She's been quite the laggard.
Why today? Can't let Portman get out in front of her?
Monday’s announcement marks something of a gradual evolution for the former Secretary of State. Mrs. Clinton supported civil unions but opposed same-sex marriage during her campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination back in 2008. But she lauded New York State back in the summer of 2011 for passing an “historic” measure to legalize gay marriage. Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law, joined with the Human Rights Campaign to help pass the New York law. Earlier this month, he said the 1996 law is incompatible with the Constitution and should be overturned...
“Like so many others, my personal views have been shaped over time by people I have known and loved, by my experience representing our nation on the world stage, my devotion to law and human rights and the guiding principles of my faith,” she said. “Marriage, after all, is a fundamental building block of our society, a great joy and, yes, a great responsibility.”
A great joy and also, sometimes — isn't it, Hillary? — a great pain. If joyful heterosexuals are permitted to undertake this tremendous responsibility, it's only fair that adulterous heterosexuals be permitted to shirk it... I mean, it's only fair that homosexuals have access to equivalent pain and suffering, don't you think?
Posts
70 comments:
Can't let Portman get out in front of her?
Does this say something about Chelsea?
As we are all thinking.....yes, this is prepration for your presidental run.
But will she be called a "flip flopper". "I was against gay marriage, but that was before I was for it".
Oh, and to clarify something, Hillary, Gay-Americans currently have the same right to marry that straight-Americans do.
She must be polling particularly low. A slight majority of people judge elect their representatives by the color of their skin and promises of instant (or immediate) gratification. She already meets the second qualification, and she could meet the first through tanning (before it is taxed into submission).
As for marriage, it only needs to be "pain and suffering" when we do not recognize the unique dignity of a man and woman in a marriage, and form unreasonable expectations to correspond with our misconceptions. These misconceptions can be mostly dispelled through a proper vetting process: dating.
As for same-sex marriage, why do its proponents continue to discriminate against other forms of relationships, sexual and platonic? Why is there this unique bigotry?
I still think the heterosexual support comes from a common alliance with homosexuals, where heterosexual men and women engaged in dysfunctional behaviors seek protection for their actions through exploitation of democratic leverage or extortion.
Ugh. The Clintons. Please go away now.
In Ms. Clinton's defense, it's been many decades since she's had any idea where the bullshit ends and the truth begins.
I heard a bit of this on the radio. Why does she speak as though we are all in kindergarten? I'm assuming one of her advisors told her to talk like this. She's been doing it for a while.
I guess it's better than that screech with a twist of Ebonics she was doing a few years ago.
She represented us on the world stage? Not quite - rather she lived large traveling the world on the tax payer charge card.
I'd like a dollar amount on a spread sheet that tells us exactly what we spent on Hillary.
ABC News/Washington Post poll shows Americans support gay marriage, 58-36.
Pretty amazing how fast the opposition to SSM has been obliterated.
nn.....Hillary can become an instant American-Indian by claiming a picture of an ancestor that has high cheek bones. That and submitting her lobster receipe to an Indian cookbook.
garage...I am impressed with what the gay folks have done. 60 years ago no-one had ever heard of the concept of homosexual marriage. 15 years ago civil unions was considered a radical move in only the most leftwing states (Vermont). Now, it is all but illegal to speak out against changing the definition of marriage.
All of this for 2% of the population.
“Marriage, after all, is a fundamental building block of our society...
Ahem. Marriage, insofar as it pairs a man and a woman for the production of children in a stable environment, is a fundamental building block of society.
Marriage, insofar as it secures joint property rights and hospital visitation procedures, is certainly not fundamental. The changed definition in and of itself dilutes the importance of the institution.
Here is my concern about gay marriage. In the future (if not already in the present), when an unwed woman gets pregnant, there will be ZERO societal expectation for the father to marry the mother and raise the child, and ZERO societal leverage to prod him to do so. Because if marriage is entirely about validating the feelings of the adults in the relationship, it is morally neutral for the man to reject that offer.
Those on the other side of the issue may say we're already there as a society. In that case, I'd like to fight to turn society back toward an expectation of responsibility on the part of fathers and mothers. The codification of the understanding of marriage implicit in the concept of gay marriage is a step in the opposite direction. No thanks.
(Note: I didn't have to say a thing about gay people to make this argument. Am I a bigot?)
METHODOLOGY – This ABC News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone March 7-10, 2013, among a random national sample of 1,001 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including design effect. Partisan divisions are 33-25-35 percent, Democrats-Republicans-independents.
If anyone knows about painful marriages, it's Hillary.
What difference, at this point...
Funny, all these pols seem to "evolve" just about when the polls tell them to.
Waiting for them to jump on the polygamy bandwagon. It's a right, isn't it?
Willie did it a couple of weeks ago.
Maybe he's hoping for a little action with Huma.
G Joubert said...
Can't let Portman get out in front of her?
Does this say something about Chelsea?
Supposedly, things aren't all Huntley-Brinkley in the Mezvinsky household.
garage mahal said...
ABC News/Washington Post poll shows Americans support gay marriage, 58-36.
Pretty amazing how fast the opposition to SSM has been obliterated.
Hardly obliterated, but it's interesting how one election is stolen and somehow everyone's attitudes do a complete 180 afterward.
AprilApple said...
METHODOLOGY – This ABC
News/Washington Post poll was conducted by telephone March 7-10, 2013, among a random national sample of 1,001 adults, including landline and cell-phone-only respondents. Results have a margin of sampling error of 3.5 points, including design effect. Partisan divisions are 33-25-35 percent, Democrats-Republicans-independents.
Then again, this may have something to do with it.
What is the future of the US under gay-marriage? In the Twin Cities, the editor of gay magazine "Lavender" wrote a column saying that he is fine with civil unions, vs changing the marriage laws. He says its a good compromise that protects the rights of both sides.
The gaystapo has now pledged to destroy him and his magazine. Calling for a boycott of advertisors. After 20 years of supporting all gay causes, a simple column saying civil unions should solve the problem, is enough for them to go after him.
To my Gay and Lesbian brothers and sisters:
Some day, and I hope that day may never come, your beloved may put the pressure on you to commit. You may wish that you had the, "I'd love to dear one, but society will not let us," arrow in your quiver; and it will be gone.
Then you'll be out looking for China patterns. Don't say I didn't warn you.
Too bad Hillary couldn't get as "out in front" of the gaping, yawning security gaps at the Benghazi consulate.
Benghazi!
I am on the side of the professor who hopes this gets codified and quick. It is one of the most boring topics afoot. No matter what happens gays will still not be able to procreate and until that happens we are going to get whinging.
Chuck66 wrote: The gaystapo has now pledged to destroy him and his magazine. Calling for a boycott of advertisors. After 20 years of supporting all gay causes, a simple column saying civil unions should solve the problem, is enough for them to go after him.
"Gaystapo" has a nice ring to it. Me likey.
Joe said: Marriage, insofar as it secures joint property rights and hospital visitation procedures, is certainly not fundamental.
I disagree. I mean no disrespect to the child-rearing aspect; its importance cannot be understated. But the aspect of two people building a life together as mutually supportive partners is very important, and very beneficial, to society.
Here is my concern about gay marriage. In the future (if not already in the present), when an unwed woman gets pregnant, there will be ZERO societal expectation for the father to marry the mother and raise the child, and ZERO societal leverage to prod him to do so. Because if marriage is entirely about validating the feelings of the adults in the relationship, it is morally neutral for the man to reject that offer.
Sorry, but that ship sailed a long time ago. At least, in the cultures and populations where they need it the most. But even the most conservative people will claim, when presented with a specific couple "in trouble", that they shouldn't get married just because of the kid. Gay marriage won't change it one way or the other.
My problem with gay marriage is that the gay folks and their liberal allies have pledges a scorched-earth policy.
Do you think even a small private Christian school will be safe? Or look at what is happening with abortion, where the left is trying to force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. Any dissent will not be tolerated.
garage mahal said...
Benghazi!
Too bad that actually happened, but what's the lives of 4 guys when it interferes with the greater glory of The Won?
BTW, did you see the Devil in the Bible miniseries looks just like I-am-not-a-dictator Zero?
chickelit said...
The gaystapo has now pledged to destroy him and his magazine. Calling for a boycott of advertisors. After 20 years of supporting all gay causes, a simple column saying civil unions should solve the problem, is enough for them to go after him.
"Gaystapo" has a nice ring to it. Me likey.
Lessee now,
DHS = SA
Civilian Defense Corpse = Volkssturm with 1.6 B rounds of ammo and 1700 MRAP trucks
Media = Ministry of Propaganda
Choom = Fuhrer
DOJ = RSD
ObamaTax = Arbeit Macht Frei
So, yeah, Gaystapo fits right in.
Can't wait to see what Organisation Todt looks like.
Lyssa , state governments will have fatherhood engagement programs. Why marry? Just toss the child back and forth by means of court order.
That's pretty much the way it is for a lot of people, Renee. I'm a family law attorney (but only for the next three weeks, thank God), and I get to pick up the peices when their casual agreements go south, as they inevitably do.
If they appointed me dictator of the world for a while, I'd set some sort of rule that creating a child with a person makes you married (or, better, probably create a new relationship that would be similar but not the same). You're committed to and tied to the person regardless, married or not, so it should be official.
I'd probably also (or alternatively) assign a social worker to draw up an official agreement for every new child with unmarried parents.
And this is why I'm a terrible liberatarian.
“Like so many others, my personal views have been shaped over time by people I have known and loved,...."
So how is this different from the Portman position?
I know, he is an R and she is a D!
I'm also a terrible speller.
Lyssa...I am glad the stigma of the unmarried mother is gone when it comes to abortion. No longer is there such a need to "get rid of it". But at the same time, the idea that you don't need a father for your kid is really bad for society.
How many human interest stories do you read where the first paragraph about a struggling person says "..a single mother of 2.....".
More leadership from the Clintons.
Chuck66, absolutely. I don't know how to resolve the issue, particularly while still trying to discourage baby-killing to avoid the stigma, but it's a tragic one.
Again, if I were supreme dictator, I would do everything I could to make adoption the norm if the parents are unmarried. But that's easier said than done (at least without dictatorship powers).
I wonder if, as a true child of the 60's, Hilary is really concerned about the decisions she's made, or if like all politicians, she's always just angling for the big one.
She's made a career out of reflecting competent leadership and women's issues, standing by her man around the little pile of principles and political power they built between them.
Portman and Obama got ahead of her on this one, and she's moving to wherever it's best seen to be.
You don't like those principles and policies, she's got other ones.
You really can't discuss marriage policy in the US without recognising that it's more or less failed for heterosexuals.
From a policy perspective, why is the government providing benefits to married couples -- like favourable treatment on death duties, joint taxation, community property, etc. -- if the people who need it most aren't taking advantage.
The study found a large educational and class divide. College-educated women typically have their first child two years after marrying. The high school graduates as a group have their first child two years before they marry.
The only legitimate reason I can see to treat married couples differently from unmarried couples, under the law, is to encourage them to take advantage of a stable family form to have children in. Clearly, that's not working:
In a statistic that runs counter to the image of unmarried mothers as reckless teenagers, the study said 58 percent of first births to women who have graduated only from high school are out of wedlock.
Maybe that's because the advantages of marriage are only apparent to the wealthy (because the poor have no inheritance, or no tax or whatever). Maybe it's because the cultural meaning of marriage and reproduction have shifted so far from their moorings that marriage as an institution simply doesn't make sense other than as a fancy party after job and spouse and child and everything else in one's life are in place (a "capstone" as the article calls it).
But whatever the case, this is where the real debate over marriage ought to be focused -- not this utter frivolity (on both sides) about a "right" to gay marriage.
Is this some sort of a surprising development? At long last? Really? I always assumed she was pro-gay marriage because it's politically expedient, politically harmless (D. "from NY") and she's a Clinton.
So why is this news?
1. Keeps her in the public eye;
2. People will mention that she's a potential presidential candidate;
3. Opportunity to pretend to appreciate the virtues of marriage;
4. Whitewash that Benghazi unpleasantness, to the extent anyone who matters actually remembers what that was about.
I'm sorry, but Bill and Hillary have no principles.
re: Amartel:
3. Opportunity to pretend to appreciate the virtues of marriage;
Regardless of her husband's incontinent philandering, she seems to have a pretty solid marriage. Whether they have romantic love for each other is none of our business, and quite irrelevant. In general, one gets the sense that they have, at least, some degree of affection for one another, though that could be staged. They have raised their daughter decently well though -- I've never heard reports of her getting arrested for drugs and whatnot -- and they function well as a partnership. And that's really all that matters. Theirs does not seem a bad marriage at all, by the standards of history and tradition. One could do much worse.
"Clinton" is a brand and a big part of that brand is Mr. and Mrs. Bill Clinton. The reality of the situation is beside the point although I very strongly suspect that if there was no political brand there would be no marriage.
Bill and Hillary have no principles.
Sure they do. They're all warped is all.
It would be refreshing to hear them tell the truth though: In the past, our polls showed that most people didn't want this, and now they do. So we're changing what we think. I think this is a bit different than Portman doing it because now it affects someone in his family. But it's not any less craven.
Sounds a little contrived, doesn't it?
Benghazi!
More like BEN-GAY-ZHEE!
Kind of like our current president. Strongly held beliefs are subject to change.
"I must find out where the people are going, so I can lead them."
Did garage and Inga support Hillary before she endorsed gay marriage?
If I wanted advice about marriage...then Hillary Clinton is just about the first person I would ask. Just sayn'
Even lifestyle outlets like Jezebel know marriage was about dads being husbands. http://m.jezebel.com/5928235/unmarried-fathers-abandon-families-to-spare-their-own-delicate-feelings
"But reality is quite different from perception. Almost two-thirds of single women raising kids on their own had been married or were still married, and the children's father had simply left. And despite the fact that most women who have children outside of marriage are in a romantic relationship with the child's father that continues throughout the pregnancy, in 2009, only 41% of single, custodial parents (mostly women) were paid the child support they were owed. Men seem to be the ones fucking up here.
So what are they thinking? In her piece, Folbre cites research conducted by Harvard's Kathryn Edin and Timothy Nelson, who found that while most unwed fathers weren't necessarily explicitly planning for children when their partners became pregnant, they felt mostly positive about fatherhood"
I can't wait until 2016 when the media focus on the Republican primary is going to be all about who is a bigot and who isn't while all the Democrats will be supporting marriage equality.
I note she skipped the polygamy support. Of course marriage advice from the Clintons does seem rich
"I can't wait until 2016 when the media focus on the Republican primary is going to be all about who is a bigot and who isn't while all the Democrats will be supporting marriage equality."
Or maybe "who WAS a bigot," which will pretty much include all the Democratic candidates. Are you now, or have you ever been, opposed to gay marriage?
Andy R. said...
I can't wait until 2016 when the media focus on the Republican primary is going to be all about who is a bigot and who isn't while all the Democrats will be supporting marriage equality.
Yes, the fact we'll all be living in cardboard boxes and businesses will be dying like Marines on Red Beach at Tarawa will be of no moment at all.
PS The fight between the Hildabeast and Andy Cuomo might take up a few lines.
Enough already on this subject. It's tedious. Gays who take advantage of any changes will regret it. Many heterosexual men are already boycotting marriage. If I were a young man getting married for the first time, I would only do it in Louisiana in a Covenant Marriage, which does not allow no-fault divorce, or alimony to women at fault.
Any man marrying a woman of childbearing age today is volunteering for no-fault divorce, loss of his children, and child support rape.
ken in sc
Isn't the liberal world a pretty world? No responsibilities unless you are of the wrong color and gender. Then the house falls on you.
wyo sis said...
Yes, it's nice to see someone who understands.
Ann is almost always able to find a way to understand politicians' motivations and behavior from a practical and unemotional point of view. Sometimes she's hard on Obama, Romney, etc and sometimes she's not. But Ann is ALWAYS tough with Hillary Clinton. Why is that?
Sarah Davis, I'm not a psychoanalyst, but I play one on this blog:
Because Althouse may see herself the true feminist who didn't ride on her husband's coattails, always testing the political winds. She was a hippie-ish type, flirting with the counter-culture, the woman who would be an artist but who went to law school and made her way in a firm on her own.
Artists, or would-be artists often see themselves as outside the fray.
Be skeptical of politics, and of activism and the party line. Think for yourself, and accept responsibility for your actions.
Perhaps she sees herself as the true keeper of the feminist flame, sitting on a little hill outside the Temple of the Seven Sisters as the feminists gather: Funereal, ideological, and ritualistic, giving out their little programs and enforcing discipline.
Maybe repubs should push for normalizing polygamy to appeal to the mormon crowd. And the libertarians, and the True Love crowd. And anyone who disagrees is a bigot.
Right Inga? Its inevitable. You just aren't evolved enough to undertand.
We can also apppeal to gays by suggesting that gay polygamy would be as legal as non gay polygamy.
Will Obama, Hillary and Andy R all be on board for the latest Push for marriage equality?
Andy R, marriage equality. What a pretty sounding but meaningless phrase. Equality for whom other than a heterosexual couple. The gays of course. OK, and who else? Oh I (Andy R) didn't mean anyone else. Oh really said CWJ, then where is the limiting element in your pretty phrase?
OK, marriage conducted by whom? Only the state of course says Andy R. Really says CWJ? Again, where is the concpt in marriage equality that limits it to a secular only application?
I suupose I should be happy that you've shifted from spurious "separate but equa" objections to marriage equality affirmation, but I'm not. Like the former which sounded compelling until you applied a minute's thought to it, marriage equality is no different. It is cotton candy offered by politicians in return for votes. Its sweet and yummy, but melts away and disappears as soon as you put it in your mouth.
CWJ
Except the results don't melt away. Those stay and infest the ground for future generations to deal with.
Wyo sis, oh I agree. Yes I do. But at this point we're talking marketing, so cotton candy it is. The inevitable buyers' remorse, as you point out, will surely come.
I was reading comments about the leaked emails from Guccifer, and a commenter posits Hillary's same sex position change as in preparation for some damning Benghazi leaks.
That would be really funny.
Not even Hilary could expect to weasel out of Benghazi by flip flopping on SSM. Could she?
She's just trying to keep up with the Republicans. She's about as sincere as her husband is in marriage.
Did you ever go on a vacation and say: " I really love Paris" Wouldn't it be great to have the civil right to marry Paris and bring everybody all over here to continue the joy you had in Paris. Makes about the same amount of sense to me too.
Did you ever go on a vacation and say: " I really love Paris" Wouldn't it be great to have the civil right to marry Paris and bring everybody all over here to continue the joy you had in Paris. Makes about the same amount of sense to me too.
I wonder what the LGs think about her lumping them in with the BTs? (her blabbering refs LGBT community)
jr565: Maybe repubs should push for normalizing polygamy to appeal to the mormon crowd. And the libertarians, and the True Love crowd. And anyone who disagrees is a bigot.
They will, jr, they will.
But only after the dems. But it won't be for mormons, perish the thought. Mormons are Bad People, and the respectable ones don't do polygamy anymore, anyway. It's going to be "Islamaphobia", all the way, baby. Mark my words.
Will Obama, Hillary and Andy R all be on board for the latest Push for marriage equality?
They will, jr, they will.
Professor Althouse, if the Supreme Court recognizes same sex marriage as the law of the land, will two brothers - born of the same mother and father - be able to legally marry each other?
Post a Comment