# Can Hillary make gay rights a cornerstone of her campaign? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [October 27, 2015, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-hillary-make-gay-rights-a-cornerstone-of-her-campaign/735846 "2015-10-27T04:23:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 3:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-hillary-make-gay-rights-a-cornerstone-of-her-campaign/735846/61 "2015-10-29T03:56:58Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > > [@Gyrate](#): > > > > I suspect many will be concerned that a Republican president and any SC Justices he (or she) may appoint will work hard to undo recent gains and to further codify the sort of discriminations inherent in the “religious freedom” legislations being enacted by the states these days, so you can bet your sweet bippy they care. It’d be stupid to worry more about tax issues when you can lose your entire income in an instant by being fired by a bigoted boss. > > Then the democrats better be pushing the scare tactics. Wait, they already are. > > Its funny how the gays are the opposite of the Christians in the sense that both sides can be deceived by scare tactics by their respective parties into giving their support. In this case you are mistaken to suggest both sides are deceiving voters by using scare tactics. Discrimination against gay people has been, and continues to be, a real thing in the US. A politician isn’t engaging in scare tactics by saying they will support equality for LGBT people. Since discrimination against Christians is an imaginary thing in this country, politicians who make that argument are using scare tactics to deceive people into supporting them. That’s the difference. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-hillary-make-gay-rights-a-cornerstone-of-her-campaign/735846/62 "2015-10-29T05:05:52Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > Then the democrats better be pushing the scare tactics. Wait, they already are. > > Its funny how the gays are the opposite of the Christians in the sense that both sides can be deceived by scare tactics by their respective parties into giving their support. I’d like to call out the assumption, here, that “Christians” and “gays” are on opposite sides. The fact is, the overwhelming majority of people who support gay rights are, themselves, Christian. The fight, as always, is not between gays and Christians. It’s between gays and their allies, and bigots. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 5:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-hillary-make-gay-rights-a-cornerstone-of-her-campaign/735846/63 "2015-10-29T05:17:49Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > While I’ll agree that the Offense Against Marriage Act was reprehensible, why bring in Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? It might be hard to remember from this side of history, but that policy was actually a step forward in gay rights. Before DADT, the policy wasn’t “anyone can serve”; it was “we will ask, and if we find out you’re gay, we’ll dishonorably discharge you”. Yes. Clinton did what he could with what he had. > [@Gyrate](#): > > Agreed. I have no reason to believe the Clintons harbor any particular homophobic feelings but political expediency trumps everything else. > > But I’ll still take Hillary over the actively anti-gay Republicans. Well I should hope that the President is mindful of politics. Presidents represent all the people, and most Americans were bigoted on the gay issue in 1995. Politics is the art of the possible. Don’t like it? Trans folk were told to sit carefully and wait in the back of the bus for decades by major gay rights organizations. I guess political expediency stopped the Human Rights Campaign from pushing harder for transfolk, right? This blanket vilification of Hilary is ludicrous and clownish. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 1:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-hillary-make-gay-rights-a-cornerstone-of-her-campaign/735846/64 "2015-10-29T13:21:14Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I don’t recall mentioning anything about the Republicans in this thread. While I haven’t chosen a candidate yet; in all likelihood I will vote for the Libertarian candidate again. The Libertarian Party has supported gay marriage since its founding in 1968. That’s pretty funny. The funniest part is trying to present the Libertarian Party as champions of social progress! The reality is that the Libertarian view of social policy is not to have any, period. Social policy for the poor? Screw 'em. Social policy for the sick? Let 'em die. Right now their platform is to condemn the Affordable Care Act which they regard as a creeping horror of socialism that must be repealed at once. I’ve read their first party platform from 1972 and the only thing of relevance I could find on the issue is that they call for the repeal of laws on “victimless crimes”. IOW, neither prostitutes, heroin addicts, or gays should be thrown in jail. Which is part of their overall policy that government should basically cease to exist except to protect the one thing that matters to them: property rights. Not exactly coming from a place of social liberalism and advocacy of gay marriage as a human right. Now that it’s fashionable, of course, they’re applauding the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage and if anyone happens to mistake them for social progressives and mistakenly votes for them, that’s fine with them. But the reality is that Libertarians are mainly concerned with eliminating government, Republicans are mainly concerned with protecting business interests and religious dogma, and if one is interested in social progress and a genuine advancement of human rights one needs to look elsewhere. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Surely you can see the point. If she’ll opportunistically flip-flop from a position you think is wrong to one you think is right, she’ll also opportunistically flip-flop from a position you think is right to one you think is wrong. Perhaps you like the stance she takes on climate change or trade agreements now, but can you trust her to hold the same stance in a year or two? So your point can only be interpreted as the assertion that no politician who ever changes their view on anything, regardless of what it is and regardless of the circumstances, can ever be trusted again. Which, as already noted, is absurd. ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Lowry](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@Sam\_Lowry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Lowry)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-hillary-make-gay-rights-a-cornerstone-of-her-campaign/735846/65 "2015-10-29T14:15:15Z")
> [@Merneith](#): > > There’s no question that Clinton’s stance _today_ is very much in favor equal rights for gay people. Why would Clinton’s stance from twenty years ago weigh more heavily than her current thinking? > > Her stance on gay rights in the next four years will reflect her current adoption of support for gay rights. Can anyone say the same for her future Republican opponent? I agree with this, someone’s views changing is a good thing when their views used to be bad. And their current stance is what will affect how they govern. She seems pretty sincere and consistent for the last few years regarding her support of gay rights, she’s not just spouting off what’s political expedient. And even if she was, the support for gay rights is only going to increase, so it will continue to be politically expedient, she wouldn’t have any reason to start being against gay rights. > [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](#): > > No argument with what you are saying here. The issue for me is the Clinton campaign misrepresenting why Bill signed DOMA. It was purely political expediency. He saw it as a possible threat to reelection if he didn’t sign it. To say otherwise is insulting to those of us who remember that period very well. And I mention Bernie because he was with gay people back then and the Clintons were not. Giving credit where it is due and all that. Sanders may be better, but even he wasn’t exactly perfect. I’m not as familiar with him and his history, so I googled ‘Bernie Sanders gay rights’ [and this is the first article that came up:](http://time.com/4089946/bernie-sanders-gay-marriage/) > [@](#): > > When Sanders was asked on Sunday about his vote against the Defense of Marriage Act on CNN, he said that he believed back in 1996 that gay couples had the right to gay marriage. “I thought then and I think now that people have the right to love those folks that they want to love and get married regardless of their sexual orientation,” he said. > > That wasn’t the answer his staff gave in 1996, however. His wife and chief of staff Jane Sanders told an Associated Press reporter in July of 1996 that he opposed the law because it weakened the section of the Constitution that says states must respect laws that are made in other states. > > “We’re not legislating values. We have to follow the Constitution,” Jane Sanders said. “And anything that weakens the Constitution should be (addressed) by a constitutional amendment, not by a law passed by Congress.” > [@](#): > > In 2006, when the Bush White House proposed an amendment to the Constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman, Sanders spoke out against the Republican plan, saying it was “designed to divide the American people.” > > But when Sanders was asked by a reporter whether Vermont should legalize same-sex marriage, he said no. “Not right now, not after what we went through,” he said. No politician is perfect, and they all have to work within the system, both regarding other politicians and regarding the voters. It’s not something I love, but something I tolerate. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-hillary-make-gay-rights-a-cornerstone-of-her-campaign/735846/66 "2015-10-29T19:17:56Z")
The gay lobby loves Clinton, and always has, late to the party or not. The gay community here was extremely skeptical of Obama (not unreasonably, given his general silence on the topic in 2008 and the often-opposed views of black churchgoers and gay-rights activists), and gay voters were among the last to join the Obama party. ---
**Author:** ![Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kolak_of_twilo/32/73_2.png) [@Kolak\_of\_Twilo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kolak_of_Twilo)\ **Post date:** [October 29, 2015, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-hillary-make-gay-rights-a-cornerstone-of-her-campaign/735846/67 "2015-10-29T21:42:41Z")
> [@Sam\_Lowry](#): > > Sanders may be better, but even he wasn’t exactly perfect. > [@Sam\_Lowry](#): > > No politician is perfect, and they all have to work within the system, both regarding other politicians and regarding the voters. It’s not something I love, but something I tolerate. I have no expectation Sanders or any other person is perfect, politician or not. I have very little doubt I will be voting for HRC come Election Day 2016 but that will not stop me from pointing out when she or her campaign try to rewrite history concerning why Bill signed DOMA. His position, just like that of many people, has evolved over time and I appreciate that. But the idea he signed DOMA to forestall a constitutional amendment prohibiting SSM is total bullshit and I will not hesitate to point that out, now or in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-hillary-make-gay-rights-a-cornerstone-of-her-campaign/735846/68 "2015-10-30T01:58:47Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > While I’ll agree that the Offense Against Marriage Act was reprehensible, why bring in Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell? It might be hard to remember from this side of history, but that policy was actually a step forward in gay rights. Before DADT, the policy wasn’t “anyone can serve”; it was “we will ask, and if we find out you’re gay, we’ll dishonorably discharge you”. DADT was in no way a step forward for gay rights. We already had the right to serve if we stayed in the closet. What DADT did was take what had been military policy, and turned it into US law. It also did nothing at all to stop gays from being discharged. Rates of discharge for homosexual conduct went up almost every year that DADT was in effect. Considering that Clinton had actually campaigned on letting gays serve, this wasn’t just bad policy, it was a straight up knife in the back. And it wouldn’t be the first. > [@Really Not All That Bright](#): > > The gay lobby loves Clinton, and always has, late to the party or not. The gay community here was extremely skeptical of Obama (not unreasonably, given his general silence on the topic in 2008 and the often-opposed views of black churchgoers and gay-rights activists), and gay voters were among the last to join the Obama party. GLAAD and the HRC love Clinton, because having a former president show up at your fundraiser really helps pull in the bucks. Actual gay people, on the other hand, still have a high degree of distrust over the both of them, and Hillary straight up lying about DOMA isn’t helping. Of course, that’s only going to hurt her in the Democratic primary, and not particularly badly, at that. As much as the pair of them are craven, two-faced, backstabbing false friends to the gay rights movement, they’re still lightyears better than the most enlightened candidate on the right. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-hillary-make-gay-rights-a-cornerstone-of-her-campaign/735846/69 "2015-10-30T02:29:57Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I’ve read their first party platform from 1972 and the only thing of relevance I could find on the issue is that they call for the repeal of laws on “victimless crimes”. IOW, neither prostitutes, heroin addicts, or gays should be thrown in jail. Which is part of their overall policy that government should basically cease to exist except to protect the one thing that matters to them: property rights. Not exactly coming from a place of social liberalism and advocacy of gay marriage as a human right. From the Libertarian Party platform in 1976: We call for the end of Defense Department policy of discharging armed forces personnel for homosexual conduct when such conduct does not interfere with their assigned duties. We further call for the retraction of all less-than-honorable discharges previously assigned for such reasons and the deletion of such information from military personnel files. That was 17 years before Bill Clinton gave us don’t-ask-don’t-tell, and 34 years before President Obama finally allowed gays to serve openly in the military. Repeal of legislation prohibiting unions between members of the same sex, and extension to such unions of all legal rights and privileges presently enjoyed by partners in heterosexual marriages. ([source](http://thestagblog.com/slate-piece-on-gay-rights-and-libertarianism-lazy-dishonest-fails-to-notice-different-definitions-of-rights/)) Sounds pretty clear to me. 36 years before the leader of the Democratic Party supported gay marriage rights. You claim that the one thing that matters to the Libertarian Party is property rights. Even a quick search on the party’s website turns up plenty of writings on topics other than property rights: > **[Libertarian Party four-decade advocacy for marriage equality pays off with US...](https://www.lp.org/news-press-releases-libertarian-party-four-decade-advocacy-for-marriage-equality-pays-off-with-us)** > > For Immediate Release Friday, June 26, 2015 In a 5-4 ruling today, the US Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to license same-sex marriage and recognize those marriages entered into in other states. Libertarian... > **[Libertarian Party: Stop Border Patrol drug-busting of U.S. citizens |...](https://www.lp.org/news-press-releases-lp-stop-border-patrol-drug-busting-of-us-citizens)** > > For Immediate Release Wednesday, October 21, 2015 A CBP officer scans a car dashboard with a density meter in Arizona. Photo: Customs and Border Protection Washington, D.C. — Agents of U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) in the southwestern United... > **[Libertarian National Committee Chair Nicholas Sarwark says murder charge...](https://www.lp.org/news-press-releases-libertarian-national-committee-chair-nicholas-sarwark-says-murder-charge-against)** > > For Immediate Release Friday, April 10, 2015 Libertarian National Committee Chair Nicholas Sarwark released the following statement today: “Mere words are insufficient to describe my outrage over the murder of Walter Scott by a man in a police... > **[Libertarian Party calls for shutting down CIA, criminal prosecutions |...](https://www.lp.org/news-press-releases-libertarian-party-calls-for-shutting-down-cia-criminal-prosecutions)** > > For Immediate Release Thursday, December 11, 2014 Libertarian National Committee Chair Nicholas J. Sarwark released the following statement today: “The CIA’s practice of torture confirmed by the Senate Intelligence Report released on December 9 shows... > **[NY Times agrees with Libertarian Party on marijuana | Libertarian Party](https://www.lp.org/news-press-releases-ny-times-agrees-with-libertarian-party-on-marijuana)** > > For Immediate Release Wednesday, July 30, 2014 The New York Times has recently published editorials calling for an end to marijuana prohibition. The Libertarian Party has held that same position for decades. On July 27, 2014, the Times wrote : “… It... ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-hillary-make-gay-rights-a-cornerstone-of-her-campaign/735846/70 "2015-10-30T02:37:50Z")
What’s the Libertarian party’s stance on non-discrimination laws protecting LGBTs? ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 3:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-hillary-make-gay-rights-a-cornerstone-of-her-campaign/735846/71 "2015-10-30T03:01:39Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > What’s the Libertarian party’s stance on non-discrimination laws protecting LGBTs? I presume it’s the same as what Ralph Raico expressed in his essay. Right after listing the rights for gays that the Libertarian Party has fought for consistently since it’s founding, he says: Now, the regular reader may perhaps have noticed a certain omission here: namely, legislation forcing private persons who, forone reason or another, dislike homosexuals, nevertheless to hire them, admit them to “public accommodations” (which are not really “public” at all, but privately owned), and rent or sell apartment or houses to them. Many gay groups are presently advocating such laws. We, however, strenuously oppose them, as infringements on the rights of homophobic persons. Freedom, in our understanding, implies also the freedom to be wrong. We have always made it a point of honor that we are “the Party of Principle,” and our principles compel us to say that bigotry and prejudice, so long as they do not involve coercion, must also be legal. What justifies our freedom, justifies that of anti-gays as well. There are further arguments against such proposals, pointed out by the Canadian libertarian gay activist and poet, Ian Young. First of all, such laws would tend to be relatively ineffective; an employer, for instance, could always come up with a rationalization for getting around the law. A more effective way to deal with this problem is through gay self-help: direct action, when the need arises, by means of negotiation, picketing, boycott, etc. As with all forms of self-help, this has the advant age also of nurturing the kind of self-assured, imaginative and independent individuals who some-day, we hope, will become the norm in our society. Secondly, these proposed laws, it should be noted, would also prevent gays from hiring or associating only with gays when they wish. Occasionally in business or the selection of residence, quite often in social situations, homosexuals prefer the exclusive company of other homosexuals; such laws would make this by and large illegal. And I would add to Ian’s objections another one. In the long run, gay people do not need the “help” of the State, as their progress wherever they have been freed from governmental tyranny shows. Furthermore, there is a point which I find it somewhat hard to express, but this may give you an idea: when one has been brutally, systematically oppressed, there are certain relationships of trust and dependence which it would be improper and demeaning to enter into with one’s oppressor. For many centuries now, as we have seen, the mortal enemy of homosexuals and of the gay in all of us has been the State. To have been savaged by the state and its agents for so long, and yet to have come this far, should tell us that we can and should make the last part of the road on our own, without calling in that old blood-stained Hangman now to do the job on anti-gays. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2015, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-hillary-make-gay-rights-a-cornerstone-of-her-campaign/735846/72 "2015-10-30T03:17:33Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > DADT was in no way a step forward for gay rights. We already had the right to serve if we stayed in the closet. What DADT did was take what had been military policy, and turned it into US law. It also did nothing at all to stop gays from being discharged. Rates of discharge for homosexual conduct went up almost every year that DADT was in effect. Well that sucks. The data is spotty, but Wikipedia indicates that discharges went up until 911, then declined. That makes sense: during wartime, the military stops caring about BS regs. [Don't ask, don't tell - Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell) > [@](#): > > Considering that Clinton had actually campaigned on letting gays serve, this wasn’t just bad policy, it was a straight up knife in the back. And it wouldn’t be the first. Not entirely fair. Pushing for gay rights destroyed Clinton’s honeymoon. Conservative airwaves were filled with discussion of the specter of sharing same sex showers with those of same sex preferences. And frankly there’s Congress to consider: the odds that they would override the Joint Chiefs of Staff are rather slim. After the DADT loss, Clinton would go on to issue an executive order in 1995 to revoke the ban on security clearances for LGBT folks. According to Barnie Frank, “No federal policy had done us (LGBT) more damage.” Clinton also had Janet Reno pass a rule adding those who had been persecuted for their sexual preferences to those eligible for refugee status. He also sent out a letter to all federal agencies saying that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in hiring was excluded. Source: _Frank_ (2015) ch 6. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-hillary-make-gay-rights-a-cornerstone-of-her-campaign/735846/73 "2015-10-31T17:41:55Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I presume it’s the same as what Ralph Raico expressed in his essay. Right after listing the rights for gays that the Libertarian Party has fought for consistently since it’s founding, he says: So, not actually in favor of gay rights. Thanks for proving my point for me. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-hillary-make-gay-rights-a-cornerstone-of-her-campaign/735846/74 "2015-10-31T17:45:07Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > Not entirely fair. Pushing for gay rights destroyed Clinton’s honeymoon. Conservative airwaves were filled with discussion of the specter of sharing same sex showers with those of same sex preferences. And frankly there’s Congress to consider: the odds that they would override the Joint Chiefs of Staff are rather slim. Its entirely fair. Clinton loved to talk about how much he cared about gays, but only so long as he didn’t have to spend any political capital on it. As soon as supporting us started to genuinely hurt him, he turned on us. > [@](#): > > After the DADT loss, Clinton would go on to issue an executive order in 1995 to revoke the ban on security clearances for LGBT folks. According to Barnie Frank, “No federal policy had done us (LGBT) more damage.” Clinton also had Janet Reno pass a rule adding those who had been persecuted for their sexual preferences to those eligible for refugee status. He also sent out a letter to all federal agencies saying that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity in hiring was excluded. And then he signed DOMA. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-hillary-make-gay-rights-a-cornerstone-of-her-campaign/735846/75 "2015-10-31T18:23:56Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > And then he signed DOMA. Thereby heading off a possible constitutional amendment enshrining DOMA policy, and possibly worse, into the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![DigitalC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/ebca7d/32.png) [@DigitalC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DigitalC)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-hillary-make-gay-rights-a-cornerstone-of-her-campaign/735846/76 "2015-10-31T19:05:53Z")
> [@Superdude](#): > > **ITR** , this is one thing I’ve never understood about politics. If someone holds a viewpoint about something, and refuses to even consider changing their mind, they are often criticized for not changing with the times. But if they do change their stance, they’re considered flip-flopping in an attempt to win votes. This is said about candidates on both sides of the aisle. But if someone DOES legitimately change their mind, their detractors say that it’s never anything more than a vote grab. > > How does a candidate announce that they’ve abandoned the perspective they had, and that they really do see things differently? This is specially true about gay rights. A WHOLE lot of people changed their mind about gay marriage in the very same time span. ---
**Author:** ![hajario](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hajario/32/171_2.png) [@hajario](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/hajario)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-hillary-make-gay-rights-a-cornerstone-of-her-campaign/735846/77 "2015-10-31T19:27:13Z")
> [@DigitalC](#): > > This is specially true about gay rights. A WHOLE lot of people changed their mind about gay marriage in the very same time span. Millions. Hillary wasn’t one of them though unless you count “it’s now a good time to publicly come out in favor if this” as changing her mind. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-hillary-make-gay-rights-a-cornerstone-of-her-campaign/735846/78 "2015-10-31T20:05:04Z")
I didn’t vote for Bill either time and probably won’t vote for Hillary unless the GOP fails to nominate an establishment candidate, and I think the left was short sighted then and now about DOMA. For one, it passed both houses with veto-proof supermajorities. It was going to be law of the land regardless of what Bill did. What you were asking him to do is make a symbolic veto to stand up for gay rights, and (I’m looking at this from the perspective of the left) essentially fall on his sword and lose a Presidential election to a Republican. Would that have been a net gain or a net loss for gay rights in the 90s? I don’t know that Bob Dole would’ve actually done much legislative in regard to gays, gay marriage rights in general weren’t a big issue back then, DOMA sort of manufactured it as one. But I still think a gay person would rather Bill than Bob, and asking him to do something symbolic that would have no practical effect other than make his chances at reelection go down makes little political sense to me. If I was gay and anti-DOMA in the 90s I would’ve wanted Bill to sign it so “my side” could keep the White House way more than I’d want Bill to veto it solely for “optics” reasons which would make a Republican President much more likely. As for DADT, when it was passed it represented an expansion of rights for gays in the military, not a reduction. Homosexuality had been an offense that could get you booted forever, what DADT did was created a framework where the military would not, as much, actively “root out” homosexuals through investigations and such. If you made yourself known as gay, you’d be booted, but they weren’t going to go looking. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 8:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-hillary-make-gay-rights-a-cornerstone-of-her-campaign/735846/79 "2015-10-31T20:08:58Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > Thereby heading off a possible constitutional amendment enshrining DOMA policy, and possibly worse, into the Constitution. I don’t think that was really going to happen. The most that was going on about gay marriage back then was IIRC civil unions in Hawaii and a few other places. I do not believe you’d have been able to mobilize the force required to get a ban of gay marriage passed by 3/4th of the States. I think if they could’ve, they would’ve. The real reason to sign it was it was simply good politics. It passed both Houses with veto proof majorities. No meaningful purpose would have been served by a doomed veto. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2015, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-hillary-make-gay-rights-a-cornerstone-of-her-campaign/735846/80 "2015-10-31T22:42:01Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > From the Libertarian Party platform in 1976: > We call for the end of Defense Department policy of discharging armed forces personnel for homosexual conduct when such conduct does not interfere with their assigned duties. We further call for the retraction of all less-than-honorable discharges previously assigned for such reasons and the deletion of such information from military personnel files. > That was 17 years before Bill Clinton gave us don’t-ask-don’t-tell, and 34 years before President Obama finally allowed gays to serve openly in the military. > … \ … I didn’t say _ **everything** _ the Libertarian Party does is wrong. I’m pointing out the ideological reasons for this particular stance. I’d also point out that they had nothing to say about gay rights in their first 1972 platform, contrary to your claim that they were some sort of champions of gay rights since their founding. Furthermore, the quoted snippet is just more of the usual anti-government ranting that always comes from these guys – suppose a _ **private business** _ wanted to fire someone just because they were gay? Or because they were black? What do you suppose your beloved champions of human rights would have to say about that? Here’s the answer from the current platform: “Members of private organizations retain their rights to set whatever standards of association they deem appropriate.” Because to the Libertarian, private property rights are more sacred than God. At risk of digressing on the issue of the Libertarian Party, the point here is, again, that their overriding policy on virtually everything is to simply get rid of government. These lunatics want to abolish social security, abolish all forms of social assistance, relegate environmental protection to free enterprise (how well has _ **that** _ worked?), abolish the income tax altogether so any government that might remain is starved to death just like the poor would be, withdraw the United States from the UN, and on and on and on. Laws banning gay marriage or obstructing gay rights are, much like laws against abortion, a form of government authority, which the LP rejects across the board. Since many of us object to these specific laws, we are, by sheer coincidence, in agreement with the LP stance on them. But we need to also understand the ideological basis of those positions. It’s entirely disingenuous to try to present as icons of social virtue a party that is just fine with people dying in the streets of starvation and sickness because this party sees no societal role in helping them, because they have zero concept of civilized society and don’t give a flying fig about social responsibility or a common wealth. > [@Miller](#): > > What’s the Libertarian party’s stance on non-discrimination laws protecting LGBTs? Yes, I’d like to hear his answer to this. It’s pretty hard to have non-discrimination laws when you don’t even have a functional government. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-hillary-make-gay-rights-a-cornerstone-of-her-campaign/735846.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/can-hillary-make-gay-rights-a-cornerstone-of-her-campaign/735846.md?page=5)