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?
That’s what I was thinking. Pushing the issue would confuse moderate/independent voters. And realistically, I don’t know what more can be gained at this point; Gay rights are not going to trump ( or Trump) freedom of religion in the foreseeable future.
Presumably many people realize this episode reflect on Hillary’s character. Does she have principles and stick to them, or will she ditch a position and pick a new one whenever it’s convenient? Does she take responsibility for her actions, or does she offer up lame excuses for what she did in the past?
Your concerns are perplexing. Is no one allowed to evolve their views and change their opinions? What does “She was one of the last Democrats to flip-flop on the question” mean, exactly? That her alleged political expediency should have been faster, her alleged hypocrisy more agile?
I really have no idea what point you’re breathlessly trying to pursue here. You were already asked which Republican candidate you would prefer to Hillary on this issue. Is there one who’s been a consistent supporter of gay rights? Would you prefer someone who has evolved their views as mainstream opinion has changed, like Hillary, or would you prefer a consistent homophobic bigot like Santorum?
Am I supposed to instead admire a candidate who has a stupid opinion and then refuses to change it? Sticking to your principles is only a good idea when you have good principles. Bad principles should be abandoned.
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.
Having said that, yes HRC is head and shoulders above anyone on the GOP side when it comes to LGBT issues. I appreciate the fact she is able to change her mind on issues as her thinking evolves. That is much better than anyone she is likely to have as an opponent in the general election.
So, she changes her stripes as political expediency demands. So, its not her that changed, but us. When the people lead, the leaders follow. There is a definite upside to that.
Well, her last name is Clinton.
Will gay issues even be so big with gay voters? Arent they going to be equally concerned about issues with taxes or foreign policy?
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.
There’s no real way to tell, since gay issues (hmm… do I prefer equality or second-class semi-citizenship?), taxes (hmm… should a billionaire financier pay at least the same rate as his janitor?), and foreign policy (hmm… is “YEE HAH! BOMB BOMB IRAN!” a sound basis for dealing with the Middle East?) all point in the same direction.
Accusations of “flipflopping” have been used too gratuituously in the past, maybe this can serve to take another look at that… naaaaaah, come next summer they’ll be accusing whoever are the candidates of changing their positions on a half dozen issues.
Right. There is still concern about county clerks and state Chief Justices deciding that Jesus has their back if they want to keep sticking it to sodomites, the non-protected-class status of sexual orientation in private employment, and so forth. But even more seriously, consider history, equal rights under law and the vote were constitutionally recognized to black people in the late 1860s …but it took until the 1960s to get the Amendments actually applied in practice.
I think Lance Strongarm bears out my point from post 23… although the issue isn’t entirely resolved in reality, gay rights are considered to be a done deal by a big part of the population, or at best, a matter of “mopping up” after the big battle has been won.
If nothing else, the gay rights issue is suffering from a bit of topic fatigue after this summer’s heated debates and media coverage. I doubt it’ll be an election year topic of much import in 2016, and that’s why Hillary would be short sighted to make it a cornerstone of her campaign.
She’d do better IMO, to address climate change and pollution controls.
I agree that it’s unlikely to be a huge deal to the wider population who aren’t gay and that it’s unlikely to be one of the big headlines in her campaign literature. But you can bet that to the audiences who care about it she’ll make it clear where she stands and it’ll be solidly on the pro-gay rights side (if only out of political expediency).
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”.
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 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.
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?
If we can change enough of everybody else’s minds, hers will follow.
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?