Clark gambles by backing gay marriage

[T_i_B]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-974104,00.html

WESLEY CLARK, the retired Nato general and Democrat presidential candidate, took a surprise gamble yesterday by appearing on the cover of a magazine for homosexuals to support gay marriage.

A day after President Bush condemned same-sex marriage in his State of the Union address, General Clark also said that he would abolish the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy toward homosexuals in the military and allow gays to serve openly.

General Clark’s comments were particularly unexpected because one of the central planks of his electoral strategy is to highlight his Southern roots. He grew up in Arkansas, and has spent much time courting Southern voters, before the South Carolina primary on February 3.

Gay marriage is not at all popular in the South, a far more Baptist, socially conservative region, even among Democrats, than New Hampshire, where the candidates are now campaigning. On gays in the military, General Clark said: “They shouldn’t have to conceal their identities. The British have a model, and there is no impact on combat readiness. It’s a bogus issue”.

[maxr4clark]

1. How cynical have we become?

The idea that this is a "gamble" presupposes that the only reason a candidate ever says anything is to gain votes.

Clark's stand is one of conviction. He was asked about gays in the military back in Sept/Oct. He said something like this: "When I think about a question of individual rights, I think about the person in question as my own child, and then I ask myself the question. Suppose I had a gay son who wanted to go into the military. Do I think he should be able to? Yes I do."

That one statement by Clark told me more about how much of a Democrat he is than anything that anyone has said before or since. Can you imagine Bush saying that? I can't. But I can hear Martin Luther King saying it. I can hear FDR saying it. I can hear Lincoln saying it.

If you're still wondering whether Clark is a Democrat, you're missing out on the chance to help elect a truly great Democratic President.

[Democat]

2. Good for Clark - this is a bold move!

He could have played this safe, but he stood up for what is right instead.

[Enjolras]

4. Dittos

It took a while, but Clark has finally done something to impress me. It's not enough to make me support him, but it's a start.

Given what I know of career military officers, they are much like politicians and lawyers. By this I mean they are long on ambition, and woefully short on principle. Their ethics are arbitrary, depending on their impression of what their boss wants to hear. If we now imagine ourselves (the electorate) in the position of Clark's commanding officer, we see how bold a move this is. This is not at all what a huge swath of the electorate wants to hear.

[necso]

3. Well..........

Maybe one should read (an excerpt from) the actual article.

http://www.advocate.com/html/stories/907/907_clark.asp

[bowens43]

5. He didn't say that he backs gay marriage.

He said that he backs the states right to decide whether or not to allow gay marriage. This is the same position on this issue as most of the other candidates. It's certainly not a gamble to follow the herd.

[Tom Rinaldo]

6. His position is not new

It is the same one he had all along. Actually the gamble for Clark might have been his willingness to pose for their cover.

[T_i_B]

9. I just posted the headline

Admittedly it is the UK Times though, which is Murdoch owned and does spin furiously against the Democrats.

[RafterMan]

7. Strange bedfellows

Gay community and NATO commander? Who'd have thought, but it seems to be developing.

Here's an endorsement from the Washington Blade:

http://www.washblade.com/2004/1-23/view/editorial/clark.cfm

[maddezmom]

8. thanks for posting :)

hadn't seen that yet.

[maxr4clark]

10. kick