HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Bernie did NOT categorica...

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 09:58 PM

Bernie did NOT categorically oppose gay marriage . . .

The Salon article that is being discussed alleging that he once opposed gay marriage, based on his interview with Rachel Maddow last week, fails to mention what he actually said about that in response to her question.

Bernie opposed a SPECIFIC marriage equality measure that was being proposed in Vermont, at a SPECIFIC time for a SPECIFIC reason, which he spelled out very clearly in that interview. He pointed out that when that measure was proposed, it had only been a few years since Vermont had passed its civil unions law -- which he had fully supported -- which had bitterly divided the state. Bernie said he felt it was too soon to push further on that front, and that the state needed to "let the dust settle."

I am a 54-year-old gay man who has supported the cause of marriage equality for the past 35 years, ever since I came out in 1980 at the age of 19. And had I been a Vermonter, I likely would have agreed with Bernie's calculus at that time. I've been around long enough to understand that great damage can be dealt to a cause -- even a righteous cause -- by pushing too hard at the wrong time.

This has to be one of the most outrageous lies perpetrated by the Clinton camp yet (besides Hillary's attempt to rewrite the history of DOMA's passage, that is). For me, it raises a question: has either Clinton ever taken a position, pro or con, on any issue, that has been based on anything other than political expediency for their own, personal political ambitions? Do either of them even know what a principled stand looks like?

42 replies, 1912 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 42 replies Author Time Post
Reply Bernie did NOT categorically oppose gay marriage . . . (Original post)
markpkessinger Oct 2015 OP
Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #1
markpkessinger Oct 2015 #2
Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #4
markpkessinger Oct 2015 #6
Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #10
markpkessinger Oct 2015 #11
Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #14
markpkessinger Oct 2015 #38
virtualobserver Oct 2015 #3
Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #5
virtualobserver Oct 2015 #7
markpkessinger Oct 2015 #8
Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #12
markpkessinger Oct 2015 #13
Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #15
Bluenorthwest Oct 2015 #39
Thinkingabout Oct 2015 #41
Fearless Oct 2015 #9
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #16
markpkessinger Oct 2015 #17
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #18
lovemydog Oct 2015 #19
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #20
lovemydog Oct 2015 #21
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #22
lovemydog Oct 2015 #25
beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #28
lovemydog Oct 2015 #31
pnwmom Oct 2015 #23
markpkessinger Oct 2015 #24
pnwmom Oct 2015 #27
jeff47 Oct 2015 #34
pnwmom Oct 2015 #35
jeff47 Oct 2015 #36
pnwmom Oct 2015 #40
jeff47 Oct 2015 #42
markpkessinger Oct 2015 #37
markpkessinger Oct 2015 #26
senz Oct 2015 #30
senz Oct 2015 #29
Samantha Oct 2015 #32
jeff47 Oct 2015 #33

Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 10:03 PM

1. Perhaps when Sanders has pointed out more than once the DOMA and Bill Clinton signed the bill

after a veto proof congress and how he voted against DOMA. Sometimes when this is brought out it causes it to have more attention brought than if this was not brought out so strongly. Now it has to be defended. A rewrite on both parts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #1)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 10:11 PM

2. Clinton later ran an ad touting his support for DOMA ...

... he could have vetoed the bill, and it would have been a powerful statement even if overridden, but he was afraid that doing so would jeopardize his own re-election chances. The ad was later pulled, after an outcry by LGBT activists, but clearly Bill sought to capitalize, politically, on the fact that he had signed DOMA, at the expense of the civil rights of LGBT persons, which took a back seat to his own political ambitions. And for Hillary to now attempt to characterize her husband's support for the bill as part of some longer-term political strategy in support of gay marriage is dishonest in the extreme.

All in all, it leads one to wonder whether either Clinton has ever taken a position, pro or con, on any issue, that was grounded in anything other than political expediency for their own, personal ambitions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #2)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 10:17 PM

4. Who brought up DOMA, did Bill Clinton or Bernie Sanders? Do you know the vote on this bill?

Who is trying to capitalize, politically now?

Are we ready to bring in the spouses of the candidates, I don't think you are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #4)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 10:20 PM

6. What brought this up was Hillary being asked about her "reversal" ...

... of her husband's position on gay marriage. Hillary answered by flat out lying about the circumstances surrounding her husband's signing of that bill, and she has been called out on her lie, not only, nor even first, by Bernie, but by LGBT activists across the country.

If her position has genuinely evolved, hey, that's fine. It happens. But if that's the case, she could have discussed what led to her change of heart. Instead, she's trying to pretend that both her husband's and her own past opposition to gay marriage was something other than what it was. And that's not fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #6)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 10:54 PM

10. "of her husband's position on gay marriage", Bill Clinton is not running, Hillary is.

Yes, there has been evolving, by lots of people. My next question is when is Sanders going to evolve on people evolving?

Why doesn't Sanders dwell on issues facing Americans and his plan on handling his agenda. The 90's are over, it is almost 20 years later.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #10)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 10:56 PM

11. Why can't Hillary answer the question honestly?

Call me quaint, but honesty is still important to me. And Bernie has been talking about the real problems facing Americans for his entire career. He has been talking about his plans for addressing them ever since he announced his candidacy. Where have you been? This is the ONE time he has drawn a distinction between himself and Hillary, and you accuse him of not focusing on the issues. Talk about dishonest!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #11)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 11:03 PM

14. If you are going to talk about the candidates answering questions honestly then we have to hold both

candidates to the same level, now honesty is important, we have to be honest with looking at the candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #14)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 04:41 PM

38. I agree...

... And Bernie answered the question put to him by Rachel Maddow honestly (although the Salon blogger failed to include that part of his answer).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #1)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 10:14 PM

3. Bill Clinton used his DOMA vote to pander to anti-gay forces & also pandered to anti-choice forces

 

in an ad that he released. He was thinking of himself. Bernie was trying to do what was best for gay people in Vermont.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virtualobserver (Reply #3)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 10:18 PM

5. Is Bernie trying to do what is best for gay people in Vermont in light of the fact this has already

been settled by SC. Let's get to the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #5)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 10:22 PM

7. Yes, because all people need to know that their President isn't bullshitting them....

 

and Hillary was trying to bullshit everyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #5)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 10:23 PM

8. The point is Bernie has been on the side of LGBT folks his entire career . . .

. . . and to many LGBT people, including me, that counts for something.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #8)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 11:00 PM

12. Just where do you think Hillary has been? If it is good enough to say Sanders has been on the side

LGBT his entire career then it has to be good enough for Hillary. What is the problem, Sanders did not want Vermont to have civil unions, not at the time, this is good enough for Sanders then it should be good enough for other candidates.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #12)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 11:02 PM

13. She was categorically opposed to same sex marriage until what, two years ago? n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #13)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 11:08 PM

15. A lot of people opposed same sex marriage, it does not mean Clinton has not fought for LGBT

rights, this bill was 20 years ago, there was a time some wanted civil unions, this has been solved by the SC, when is the evolution going to happen, will it take 20 more years? It has been a well know fact Hillary has fought for LGBT rights and at the time the DOMA was passed in a Republican congress she had already been fighting for LGBT rights.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Thinkingabout (Reply #15)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 04:59 PM

39. Yes, she has but Bernie has done so more consistently.

 

If it was not for DOMA and a few other choice things, Hillary might be President today. Lots of big, talented LGBT cash came to Obama early on for the sole purpose of fucking with her. That's just the fact. People have memories. She's been both good and very hurtful. Bernie, always there.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #39)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 05:55 PM

41. Bernie will not be president. I have memories also.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 11:12 PM

16. Thank you.

So tired of Rovian tactics, trying to use his strengths against him is despicable.

His civil rights record is well documented, every lgbt Vermonter I know loves Bernie.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #16)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 11:48 PM

17. Hadn't thought of it that way, but you're right ...

... this is straight out of the Karl Rove playbook. Congratulations on that, Team Hillary!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #17)

Tue Oct 27, 2015, 11:54 PM

18. They can't run from her record on marriage equality so they attack Bernie's.

They also claimed he didn't support deregulation of the banking industry, supported the Iraq war, didn't support women's rights and never stood up against the Republicans.

Rove would be proud of their swift boating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 12:14 AM

19. Thank you.

I'm sick of reading lies and nonsense about Bernie and Hillary and Martin.

Any clarifications or better explanations are appreciated.

Sometimes it looks like the Weekly World News around here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lovemydog (Reply #19)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 12:20 AM

20. I agree.

We shouldn't be rumour central, repeating op-eds, blogs and what "some" say as fact doesn't do any of the candidates any good.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #20)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 12:26 AM

21. Well-said

beam me up scottie!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lovemydog (Reply #21)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 12:32 AM

22. Sources should be vetted, unknown authors should be checked.

I've seen some vile sources posted here.

Best to make sure you know what you're shoveling before you plop it down in the middle of DU.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #22)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 01:09 AM

25. No kidding. Like the one about how Sanders

is terrible on gun control. I've watched interviews with him where he explains it well. When he was in office he needed to represent his constituents well. They in turn feel he represented them well. I trust him on a more federal level with that issue. But anyone who feels we're going to get major federal reform on gun control in the next session of Congress is kidding themselves. Maybe some day.

But of course, I expect that stuff to come up again. 'Bernie wants more guns!' or some hogwash. Like the claims that the disturbances in Baltimore are 'O'Malley's fault! or Clinton is Emails!, Benghazi!, conservative republican!).

What I love about this site is that if you post poorly sourced rumors, they often get vetted thoroughly (if you read past the headlines). That's why I appreciate a post like the original post in this thread.

Check yourself before you wreck yourself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lovemydog (Reply #25)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 01:49 AM

28. I have defended Hillary from rw nut jobs for years.

The whole Benghazi ordeal was despicable, I'm glad it's finally over - especially for the families. Same thing with her emails, Bernie's not the only one who's tired of hearing about them, I'm sure her supporters have had enough of the bullshit.

Since I'm from Vermont I'll admit I'm very overprotective about Bernie, seeing him get dragged through the mud by liberals is something I'm not used to.

We're all going to have to come together next year so we should at least try to be accurate with our criticisms.

Peace out, lovemydog!


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #28)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 02:16 AM

31. Peace out!

Well said my friend. Hope you enjoy a great rest of the week.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 12:35 AM

23. Then it sounds like he took a subtle, nuanced, and well-justified position.

As President Clinton did when he signed DADT -- which represented an ADVANCE over then current military policy that barred all gay people from service.

And as when Clinton signed DOMA, knowing that the Rethugs had the votes for an override, and that they had started to push for a Constitutional amendment as soon as same sex marriage came to Hawaii.

The Human Rights Campaign in 1996 urged Clinton to veto DOMA -- but they strongly supported him in his re-election effort even though he signed it. And he accomplished things in his second term that would never have happened under a President Dole.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027293084

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #23)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 01:00 AM

24. The constitutional amendment was not pushed until 2002 ---

That narr;ative is a complete and utter fabrication. What's more, Clinton ran a radio ad on Christian radio station touting his signing of DOMA. There was nothing subtle, nuanced or well-justified about it!

And DADT was NOT by any stretch of the imagination an improvement. More people were expelled from the military for being gay after it went into effect, and at a significantly higher rate of discharge, than before. Now, I'm not sxaying that was necessarily Clinton's fault. But DADT came about because Clinton, by choosing to focus on the wrong issue at the wrong time, got himself backed into a political corner. It was a grave political miscalculation on his part.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #24)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 01:27 AM

27. Gay service members had been subject to court-martial and imprisonment

just for being outed. And potential enlistees were screened out through questions asked in the enlistment process. Of course DADT was an improvement.

In 1993 there was a complete BAN on gay people serving in the military. Gay service members had been court-martialed, discharged, and even imprisoned for being gay.

There is no doubt that DADT represented progress over the military policy then in place.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell

The policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 by President Bill Clinton who campaigned in 1992 on the promise to allow all citizens to serve in the military regardless of sexual orientation.[31] Commander Craig Quigley, a Navy spokesman, expressed the opposition of many in the military at the time when he said, "Homosexuals are notoriously promiscuous" and that in shared shower situations, heterosexuals would have an "uncomfortable feeling of someone watching".[32]

SNIP

In Congress, Democratic Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia led the contingent that favored maintaining the absolute ban on gays. Reformers were led by Democratic Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who favored modification (but ultimately voted for the defense authorization bill with the gay ban language), and Barry Goldwater, a former Republican Senator and a retired Major General,[35] who argued on behalf of allowing service by open gays and lesbians. In a June 1993 Washington Post opinion piece, Goldwater wrote: "You don't have to be straight to shoot straight,"[36] after Congressional phone lines were flooded by organized anti-gay opposition, indicating substantial public opposition to Clinton's open service proposal.[clarification needed]

Congress rushed to enact the existing gay ban policy into federal law, outflanking Clinton's planned repeal effort. Clinton called for legislation to overturn the ban, but encountered intense opposition from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, members of Congress, and portions of the public. DADT emerged as a compromise policy.[37] Congress included text in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (passed in 1993) requiring the military to abide by regulations essentially identical to the 1982 absolute ban policy.[38] The Clinton Administration on December 21, 1993,[39] issued Defense Directive 1304.26, which directed that military applicants were not to be asked about their sexual orientation.[38] This is the policy now known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". The phrase was coined by Charles Moskos, a military sociologist.

In accordance with the December 21, 1993, Department of Defense Directive 1332.14,[40] it was legal policy (10 U.S.C. ß 654)[41] that homosexuality was incompatible with military service and that persons who engaged in homosexual acts or stated that they are homosexual or bisexual were to be discharged.[31][38] The Uniform Code of Military Justice, passed by Congress in 1950 and signed by President Harry S Truman, established the policies and procedures for discharging service members.[42]

The full name of the policy at the time was "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue". The "Don't Ask" provision mandated that military or appointed officials will not ask about or require members to reveal their sexual orientation. The "Don't Tell" stated that a member may be discharged for claiming to be a homosexual or bisexual or making a statement indicating a tendency towards or intent to engage in homosexual activities. The "Donít Pursue" established what was minimally required for an investigation to be initiated. A "Donít Harass" provision was added to the policy later. It ensured that the military would not allow harassment or violence against service members for any reason.[37

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #27)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 11:33 AM

34. And after DADT, they still were.

While DADT forbade explicitly asking if a service member was gay, if the military found out that service member was still punished.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #34)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 02:16 PM

35. They weren't excluded from service during the enlistment process.

And who went to prison for being gay after DADT? Do you have a link for that?

Of course they were right to end DADT, but at the time it represented progress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #35)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 02:44 PM

36. The only progress was they couldn't ask on the enlistment form.

If the member failed the "Don't tell" part of the law, they were thrown out.

The act prohibited any homosexual or bisexual person from disclosing his or her sexual orientation or from speaking about any homosexual relationships, including marriages or other familial attributes, while serving in the United States armed forces. The act specified that service members who disclose that they are homosexual or engage in homosexual conduct should be separated (discharged) except when a service member's conduct was "for the purpose of avoiding or terminating military service" or when it "would not be in the best interest of the armed forces"


At least 13,650 service members were discharged for being a homosexual after DADT went into effect. (That's how many sought help from the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell#Discharges_under_DADT

That's a higher rate than before DADT. What wonderful progress.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #36)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 05:09 PM

40. That WAS progress. They weren't screened out from enlisting.

And no one was thrown into jail for being outed.

You don't seem to be aware of how bad it was before DADT. Again, I'm not justifying DADT as the best alternative. But it WAS an improvement and the only compromise the Dems could get through Congress given the fervent opposition of the Joint Chiefs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #40)

Thu Oct 29, 2015, 09:58 AM

42. Because dishonorable discharges are fantastic!!



You don't seem to be aware of how bad it was before DADT.

You don't seem to be aware that the rate of people harmed going up is a bad thing.

But it WAS an improvement and the only compromise the Dems could get through Congress given the fervent opposition of the Joint Chiefs.

Yes, we can't expect the military to obey the commander in chief. There isn't even some sort of mechanism to punish someone who disobeys orders. That's why revealing one was gay under DADT lead to nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #35)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 04:40 PM

37. An "improvement" that resulted in a far higher rate of discharge of servicemembers for being gay...

...than under the previous situation. It was an improvement on paper only. The reality of it was horrific.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to pnwmom (Reply #23)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 01:12 AM

26. Thom Hartmann called out this fictitious narrative

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Reply #26)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 01:59 AM

30. And there's also this...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 01:51 AM

29. Excellent OP. Well-reasoned, well-written.

 

Thank you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 02:20 AM

32. You are exactly right -- he took his time and carefully explained the situation as you described

He said words to the effect that many in Vermont were still reeling from that civil unions vote, and that timing for a gay marriage vote would have to be carefully gauged if it were to succeed. People needed time to evolve.

I thought he did an exceptionally fine job.

And in answer to your last two questions posed in your thread, not to my knowledge.

Sam

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to markpkessinger (Original post)

Wed Oct 28, 2015, 11:29 AM

33. To answer the questions in your last paragraph:

No.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread