That former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton supports marriage equality doesn't seem surprising. She'd already delivered an eloquent address on LGBT issues in December 2011, making the case to the world that "gay rights are human rights," and before leaving her post, Clinton elevated equality for gay people as a core value of U.S. foreign policy in ways none of her predecessors ever considered.
For that matter, given her stated positions, I'd more or less forgotten that she hadn't already endorsed marriage equality. But this morning, she made it official, explaining her position in a six-minute video made available through the Human Rights Campaign.
For those who can't watch clips online:
"LGBT Americans are our colleagues, our teachers, our soldiers, our friends, our loved ones -- and they are full and equal citizens, and deserve the rights of citizenship. That includes marriage.
"That's why I support marriage for lesbian and gay couples. I support it personally and as a matter of policy and law, embedded in a broader effort to advance equality and opportunity for LGBT Americans and for all Americans. Like so many others, my views have been shaped over time by people I have known and loved, by my experience representing our nation on the world stage, my devotion to law and human rights, and the guiding principles of my faith.
"Marriage, after all, is a fundamental building block of our society -- a great joy, and yes, a great responsibility. A few years ago, Bill and I celebrated as our own daughter married the love of her life and I wish every parent that same joy. To deny the opportunity to any of our daughters and sons solely on the basis of who they are and who they love is to deny them the chance to live up to their God given potential."
The news comes just three days after Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio became the first Republican senator to endorse marriage equality, though in his case, Portman cited having a gay son. Clinton's announcement is arguably long overdue, though unlike the Republican senator, she has a lengthy and impressive record of championing LGBT rights for much of her career.
Looking ahead, we do not yet know what kind of national ambitions, if any, Hillary Clinton harbors, but given the prevailing winds in the party, I think it's safe to say any Democrat seeking national office from this point forward will be expected to support marriage equality as a matter of course.
Leave a Comment:
Clinton/Warren 2016. Slam dunk.
Can we safely assume that this is the start of the campaign to throw crazy Joe under the bus? I was wondering when it would start. Joe is way too white too male and too hetero for the out of touch' extreme democratic party.
Release the Kraken.
Unfortunately I do not believe a ticket with two women would win. Since we have never had a woman President, we must have a smart pick for Vice President and I would like to see one of the Castro brothers from Texas.
Inspector, we are not throwing Vice President Biden under the bus, he has been an outstanding Vice President and if he chooses to run for President he will have the Democrats support. The Democratic Party is not out of touch with reality, you are confusing our party with your party.
Lorr
I never said that the Extreme democratic party was out of touch with reality, Those are your words. As for Biden I'll bet you a grande mocha latte that he won't be the next democrat nominee for POTUS.
Get real. Did you believe an African American could win? Twice?
Sorry Rochesrter - I believe Hilary Clinton can win, but not with another woman on the ticket as Vice President. Yes I did believe an African American could win -that is why I voted for him Twice!
Sorry Inspector - that I miss quoted you. I like your bet for of a grande mocha latte, but what happens if he chooses not to run?
Are you saying that you personally wouldn't vote for that ticket, or you don't believe a majority of Americans would vote for that ticket?
If the former, then get over it. If the latter, then have more faith in America. But either way, what you just said doesn't make any sense.
High Five Rochester12! Forget months of talking heads, this is the ticket! The men have failed miserably; I think we can all agree on that. It's time for women to assume the leadership roles of our nation.
Crazy Joe? I'm sorry but Joe Biden is a very smart man and he would be a good president regardless of what the media has you believe about him. People who follow policy know Joe is pretty well informed. We would benefit from his decision making as a country.
Um, I'm male... but I still agree with you completely ;-)
If Joe is on the ballot, I will vote for him. Period. Thats not a knock on Hilary, but I have seen with my own eyes the integrity Joe brings to the table.
Anyone with a bit of objectivity and brains has seen what Republican fascists bring to the table. I'll vote, "Anyone other than a Republican."
There is not extreme democratic party. Only an extreme republican party. One party understands everything and cares about the future. The other party knows nothing and just doesn't care.
Lorr
I figure that the dem party will make it worthwhile for Joe to step out of the way on his own so it doesn't look like they canned him.
Lupe
If you step back and really look at both parties you will see that both are rabid and out of control. That leaves no voice for independents like me.
Great news! But yes, the delay is strange, given how vigorously she has advocated for LGBT human rights on the international stage. But better late than never.
MK
www.youthallies.com
HRC. Human Rights Campaign.
HRC. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
For a minute there, I thought she'd personally launched Americans for Marriage Equality.
There a number of boxes that need to be checked, prior to announcing, "I'm in it to win it."
slam dunk they'd lose. all you folks wetting yourselves thinking hillary will be president -- STOP-- it isn't going to happen. too old and way too controversial.
i'd like warren on the ticket but wonder if she will have the reputation by then.
Aside from you being so very, very wrong... if former Lawyer, former First Lady, former Senator, and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton were the Democratic Nominee for President, are you saying you wouldn't vote for her?
What if her competition were, say, Ted Cruz, or Rand Paul? Or for that matter, any of today's Republican nutcases. What then?
Personally, I don't think you're using the word "controversial" in the proper context.
"controversial"??? Hilary is mainstream as they come. As evidenced by todays anouncement...
Typical political spouting from another politician.
I'm not saying she's against the rights of people but I don't trust anybody saying things in a political context...especially if they've spent years in the political world.
Doing it for votes is one thing but doing it because you really do not care about stepping on the lives of people is another...
Everything Hilary says is in a "political context". Either get used to hearing from her alot, or figure out a place to live for eight years starting in 2016...
President Clinton has a nice ring to it.
I don't find the fact or the timing of her announcement surprising at all - from a political point of view it is past time for many to make their views public, but has, until recently, been impolitic to do so. As Secretary of State, it was proper for Hillary to be mindful of those who might find such a position reason enough not to engage with her - and I think her decision was a prudent one. I agree that a two women on the next presidential ticket might be premature, but that is a reflection of societal realities, and not qualifications - with the caveat that two qualified Republican women would be harder to find and less likely to gain the support of their own fractious party. That being said, I would love to see a Bachman/Palin ticket, if for no other reason than the fodder it would clearly provide Ms. Maddow and sirs Colbert and Stewart.
Me too.
As an aside, I think we can see some small items that show the whole topic is moving toward a "non issue" in the near future (hopefully!).
Yesterday I saw the following ad from Amazon.com on the Food Channel:
Scene: an upscale beach resort.
A good-looking young woman on a chaise lounge reads her Kindle. Nearby, a young man is struggling to read his tablet in the bright light. A conversation ensues about the value of the Kindle in being able to be used in all lighting situations, and ends with Young Man ordering a Kindle online. He then looks at her and says "We ought to celebrate."
She smiles at him and says "My husband will be back soon with our drinks."
He smiles back and says "Mine too!"
POV shot of two guys at the cabana bar getting drinks and waving.
End commercial.
And it was all done very matter-of-fact., Proof I think that this is becoming far more accepted that most of us think. Progress comes in strange places.
I appreciate the sentiment Sec Clinton has offered here. I however find it to be a little disingenuous to speak these words now that she no longer holds public office. Where was this poise, honesty, and courage when she had the power to make a difference?
It is good to see Democrats finally beginning to embrace the rhetoric necessary to sway public opinion. I have long said that our greatest failing in winning universal equality for the LGBT community is that of not equating "gay" rights with civil rights. The parallels between the struggle for equal treatment under the law for lgbt's and the civil rights movement primarily spearheaded by black America in the 60's are many. Conservative America has worked hard to make sure they keep the civil rights factor out of the equation. They do not want you to think of it this way, because it is the surest way to convincing people on the fence about the issue that this should be official.
I am no flag waver and I gag every time someone starts waxing poetic about this bull@!$%# nation among bull@!$%# nations. I do not participate int he cult of the soldier nor do I wear ribbons. I take no pledges and I damn sure don't worship flags. My patriotism is the possession of my community and the people in it. My efforts are for their well being, not to prop up some propaganda ideology. I say these things not to offend or stir needless debate, but to be transparent when I say that civil rights issues are absolutely of the highest importance. To deny the LGBT community the FULL COMPLIMENT of their civil rights is un-american. It's bad form. It's anachronistic. It's inhumane.
I used to be addicted to men, but over 7 years ago Jesus set me FREE! (YouTube video) I am now free from the sin of homosexuality. Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman according to the King James Bible (Genesis 2:24) December 19, 2010 I married a beautiful woman of God. FREE AT LAST FREE AT LAST, THANK GOD ALMIGHTY I'M FREE AT LAST!!!! JESUS IS LORD!!
Personally, I prefer democracy to a monarchy, but each to his own...
Praise Jack Hammer Jesus..
Addicted to men, what a laugh! Congratulations on your marriage to a woman. Have you made any little miracles yet? Just curious..
There's no such thing as ex-gay. It's a fiction dreamed up by the religious right to con people into believing that everyone is straight and that it's all about behavior and 'lifestyle' choices. It's a con that has failed to convince more than a quarter of Americans, according to recent polling. And it's not just Democratic politicians who are endorsing marriage equality. Now even Evangelical preachers are getting in on the action.
So, 'Greg', you're fooling no one but yourself. If you were ever gay, you still are. Or maybe you're bi. Either way, you are a liar, especially if you really are a gay (or bi) man who is pretending to be straight. Living a lie is not freedom. It is bondage. You are enslaved by baseless guilt, and putting that on Jesus probably amounts to blasphemy.
Thanks Hill.
BTW world, it's about @!$%#ing time, thanks!
Its just the continuation of the assclown parade! Palin was there just to fool the Tea Party fools into thinking that they are unifide! Bwahahahahah! Rove is still licking his wounds! Bwahahahaha1