PROOF: The Meme Going Around that Bernie Was Against Marriage Equality in 2006 is FALSE

[Fearless]

Here is the original video...

http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4548262/sanders-gay-marriage


Here is what he said... at the very end of the video...

"I don't believe the federal government should be involved in overturning MASSACHUSETTS or any other state"... that he thinks marriage is a states rights issue...

WHICH IS EXACTLY THE FUCKING TALKING POINT WE AS LGBTers USED AT THE TIME!

We wanted to preserve what we had and make inroads elsewhere... We knew that we had to be selective and slowly knock over the dominoes. And we did. Which is why we have marriage equality now. Because we worked on a state level to make it nationally acceptable and then went to the Supreme Court.

He also reiterated his beliefs AGAINST DADT and DOMA.

EDITED: Added a new link that cuts out the unrelated tax returns question posed at the beginning of the original clip posted.

[Agnosticsherbet]

1. That was, by the, the Republican talking point.

Marriage was a states rights issue not a constitutional right.

Fortunately, SCOTUS determined that leaving it to states rights was unconstitutional.

[Fearless]

3. Please don't patronize me. I know damn well who said what.

WE as LGBT people used this as a way to AVOID a federal marriage amendment and AVOID a bad SCOTUS decision.

You're in way, way over your head.

[Agnosticsherbet]

7. You misread my statement.

The argument that marriage is a states rights issue is inherently flawed, because it denies marriage as a right, saying rather that it is a privaledge granted or withheld by state legislatures.

I did not treat with an apparent kindness that betrays a feeling of superiority.

I never once mentioned Clinton.

I was discussing states rights.

[Fearless]

10. As I said WE, the LGBT community, used this meme to delay a SCOTUS case

We as a movement intentionally targeted states that would support us.. Look at the way they gained marriage equality... We didn't take on Texas first--they came last. We even slightly overstepped ourselves in California originally. We moved to big to fast. We all fought day and night for marriage equality following a Harvey Milk model... that if everyone knows a gay person, the vast majority won't be against us. So we had Massachusetts (my home state) first. Preceding that was Vermont and civil unions. They set the stage for us. When people saw that nothing changed, marriage opponents lost their only ammo-- fear of the unknown.

We won because we played a states rights game.

We gathered support over a decade and made the SCOTUS decision not only possible but popular.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

39. You did a phenominal job fighting for your cause and deserve to be recognized for your accomplishments.

[Chitown Kev]

86. The smartest move

was going to the courts in Iowa...because of their stringent requirements of overturning their state Constitution (heck, just getting to the ballot to do it is difficult there.

To be fair about California, though, the legislature did pass a marriage equality bill in 2005; Arnie vetoed it because of Prop 22.

[SusanCalvin]

95. Thank you.

For both your work and this post.

[Bjorn Against]

13. The situation today is very different than it was a decade ago

A decade ago Massachusetts was the only state in the nation in which gay marriage was legal and the right-wing was trying to pass a Constitutional amendment to end marriage equality. Back then an argument for states rights was used by marriage equality supporters to defend marriage equality in Massachusetts. A decade later the political landscape on this issue has changed drastically and the states rights argument is no longer used by gay rights supporters for obvious reasons.

While Bernie's position on states rights may not be consistent, his position on GLBT rights has been consistent.

[boston bean]

47. Right! And so didn't your allies in government.

All of them. Not just good ole Bernie.

They saw the hand writing on the wall that a federal amendment to the constitution was a high percentage reality, so it was best to leave it up to the states and fight another day when the country was ready. Which lo and behold that day came and we were!

If there was no DOMA, you can bet your bottom dollar a constitutional amendment was next thing on the docket.

[MADem]

76. Sanders was not patronizing Rachel Maddow when he admitted this.

And he did it just the other day. The meme is NOT FALSE. He was not in favor of marriage equality always.

Why is it "not OK" for him to have EVOLVED (dirty word around here) like everyone else?

When you double down and insist that he's somehow "special" and "superior" when even he admits otherwise, it's just not helpful. http://www.salon.com/2015/10/27/rachel_maddow_confronts_bernie_sanders_over_past_opposition_to_marriage_equality_how_are_you_any_different_than_hillary_clinton/

Maddow then pressed Sanders on his refusal to back Vermont’s move to legalize same-sex marriage while running for Senate in 2006.

“My view was, give us a little bit of time,” Sanders explained, pointing to political contention among the electorate.

“Isn’t that the same kind of tactical thinking, the same kind of political pragmatism, that may have driven the decision for which you criticized Secretary Clinton,” Maddow pushed-back.

[Chitown Kev]

87. The truth is that we don't know whether Sanders was for it or against it...he never said it

Obama basically said the same thing in the runup to his Senate election in 2004.

WCT: Do you have a position on marriage vs. civil unions?

Obama: I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that's true in the African-American community, for example. And if you asked people, 'should gay and lesbian people have the same rights to transfer property, and visit hospitals, and et cetera,' they would say, 'absolutely.' And then if you talk about, 'should they get married?', then suddenly ...

WCT: There are more than 1,000 federal benefits that come with marriage. Looking back in the 1960s and inter-racial marriage, the polls showed people against that as well.

Obama: Since I'm a product of an interracial marriage, I'm very keenly aware of ...

WCT: But you think, strategically, gay marriage isn't going to happen so you won't support it at this time?

Obama: What I'm saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. I think we can get SB 101 passed. I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I'm less concerned about the name. And I think that is my No. 1 priority, is an environment in which the Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don't want to play their game.

WCT: If Massachusetts gets marriage and this gives momentum to the proposed federal Constitutional amendment against gay marriage?

Obama: I would oppose that.

http://www.windycitymediagroup.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php?AID=3931

Yes, Obama was a lot more bombastic about "God in the mix" in 2008 and I criticized him for that in 2008.

[MADem]

91. I never criticize the whole 'Jesus mashup' when I hear it delivered with nuance.

That's a "gotcha" question asked at debates, and it is designed to trip people up. And it often does.

If Obama is not comfortable in a masjid, and does not know how to pray in Islamic (sunni) fashion, after being raised for a few years by an Indonesian Muslim step-father, and placed in the Muslim class at an Indonesian school, then he's an IDIOT. And he is NO IDIOT. However, to ADMIT that would have been death by a thousand cuts. It has less to do with belief than fitting into the culture--in Islam, atheists are not viewed the same way they are here--anything can be forgiven, save non-belief.


Same deal with Rev. Wright's church--that church is packed, chock-a-block, full of VOTERS. Active, interested, precinct-walking, Praise Jesus, Oh-isn't-he-a-handsome-young-man church ladies who will donate to a campaign and put a sign in their yard. Affiliating with a church in Chicago was a smart move--and that church was ACTIVE, it was popping, it was the place to be.


He can 'do the nod" to religion(s), but I think he's centered in his own private belief system, and for all we know, he could believe in simply HIMSELF. Not my business, really, unless he starts lecturing me and berating me about it, and tells me that I have to be like him or I'm a moral failure--and he doesn't do that (good for him).

I think all the candidates should get together and come up with a great big "Fuck You" answer that they all repeat-- something on the lines of "My spirituality and relationship with a higher power is a personal and private matter, and I don't think that my personal and private beliefs should be a matter for public discussion or debate. It's unseemly."

Or words to that effect.

Hell, I know there's a passage in that Bible they wave that says something about praying in private and not making a stink about it--that's probably a quote worth memorizing!

[Chitown Kev]

92. Actually, Trinity itself is a pretty pro-gay church

within a pro-gay denomination...Chicago has quite a few black pro-gay churches and has had them for years.

I've always thought that PBO was an agnostic or an atheist myself (as I am) but if you are going to do black politics, you have to do that church thing...

[MADem]

96. I have no idea what he is but I'll bet he's comfortable in many differing houses of worship.

I think he probably doesn't let labels affect him, overmuch. He goes to that little church near the WH (the Presidents' church) when he's sort of expected to go out for an occasion like Easter or whatever.

[Bjorn Against]

6. Bernie was using a states rights argument in favor of marriage equality

Notice that the state he referred to was Massachusetts, the first state in the nation to legalize gay marriage. Bernie was using the states rights argument to argue in favor of the right to marry, I can assure you that was not the same argument the Republicans were making.

[MADem]

97. He was also using states rights to argue FOR civil unions for VT.

He wasn't the representative from MA in the 90s, nor was he running as the Senator from MA in 2006. And he told Rachel Maddow that he supported civil unions for VT because that's what the traffic would bear, in essence.

[Fearless]

98. Vermont already had civil unions.

[MADem]

102. Yes, and when asked if he would like marriage, LIKE MASSACHUSETTS, he said

he liked civil unions for VT--because he knew that his constituents weren't onboard the "marriage train" for VT back then. He said as much to Maddow.

[Fearless]

103. The question at hand is did he believe in marriage?

And the answer is still yes. See my other responses as to why we tread lightly around pushing forward. Time was our ally and we used it successfully. Again see the other posts.

[MADem]

105. The question also at hand is did Bill Clinton believe in equality for gay people?

Those issues at the federal level were shepherded by BILL, not his wife. You'd never know that, though, reading some of these comments.

I can tell you, since I worked very closely for a LONG period of time, day and night, to include weekends, on getting every single military document vetted and language prepared to accommodate gays serving in the military before the ugly "compromise" that was DADT, that he DID believe in equality. Our orders on that score came straight from the White House, that we would be ready to flip the switch in terms of processing, documentation, and military instructions and notices. Our instructions were to re-draft everything from a perspective that gays were serving openly. It required a re-write of pretty much every initial entry document, personnel instructions, and included big chunks of the UCMJ as well.

Was Bill Clinton able to realize his wishes on this score? No--he was hamstrung by a GOP slash-and-burn crew on the Hill, and his personal troubles later weakened him and he didn't have as many allies as he could have used to fight those battles.

Time was not his ally--he had eight years and he was pretty much hamstrung from 1996 on.

[Fearless]

106. That had nothing to do with the OP at all.

[markpkessinger]

27. Not in 1996 it wasn't, nor in 2002

The Republican talking point on gay marriage has been whatever the GOP thought would win the argument, and it has shifte 180 degrees. When they passed DOMA, they sure as hell weren't talkiog about states/' rights. Nor were they talking states' rights in 2002, when they introduced the Federal Marriage Amendment, nor when Massachusetts and a few other states began legalizing gay marriage on their own. They shifted to a states' rights rationale in the context of Windsor v. Connecticut and the later Supreme Court cases dealing with issues related to same-sex marriage.

[boston bean]

50. Really, cause I thought the entire issue surrounded the FIRST

decision in Hawaii allowing gay marriage in the early 90's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baehr_v._Miike

[WillyT]

2. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[bigtree]

4. he chose a more politically achievable measure

...basically working the politics; just like his opponents in this primary who have been accused of being insincere to opposed to gay marriage.

Would like to see similar defenses of those candidates' political calculations.

[Fearless]

5. He came down against overturning Massachusetts, and against DOMA and DADT very clearly

He followed our own LGBT meme at the moment that it was a states issue. We used this as LGBTers to ensure that the case didn't make it to the SCOTUS before national acceptance was achieved. Please see my previous remarks regarding that. He very clearly showed support for LGBTers and our movement.

[bigtree]

8. no doubt

...so did the others.

Good to see this rehabilitation of his position. Now, do the same for the others who made similar political calculations.

[Fearless]

11. His opinion did NOT change!

[MADem]

78. Yes--he liked civil unions for VT, marriage for MA...and if Mississippi wanted to outlaw it, fine

with him. He was on a STATES RIGHTS track--he did not believe it was a federal matter.

You need to look at the Maddow interview.

He "evolved" on this issue....like everyone else. He made lots of noises that sounded like he was more of an ally than he actually was, but the truth is that he was only concerned with his own little VT wheelhouse, and in VT, FOR VT, in 2006, he liked CIVIL UNIONS and he said as much.

And he admitted that he said as much to Rachel Maddow just the other day.

[Chitown Kev]

88. He never said that he was opposed to it

and he never said that he supported it.

By going on the "states rights" track, though, yes, he is open to the criticism on those grounds.

[MADem]

90. Of course not-he simply wasn't an advocate. He had his personal views but he "supported civil unions

for VERMONT" because he figured the constituency wouldn't buy marriage equality, and he told Rachel Maddow this in no uncertain terms. Rachel responded by telling him that, given that context, his criticism of Clinton was a bit jive. I am, of course, paraphrasing, but you get my drift.

He did not ADVOCATE for equality, ever, really. He was willing to let states do their own thing--even outlaw it. His writings -- if they are an indication of anything -- suggest that he really bought into that whole "free love" hoopla that was big in the sixties. He was in favor of NO laws with regard to sexual contact, but he didn't see protections for gay people--against job discrimination, particularly--as a priority.

That said, a shitload of people didn't ADVOCATE for equality--they pandered to the moral majority, they parsed, they half stepped, and they did what some people wanted to do with BLM--playing the "Wait your turn" card. Heck, there were even gay people out there who didn't advocate for equality, who didn't see it as possible, and who were content to work around issues with strong wills, powers of attorney, adoptions, things of that nature. So really--let he (or she) who is without sin cast the first stone....under that rule, those stones aren't going anywhere, because EVERYONE has a hiccup in their resume.

Instead of playing the "Look back and blame" game, I think we'd do better to assess where people are now, and move forward. That said, if a candidate intends to play the "I was THERE--and she WASN'T" game, then the record needs to be corrected. And turn-about is fair play.

Fair is fair, after all.

[Chitown Kev]

93. True enough, but Hillary did make a claim

that many LGBT advocates are calling bullshit on...vetting her statements against the historical record is fair game.

And most LGBT advocates don't consider Barney Frank (esp. after his actions on the ENDA bill in 2007) to be all that reliable of a source; Frank will tout the party line...Frank is someone we call a Dem first and an LGBT second.

[MADem]

94. Sure--you can remember as you want to remember it, if you'd like.

I do remember that I had CSPAN in my office and I agree with her assessment regarding the threat of a Constitutional amendment. It was unrelenting. DOMA served to stuff a sock in it and give them a sense of victory when all they got was status quo, the pause button, and a talking point.

You can even do the google and see how the GOP never stopped crabbing about taking that tack, as state after state fell (in "states rights" fashion) and we finally reached a tipping point where the Supremes could look at the number of states in support of equality, the number opposed, the percentage of people who were actually opposed vs. those who supported it, and could finally determine what the trend line looked like. Even AFTER the Supremes ruled, there were a few that just wouldn't give up--like dogs with bones, they are. Still.

Haters gonna hate. If we'd had more Democrats in the House and Senate, we could have done better on that score, but everything has a season, I guess.

[Fearless]

99. A sense of victory? He gave them everything they wanted federally

In 2006 the House bill to propose an amendment had already been tabled indefinitely when DOMA was approved.

[MADem]

100. But what CHANGED? What was different after DOMA, that DOMA changed?

Answer--nothing. It was a status-quo act, with the advantage that it could be easily undone with a vote and a bang of the gavel--or a Supreme Court ruling.

It was a fake victory that hit the pause button on the advance of equality at the federal level. It didn't change any existing law. It made Republicans feel good, and it dissuaded them from instituting the process of ginning up a Constitutional amendment enshrining the tenets of DOMA into our founding document. Something that is harder to do, and more importantly, harder to UNDO.

The can got kicked down the road. It wasn't a great decision, but it beat a Constitutional amendment, and that is what we were looking at.

[Fearless]

101. It codified nationally that we were second class citizens

Please just stop. It's becoming profoundly insulting.

[MADem]

104. Which was the case the day before the law passed. And was the case until the Supreme Court ruling.

At least regarding marriage. Workplace discrimination is still an issue, and back when Sanders was running and having that debate, he didn't place a priority on that, either.

I won't stop. Facts suck sometimes. The facts are as follows--DOMA was a political act, one that the vast majority of the House voted for (I think only 67 voted against...are they all under the bus?) and I am sure many of them voted for it reluctantly, realizing it was the "least worst" path they could take, just as Sanders' support for civil unions over marriage equality was not "personal," but a political evaluation when he was asked the question during that old debate.

Politics is the art of the POSSIBLE, not the pipe dream. And sometimes, even when we don't like it, we have to do shitty things to prevent shittier things from happening. I didn't like DOMA but I would have liked a Constitutional amendment much less.

Here are some more facts. Plenty of people have done a load of evolving on this, and other issues. To look back in anger over where this one was then, and that one was that other time, is pointless. If you want to play that game there's plenty of gotcha to go around.

What's insulting--since you went there-- is your insinuation that I am somehow "approving" of the sad reality that was DOMA, when the exact opposite is the case. You ahould "just stop" doing that--it doesn't make your case stronger and it makes you look like you're trying to cut off discussion with an overly - manufactured "How dare you" tack.

[Chitown Kev]

109. You really need to stop!

Hillary Clinton made the claim answering a question posed to her by Rachel Maddow. Secretary Clinton said that she was in the room when these discussions were going on. She could have set the issue to the side if she wanted to.

There were other ways that Clinton could have handled the question.

Personally, for me, it's not even so much that Blll Clinton signed it, he RAN for reelection on the issue and cut radio ads. Was Miss Hillary in the room when those ads were cut?

[MADem]

111. She probably wasn't in the room for the ads but she was surely aware of them.

I don't think Bill Clinton always made great decisions during his Presidency, but I do think he didn't want to see a constitutional ban against marriage equality, and Tom Daschle and Barney Frank remember it the way I do. I was in DC and working on legislative issues during that timeframe, and I remember that vibe, even if some others don't. I viewed it as a very real threat.

I saw that threat as the only "excuse" for DOMA, and while I was disappointed in it I realized that it didn't matter if he signed it--it was passed by such a massive majority that even if he vetoed it, it would have gone back and been overridden and Congress would have declared VICTORY over the pro-equality POTUS. Politically, in terms of his re-election prospects, it would have passed if he'd vetoed it, and a veto would have caused him trouble during his re-election, and it just didn't change the enactment of the act by his signing it. The fact that he signed it quietly with no ceremony tells us all we need to know about how he actually felt about it.

No matter what Clinton did, be it sign that piece of shit, or veto it, DOMA would have become law. THAT is the bottom line. This "If he didn't sign it..." meme is just flat-out false. Most members of Congress supported the horrid act. And some only supported it because they didn't want anything worse coming along. Odds are good if he vetoed that thing, Bob Dole would have run on that, and he might have won the White House. Wonder what President Dole would have done with DADT? I don't--he would have rolled it back and gone on a witch hunt.

Here's the bottom line. Clinton was facing a re-election campaign that could have been a far more difficult task had Ross Perot not decided to try to spoil again (he got less than ten percent of the vote the second time around). The DOMA deal was done, and he made a political decision to USE it. Should he have? Probably not, but it provided him with a wedge into those "moral majority" crevices where Republicans usually have advantage, but southerners can peel away support with an appealing message. Ultimately, though, it was BILL's campaign, and BILL's decision. And while she can understand why her husband did what he did, it's not her "fault" that he did what he did.

Facts are important. I don't "need to stop" Kev--unless you want people to just shut up and not converse about honestly-held differences in perspective. This is a discussion board, not a censorship committee. You don't see me telling you to "just stop" if I don't agree with you--I listen with respect and empathy, even if my POV differs.

I don't think there are any "winners" here. I think Bill Clinton would have preferred to not find himself in that situation, and I also think he took a bad situation that could not be changed, and USED it to his advantage.

Better his advantage than Bob Dole's, is my view.

[Chitown Kev]

114. By campaigning on it

Bill Clinton owns that bullshit. And he did that on MY em'ffin back.

Don't you dare tell me not to be angry and don't you dare tell me that I need to not be angry at Hillary's "oh, we were trying to protect the gays" bullshit line.

Hillary said this. She's the one running for president now?

Will she duplicate Bill's machinations and triangulation bullshit as President? On what issue....

Mind you, I don't support Sanders either but the type of politics that the Clintons can't seem to do without makes me very reluctant to vote for her in the primary (Sanders has other issues, I'm uncommitted).
'

[MADem]

116. Had he not campaigned on it, President Dole would have screwed the gay community

six ways to Sunday and we'd be feeling the effects to this day.

Bob Dole was the FIRST co-sponsor of DOMA.

Bob Dole RAN on his support for DOMA, and how he was a "moral" guy, and Bill Clinton was a shitty degenerate who let gay people into 'his' military. Dole even went so far as to turn his back on the Log Cabin Republicans and ostentatiously return their bundled money, to get that "gay stuff" off of him:

http://www.georgialogcabin.org/news/Bob-Dole-Gay-Marriage-DOMA/199605101901.shtml

http://www.nytimes.com/1995/08/27/us/dole-in-a-new-bow-to-right-returns-gay-group-s-money.html

You can't demand purity without seeing the landscape--and you're not seeing it. I remember that campaign VERY clearly, and it was ugly.

This is helpful to clarify the terrain: http://mic.com/articles/50573/history-of-doma-don-t-blame-bill-clinton-for-being-put-in-a-bind


Bill Clinton was in a lousy situation no matter what he did. That bill would have become law even if he vetoed it--it had a veto-proof majority. So what did he do? He took a shit situation, that would have come to pass no matter what he did, and he used it to keep Bob Dole out of the White House.

I am glad Bill Clinton got re-elected, and we didn't have to endure President Dole. I can't imagine where equality would be today had that happpened.

[Chitown Kev]

117. Well...at least that's what was confirmed

at the Clinton Library.

But that's not what Hillary said to Rachel Maddow.

[MADem]

118. Notice that Bob Dole is only mentioned ONCE in that entire essay.

But the re-election campaign was the whole reason that Clinton had to get out front on this issue at all.

No mention of Dole being the first co-sponsor.

No mention of the far-right machinations to put this issue at the forefront of the Presidential election campaign.

If you think that Bill Clinton would have signed or affected an 'endorsement' of DOMA had that issue arisen AFTER his re-election, I've a bridge to sell you. He was in a shit situation, and he used a tool that was available to him, would help him secure another term, and that he couldn't change, even if he wanted to. DOMA would have passed no matter what he did, or didn't, do. That IS the bottom line. And the GOP hasn't changed their tune substantially since then, either:

Bill Clinton studied the political calculus in 1996 and signed DOMA into law, but blaming him for its passage ignores how Republicans used homophobia as a political weapon in the first place. Had Clinton refused to sign DOMA, gays and lesbians would not have been the victors: Congress would have overridden his veto with its commanding majorities, and he would have entered his re-election fight as damaged goods. By winning a second term, he was able to advance gay rights by fighting for employment nondiscrimination, eliminating arbitrary limits on gays obtaining security clearances, nominating the first openly gay ambassador, and increasing financing to combat AIDS.

After uniformly opposing gay marriage for most of its history, the Republican Party today has some within its ranks calling for a re-evaluation. Former presidential candidate Jon Huntsman argued earlier this year that Republicans should embrace gay marriage as a conservative cause. While this places him in line with conservative media personalities like Margaret Hoover and Meghan McCain, it also makes him the only 2012 Republican presidential candidate to support same-sex marriage. His fellow Republican presidential candidates, meanwhile, called for spiritual warfare against same-sex marriage, and associated it with bestiality and "pagan behavior." The party's eventual nominee, Mitt Romney, pledged to support a a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Few were surprised this year when the Republican National Committee reaffirmed its opposition to gay marriage by unanimous vote. The movement to accept gay marriage (and, by extension, gays themselves) faces a long, uphill climb within the GOP.

Bill Clinton's midnight signing of DOMA and his note of conscience on behalf of gay Americans testifies to the ambivalence he felt at the time. Republicans, with the exception of Steve Gunderson, suffered no such pangs of doubt. To them, the fight against gay marriage was a vital front in the culture war they believed would place them in the White House. It’s easy to criticize Clinton for the choice he made, but to do so willfully ignores the homophobic hate-mongering of the Republican Party, as well as the very real steps Bill Clinton took to advance the rights of gays and lesbians during his presidency.

http://mic.com/articles/50573/history-of-doma-don-t-blame-bill-clinton-for-being-put-in-a-bind

[Bluenorthwest]

44. When you do what you are doing, 'Straight splaining', you lose me. Why are you snarking at

people who made the history as if you were the authority on the lives of others? Is that acceptable to you by other majorities toward other minorities or is that dynamic reserved only for straights toward LGBT?

[bigtree]

58. what an ignorant slur

...I have as much right to speak on politics as anyone here and I don't deserve you singling me out for your special brand of shaming for daring to express my opinion.

You do realize that the votes in my state for marriage equality didn't come from just members of the LGBT community? Nice way to treat allies. Vote for our rights, but if you express any opinion at all you get treated with a nasty slur.

Have you ever been told you're 'gaysplaining,' as if the only opinion you can render is a 'gay' one? Check yourself.

[Bluenorthwest]

62. Wow.

You are an ally and Bernie is not because you say so. You sure told me, thank God we have wise straights to council us.

All of my opinions are in fact gay. I'm gay. That's how it works. The only opinion I can render is a gay opinion, I am a gay man.
What's your issue here? You insist that you get to say whatever but my opinions are too gay? And I'm supposed to check myself?
Holy shit.

[bigtree]

68. are you just being obtuse?

...I don't think you should be accused of 'gaysplaining' any more than I believe I should be subject to ignorant slurs. Is that too much of a concept for you to understand?

Go back to the post you first responded to, the one where you called me out with an ignorant slur...it was a continuation of this one:

he (Sanders) chose a more politically achievable measure...basically working the politics; just like his opponents in this primary who have been accused of being insincere to opposed to gay marriage.

Would like to see similar defenses of those candidates' political calculations.

...then the one where you accused me of 'straightsplaining'.

no doubt...so did the others.

Good to see this rehabilitation of his position. Now, do the same for the others who made similar political calculations.

I made a remark on POLITICS on a political message board. I don't think it should have insulted anyone to observe that Sanders, a politician, made a political decision to support civil unions.

I don't think it meant he wasn't ultimately in favor of marriage equality, but that he was supporting something which was politically achievable at the time. People here have differed on that, but it's their right to do so, and their privilege to do so here at DU in a discussion of the politics of sexual orientation.

I should be forgiven if I believe it's not only fair to voice my opinion on the politics of an issue, but that the op was inviting a discussion with this post.

[markpkessinger]

14. Clinton ran an ad in '96 TOUTING his support for DOMA

The ad ran on Christian radio stations. The only "working" of the politics involved was his own fear that if he vetoed it, it would jeopardize his own re-election chances.

[bigtree]

43. Bill

...not Hillary.

[kenfrequed]

67. For an O'Malley supporter you spend an inordinate time defending Hillary

There is no road for O'Malley to the White House that does not involve taking second place in New Hampshire. Knocking Bernie down to second place there will only absolutely garauntee Clinton wins. I would totally get it if you just threw in how O'Malley was better on an issue in every bloody thread. That I understand, but providing cover for the front runner does not shake up the election at all and you need it to be shaken up if you want to win.

Also, and more importantly, Bernie was right on gay rights and has been for literally decades. I have no idea why you would want to smear him on this but it is unseemly.

[bigtree]

69. if you actually bother to follow my posts (which I'm almost certain you do not)

...you will find criticisms and defenses of EVERY Democratic candidate, where I see fit.

As for 'knocking Bernie down,' if you look up from your partisan ranting, you might see that my posts in this thread don't 'knock' Sanders at all for his support of civil unions. I don't think that support for what was politically achievable at the time meant he wasn't in favor of marriage equality. Neither do I believe any similar support for civil unions by any other candidate negates their own support for marriage equality.

Btw, DU isn't some remote control where every utterance is going to alter the election. Get a grip.

[kenfrequed]

70. I follow posts just fine

I also have capacity for pattern recognition.

[bigtree]

71. that's just too cute

...go away.

[kenfrequed]

73. That isn't going to happen

After all, you go after all the candidates equally so I imagine you are going to be a very good source of critical opinion and information. How could I possibly be expected to ignore you?

[bigtree]

74. not equally

...just recognize that it shouldn't be unusual to find folks here who will stand up for what they believe, no matter who they support in this primary.

[kenfrequed]

75. That is a platitude

It is not a position, it is a platitude. I have read too many of your posts. Google can be very useful for that sort of thing.

[bigtree]

77. I didn't come here Aug 17, 2003

...just to hawk this particular election.

I came here with specific concerns which I've advocated (in my 55 years on this planet) in many different ways. Civil rights, foreign policy and the military, gun safety, immigration, voting rights, environmental activism, and political reform are among the issues and concerns which motivate my posts. Politicians come and go, but these issues remain.

Call that a 'platitude' if you want. I don't care. I'm perfectly satisfied with my own participation in discussions here. I don't think I need your approval

[boston bean]

49. It was the working politics of the day. It was one that could end a political career.

My reading of history is that people understood these positions and what they were, political calculations.

You think Bill was a homophobe when one of the first things he tried to do was allow gay service members to serve openly?

[Bluenorthwest]

51. Those with a reading of history should consider listening to those who made that history you read.

I'd say you have not done enough reading. Example, you and other straight folks constantly cite DADT to defend Bill when AIDS funding and organization is actually a much stronger point to make. You don't know the history enough to make the point that would help your own side. That's insulting.
So far, every single post by a straight person I have read regarding DOMA in this cycle has left out AIDS and ENDA. ENDA was supposed to be passed with DOMA to balance it or some shit. It failed by one vote and still has not passed. AIDS, oh my God. That's really what was angering the GOP, AIDS funding which had been utterly neglected under Reagan and Bush was increased greatly and the will of the US government put behind it. So 1996 when DOMA got passed was also the first year in 10 years that AIDS deaths decreased instead of increasing, 23% drop. This was great, great progress. 362,000 had died by 1996 in the US alone.
So for one thing, the straight folks here who are so certain we were all putting marriage first in the agenda line in the 90's are mistaken. Hundreds of thousands of deaths, tens of thousands every year. Think about the reality of that.

[boston bean]

52. So, my point was not invalid, it was just different. I insulted you for not mentioning

more to bolster my case? Ok.

[Bluenorthwest]

56. Your points are heterosplaining of events you don't even know the details of.

Straight people who lecture LGBT people about our own history are straightsplaining and doing so without a thought in the world. Your reading of history is incomplete and anyone who is reading a history is outranked by those who lived it.
White people should not explain African American issues to black people. Men should not explain sexism to women. Straight people should not explain to LGBT people how we did what we did or who are friends are. It is not your place to do so unless it is also the place of men to tell women, of whites to tell blacks and so on. Can you see that?

DOMA has always been a straight person's trip. From Bob Barr to DU, it's straight folks making a big stink while steamrolling the LGBT community.

And yes, bean, to speak of that time for days without bothering to mention AIDS is sad and depressing to see.
They were people, they had loved ones. Straights here clearly do not remember them.

[boston bean]

59. I don't consider myself lecturing anyone. So, maybe that is an issue you have,

but I am not lecturing a soul.

I am participating on an internet discussion board, and responding to a post that doesn't mention a damned thing about AIDS.

Maybe take that up with the OP.

[Bluenorthwest]

64. So the new theory is 'don't listen to minority voices, just tell them what to think'?

Got it. It's all about straights telling us what our lives have been. And that's not lecturing because of their naturally superior status. Understood.

[boston bean]

65. No, I listened and agreed.

And I took the time and added my thoughts in an extremely respectful manner.

[MADem]

113. People forget that Clinton's POTUS opponent, Bob Dole, was the FIRST co-sponsor of

DOMA.

The whole thing was ginned up to fuck with Clinton. It was a 'culture wars' game being played by the right wing.

See: http://mic.com/articles/50573/history-of-doma-don-t-blame-bill-clinton-for-being-put-in-a-bind

[peace13]

53. Are we running Bill or Hill in this primary.

Do you think Hillary will be just like Bill? If so we are in for a rough road. Putting myself in Hillary's place, I would be livid if they thought I would not use my own mind and ideas to run my presidency! I don't care what Bill Clinton did,it is no guarantee what Hillary will do. My guess is that if she does get elected they won't stay married for long. If he meddles on any way, that will be the end of that. She will have the position that she wanted all along and will not need the baggage or undermining.

[MADem]

115. Who was the first co-sponsor of DOMA? Anyone? Buehller?

It was Clinton's POTUS opponent--Bob Dole.

Now are you starting to see why he used a thing that would have been enacted anyway (it was a veto-proof majority) to ensure his reelection?

Or do you think he should have fallen on his sword? Taken the high road and ceded the contest?

Would DADT have fared better under President Dole?

[Uncle Joe]

9. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Fearless.

[brooklynite]

12. So, if Mississippi wanted to ban same sex marriage, the Federal Govt shouldn't interfere?

[Fearless]

15. I know exactly what I'm talking about

In 2004...

Article XIV, section 263A of the Mississippi State Constitution reads:

" Marriage may take place and may be valid under the laws of this state only between a man and a woman. A marriage in another state or foreign jurisdiction between persons of the same gender, regardless of when the marriage took place, may not be recognized in this state and is void and unenforceable under the laws of this state."


------------------------------

In 2006 without the NATIONAL support WE as LGBTers had in 2015, any federal case would likely have NOT been picked up by the SCOTUS and could very well have led to the invalidating of marriages across federal US jurisdictions.

Had the federal courts "interfered" in 2006 we could have lost everything we worked for. Note that the SCOTUS originally REJECTED picking up the marriage case until there was a conflict of interest between states that led to a constitutional crisis... ONLY then did they intercede, and only because of our clear majority support, did we win.

[artislife]

34. They can't.

There must be no chink in the armor.

Thank you for posting this.

[Bjorn Against]

16. Not one person in this thread has said that

Bernie may not be consistent on states rights but he has been consistent on gay rights. He used the legal arguments he had at his disposal as any good advocate would do, the legal argument may not be consistent but the ultimate goal of those arguments consistently advocated for GLBT rights.

[Bluenorthwest]

45. The States argument was also used by Obama.

Repeatedly and tactically almost to the very end. I can link you up if you'd like.....

[brooklynite]

54. Indeed but nobody's arguing that he had political bravery on this issue

[Bluenorthwest]

60. This was about tactics.

DOMA was done to us. From '96 to the present there were many different moments in the fight, different tactics and different rhetoric. The 'correct verbiage' of today is not the righteous rant of the past, none of the candidates can be judged by today's standards and since both of our candidates are in fact more LGBT friendly than most of our past candidates and both are people of long history, each of them will have been saying and doing things in the past that would be said or done differently today.

The focus on minutia around DOMA is a disservice to the people who lived those times, a disservice to both Bernie and frankly even more to Bill Clinton. DU discusses 1996 endlessly and somehow AIDS is never brought up. That's nuts. Nuts. Clinton supporters should be all over that information. But they are not because they don't know it and this week is DOMA week.

These threads about Bernie are very similar in nature to that thread about Hillary supporting minorities having Stockholm Syndrome. Straight people who do not usually care about LGBT issues affecting a huge concern when those issues can be exploited for their own use. Straights in both camps affect puzzlement about LGBT support for either candidate and they have no right to do so, no knowledge and no experience.

After years of potential nominees directly insulting my community, I am happy to have three of them that do not do that. Sadly, DU has insisted on making LGBT fodder for straight partisan agenda yet again.

[beam me up scottie]

17. Thank you, Fearless.

I have been fighting this lie for weeks and I'm sick and tired of it.

[AzDar]

18. K & R

[EEO]

19. It's the Hillary fanclub, which is defending her shameful attack on Bernie calling him a sexist.

And there are Hillary supporters on DU who think that is just swell.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

21. Oh, he's a Minuteman-loving racist, too.

If folks think Hillary supporters were bad in 2008, brace yourselves. She simply CANNOT lose twice.

[beam me up scottie]

22. Racist, anti-lgbt/women/Palestinian/immigration, pro-Bibi/Iraq war/big banks, etc.

It's like Rove World in here.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

25. Well, it keeps all of us on our toes, right?

The dishonesty is astounding. The persecution, the victim factor... I think that's what I have the least patience for. It's all very Palinesque.

Yep. Hillary Clinton MUST not lose twice.

[beam me up scottie]

28. The keep citing the debunked slate article like it's their bible.

Anything to swift boat Bernie, even if it's not true.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

31. Doesn't matter if it's true or false, it just needs to be out there...

cuz the masses aren't sweating the details. I see it at work everyday. A couple of coworkers engage me in political conversation, but when I start pressing them for details, they look confused and have no answers.

[beam me up scottie]

33. When they feign outrage at his votes I always ask them why they disagree.

*crickets*

Like his vote against CISA last week - that's a BAD THING because Rand Paul voted the same way, suddenly Bernie is voting with a Republican presidential candidate instead of supporting privacy rights.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

20. K&R

[JDPriestly]

23. K&R.

[Thespian2]

24. K & R !!!!

[pnwmom]

26. The truth is he did not favor same sex marriage for VERMONT in 2006.

He thought it was a States Rights issue and that Vermont's civil unions were enough for Vermont.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/05/bernie_sanders_on_marriage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html

Ten years later, Sanders took a similarly cautious approach to same-sex marriage. In 2006, he took a stand against same-sex marriage in Vermont, stating that he instead endorsed civil unions. Sanders told reporters that he was “comfortable” with civil unions, not full marriage equality. (To justify his stance, Sanders complained that a battle for same-sex marriage would be too “divisive.”) At the time, he also opposed a federal anti-gay-marriage amendment—but so did his Republican opponent for the Senate seat, Richard Tarrant, who also supported civil unions. With a wide lead in the polls and little at stake, Sanders declined to differentiate himself from his opponent by taking the lead on gay rights.

[Fearless]

35. The blog post is bull shit

I post the primary source you post drivel?

[pnwmom]

36. Here is a Vermont newspaper article from 2006.

He did NOT favor same sex marriage for Vermont that year. He thought civil unions were enough for Vermont at that point in time.

http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060607/NEWS/606070302/1003/NEWS02

"The Republican Party is extremist," Sanders declared, arguing that the majorities in the House and Senate should not be focused on gay marriage but on what is troubling the middle class and how to provide universal access to health care.

"Yet these guys are coming forward with a constitutional amendment which is precisely designed to divide the American people," Sanders said. "That is divisive."

Sanders said he opposes the constitutional amendment. States for years have had authority over marriage laws and that's the way it should remain, he said, noting that Vermont had led the nation in creating the civil unions law granting most of the rights and benefits of marriage to gay and lesbian couples.

He noted that Vermont "led the way," but it was "a very divisive debate." Asked whether Vermont should legalize full marriage rights for same-sex couples, he said: "Not right now, not after what we went through."

[Fearless]

37. Another secondary source.

I've given you the primary source. Seek my OP on the issue if you want to debate it.

[pnwmom]

38. Your "primary source" doesn't prove your own point.

Bernie Sanders in your posted video was asked whether he believed that gay people should be able to get married outside of Massachusetts and would he sponsor legislation to that effect.

His reply: that he was a strong supporter of CIVIL UNIONS and that he believed that "the whole issue of marriage is a state issue."

He did NOT say he supported Federal legislation allowing gay people to get married outside Massachusetts, as the reporter had asked. He simply referred to his position of supporting civil unions and state rights.

[Fearless]

40. Actually it did. Sorry if you don't see your answer in it

The lie doesn't exist. This is what he said.

[pnwmom]

41. I listened to every word on that video -- and took notes. Please supply the quote from this video

that supports your point that he favored gay marriage in Vermont in 2006. He did NOT. He specifically said that he supported civil unions in Vermont -- and states rights.

The truth is that he and President Clinton BOTH accepted compromises as they pushed for LGBT rights, and were both ahead of the curve compared to the general US population -- which wasn't even close to approving of marriage equality during Clinton's terms in office. Clinton and Sanders both helped move the process along.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-bill-clinton-signed-the-defense-of-marriage-act

The Defense of Marriage Act became law, and President Clinton was reëlected, again with overwhelming support from gay Americans. He was enthusiastically endorsed by the nation’s leading gay political group, the Human Rights Campaign, which had urged him to veto the legislation. They had called DOMA “a Bob Dole for President publicity stunt.” (There was a small dustup during the later stages of the campaign when a Clinton-related committee ran a radio ad in the South, heralding the enactment of the legislation. The ad was quickly pulled.)

Was it realistic to think that a Presidential veto of DOMA would have put Clinton’s reëlection in jeopardy? At the time I thought not. But in 1996 less than thirty per cent of Americans supported gay marriage, and even eight years after that, in 2004, President George W. Bush used gay marriage extremely effectively as a wedge issue against John Kerry, who at the time only supported civil unions. In fact, many believe that it was the Bush campaign’s very strategic placement of anti-gay-marriage state constitutional ballot initiatives throughout moderate and conservative leaning states (like Ohio) which brought out conservative Bush voters and carried the day for him in that election. Could similar tactics have been used with the same effectiveness in 1996? Obviously, we will never know.

Had there been a President Dole, none of the advances President Clinton accomplished in his second term for gay equality would have been possible. Funding for H.I.V. and AIDS would have no doubt been cut. A DOMA veto would likely have been overridden anyway, and so even if President Clinton had been reëlected, we would still have had the Defense of Marriage Act.

After his reëlection, President Clinton became considerably bolder on gay-rights issues. He became the first President in history to endorse gay-rights legislation by announcing his support for a new federal hate-crimes statute that included sexual orientation. He supported legislation banning employment discrimination against gays. He continued, and even stepped up, appointments of openly gay Americans to important Administration positions, including the recess appointment of James Hormel as the first openly gay Ambassador. He signed an executive order banning sexual-orientation discrimination in the federal civilian workforce, leading the way for much of corporate America to follow.

[Bluenorthwest]

46. And you come to DU to explain that the Pope is not really anti gay all the time. Discernment is

not something I look to you for when it comes to LGBT issues, you are not LGBT and you are very strongly in favor of some very anti gay clergy. Actively promoting anti gay figures on DU one day, lecturing LGBT people the next.
Barf. You are in competition for the Stockholm Award.

[MADem]

80. He admitted this to Rachel Maddow just the other day. He was for CIVIL UNIONS -- not marriage.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/27/rachel_maddow_confronts_bernie_sanders_over_past_opposition_to_marriage_equality_how_are_you_any_different_than_hillary_clinton/

Maddow then pressed Sanders on his refusal to back Vermont’s move to legalize same-sex marriage while running for Senate in 2006.

“My view was, give us a little bit of time,” Sanders explained, pointing to political contention among the electorate.

“Isn’t that the same kind of tactical thinking, the same kind of political pragmatism, that may have driven the decision for which you criticized Secretary Clinton,” Maddow pushed-back.

He didn't think Vermonters would go for it and he was running for office. He went with the stance that he felt the electorate would tolerate. Since then, he's "evolved" --as has most of America.

[pnwmom]

82. Exactly. He and the Clintons both made the same kind of politically pragmatic decisions

in order to achieve progress.

[markpkessinger]

84. Sorry, but in 1996, there was no talk of a Constitutional amendment by the GOP

Thus, the notion that this was some kind of pragmatic, strategic positioning on Clinton's part is nothing more than revisionist history. I defy anyone to produce any evidence of any threat of a federal constitutional amendment in 1996. Again, that narrative has been exposed as utter fiction.

[pnwmom]

85. Barney Frank disagrees with you, and he was in Congress then.

Are you claiming Barney Frank is engaging in revisionist history?

Tom Daschle also has spoken of the threat of an amendment then.

Some people in the period were worried about the threat of a constitutional amendment; others weren't. But it is false to say that no one in politics held that as a sincere belief.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/10/28/hillary-clintons-claim-that-doma-had-to-be-enacted-to-stop-an-anti-gay-marriage-amendment-to-the-u-s-constitution/

Daschle responded: “Hillary’s comments are completely accurate. There was a strong push to make marriage of a man a woman the only kind of marriage under the constitution. We had to give Members the chance to vote for something short of a constitutional provision.” Daschle did not offer any more details. The other three senators did not respond, and their attorney who wrote the amicus brief also could not recall what the movement entailed — though the attorney noted that a “movement” naturally refers to suggestions made in the political sphere, not necessarily a specific proposal made in Congress to amend the U.S. Constitution.

SNIP

Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), one of the openly gay members at the time, said there was a real potential of a constitutional amendment that members feared during the debate over DOMA. Frank opposed the bill and introduced an amendment that essentially would have killed it, but his amendment failed. States increasingly were threatening to pass constitutional amendments as a pre-emptive measure in case Hawaii legalized gay marriage, he said.

“There was a threat of a constitutional amendment. I told my allies about the threat of this [amendment enacted by state legislatures] going national,” said Frank, a Hillary Clinton supporter. Opponents of same-sex marriage “settled for statute,” he said.

[MADem]

107. I REMEMBER it. The wingnuts were constantly spitting about just that very prospect.

I was in DC during that timeframe, working some long and hideous hours--the one luxury that I enjoyed was a television in my office, that was either tuned to CNN or CSPAN. The House floor was often on in the background--and I remember having a visceral feeling that it was a rock/hard place situation with that ghastly act.

I sure as hell took it seriously, and I was appalled. I remember thinking, how terribly ironic it will be if those bastards managed to pass such a hate-filled amendment, when we couldn't even have an ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) and we'd been trying on that since well before I'd been born.

[pnwmom]

108. MADem, I do, too.

And if my father were alive, I'm sure he would, also.

Everyone I knew was thrilled about what had happened in Hawaii. But as soon as that first positive decision came down -- in 1993 -- the opposition started talking about what they would do if it were upheld: overturn it with an amendment to the state constitution.

And Rethugs in other states saw the writing on the wall and decided that the way to stop it permanently was through a Federal constitutional amendment.

The progressive Democrats who signed onto DOMA did so hoping that it would be a way to forestall a much worse prospect. It would have been much, much harder to overturn a constitutional amendment than it was to repeal DOMA.

P.S.

And I'm sure you also remember that gay marriage used to be one of their main excuses for not passing the ERA. So when is that ever going to happen?

[MADem]

112. Yes indeed--now that the Supremes have ruled on that, maybe we can get an ERA.

People also FORGET that Bob Dole--Clinton's opponent in the 1996 POTUS contest, was one of the very proud CO-SPONSORS of DOMA. The FIRST to sign on, in fact. Imagine what President "WWII Hero" Dole would have done to the service members serving under DADT had he been elected, after he made damn sure DADT got rolled back. Let the witch hunt begin!

Clinton's signing of a veto-proof bill, and using it in his campaign, in effect neutralized Dole on an issue that Clinton couldn't change, anyway.

There are no good choices here, but Clinton was between the rock and the proverbial hard place.

This essay is an interesting walk down memory lane:
http://mic.com/articles/50573/history-of-doma-don-t-blame-bill-clinton-for-being-put-in-a-bind

History Of DOMA: Don't Blame Bill Clinton For Being Put In a Bind

....As both parties entered the 1996 election year, Republicans realized they could no longer attack Clinton as a typical tax-and-spend liberal, so they doubled down on the culture war. Gingrich worked with his allies in talk radio and the Christian Coalition to depict Democrats as morally bankrupt: "Gingrich advised Republican candidates to speak of Democrats with the words pathetic and sick (two words Gingrich often used). Corrupt, liberal, and waste were other key words. Republicans were to be associated with change, moral, and family."

But it would take more than semantics to help Republicans gain the White House that year, especially with an uninspiring presidential candidate like Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole (R-Kansas). Republicans needed to find hot-button social issues like gays in the military which would handicap Clinton as he headed into November.

Enter gay marriage. Columnist Frank Rich explained that DOMA "was strictly a right-wing political ploy cooked up for the year of Clinton’s re-election campaign. It had no other justification. In the spring of 1996, same-sex marriage wasn’t legal anywhere in the country or a top-tier cause for many gay leaders; it was solely in play in a slow-moving court case in Hawaii. But fear and demonization of gay men was off the charts: In 1995, a record 50,877 Americans with AIDS died — a one-year count rivaling the 58,000 Americans lost in the entire Vietnam War. The Christian Coalition, under the Machiavellian guidance of the yet-to-be-disgraced Ralph Reed, saw an opening to exploit homophobia to galvanize a Republican base unenthusiastic about Bob Dole."

Introduced by Republican Bob Barr in May 1996, the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) denied federal marriage benefits to same-sex couples, and allowed states not to recognize same-sex marriages which had been performed in other states. The House Judiciary Committee explained that DOMA was intended to "reflect and honor a collective moral judgment and to express a moral disapproval of homosexuality." Senator Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) assured his fellow lawmakers that DOMA ''will safeguard the sacred institutions of marriage and the family from those who seek to destroy them and who are willing to tear apart America's moral fabric in the process.'' DOMA also allowed Bob Dole to shore-up support among conservatives by signing on as the bill’s first co-sponsor, drawing a rebuke from the Log Cabin Republicans in the process.....

[kenfrequed]

72. Quite correct

The blog mysteriously doesn't cite a primary source when it quote mines something that Bernie said. It neither hyperlinks nor does it use attribution of any kind for the third paragraph. Seems like a hit piece.

[virtualobserver]

29. They want to win so very badly......

they are willing to spin reality to the very limits of absurdity

[arcane1]

30. And they will betray anyone to do so n/t

[sabrina 1]

32. Thank you, I think those who are attempting to change history are taking lessons from Karl Rove.

[LostOne4Ever]

42. Only a fool believes that Bernies wasn't for Gay Marriage

[font style="font-family:'georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=purple]The posters trying to describe him any other way are being intentionally duplicitous trying to trick people who don't know better...it is a sign of their own desperation.

No one who was alive and old enough to talk at that time is falling for it. [/font]

[moobu2]

48. Bernie said he thought it was a states issue

at a time when gay people could not get married in 99% of the states. Bernie is a states rights libertarian.

[Bluenorthwest]

55. Is the Hillary camp officially saying now that minority issues are open for comment from those who

are not members of that minority who can then take up the lectern and deliver the truth to that minority group from a place of majority certainty? Or is this a treatment you think is reserved for LGBT persons being harped at by straight people? What happened to 'listen, don't tell, listen to what the members of that minority are saying'?

Are you folks openly saying anyone can tell anyone else about anything, or are you just saying that Straights get to tell gay people about our own history? Can men now 'mansplain' or is 'straightsplaining' the only allowed version? Can white people now tell African Americans how and what they should do as well as what their own history and experience has been, or is that just something the heterosexuals get to do to the LGBT?

Time to clear up the metrics. I feel LGBT issues are not being respected as other issues are. Please clear up the standards you are using. Thanks.

[Lancero]

63. So, people's opinions can't change overtime?

Lets take a look at another candidate, and make a current statement about a past stance they held...

Hillary said she was a ardent supporter of traditional marriage. Hillary is a marriage rights conservative.

Not true today ofc, she's evolved a LOT on the issue of LGBT rights, but at one time she held these beliefs and - by modern standards - would have been labeled as such.

Still though least Bernie took a stance that gave some support to LGBT Americans before changing to one that was for full rights - Hillarys first stance was the polar opposite, one that gave NO support to them.

[MADem]

81. THAT's the point--that stances on this issue HAVE evolved over time.

Everyone has been doing a little "evolving" here.

Playing the "Waaah I was FIRST" game is just silly and opens one up to criticism. Everyone had a ways to go on this one. Admit it and move on, I say.

[LostOne4Ever]

83. No he was a person who did whatever he could

[font style="font-family:'georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=purple]To keep the progress made in Mass and Vermont from getting overturned.

Your attempt at historical revisionism is neither wanted nor appreciated. [/font]

[NCTraveler]

57. In all seriousness, when did the truth become an issue with you?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=1251730906&info=1#recs

[thesquanderer]

61. Also discussed extensively at...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251650153

with discussion of the same video clip.

But some people are going to believe what they want to believe, regardless...

[Bluenorthwest]

66. What the folks doing this do not understand is that it makes them look ugly and petty.

For many of them-some in both candidate's camps- it is just yet another round of denigration toward LGBT, they always treat us poorly. Today they hate those DOMA voters except the ones they love, like Paul Wellstone. Today, they find Bernie insufficiently gay friendly but in the past they were fine with Rick Warren at the Inauguration or the Pope preaching his anti gay shit in Congress. They don't really care about nor know the history of LGBT issues, they just feel totally entitled to exploit those issues for their own objectives. Those who do that have always done that. The candidates are just the current excuse.

[emulatorloo]

79. Well said

[Chitown Kev]

89. An important reminder here

Most (if not all) gay rights groups were opposed to the Boies/Olson Prop 8 lawsuit because those groups were afraid of it getting all the way to SCOTUS...they didn't think that it was time even when AFER was formed to do that.

[jfern]

119. There might have even been some Supreme Court members who felt that way

Hollingsworth v. Perry ended up being such a bizarre ruling. The Supreme court ruling that there wasn't standing to appeal with liberals and conservatives on both sides and Kennedy in the minority.

[senz]

110. K&R - Good Lord this place is swarming

Folks don't like it when you mess with their lyin' memes.