"Human's rights are women's rights

[BainsBane]

and women's rights are human rights, once and for all."

[George II]

1. She was on it even back in 1995, twenty years ago.

[misterhighwasted]

2. Yes she was. No candidate "gets it" the way Hillary does. No candidate is as

determined to stick that issue out front & center and she does just that.
This is personal for Hillary Clinton and personal for women and it will show at the Primary & GE.

She will defeat JEB! on this issue alone. He just spouted off the perfect example of a good old white boy's belief that women's health care, women's rights are the bottom of his political concerns.

Thanks JEB!. Your stupidity is a gift to the First Woman President of the United States & She is Hillary Clinton, 2016.

All JEB!'s billions will never buy back the women he just insulted & scorned.

[sheshe2]

3. Thank you Hillary Clinton

[William769]

4. Kick & highly recommended!

[ismnotwasm]

5. K&R

[Cha]

6. Thank you for this, BB. And, we're still working for them .. in the US.

[beam me up scottie]

7. Unless you're an lgbt woman.

1996: “My preference is that we do all we can to strengthen traditional marriages, and that the people engaged in parenting children be committed to one another and to the child. We also have to be realistic and know there are others who can do a good job, as well, of raising children,” Mrs. Clinton told The San Francisco Examiner.

2000: “Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman,” Mrs. Clinton said while running for the Senate in New York.

2003: “Well, marriage means something different. You know, marriage has a meaning that I think should be kept as it historically has been, but I see no reason whatsoever why people in committed relationships can’t have many of the same rights and the same respect for their unions that they are seeking, and I would like to see that be more accepted than it is,” Mrs. Clinton speaking to WNYC on the difference between gay marriage and civil unions.

2003: “I am, you know, for many reasons. I think that the vast majority of Americans find that to be something they can’t agree with. But I think most Americans are fair. And if they believe that people in committed relationships want to share their lives and, not only that, have the same rights that I do in my marriage, to decide who I want to inherit my property or visit me in a hospital, I think that most Americans would think that that’s fair and that should be done,” Mrs. Clinton, in an interview with CBS, on whether she still opposed same-sex marriage.

2006: “My position is consistent. I support states making the decision. I think that Chuck Schumer would say the same thing. And if anyone ever tried to use our words in any way, we’ll review that. Because I think that it should be in the political process and people make a decision and if our governor and our Legislature support marriage in New York, I’m not going to be against that,” Mrs. Clinton telling Gay City News that she would not block legislation supporting gay marriage in New York.

2007: “I am very much in favor of civil unions with full equality of benefits,” Mrs. Clinton told Ellen DeGeneres, explaining that she still believed the decision should be left to states.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/04/16/hillary-clintons-changing-views-on-gay-marriage/



Sure Hillary finally came around in 2013 but before that she obviously thought that some women were more equal than others.

She's not the civil rights champion you make her out to be.

Bernie Sanders, otoh, never had to "evolve" when it comes to human rights.

[ericson00]

8. mainstream politicians did evolve on gay marriage

as in mainstream pols who can win elections, not socialists.

[beam me up scottie]

9. That socialist never had to evolve on human rights.

He got it right decades ago.

That's the kind of pol I'm proud to support.

ymmv

[dsc]

10. On the subject of marriage equality

I found this recently and have to say I was waiting for a chance to bring this up.

http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/fuggedaboudit/Content?oid=2291039

The two Democrats running for Jeffords’ senate seat disagree with him on this. No problemo, they say. Ed Flanagan and Jan Backus both support gay marriage. Like Associate Justice Denise Johnson, they say it’s time for Vermont town clerks to provide marriage licenses to all couples who pay the fee.

snip

Obtaining Congressman Bernie Sanders’ position on the gay marriage issue was like pulling teeth...from a rhinoceros. Last month, shortly after the decision of the Amestoy Court was issued, Mr. Sanders publicly tried walking the tightrope — applauding the court’s decision and the cause of equal rights without supporting civil marriage for same-sex couples.

This week we were no more successful getting a straight answer. All we did get was a carefully crafted non-statement statement via e-mail from Washington D.C. And Bernie’s statement wins him the Vermont congressional delegation’s Wishy-Washy Award hands down.

Once more he “applauds” the court decision but won’t go anywhere near choosing between same-sex “marriage” and domestic partnership. “By all accounts the legislature is approaching this issue in a considered and appropriate manner and I support the current process.”

Supports the current process, does he? What a courageous radical!

end quote

Care to lecture us some more on just what a humungous champion of marriage equality Sanders was. The two Democrats running for the Senate seat Sanders now holds (against Jeffords not Sanders) had no problem whatsoever saying they supported marriage equality. Sanders gave one of those, oh so naughty, political answers that we hear about all the time. This was in 2000. The paragraphs I quoted are near the bottom of the piece as this piece is about several issues not just marriage equality.

[beam me up scottie]

11. Want to know what a "humungous champion" of lgbt rights he was?

wait while I ruffle up mah sleeves, Rocky...

32 Years Before Marriage Equality, Bernie Sanders Fought For Gay Rights



But these are only very recent developments. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton may be champions of same-sex marriage now, but you don’t have to go far back to find a time when they weren’t. And hey, we’re happy to have their evolved support.

Not only did Sanders vote against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 which defined marriage as between one man and one woman, signed into law by then-president Bill Clinton — an unpopular position then — a look back at Sanders’ political career shows consistent support of the gay rights movement. Even when it was more than just unpopular, it was downright controversial.

“In our democratic society, it is the responsibility of government to safeguard civil liberties and civil rights — especially the freedom of speech and expression,” Sanders wrote later in a memo. “In a free society, we must all be committed to the mutual respect of each others lifestyle.”

...

“It is my very strong view that a society which proclaims human freedom as its goal, as the United States does, must work unceasingly to end discrimination against all people. I am happy to say that this past year, in Burlington, we have made some important progress by adopting an ordinance which prohibits discrimination in housing. This law will give legal protection not only to welfare recipients, and families with children, the elderly and the handicapped — but to the gay community as well.”

http://www.queerty.com/32-years-before-marriage-equality-bernie-sanders-fought-for-gay-rights-20150719

On LGBT Rights, Bernie Leads and Hillary Follows

Of course, Clinton has since evolved on LGBT rights, as many have. That's wonderful. But the problem is, she only came out in support of marriage equality after it was not politically risky to do so. In fact, by 2013 - the year Clinton announced her full support for marriage equality - Democratic support for same-sex marriage was the norm, not the exception.

On such an important moral issue that affects my life and the lives of thousands of other Americans, making decisions in this manner is rather despicable. Additionally, Clinton's habit of doing what polls deem politically popular is the reason why so many voters find her inauthentic. Now, if Clinton were the only option for the Democratic presidential nomination, I would understand why we should support her despite these flaws.

But she isn't the only option.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the longest-serving Independent in the history of Congress, is also running for the nomination. And unlike Clinton, his record on LGBT rights is historically excellent.

Sanders voted against DOMA, one of the few members of Congress to do so, at a time when such a stance was not politically popular. Four years after DOMA passed, Sanders helped champion Vermont's decision in 2000 to become the first state to legalize same-sex civil unions. This set a national precedent for LGBT equality achieved via legislative means. In 2009, when Vermont became the first state to allow marriage equality through legislative action rather than a court ruling, Sanders expressed his support once again. Truly, Sanders has been a real leader on LGBT rights, even if this leadership isn't recognized in the way that Clinton's current support is.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-novak/on-lgbt-rights-bernie-lea_b_7662682.html

Bernie Sanders Was for Full Gay Equality 40 Years Ago

Today’s Supreme Court decision was a monumental moment in American history, as it guaranteed the right for gays and lesbians to get married and established full marriage equality.

Many politicians offered their words of support, including President Obama and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

Yet it is important to remember that Obama and Clinton both opposed marriage equality as late as early 2012. It is a testament to the work of thousands of activists over decades that the political class was pulled towards supporting equality.

There is however one prominent politician who did not wait so long to call for full gay equality: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

In a letter he published in the early 1970’s, when he was a candidate for governor of Vermont from the Liberty Union Party, Sanders invoked freedom to call for the abolition of all laws related to homosexuality:

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/bernie-sanders-was-full-gay-equality-40-years-ago

Sanders: I was ahead of the curve on gay rights

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Saturday he has been waiting for the nation to catch up to his support for same-sex marriage.

Sanders’ remarks come a day after Friday’s landmark 5-4 Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

He argued he was well ahead of the historic decision, unlike Hillary Clinton, his main rival for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

...

Sanders at the time served in the House of Representatives, which voted 342-67 in favor of DOMA. The Senate voted 85-14 in favor, before former President Bill Clinton signed it into law.

“That was an anti-gay marriage piece of legislation,” he added of the law that defined marriage at the federal level as the coupling of one man and one woman.

Sanders on Saturday praised Americans for creating greater opportunities for same-sex couples. Friday’s Supreme Court ruling, he charged, was not possible without national pressure for gay rights.

“No one here should think for one second this starts with the Supreme Court,” Sanders said.

“It starts at the grassroots level in all 50 states,” he said. “The American people want to end discrimination in all its forms.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/246370-sanders-i-was-ahead-of-the-curve-on-gay-rights

Bernie Sanders was decades ahead of the country on gay rights and ending the war on drugs

Most Americans now support legally allowing gay and lesbian relationships, same-sex marriage, and personal marijuana use after decades of shifting public opinion. But one Democratic candidate for president, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, was calling for many of these changes decades ago.

In a 1972 letter to a local newspaper — which was recently resurfaced by Chelsea Summers at the New Republic — Sanders wrote that he supported abolishing "all laws dealing with abortion, drugs, sexual behavior (adultery, homosexuality, etc.)" as part of his campaign for Vermont governor:

These stances were far removed from public opinion at the time, according to Gallup surveys on marijuana and gay and lesbian rights. In 1972, 81 percent of Americans said marijuana should be illegal — which suggests even more would favor the prohibition of more dangerous drugs like cocaine and heroin. In 1977, the earliest year of polling data, 43 percent of Americans said gay and lesbian relations between consenting adults should not be legal, while 43 percent said they should be legal.

...

But it took decades for the American public to come around to majority support on these issues: It wasn't until 2013 that a majority of Americans supported marijuana legalization, the early 2000s that most consistently responded in favor of legal gay and lesbian relations, and 2011 that a majority first reported backing same-sex marriage rights.

Sanders has carried many of these positions to this day. He was one of the few federal lawmakers to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal ban on same-sex marriages, in the 1990s. And while he told Time's Jay Newton-Small in March that he has no current stance on marijuana legalization (but backs medical marijuana), he characterized the war on drugs as costly and destructive.

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/7/8905905/sanders-drugs-gay-rights

[artislife]

12. Ta Da!

[beam me up scottie]

14. Thank you!

[artislife]

15. I would do an interpretive dance, if I could.

[beam me up scottie]

19. I'm doing one now!

[dsc]

13. I have discussed the 1972 stuff and won't do so again

sorry, but for anyone to say that anyone thought his position in 1972 meant he was in favor of marriage equality back then is either so utterly ignorant of LGBT issues or so utterly dishonest about LGBT issues as to not to warrant response. Even his biggest LGBT supporter on this board agrees with me on that issue (I am referring to Bluenorthwest). Now I notice you didn't bother to respond, at all, to my post. The fact is, not a single person, not one, despite my numerous requests, provided one single, solitary, word written or said at the time, showing Sanders supported marriage equality. I have now produced a source which shows he didn't support it in 2000. You have two choices at this point. One, discredit the source, and I admit I know nothing about this source so he might be a liar or a loon. Two, produce a quote, from Sanders, in real time, supporting marriage equality.

[beam me up scottie]

16. That's the 2nd time today you've lied about what I posted.

1) I didn't say what you're claiming I did.

2) You don't get to demand that I answer to you when you make a straw man argument because you don't have the integrity to admit that Bernie supported lgbt rights for decades

I'd tell you what your choices are but I don't really care what you think about the articles I posted.

Until and unless you acknowledge what I actually posted we're done.

[dsc]

18. If i posted the unmitigated crap you have been posting I would deny I posted it too

the fact is you posted that letter, and later did indeed try to argue, that it applied to marriage. The words of the post you linked, the one you chose to link, states in plain language that it did apply to marriage, and no, you don't say in your post that it doesn't. WOrds have meaning, even when you type them, fancy that.

[beam me up scottie]

27. "WOrds have meaning, even when you type them, fancy that."

Except that I didn't type those words, did I?

So how the hell can my words have meaning if I don't type them?

That has to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever read here.

and no, you don't say in your post that it doesn't.

I also didn't say in my post that it DID.

Not making a negative claim is not the same thing as making a positive claim.

If I didn't say something that doesn't mean I said something.

You can't keep lying about my posts, either I said what you claim (that the letter specifically referred to same sex marriage) or I didn't.

Link to the post you keep referring to so that we can all see it.

And if you don't we'll all know you're making it up.

[dsc]

17. as to the huffington post piece

First, no evidence, none whatsoever, is provided for the sentence Four years later Sanders helped champion Vermont's decision to legalize same sex unions. He has not one, single, solitary, quote for that. Nothing, nada, nihil. Now he also wrote this.

[Hillary Clinton] was the second most powerful person in an administration in a critical era for gay rights. And in that era, her husband signed the HIV travel ban into law (it remained on the books for 22 years thereafter), making it the only medical condition ever legislated as a bar to even a tourist entering the US.

Well here's the problem with that and it is a pretty fucking big one.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251416587

I discuss just how dishonest and slipshod that is in the link above.

He is right except, it wasn't a Clinton era ban unless you mean in the most slippery of ways. And Sanders voted for it. No really he did. He did exactly and precisely what that vile Bill Clinton did. Andrew lied to your faces. This Huffington hack repeated the lie and derisively told us to read books. Read history books indeed.

An article from a college paper was posted here, which quite amusingly instructed us to read history books, that claimed that Clinton signed a travel ban on HIV infected people and that one should vote for Sanders due to this. There are sadly some problems with this.

We tried to get rid of it in the 1990 immigration bill by mandating that the list would henceforth be maintained by the CDC, and that it would include only conditions with a solid medical justification. To his credit, President Bush (41) signed it into law, and his CDC issued a rule in 1991 knocking everything off the list except tuberculosis. There was a revolt in the Republican Conference in the House, led by then Rep. Bill Dannemeyer (R-CA). The CDC pulled the rule and the INS kept the old list in place.

Clinton campaigned on a promise to remove the ban. Shortly after he got to the White House, in February of 1993, Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) offered an amendment to the NIH reauthorization to keep the old list. Ted Kennedy tried to offer an alternative, but it failed 42-56. The Nickles Amendment then passed 76-23.

(All 23 “no” votes were Democrats. Notably, Joe Lieberman was one of the “yes” votes one of the many early examples of his cozying up to Jesse Helms on gay rights and AIDS/HIV issues.

When the House and Senate went to conference on the bill, then-Rep. Tom Bliley (R-VA) offered a motion to instruct conferees to agree to the Nickles Amendment. It passed 356 to 58. Again, all 58 who voted “No” were Democrats (plus Bernie Sanders). At that point, both chambers of Congress had voted to block Clinton's planned executive order by veto-proof margins. When Congress sent Clinton the NIH authorization in June of 1993, he signed it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2006/12/the-hiv-travel-ban/232005/

Now here's the kicker. Sanders voted for the bill that Clinton signed.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1993/h178

In short, Sanders and Clinton both did the same thing. Both favored an ending of the travel ban, both fought the amendment that added it to the NIH appropriation in 93, and both wound up supporting the final bill after being beaten back. And both made the correct decision at every step of the process. That NIH bill was vital to all people but especially those with HIV. It funded both care and research. That research is why the writer of that editorial doesn't have to fear AIDS as a deadly disease like I did when I was his age. Read history books indeed.

Yes I actually debunked the original piece when it was posted before. shock of shocks that it is dishonestly posted again.

[Metric System]

20. And yet the majority of the LGBT community supports Hillary.

[beam me up scottie]

21. That's nice.

[Metric System]

26. That's dismissive.

[NCTraveler]

22. How is there any risk in her doing this?

And

"Nonetheless, I don't think that being a spokesperson for gender equality in her ceremonial and appointed positions is quite the same thing or carries the same substantial political risks to herself as Sanders going to speak before a Liberty University audience. That Sen. Kennedy did it before doesn't diminish this as a brave act for a candidate. I hope you will agree that it shows some moxie on Bernie and Ted's part."

Those are two replies I got when I posted this video. Seriously. They gave Sanders more credit for accepting an invite to speak at Liberty. Beyond offensive.

[BainsBane]

23. Well clearly women's rights pale in comparison to the votes

or racists, homophobes, and misogynists. I wish I could say I was surprised.

Anyone who speaks about feminism and women's rights issues any where is pummeled, even in 2015. But there was no risk in the early 90s? That kind of ignorance is unfathomable, but it really speaks to the low level of importance placed on women's rights. That in combination with the attacks on Black Lives Matters and gushing over appeals to bigots that would deprive everyone but people like them of equal rights makes clear their contempt for the subaltern. Not content to throw away the votes of African Americans, they have decided to make enemies of those of us who dare to care about women's rights. They have succeeded.

I have learned a lot this primary season. Of course I had a sense before this, but people have made clear in no uncertain terms what their values are. They can invoke the word progressive over and over again, but when they show they have more concern about far right wing voters than Black Lives Matter activists and the struggle for global gender equality, they expose themselves.

[NCTraveler]

24. The replies are so offensive.

Good post. Their mask is slipping off and it ain't pretty.

[BainsBane]

25. I can't even see most of this thread

because of my ignore list. I was not aware of those posts until you quoted one. Clearly I have chosen to use that list wisely. Still, I'm glad you told me.