate came over for Sunday diners a couple of times a month.
By the way, there were several women known as "Spinsters" who lived together in my hometown.
I think the evolution has been good. I look forward to more of it.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)As of last year Hillary
wanted to leave it to
the states to decide.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/hillary-clinton-shift-same-sex-marriage
It "has always been"
That's quite an evolution!
Can't wait for more "evolution"
Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)I see this as a positive evolution.
Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)It is a positive change, but...
lets not call it "evolution".
It's political expediency.
Has any of these "evolved"
positions ever been explained?
Ya know, beyond "vote for me".
What events or epiphany sparked
this so called "evolution"?
If someone cannot explain why
they reversed their position it
has the appearance of expediency.
All politicians pander.
Even the ones we like.
treestar
(82,383 posts)In the long run, we win this battle. Who cares about who decided to support it and when? As long as society as a whole supports it, then politicians who support it are better than those who don't.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)to make it possible for a crazy form of representative democracy based on genuine assessments of the honest positions of those its citizens may select to serve in its public offices.
Of course, such a thing is utterly out of the question if that society simply accepts that 'all politicians pander' and therefore everyone must assume that the great majority of positions politicians purport to take prior to an election are probably just things their advisers have concluded will improve their chances at getting elected...
Bartlet
(172 posts)Marriage has always been a state issue, there is no allowance in the Constitution for the Federal government to regulate marriage, the only thing the Constitution does grant the Federal government is the authority to enforce rights guaranteed by the Constitution. At this time the right for gay persons to marry is still limited to the states. Hopefully the Supreme Court will remedy that transgression this June. In the meantime claiming that Hillary is somehow not a supporter of gay marriage because she, like many legal scholars, thinks the issue is a state issue is rather short sighted.
RiverNoord
(1,150 posts)donnasgirl
(656 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)but I don't think you can on this. This isn't something that will be forgotten, Fox will bring up the fact that she supports gay marriage a lot to help drive republican voters to the polls.
closeupready
(29,503 posts)K&R
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)How brave.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)The Supreme Court could very well rule against equality.
And she came out in support of marriage equality in 2013, so it didn't just happen. As a matter of fact, in 2011, at the UN, she gave the famous "Gay rights are human rights" speech.
If you anti-Hillary people are going to jump on her for everything and anything she does, at least know the facts of what you're talking about.
DrKZ
(53 posts)Her human rights speech had nothing to do with marriage equality rather it had to do with http://www.cnn.com/2013/01/30/opinion/ghitis-hillary-clinton-lgbt-rights/ note it was about combatting the criminalization of LGBT citizens but by then Mexico City had marriage equality Argentina etc http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/argentina-becomes-second-nation-in-americas-to-legalize-gay-marriage/
She has never been a trailblazer on GLBT issues on the contrary her position has evolved more slowly than the elimination of a vestigal tail http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3040754/Hillary-no-longer-thinks-sex-marriage-left-states-believes-constitutional-right.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/hillary-clintons-gay-marriage-problem/372717/
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)than marriage equality. Marriage equality is great but until the LGBT community is a protected class, marriage equality won't keep me from getting kicked out of a house or fired from a job.
Also as a member of the LGBT community, any person who comes out in support of equality is better than the person that doesn't.
treestar
(82,383 posts)A President who supports it is better than one who wants to turn the clock back.
Arkana
(24,347 posts)Earthly Creature
(17 posts)On Civil Rights. He voted for bad stuff in the Senate, but was a civil rights champion as President.
Corey_Baker08
(2,157 posts)This is beyond ridiculous...
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Its going to be a long, hard road to nomination and election for her and her supporters here for sure.
onenote
(42,747 posts)awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)which is why I may take a time out from here for a while. If she said that puppies were cute some jack leg would have an issue with it. Full disclosure- she is not my first choice for the primaries.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)Bartlet
(172 posts)was a push from the right for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. This was a compromise that stopped that push and stopped gay persecution in the military.