This is getting presented in the liberal press in a somewhat negative way — for example, from the L.A. Times, "New batch of Hillary Clinton's emails shows her cautiousness on gay rights":
Hillary Rodham Clinton has lately positioned herself on the forefront of gay rights, but tucked into a newly disclosed batch of her emails is a reminder that she had long taken a more cautious approach to the issue...But, of course, she was cautious and wary of the media response. "Parent One" and "Parent Two" instead of "mother" and "father" is absurd bureaucratese.
A nice ego boost for Sarah Palin there, knowing she's got prime real estate in Hillary's head.
पोस्ट्स
८० टिप्पण्या:
A nice ego boost for Sarah Palin there, knowing she's got prime real estate in Hillary's head.
Seems like a pretty crappy neighborhood.
And why the fuck are they discriminating against Parent 3?
Two parents makes sense when it is tied to the biology of procreation, or some idea of complementary roles. Once you throw those out, on what basis do you favor 2 over 1 or 3 or 4?
Parent one and Parent two always make me think of this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CgdW15iLNk
This email was sent years after Brandon Eich supported Proposition 8, for which he was made an un-person and fired from Mozilla.
I am sure we will see Hillary treated in a similar way, just like Obama was for holding the same position at the same time.
Hillary Rodham Clinton has lately positioned herself on the forefront of gay rights, but tucked into a newly disclosed batch of her emails is a reminder that she had long taken a more cautious approach to the issue.
Is this really news to anyone who has followed the public careers of the Clintons (e.g. DOMA)? I mean, jeez, that was the 1990s, not the 1870s.
Sometimes I think the Left's oft-used historical revisionism isn't about changing the narrative. It's about hiding the fact that they've got some weird form of communal Alzheimers when it comes to the basic facts of history.
So forcing 99% of the public that isn't in a gay marriage to use "Parent One/Parent Two" on a passport is considered a gay rights issue?
Golly, politicians can be phony. Who knew?
If we could access Obama's thought process on the same subject, there would be similar positional wrangling.
You would also see similar discussions going on with other politicians on a multitudes of subjects, and in boardrooms of corporations, and in the minds of celebrities (or at least their handles for the more vacuous ones).
The real concerning thing is the "we have always been at war with Eurasia" vibe to all this.
"These are my principles. If you do not accept them... I have others."
"Parent One/Parent Two" is sort of dehumanizing.
And who gets to be Parent One? If statistics showed that a majority of the time fathers were selected as Parent One, what would the feminists then say about patriarchy and so on? Clear evidence of deeply ingrained sexism in our society, no doubt.
I'd think, since Hillary thinks it takes a village to raise a child that she'd be ok with parents 1,2,3,4 and 5.
"...absurd bureaucratese."
Isn't that redundant?
That reminds me of visiting Antigua a few years back. The customs processing form had the politically correct designations "Parent 1" and "Parent 2," but the bossy West Indian lady (you know the type) who was managing the line knew nothing of that. She announced, clearly and repeatedly, as with a group of children: "The husbands are to complete the form. Each husband will present the form for his family to the official in the booth. The wife and children will accompany the husband to the booth for processing by the official."
The "absurd bureaucratese" of naming two same gendered parents is a reflection of absurdity IRL.
I used to have a negative reaction to Renee's posts about biological parents on birth certificates (because she seemed anti-adoption) but I have come around to her viewpoint on this issue.
But, remember, speaking your concerns openly is HATE.
Doing it privately in email is electable.
YoungHegelian said...
Hillary Rodham Clinton has lately positioned herself on the forefront of gay rights, but tucked into a newly disclosed batch of her emails is a reminder that she had long taken a more cautious approach to the issue.
Is this really news to anyone who has followed the public careers of the Clintons (e.g. DOMA)? I mean, jeez, that was the 1990s, not the 1870s.
Another good example was "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
What's with the handle HDR22?
So, rather than address the limitations of constructing congruences, she instead chose to ignore them. Still, she is not Obama, who celebrates the creation of moral and practical hazards.
Ignorance is Bliss said...
A nice ego boost for Sarah Palin there, knowing she's got prime real estate in Hillary's head.
Seems like a pretty crappy neighborhood.
----------------
Yes, but the rent is free.
Y'all are being too harsh on HRC. By sticking to mother/father, she was just following the edict of the man in charge, who after all had insisted repeatedly that "my religious beliefs say that marriage is something sanctified between a man and a woman."
I've long maintained that the problem with Hillary is her massive incompetence. Virtually everything she touches fails; with the possible exception of the "bimbo squads" and her interesting investment in cattle futures.
This email highlights an aspect of her incompetent management. Someone, unknown to her, through some process, also unknown to her, decided the eliminate the "father, mother" designations.
She's just out of touch with the actual operation of the state department. Evidently, so are her subordinates several layers down. Too busy grifting I suppose.
What a lovely dispute. Thank you, Secretary Clinton, for setting up this entire fiasco with your homebrew server. Because how else would we have gotten your private emails with Huma, Cheryl Mills and Sidney Blumenthal. Always Sidney Blumenthal.
I am just wondering when I became a bigot. Because with Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton "evolving" on the question -- and of course neither one of them is now or ever has been a bigot -- and having both opposed same sex marriage as recently as 2012, it seems strange that all of a sudden in 2015, I am a Republican Bigot for opposing same sex marriage.
Well... 3-parent birth certificate is OK’d by judge
Maria Italiano, 43, and Cher Filippazzo, 38, were legally married in Connecticut. They and a hairdresser for one of the women, Massimiliano “Massimo” Gerina, had an oral agreement about their arrangement, but a legal dispute erupted as he pondered the responsibilities of fatherhood, reported the Gay South Florida page of the Miami Herald. “We’re creating entirely new concepts of families. If you have two women seeking to be listed as Parent One and Parent Two, that does not exclude listing a man as father,” said attorney Karyn J. Begin, who represented Gerina.
----+-+
Parent 1 and Parent 2..... maternal and parental DNA and ancestry be damned.
Marriage has to be two, but now we expanded the number of individuals on a person's birth certificate. I'm happy for the father to fight for his responsibilities and realize he is a not just a sperm donor. His orientation is irrelevant to who is in relation to his daughter.
Is this to benefit the child and her rights to her being and identity, or to benefit adults who treat the recording of birth as if the child was a piece of property at the registry of deeds?
Good. The Bernie contingent eats, breathes, and lives absurdity. This will add cars to the Bernie train.
She worried needlessly. While it's true that some at Fox News would have mocked her, Jon Stewart and the late night comedians would have supported her progressive stance and mocked the stupidity of Faux News. The regular news stations would have interviewed the children of the transgendered who would have explained how harmful the old appellations were. This could have been a real vote getter for her.
and her interesting investment in cattle futures.
Let's say I want to bribe you, and let you report the money on your taxes and me to take the money off of mine... How to do it... I have an idea! I will manage your commodity "investments" for you, bet both sides on every deal, keep the losers and give you the winners!
Imagine if some shyster lawyer who worked for Hillary as an investment adviser and also worked for an industry her husband regulated, like, say chicken processors under pressure on environmental regulations....
Naah! Too absurd! Hillary made all that money by reading the WSJ and pure application of her preternatural intelligence!
@Renee
I'm happy for the father to fight for his responsibilities and realize he is a not just a sperm donor.
Dads are never just sperm donors, especially in the eyes of the state. Just wait & see who the state goes after for child support if one of the lesbians falls through on her duty as Mother1 or Mother2 & splits the scene.
In the eyes of the state, Dad isn't primarily a sperm donor. Dad is primarily an ATM with feet.
A great window into the real Hillary, in case anyone hasn't been paying attention. Remember, her husband was the only president to ever sign an anti-gay rights law--and he campaigned on that. Hillary never once stood up for gay people when it may have mattered. Why any gay person would vote for her is beyond me.
If the gay money and activism--worth something in the Democratic primaries--migrates towards Bernie Sanders, it only helps his momentum. The "inevitable" candidate (who really had no better argument for Democrats other than "she's best equipped to win the general election") looks less inevitable each day.
I like the email asking her staff for a definition of FUBAR.
Take a look in the mirror!!
"She worried needlessly. While it's true that some at Fox News would have mocked her, Jon Stewart and the late night comedians would have supported her progressive stance and mocked the stupidity of Faux News. The regular news stations would have interviewed the children of the transgendered who would have explained how harmful the old appellations were. This could have been a real vote getter for her."
More than that--public opinion on gay marriage has been steadily moving in favor, even among Republicans. Hillary could have pretended to take a "brave" stance here, even while it was the politically prudent one. This demonstrates not just political weaseling on her part, but political incompetence in failing to read public opinion.
Cattle Futures... Clinton Foundation... It's like they are openly mocking us!
a segment of the gay community will "bottom" for her.
"We are small but powerful group that encourages Hillary Clinton to run for President in 2016. We recognize the unbelievable force that is Hillary Clinton. So much so, that we admit that we would willingly bottom for her.
It does not matter if you usually bottom, or if you usually top but can't resist the Clinton. She is a bad ass bitch. She is the head bitch in charge. She is the Ma'damnnnnn President.
Ideally we would be bottoming for her as we were voting for her.
We will display our love for Hillary but informing the world of our desire to bottom for her. Buy a shirt, have no shame, and vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016."
Forever ago, like 2008, I was kind of "meh" on the whole SSM topic, back when Barack Hussein Obama was firmly opposed, because, as he put it, "God is in the mix".
Today I am still kind of "meh" on the topic, don't really oppose, don't really care, but apparently now I am a hopeless bigot because I do support the right of other private individuals (like bakers and photographers) not to have to involve themselves in a ceremony which they feel violates their own religious beliefs.
With the lefties, it's not really about human rights and equality - it's about forcing division and a constant changing of the rules in order to keep their enemies off-balance.
@Brando,
If the gay money and activism--worth something in the Democratic primaries--migrates towards Bernie Sanders, it only helps his momentum.
I'd be surprised if Bernie ever really got out in front for gay rights before it became the coin of the realm on the Left.
Old guard Bernsteinian Marxists like Bernie never really had any truck with gay rights, or any sort of "minority rights", except in so far as they helped the cause. I've seen that historical revisionism over & over again among my lefty FB friends --- that the historic Left was fond of gays. Whether it was Ernst Hemingway with his sissy-man hatin' ways or Cuban Homo Farms, gay rights just wasn't on the list of the next proletarian revolution.
More than that--public opinion on gay marriage has been steadily moving in favor, even among Republicans.
We were assured (chuckle) that gay marriage was okay because unless you were a gay marrying another gay it would not impact you in the slightest.
A lot of people who weren't really keen on the idea in itself were willing to go along with it on the live-and-let-live premise.
So I'd say at the time that public opinion - including Republicans - was shifting on gay marriage is reason number one to not rock the boat and start shoving "Parent 1" and "Parent 2" down the throats of normal citizens.
@Young
He's from VERMONT!
Totally ahead of the game there.
The reason to support gay marriage is the "meh" factor. I sympathize with that.
Don't tell me in 2011 its just a piece of paper, then in 2012 it's an important civil right.
Profiles in Courage.
William has it right, and frankly I am disappointed in the professors analysis. Hillary doesn't give Sarah Palin a second thought!
Hillarysplainers know that the Stewart, Colbert, Fey sycophantic, braying jackass, loinfo mofos are easily convinced of anything when they invoke FOX News and Sarah Palin.
All Jon Leibowitz had to do to win Emmy's was to show the FOX News logo several times a week. FOX News had a mansion in Stewart's brain, fo sho!
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/19/world/africa/19policy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/25b048/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-america-at-not-war
I am looking into divorce for financial reasons. After all, marriage is only about net benefits, right? Well we would pay a lot less taxes if we were not married, but just co-habitated. I wouldn't even have had that thought a decade ago, but now, hey, the rabbi married us for life, and that is still good, so why do we need to pay the govt for this? Let's sign an agreement that protects both parties, like we would have in a civil union and get a divorce, hopefully by the end of the year!
But just because marriage is now a calculation of net benefits, don't think that it has been devalued! H8rs!
"holdfast said... With the lefties, it's not really about human rights and equality - it's about forcing division and a constant changing of the rules in order to keep their enemies off-balance."
Yes, but I think its about more than that. After all, if the issues don't matter, why are there enemies to be kept off-balance?
I think the main leftist motivation is simply to belong to a group that is committed to some kind of collective ideal, cemented by hatred of an outgroup. Conservatives often already have their various voluntary affiliations (including but not limited to churches). The leftist religion, by contrast, merely represents a hate-filled rejection of whatever it is that conservatives want. If a social conservative doesn't like homosexuality or abortion, the leftists can't just be libertarians on the subject. They have to shoot past non-interference toward forcing the heretic to subsidize and celebrate what he abhors.
This is all about the Last Man's ressentiment.
@tim
Of course the problem with doing that is the same reason that gay people do have a legitimate argument for government recognition. If you are not married then you lose important rights and privileges that can only be had through marriage. (They should be possible to do via contracts, wills etc. but courts have demonstrated insufficient respect for these types of arrangements)
So, many of us are stuck effectively paying the government for these rights, via a tax penalty, while anyone else who wants them must lobby the government for the privilege of buying their own rights from the government.
But Ann, it's not "absurd bureaucratese". If you are trying to get a passport for a child of a same-sex couple, there are either going to be two fathers or two mothers.
I was kind of surprised when I read the story that this hadn't already been done that short a time ago, and of course it must either have been done now or be in the process.
Hillary Clinton sent the e-mail on January 8, 2011.
On that date, both Barack Obama and Joe Biden still were committed to their publicly declared position that marriage should be between only one man and one woman.
Obama and Biden did not revoke that position until May 2012.
On another note: absent those practical concerns, decoupling the government's recognition of a marriage from the idea of a marriage as between two people, God, and those who witness its sanctification is probably not a bad thing at all.
The root problem is that government presumes to claim ownership in the institution of marriage rather than simply recognize it as a self-declared status.
Slightly OT: There was an editorial by Donald Trump in the WSJ the other day detailing his new tax plan, which says (among other things) that it eliminates the marriage penalty. Now, as I understand it, you can't, all at the same time (1) eliminate the marriage penalty; (2) not eliminate the marriage bonus (i.e., the advantage married couples have when one makes very much more money than the other); and (3) avoid charging single people more than married people. Something's gotta give. So which is it?
I keep reading that there is no marriage penalty, and I keep looking at my taxes...
Crazytown just keeps on getting crazier.
This was a strange line:
The irony was quickly noted by GOP opposition researchers Wednesday.
He then doesn't mention any "opposition researchers" or how they "noted" anything, or how he's tied in to these dark forces to know what they're noting.
Funny the way he awkwardly shoe-horned that phrase in there.
A nice ego boost for Sarah Palin there, knowing she's got prime real estate in Hillary's head.
There is no prime real estate in Hillary's head...it's all "Attitudinal Healing Correction" murals an' shit.
The political and social popularity of sperm depositors and womb banks notwithstanding, Parent 1 and Parent 2 revert to their normal classification as Father and Mother when tracing genetic evolution. While gender roles and preferences can, apparently, be coerced, there are two and only two sexes: male and female.
I'm pretty sure Gov. Palin became aware of the amount of real estate she'd seized inside Dems' heads within a matter of hours after John McCain announced her selection as his Veep nominee. We're talking a large, most-contiguous, fee-simple empire -- something like the King Ranch.
A nice ego boost for Sarah Palin there, knowing she's got prime real estate in Hillary's head.
And a nice boost for Fox News, endorsed by Hillary as the only media that recognizes stupid when they see it.
All those rights, at least the important ones, can in theory be arranged in other ways. There are two problems with this.
The lesser problem is that it's harder to do. You need a good lawyer to draft these agreements so that hopefully they will stand up if someone (i.e. immediate family) challenges them. The greater problem is that, in practice, courts have been known to throw them out regardless of how well they are drafted. Especially in cases of same-sex partners.
Marriage by contrast actually changes the order of legal next of kin, so if you're married you will generally be immune to that sort of challenge.
Estate tax exemption is the biggie, probably wipes out a lifetime of marriage penalties for the surviving spouse.
@Hunter
Yay, for talking about public policy applications!
Call everything civil unions, since there is suppose be a separation of Church & State. Sorry, buy you can't say separate religious, then confuse people by using the same term, and then accuse religions of bigotry because a lobby wants to redefine the legal term.
Ban all forms of sperm/egg donations/surrogacy
Don't mess with birth certificates.
When an adoption happens, call it an adoption, instead if reissuing a new birth certificate.
You can't tell me at one end marriage has nothing to do with children, then demand that I acknowledge that a child has two moms and no father.
HiLIARy has no moral, ethical or intellectual foundation. It's all mush, with her sticking her finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.
I wonder if it rankles anyone that Cheney has demonstrated more openness to homosexuals than Obama and Clinton did when it wasn't politically expedient.
But, of course, she was cautious and wary of the media response. "Parent One" and "Parent Two" instead of "mother" and "father" is absurd bureaucratese.
Her sin was not in objecting to the absurdity of the phrase. She goes on to say "I could live with letting people in not-traditional families choose another descriptor so long as we retained the presumption of mother and father."
It is her lack of zeal, and her willingness to "retain the presumption" of the traditionalists that is going to get her into trouble with the gay left. "I could live with" is doubly damning. First, she says she could live with it, not that she supports it.
Second, being in the subjunctive mood, it indicates that she will only live with it if she is forced to. "I could live with" is not even as supportive as "I can Live with".
Tim in Vermont:
That's exactly how Hillary did it. Jim Blair, lawyer for Tyson, took the losers. Red Bone was the broker for both. He gave the winners to the Clintons and assigned the losers to Tyson.
Maria Italiano, 43, and Cher Filippazzo, 38, were legally married in Connecticut. They and a hairdresser for one of the women, Massimiliano “Massimo” Gerina, had an oral agreement about their arrangement, but a legal dispute erupted as he pondered the responsibilities of fatherhood, reported the Gay South Florida page of the Miami Herald. “We’re creating entirely new concepts of families. If you have two women seeking to be listed as Parent One and Parent Two, that does not exclude listing a man as father,” said attorney Karyn J. Begin, who represented Gerina.
I wonder if the Left realizes that the official documents are for historical record-keeping, not feelings. I wonder what benefit, historically, this bullshit will do for researchers.
"These clowns suddenly had two women squirting out kids? How the fuck did they do that?"
I am profoundly irritated about historical documentation being made into useless fluff to please lunatics. If we're going to do "3 parent certificates" --- then what IS the point of having one, since it isn't based on actual biological reality?
I wonder if it rankles anyone that Cheney has demonstrated more openness to homosexuals than Obama and Clinton did when it wasn't politically expedient.
They ignore it. Which is why Republicans are idiots to do much for gay activists. There is no benefit in doing so. Treat them like people and you'll have some intelligent gays join you and the idiots will keep doing what they're doing now.
I don't get why gays decided to join blacks as totally written off constituencies.
One thing the left got right. The "one percent" do seem to run things.
If you like your mother, you can keep your mother. 2011 position
If you like Parent 1, Parent 2 and Parent 3, you can still wonder who your mother and your father were since you may be a kidnapped Central American or Ethiopian child or have had a substitute mother and a sperm donor father. And now Parent 1 is divorcing Parent 2 because one became a "woman" while the other became a "man" and the question is does the "woman" get custody although "she" used to be traditional man. So it makes sense to think about another world.
"I wonder if it rankles anyone that Cheney has demonstrated more openness to homosexuals than Obama and Clinton did when it wasn't politically expedient."
It says a lot for Cheney--this was at a time when the country was largely anti-gay marriage, and his party was absolutely anti-gay marriage. His sentiments could only be chalked up to principle or love for his daughter--and as for the latter, many parents can love their children while still openly disapproving of their sexual orientation.
The Clintons, by contrast, were feted and supported by gay rights groups like the Human Rights Campaign since Bill's first run, and every time the gay lobby became politically inconvenient it was under the bus for them. Coming out for gay marriage as a Democrat in 2013 is a profile in cowardice.
The question is will she sell out on blacks as well? They're really the last true Democratic constituency holding out for Hillary.
It's not that Clinton was fearful, but rather that she was envious. While working with congruences in models is easy, accommodating them in practice can create moral hazards. The pro-choice doctrine was applied to normalize couplets, but its double-edge has been used to selectively deny others equal rights. The "=" movement has demonstrated it is incapable and unwilling to reconcile the inconsistency in their position. Instead resorting to projection of sanctimonious hypocrisy (bigotry) to deflect scrutiny from themselves.
Dick Cheney is (and was then) old, curmudgeonly and really didn’t give a f*ck.
Also Republicans knew that official White House policy would be set by GWB, not by the Veep. And they respected Cheney for being curmudgeonly and not giving a f*ck, even if they disagreed on the substance.
How is "cautiousness" different from "caution?" I'm all in favor of new words where they are needed (or especially clever), but this just adds an entire pointless syllable. Picky, of course, but a sign that no one reads this stuff before it's printed.
Golly, politicians can be phony. Who knew?
Bill Clinton is a master of being phony. He pretended to smoke pot to impress the potheads. And then later, when he ran for President, he was all, "I didn't inhale." His entire career, his entire life, is about building a facade that other people will like and admire. And all his monster shit goes loose in private.
It's better, I think, as a human being, to release some of your monster shit in public. Let people see the ugly you. That keeps it real and keeps you grounded and honest. Own your flaws. Admit to your misdeeds.
Hillary is not a master of being phony. Her mask is always slipping. Hillary's got a lot of anger. Here's an interesting article about some of the shit she does in private.
"Good morning, ma'am." (Secret Service officer).
"Fuck you." Hillary Clinton.
I wonder what's going through her mind? ("That's the secret service officer who's helping Bill cheat on me, that bastard.") It's such a strange, bizarre exchange, you wonder what the context is.
Anyway, as Donald Trump runs for office, and expresses his anger in public, I remind myself that other politicians are angry and hateful, too. (And contemptuous). They just hide it, all the time, under a mask.
It's little disconcerting that Hillary is so angry that she can't hide it in her day-to-day life. I think her rule is that if doesn't happen on camera, it never happened.
I asked my wife, who has many years of government service, if she knew what FUBAR meant. I was shocked and surprised that she did not. After I told her what it meant, She opined that it was vulgar military slang. I did not ask if she knew what SNAFU, AFU, and TU meant. I did not want her opinion on any more stuff tonight--it would obviously be vulgar in my opinion.
Was married in the Church by a priest, and the words were;" By the power vested in me by the State of Maryland and by God...." In a divorce, God isn't invoked. So, if we got divorced, we would still be married in the eyes of the Church.
What Tim in Vermont said at 10/1/15, 12:38 PM seems to make a lot of sense....
I'll have to do my taxes two ways this year and check that out.
Good Grief. Does anyone REALLY believe Hillary! or Bill give a damn about Homosexuals, one way or the other?
Most people under 50 don't know what "FUBAR" is, because that kind of disguised swearing is no longer required. People either say the word "fuck" in certain offices or they don't.
BTW, as you might expect large number of ESL people don't know that "Fuck" is still very offensive to many Americans. Because their liberal college professors (or any other kind?) think its normal, its quite a shock to them when they arrive in the workforce and find its verboten in certain offices.
"Crazytown just keeps on getting crazier."
:)))
Clinton's personal reaction was opposition to the gender neutral language, and she expressly said so.
Yes, it looks like Fox is a persistent boogeyman (boogeyperson 1) for her, but it serves a purpose. She's saying, in effect, that she doesn't want to be attacked by her political enemies on a matter where their criticism would be completely correct.
The current application says "Mother/Father/Parent" That modification is consistent with Clinton's directive, and is a wise resolution of the issue
"Most people under 50 don't know what "FUBAR" is, because that kind of disguised swearing is no longer required. People either say the word "fuck" in certain offices or they don't."
-- Some people tell me it means "Beyond All Repair," others "Beyond All Recognition." I never bothered to OED it, but "all repair" makes more sense to me, since if you can say something is FUBAR, it is clearly recognizable as FUBAR'ed, so, it clearly couldn't be FUBAR'ed.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा