Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Video: Hillary Clinton comes out in support of equal marriage

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. Hilary for president.

    1. In a country of 310,000,000 people I would hope that a candidate can be found whose family is not in the polticial industry..

      The US electoral system is an undemocratic sham, and another Clinton presidency would simply prove that.

      1. You’ll have to excuse my ignorance, but could you enlighten me to the political history of the Obama family?

        1. None (so far).

          But look at the Bushes – you have George Senior; George Junior and Jeb (likely to run as a Repulican in 2016).

          Then you have Bill Clinton and Hillary (likely to run as Democrat in 2016.

          If either Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush gets elected in 2016 it will mean that the Obama presidency was merely a blip in cycle of alternating Bush and Clinton presidencies.

          That isanti-democratic.

          1. So the will of the people to elect someone is inherently undemocratic simply because her husband was president back in the 90s. Gee, thanks for educating us dum’ ‘muricans.

          2. Well you do accept that the electoral system in the US is an undemocratic joke I hope?

            And that if the people had the option to vote for a party that looked out for their own (as opposed to corporate) interests then neither the Democrats or Republicans would ever be re-elected.

            And that the electoral college is a completely, primitive system of electing a president?

            So the fact that in US politics, political dynasties are so easily formed is an obvious repercussion of the undemocratic electoral syste.

          3. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Mar 2013, 3:59pm

            Nonsense, there have been many presidents who were not from any dynastic families. Look at the make up of Prime Ministers over the last hundred years or more. Almost all of them had an Oxbridge background. It’s almost a rite of passage to number 10. The old school tie dynasty.

          4. In the modern era, (post WWII), I can only think of two presidents that are the result of political dynasties, Bush I and Bush II.
            Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, Obama… whom did I miss?

            I do not necessarily like the electoral college but it doesn’t make the system inherently undemocratic. And while I would love to see the US adopt a proportional representation with alternative voting, I do not see the system as being inherently undemocratic. Hell, even your country couldn’t get AV passed.

          5. I correct myself, I can only think of ONE president that is the result of a political dynasty, Bush II, as Bush I wouldn’t count.

      2. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Mar 2013, 3:54pm

        Well, ours isn’t exactly democratic either. An unelected House of Lords having the right to say who can and cannot marry in a few months? Would you consider 26 Anglican clerics having a say in our laws is democratic in a country where slightly more than 1 million people attend religious services regularly out of a population of roughly 60 million?

        1. GulliverUK 18 Mar 2013, 3:58pm

          Yeah, but about 59,999,000 don’t want an unelected House of Lords – if we must have one then make it elected. If people are any good they’ll be elected. As for religion in there … I’m fairly convinced they’ll be out within a decade, forever.

        2. The fact that the 2 countries which were behind the illegal invasion of Iraq are only sham democracies is not a coincidence.

          Britain is even worse than the US because of the House of Lords and our official state cult, and our unelected head of state.

          1. GulliverUK 18 Mar 2013, 4:14pm

            ^ I’m giving you a tick because you’re amusing me !

            It’s a relatively good democracy as things go. I voted for AV but many people were misled and didn’t, but we really want PR — at the very least. We don’t want an unelected 2nd chamber, I agree. And the Queen has virtually no power at all, she just gets to say a few words to the incoming and outgoing PMs, and read a government speech once a year. We should not have any religious presence in a modern parliament, and we know those 26 bishops will go, but we just don’t know how long till then. I’m not disagreeing with you Steve, but you ain’t half got a bug up your arse today and over this topic.

            Maybe you know more than me about Mrs Clinton, but I am very glad of her support for worldwide equal rights and respect.

    2. Well said, Bruno! Exactly my thought! Make the UK a republic, get shot of the royal parasites, and tell Hilary it would be an honour for us if she would be OUR PRESIDENT, our figurehead.

      Can you imagine Old Bette ever saying anything as remotely intelligent? Never.

      Hilary Clinton for President of the UK! (Or at least the USA.)

  2. Big deal. It’s too little, too late.

    I am heartily sick of retired politicians supporting equality when they are no longer in positions of power.

    Where was Hillary Clinton’s support of equality when it mattered?

    Where was her condemnation of her husband’s disgustlingly bigoted Defence of Marriage Act?

    I really hope she does not run for presidency in 2016. Dynastic political families like the Bushes and Clintons are anti-democratic.

    1. Are you kidding me with this nonsense? Are you just going to ignore Hillary’s work when she was Secretary of State? And check the vote on DOMA in 1996, it was overwhelming and would have passed a presidential veto. The country simply was not ready to deal with gay marriage. Frankly, DOMA saved us from a constitutional amendment. Do you not think in 2004 that there weren’t enough states to pass a constitutional amendment in DOMA was not on the books?

      1. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Mar 2013, 3:50pm

        That’s exactly right, Vito. Bill Clinton had no choice rather than have a ban on equal marriage enshrined into the constitution. That would have been disastrous enough. In fact, there probably would not now be 9 states with equal marriage had that been the case.

        Hilary was arguably the best Secretary of State ever. She would make an excellent choice for president and I’ve no doubt she would win by a landslide.

        1. It is a barefaced lie to say that an equal marriage ban would have been introduced into the US constitution had Clinton not introduced DOMA.

          Talk of a constitutional amendment surfaced only years after DOMA.

          Clinton threw the LGBT community under the bus with DOMA for his personal political benefit.

          And his wife has never condemned the toxic homophobia of her husband’s poisonours law.

          1. Clinton didn’t introduce DOMA. The President cannot introduce legislation. A member of congress must.

            And I already posted a quote of Hillary repudiating DOMA in 2007.

      2. You talk utter rubbish.

        DOMA was a horrific piece of homophobic bigotry despite your attempts to spin it into something else.

        Hillary Clinton has NEVER condemned the poisonous homophobia of this legislation.

        And she waits until she is no longer in a position of influence to support equality.

        Like I said, too little too late.

        She is a snake-oilo saleswoman like her husband was. Her support for equality is only visible when there is no personal risk to her own career.

        She is not a real ally of the LGBT community – she’s an ally when it suits her own agenda.

        1. You simply do not get it, do you? The reason why the push for a constitutional amendment failed is because DOMA was on the books. People did not feel it necessary when there was already law. Do you not understand how federal statute and the US constructional amendment process works? DOMA allows us to seek repeal through Congress (where momentum is slowly gaining) and through SCOTUS. That is a lot better than trying to muster 38 states to repeal.

          As far as never repudiating DOMA, here’s a little gem from 2007, “I support repealing the provision of DOMA that may prohibit the federal government from providing benefits to people in states that recognize same sex marriage…” 2007 HRC Presidential Questionnaire

          I guess we’ll ignore that she forced to the Dept of State to treat same sex couples the same and announced before a congregation of homophobs in Geneva that gay rights are civil right because it is inconvenient to you.

          1. “The reason why the push for a constitutional amendment failed is because DOMA was on the books.”

            So you’ve swallowed the political spin hook, line and sinker.

            It is an indisputable FACT that DOMA has damaged the lives of hundreds of thousands of LGBT Americans and that Bill Clinton was the author of this disgusting piece of bigotry.

            Trying to justify this poisonous piece of homophobia is absurd.

            DOMA was an evil piece of bigotry and Bill Clinton has NEVER apologised for the massive damage he has inflicted on our community because of it.

            He’s too busy trying to rewrite history to excuse his role in the whole fiasco.

          2. Are you seriously so short sighted? Have I said that DOMA was great and that it hasn’t hurt families? Bill Clinton was NOT the author of DOMA. Rep Bob Barr of GA did (he has since come out against it).

            You can go on and on and on about how horrible the act is, and I’m not going to argue with you about it. What I am saying is that it passed with enough votes to survive a Clinton veto, and had it not passed, there would have been a successful push for a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage out right. You do understand how amendments in the US work, right, or do you need me to give you a civics lesson?

        2. GulliverUK 18 Mar 2013, 4:04pm

          SteveC, have to correct you there, you said “was”, .. I think you mean “is”. It hasn’t gone yet and if SCOTUS are only looking at part 3, and only apply it to tax case, and California, then people in 37 states which done have marriage rights, or civil unions, will be no better off. The whole thing has to be ripped up, and the right to equal marriage has to be passed across every state, as Federal law. This is the one and only way the current case will make a real difference to everybody in the LGBT community.

          Hilary Clinton took a lot of flack for standing up for gay rights globally, and she should be praised for that, and this video is excellent. Give her a cheer – gone on, it won’t kill you ! :D

          1. It really depends on how SCOTUS rules. They could simply say section 3 is unconstitutional, which opens up federal protection to the states that allow marriage equality. Or they could say the hole thing needs to go, which brings it to the entire country (in the sense that, a marriage in one state must be recognized in another. States would still refuse to issue licenses, which forces another SCOTUS case). The Cali prop 8 case seeks to constitutionalize equal marriage, and if it does, even with a narrow ruling, it will set a precedent for future cases. The system can be slow but some times, the slow turtle wins the case. We’re trying to protect as many families as possible without creating a Roe-style backlash.

          2. While Hillary Clinton was ‘standing up for gay rights globally’ she was opposing marriage equality at home.

            She does not deserve a cheer now that she has ‘évolved’when she is no longer in a position of power.

    2. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Mar 2013, 3:45pm

      It isn’t too late. Don’t forget, our own David Cameron voted for Section 28 and was against CPs. People can and often do evolve, be it for political expediency or not. I’d rather have them on my side later than never for whatever reasons. I never ever supported or voted for a Tory before 2010. Like Hilary or Cameron, I too evolved and I’m glad I voted for him. Labour weren’t exactly championing equal marriage prior to that were they?

      1. The difference between Cameron and Clinton, is that Cameron evolved while it still mattered and he could actually influence change.

        Hillary Clinton has évolved’when her influence is over.

        1. GulliverUK 18 Mar 2013, 4:08pm

          well I damned well hope equal marriage, DOMA, ENDA, etc., will be fixed before the next US election, because if not then someone needs to put a rocket underneath them !!!

          1. ENDA won’t pass unless the Dems take back the house, which will be difficult with how the republicans successfully gerrymandered the house dictrics.

          2. GulliverUK 18 Mar 2013, 4:54pm

            Vito, there are a growing number of states and councils which are legislating protections locally, and if the GOP want to be considered a serious political party then it has to agree to enact those protections.

            Laws like those never really have any effect on anyone except those who would discriminate, which are a small number of people and organisations. Faith groups will be very against it, but it has to be done. You cannot tell the rest of the world to protect the rights and stop discrimination against people who are LGBT when you still allow it at home. You can’t expect to even be taken seriously on the world stage when you legally allow people to be fired just because they are gay.

  3. Robert in S. Kensington 18 Mar 2013, 3:41pm

    Long overdue, but well done Hilary. She could well be the next Democratic contender for the presidency in 2016. I hope she does run, the republicans worst nightmare. They were terrified when she ran against Obama.

    The last thing gay Americans need is a republican anti equal marriage hater in power.

    1. The last thing ANY American needs is another Republican or Democrat in power.

      People act as if Obama is some hero – when the reality is that he gives a polished PR performance, makes all the right noises, and works solely for his corporate masters.

      Both those parties are owned and run by corporations (who have the ‘human right’ to make limitless campaign donations to get candidates who will represent their interests elected.

  4. Did anyone else drop off to sleep during this video, or am I just a little overtired?

    Surely she could get a better media trainer.

  5. You say that Americans don`t want a political dynasty running the country. Your so wrong . Wheever I run into Americans and they find i`m Canadian aside from telling me they respect the fact that we are so polite.The next words out of their mouths is the respect they have for the Royal Family and the wish that they could have their own King or Queen. They ooooh and awwhhh over the Royal Family.They try to put their President and family up on a pedestal like the Royals but they know its not the same . and they resent us for it. For all their comments of freedom and the like . They would give up part of their heritage if they could just have a Queen for a day. The Americans, some have regretted that day when the revolution parted them from their Monarch. Like having your Grandparents say ok your on your own .Don`t expect me to pick up the tab for your education your values or anything else you might persue.

    1. That is often why you will see Americans and Presidents defer to Britain all that is sacred and Monach like. It is not just respect .It is a longing for those days when they were part of the Fold. The President is a political animal ,nothing can be done about that. He s tainted with that brush.As he likes to say, putting lipstick on a pig does not change the animal. For the Romantic American The Royals are above all that politics and scapping on the floor. They don`t lower themselves to even speak of politics , partly because they are not allowed to. Not for any desire to rise above the rabble.Yes some Americans would give their left nut. To have a Monarch like ours .Just to give them some legitimacy on the world stage if for nothing else. Even the Pope has no longer a Moral standing in the world . Because his Monarchy , is really a government. a poorly lead one at that. He cannot avoid politics for that very reason. So the smell of the pit is on him aswell.

  6. Christopher 18 Mar 2013, 6:14pm

    Meh.

  7. Obama is good and has come a long way on gay civil rights, but its time for Hilary for the next president, she’d be fab.

  8. I have only just turned 18 on the 14th of March and I know I was very young to know about or even understand the US Democratic primaries in 2008. (13 years old) But I remember the grand match up between Hillary and Obama. At the time I supported Obama as I thought his polices were the best of the two although very close, I felt that although Obama did not publicly support Equal marriage at the time I felt that out of the two of them Obama was the most likely to support fully equality.

    But after Hillary’s excellent performance as Secretary of State with the high levels of competence, integrity and commitment to defending LGBT rights I feel that if I were American I would vote for Hillary with Pride :D

    Hillary for President 2016

    (good luck to you Hillary I know we can count on you to push internationally for equality. You have my support :D )

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews.co.uk. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all