Or is it because his daughter is Gay. (At least that’s the rumour I’ve heard).
She isn’t gay.
There’s a certain irony in the LGBT community being eventually judged fit for marriage by a guy most famous for getting a dodgy white stain on an intern’s dress behind his wife’s back, but better late than never.
Just a shame he couldn’t have had this road to Damascus revelation while he was actually in charge of government policy.
I’ve said it before: “Clinton was the best President we never had” – Had it not been for “that damn woman”, he could have gone on to so many better things.
This story ain’t about Bill Clinton; it’s about Anderson Cooper.
I’d much rather see a photo of Anderson, wearing a tight, clean white T-shirt, holding a dild…I mean a phalic…I mean a mike to his mouth than this stupid son-of-bitch.
Notice how Bill’s statements claim to support gay marriage but he specifies that it needs to be decided on a state by state basis. He does not support gay marriage on a federal level.
That is pretty much the same as Obama’s position. Clinton’s comments are typical of a wily politician in that they appear supportive and inclusive but he is being careful to ensure that his views coincide with those of the administration (seeing as Hillary is the Secretary of State he obviously doesn’t want to step away from what the current administration supports).
If interracial marriage is available on a federal level it means that no individual state can decide to ban interracial marriage (even if there is a referendum)
By allowing each state to decide individually whether gay couples can marry it basically means that the electorate can decide whether or not a minority gets civil rights or not. As happened in California.
So thanks Bill – your words are nice. But in practice they are meaningless.
You are the original ‘Gloom ‘n Doom’ merchant are you not?
For Clinton to agree State by State rather than Federal is far from ‘Meaningless.’ I would throw my lot in with Clinton but not Vince. I know Clinton can resist anything but temptation but he is still a good politicion.
Totally sick of this man.
Recommended reading: ‘No-one left to lie to: the values of the worst family’ (Christopher Hitchens) http://www.amazon.com/No-One-Left-Lie-Values/dp/1859842844
Thanks, Bill !
Care to come sit with us at the back of the bus? Wear a breezy fabric or carry a hand-fan; it gets warm and claustrophobic, especially when you spend decade, after decade, after decade sitting here, waiting for the “right moment”.
Different master – same whip.
Let’s not forget that we heard similar empty platitudes from him after he stood by and did nothing when almost one million Rwandans died; he showed up with a wreath and regrets.
I’m not singling out Bill Clinton; all politicos sleep in the same bed. I’m simply annoyed that they think that we’re so naïve as to not see them as opportunists.
I’m not sure you understand how the American system works. If anything were to be done on a federal level to legalise gay marriage, it would take the option of deciding away from a state. This would most certainly lead to riots and the continued hatred of fellow LGBT people. In the long run, this would do nobody at all any good. However, allowing states to decide whilst it may be a painful, difficult and long process will eventually bring people around to us and our collective ideals. Once the majority of states have voted on this issue and have come to the conclusion that gay people can get married, it will be decided on a federal level.
Sammy – interracial marriage was banned up until the 1960′s when it was legalised at a federal level. So even if the situation arose that a majority of people in an individual state wished to ban it they would be prevented from doing so. The electorate cannot decide to reban interracial marriage even if they wished to do so.
Therefore if Bill Clinton says he supports gay marriage then he should not state that it is up to the individual state to decide whether or not we should be allowed to marry. If he supports the right of a law-abiding minority to enter into the legal contract of marriage then he is contradicting himself when he says that the individual state should decide.
I am certain he supports inter-racial marriage at a federal level. Why on earth is he supporting the right of the California electorate to remove the legal right to marry from gay people. That is what he is doing when he says that it is up to the individual state to decide.
I know that he means well but his good intentions are meaningless in practical terms.
Loooove Bill! Hillary should have been prez!
Sammy, the thing is, both Clinton and Obama state that the federal government should not get involved with marriage. The fact of the matter is, it most certainly does when it confers more than one thousand automatic rights and privileges on straight married couples, rights that can only be enjoyed through marriage, rights provided by the federal government but denied to legally married gay couples. Obama is a bigot when he supports civil unions at the “federal” level which proves that the government directly gets involved with marriage, otherwise why support federal rights for civil unions? I can’t understand why nobody is going after them on that. Its a blatant double standard and the worst kind of bigotry.
Vince – I am aware of what happened in the 1960′s in terms of interracial marriage. What you have to understand here, is that our opponents believe they are right just like we believe we are right. Their arguments, whilst completely ignorant and non-sensical to us, make perfect sense to them. The only way to fight this is to educate and show them that what they believe simply isn’t true and in some cases, just plain paranoid and ignorant. Forcing certain states in which the majority of people do not want gay marriage will simply make the situation worse there for gay people. Eventually, people will see and we will win this debate, but for now, it is time to educate and treat people with the same respect with which we wish to be treated.
Robert – I think Obama is trying to do this as cleverly as possible. I do not for one moment think he does not support full marriage equality, however, he would not be president right now had he come out and said that in his election campaign. I of course think that we deserve all the rights and privileges marriage confers on a federal basis, but there are a lot of people who think we should not. This is a very tricky issue in terms of religious freedoms, adoption issues and so on and so forth. These issues take time to work through and I think we need to step back and realise that. We currently enjoy a lot more rights that we did 50 years ago, and in another 50 years things will have changed again, hopefully for the better. Thinking and thought is not eternal, but historical. It changes, grows and develops. We have to give it time to do so! Also, you mentioned that he supports civil unions at the federal level, can’t you see that he is trying to keep as many people happy here as possible? It means we could access those rights, which is better than not being able to at all, whilst also keeping those who are against us happier with the situation until their thinking changes.
#13 Sammy – “Forcing certain states in which the majority of people do not want gay marriage will simply make the situation worse there for gay people.”
And even if the majority in a state opposes gay marriage why should that be of any relevance.
I am pretty sure that there are states in the US where the majority of the population still opposes interracial marriage. There certainly was in the 1960′s.
Do you support the right of the electorate to reban interracial marriage. If not then why the double standard.
What Clinton is saying here is meaningless in practical terms as he is stating that it is up to the public to decide what rights are decided by a minority group. He is effectively saying that rights are not inalienable but subject to popular mandate.
And that sucks.
Vince: “Rights are not inalienable but subject to popular mandate”
- Another word for it is democracy. People are of the common assumption that democracy fixes everything because it’s the ‘will of the majority of the people’ – however, if those people happen to be idiot peasant villagers armed with pitchforks and torches, somehow, democracy takes a turn for the worst.
Sorry mate, but you can’t have your cake and eat it. Clinton himself said, (very specifically), “But me, Bill Clinton personally, I changed my position.” – Stating his personal view was not the same as what he would do as President, because the majority of the people felt differently. I have a great deal of respect for the man, people voted him in to a job, so he should do what they ask of him, not what HE thinks he should do. (Unlike this wanky government that promise the earth, and then throw out all initiatives once they are in power, and just proceed to feather their own nests)