Hillary Clinton: Nope, I Still Don't Think There Should Be Nationwide Marriage Equality

I can see why they'd stake that position in early '07 (4.00 / 1)

when the Presidential campaign started.

Nearly four years later, it's time for the President and Sec of State to seriously re-evaluate their public positions on this.  And I say "public positions" because State Senator Obama was on board in the 90s.

--
No tea; no decaf.

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Wed Nov 17, 2010 at 22:34:28 PM CST

All The More Reason Why NH Must Keep Marriage Equality (4.00 / 1)

Because 2012 is a-coming, and it's Iowa, then New Hampshire.  Let's continue the discussion.

---

by: Rep. Jim Splaine @ Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 06:12:03 AM CST

Hold on a sec, Putney (4.00 / 2)

Thank heavens that our Governor, John Lynch, does not agree with either of them.

I'm not aware that Gov. Lynch supports taking away NH's right to legislate on marriage. Nor, for that matter, do we have any reason to believe that President Obama and Sec. Clinton are opposed to NH's marriage equality law.

With crazy ass Republicans taking control of Washington, we should be very, very careful about giving the federal government the authority to dictate to New Hampshire and other progressive-minded states. Very careful.

---

by: Dartmouth Dem @ Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 06:18:32 AM CST

Actually I agree with her.... (0.00 / 0)

...The criteria for marriage has always been a state issue, and the feds have always accepted each state's differing criteria.

So from that perspective, both she and our current "Fierce Advocate" should be opposed to DOMA.  

Not that President Obama or Congress moved on that issue (or DADT) when we had the chance...

---

by: Thomas Simmons @ Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 06:29:14 AM CST

Equality is not a state issue. (0.00 / 0)

The federal government can't force states to have an institution of marriage, but so long as they do, discrimination within that state institution is unconstitutional nationwide.

--
No tea; no decaf.

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 09:28:34 AM CST

[ Parent ]

I don;t believe there is ample legal precedent to say that. (4.00 / 1)

Maine permits cousins to marry; New Hampshire does not.  No one has ever suggested that federal constitutional provisions are violated by having such differences...and, historically, the federal government has always accepted the states definitions.

---

by: Thomas Simmons @ Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 09:48:03 AM CST

[ Parent ]

But now you're comparing homosexuality to incest. (0.00 / 0)

That doesn't make sense.

Precedent: Loving v. Virginia.

--
No tea; no decaf.

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 09:58:42 AM CST

[ Parent ]

No, I'm not. (4.00 / 1)

There are also age requirements that differ from state to state.

What I am proving is that ALL family law has been a state matter, and the feds have always accepted it from teh states.

---

by: Thomas Simmons @ Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 10:53:11 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Once again, (0.00 / 0)

Loving v. Virginia

--
No tea; no decaf.

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 10:54:23 AM CST

[ Parent ]

As you well know... (0.00 / 0)

Race is a protected class.

Orientation is not.  Are you suggesting it should be?  If so, that's a different argument entirely...and I might agree with you.

Nonetheless, it is NOT so under current law, and DOMA remains unconstitutional.

---

by: Thomas Simmons @ Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:26:31 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Yes, I am saying it should be. (0.00 / 0)

But this isn't just an issue of equality; it's an issue of freedom and the pursuit of happiness, in general.  Ever hear anti-gay people talk about how homosexuality is a choice?  It isn't, but even if it were, why should the government care?  Religion is a choice.

--
No tea; no decaf.

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 11:30:13 AM CST

[ Parent ]

Agreed.... (4.00 / 2)

...But unfortunately, 'the pursuit of happiness,' while part of Jeffersonian Waxing Eloquent in the Declaration, ain't in the Constitution....

...On the other hand, I happen to believe in the Douglas-ian 'penumbras' emnating from the first 10 Amendments that make it pretty damned obvious that privacy is a well-enrenched right of the people.....and I kind of like the matematical equation,

(Lawrence v Texas) + (Loving v. Virginia) = paydirt :-)

---

by: Thomas Simmons @ Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 12:00:23 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Your second paragraph would have been my next point. (0.00 / 0)

--
No tea; no decaf.

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 15:38:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Adding: (0.00 / 0)

I think the Declaration of Independence, in light of the 9th and 10th Amendments, is extremely relevant, despite not having the direct force of law.

--
No tea; no decaf.

@DougLindner

---

by: Douglas E. Lindner @ Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 15:41:51 PM CST

[ Parent ]

Marriage is not a permitable event. The issue is whether a (0.00 / 0)

contractual relationship and its attendant social benefits and obligations are recognized by a particular political jurisdiction.  The equal treatment provisions of the Constitution mandate such recognition across the board.  However, getting our agents of government to comply with Constitutional mandates is another matter.

---

by: hannah @ Thu Nov 18, 2010 at 18:07:44 PM CST

[ Parent ]

No Better Advocate for LGBT Rights (4.00 / 3)

Yes, I am disappointed that Hillary Clinton has been consistent in her opposition to gay marriage.  Hopefully, her position will evolve with time on that issue, like, apparently, her husband's position is evolving. But, maybe, in the meantime, it would be better trying to change President Obama's stance on this issue (identical to Clinton) because he is in a current position of power to make even more of an impact here in the United States.

We have no better advocate on the world stage right now for LGBT rights than Hillary Clinton. She has publicly stated over and over again that the U.S. State Department will advance a comprehensive human rights agenda that includes the elimination of violence and discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity. She has forcibly spoken out on the world stage about the anti-gay legislation in Uganda and the strong anti-gay rhetoric currently sweeping Zimbabwe - something almost inconceivable for a diplomatic representative of the US to do even  ten years ago.

As Secretary of State, she has made small, but significant, steps in advancing LGBT rights within her administrative power, including passing new passport regulations for transgender travelers and putting gender identity along with sexual orientation in the State Department's equal opportunities statement.

Here is a great speech Hillary Clinton gave to the State Department employees as part of the Pride Month celebrations this year.  It was a great and inspiring speech that was heavy on detail and moderate on praise for what has been accomplished so far.

Transcipt is here: http://www.state.gov/secretary...

We have a long way to go.  My point is maybe our focus should be on building up those leaders that, although might not go far enough in our eyes, at least have the courage to do what ever they can to advance the cause of LGBT rights.  

---

by: gradysdad @ Fri Nov 19, 2010 at 07:45:28 AM CST

I think you are right (4.00 / 2)

She's wrong, but her stance is identical to the current administration, so I'm not sure what the point of calling her statement out in particular is. I can't but help feel it's a bit of this "Aha, see, we were right to reject her!" thing that's going around in response to some buyer's remorse around Obama.

For the record, I think I was unfair to her during the early campaign (after NH I was shocked by the rabidity of the anti-Clintonism on display, especially that whole Clinton as a racist nonsense, and became quite sympathetic, but I think I was way too tolerant of the double standard applied to her before then). So maybe I've swung the other way now and I'm reflexively defending her -- but there doesn't seem to be much of a story here, unless she became President last night.

---

by: Mike Caulfield @ Sun Nov 21, 2010 at 06:54:54 AM CST

[ Parent ]