Bernie letter to editor wanting to abolish laws against gays: 1972

[LiberalArkie]

[FraDon]

1. Senator Congruence!

Talks the talk ~ Walks the walk. Heartfelt constancy throughout his public life.

We ask for the support of all people who are disgusted with the status quo and who demand basic social change in this state and country.

[Enthusiast]

2. Kicked and recommended to the Max!

[TBF]

3. Nice find! K&R nt

[Ichingcarpenter]

4. A higher resolution and readable version

If you want OP you can edit your letter and use this one.

[Smarmie Doofus]

5. Interesting and impressive. Anyone know where Sec. Clinton was on this issue in '72?

Just setting up a point of comparison. No need to get emotional.


Did she have an opinion? If so, did she express it? If so, what was it?

[George II]

10. Clinton wasn't slogging away trying to win an election in a tiny state back in 1972 (and failing!)

It's really getting tiresome seeing this site being flooded with Sanders 40+ year old positions.

What matters is where the candidates stand on issues TODAY, not generations ago.

[jeff47]

13. It matters because it shows he actually believes this position.

As a general rule, politicians lie during campaigns. They are most likely to be lying when they have a "newly-evolved" position. Many, many times the new position arises only because it polls well. Since the candidate doesn't actually believe it, they will only be providing lip service while in office.

Showing that Sanders has campaigned on equal rights since at least 1972 shows that he is very unlikely to be lying about his position on this issue. First, he's been doing it for a very long time. Second, it probably really hurt in 1972.

[thesquanderer]

15. True, today is what counts

but this kind of thing is helpful to Sanders because it goes right to the heart of many people's critical perceptions of HRC, that she is something of a "whichever way the wind blows" politician.

In 2008, I supported John Edwards, despite thinking he was a "whichever way the wind blows" candidate... I doubted he had much in the way of sincere convictions, but he was saying the things I was most in favor of, and I hoped that, even if he wasn't genuinely so deeply committed to them, if those were the positions that got him elected, those would be the positions he would govern from (especially since he would presumably have wanted to be re-elected four years later). But my support was not entirely enthusiastic because of that perception... I'd rather have supported someone who I thought really felt deeply about these things, but such a candidate was not to be found. I think this may be an important factor for Sanders, this consistency over 40+ years says something, so I do not think it is irrelevant.

[HooptieWagon]

16. Clinton did come to that viewpoint...

...40 years later, when it was politically expedient to do so. She gets credit for that. But...always a follower, never a leader.

[dsc]

17. that is a flat out lie

There is no way in Hell that Sanders meant in that letter to extend marriage equality to gays. The context of those times would have been to end anti sodomy laws (which is why he put it next to adultery). And no, Hillary Clinton didn't favor laws against sodomy until 2012. And it is a flat out lie to say she did.

[HooptieWagon]

19. Burns you up that Sanders is a leader, and Clinton is a follower?

She did admit (sort of) her IRW vote was a mistake a decade later. Sanders opposed it from the beginning. It's the difference between knowing what is right, and political triangulation.

[dsc]

20. No what pisses me off is people who either don't know

or lie about gay history. I was alive in 1972. I know god dammed good and well what a plank such as that would have referred to back then. There is no way in Hell that such a plank applied to marriage equality. It was all about anti sodomy laws which people were trying to get off the books. Again, that is why adultery is linked with homosexuality in the platform (both were illegal under many state laws). If you don't know that, you have literally no business discussing these issues. If you do know that and typed what you typed then you are being dishonest.

[George II]

21. Similar to what I've been thinking, but figured I'd get blasted (as you were) if I said that...

....reading the context of that letter, he never addressed marriage equality - he addressed "laws dealing with.....sexual behavior (adultery, homosexuality, etc.)"! He parenthetically lumped adultery in with homosexuality, and the catch-all "ETC."!!!

There is no indication of his position on gay marriage whatsoever - to extrapolate what he said in that blanket statement into saying he was in favor of gay marriage is ludicrous. Many who believe(d) in so-called "equal rights" for gays still were against gay marriage.

Also ludicrous is the question "anyone know where Sec. Clinton was on this issue in '72"! As a matter of fact, she was still in law school earning her law degree, not running for public office.

[HooptieWagon]

22. I had a close HS friend who was gay in 1972.

He died of AIDS. And my first college roommate was gay, in 1974. I know the issue. Sanders was far ahead of Clinton on the issue. It's too bad a simple fact causes your head to explode.

[dsc]

24. Then don't tell untruths about it

There is no way in Hell he was calling for marriage equality back then. It is nothing short of a lie to say he was. Yes he was good on the issue (though I have no idea if she was in favor of removing those laws (against adultery and sodomy) back then or not). She might well have been in favor of doing so. BTW Arkansas made sodomy a misdomeaner while Bill Clinton was AG reducing it from a felony. Surely not perfect but it is Arkansas for crying out loud.

[CanadaexPat]

26. 'Abolish all laws'

The focus at the time may have been elsewhere, but his statement is a sweeping one.

[dsc]

27. that penalize conduct

that was also part of the statement. He didn't mean marriage back then because no one meant marriage back then.

[Thespian2]

6. K & R!!!!!

[JEB]

7. K&R

[Orrex]

8. Well that's pretty freaking awesome.

Consistency and integrity like we don't often see. Bravo Senator Sanders (well, Mr. Sanders, back then)!

[karynnj]

9. What an amazing find!

No triangulating there!

[valerief]

11. Consistency for decades. Amazing in a politician. He's the real deal. nt

[RoccoR5955]

12. No other politician in the US

Has this consistency of her or his conscience. For more than 40 years, more than many of us have been alive, Bernie has not just been talking the talk, but he has been walking the walk, doing what he can to change things.
This shall ring true in our country once people hear him, and hear his story.
This shall gain him the nomination of the Democratic Party as president.
This shall gain him the presidency in a landslide like never before seen here in the US.
Mark my words!

[colsohlibgal]

14. Totally Agree

Bernie is the real deal, always has been, the anti triangulation guy.

After seeing how Bill Clinton and Obama caved to the Wall Street mob I'm so much more confident that Bernie will not cave then I am with HRC. Of course HRC is already in a bind after all those $200,000 speeches she did for Goldman and other Wall Street behemoths.

[dsc]

18. Really Sherrod Brown has been a politician since the early 70's

care to find some inconsistency.

[TheKentuckian]

23. Sherrod isn't running or I'd favor him over Bernie but you have to admit they are rare among pols

I'd favor Brown because he has shown to be the real deal and can when and do so with consistency in a large swing state and he is around a decade younger.

[dsc]

25. I really wish he would run

but he has no interest in doing so. His wife is abundantly clear on that (I follow her on Facebook).

[kentuck]

28. Bernie is ahead of everybody!

Great find!