March 18, 2013

About damn time.

Wouldn’t want to get behind another GOPer like Portman coming out for marriage equality, would we?

My guess is that the timing of her endorsement is actually part of a very carefully planned roll-out, with lesser lights being highlighted previously, leading up to Clinton today, only 1 week before the Supreme Court hears the DOMA and Prop 8 cases.

Clearly HRC rolling this out on a Monday morning (heralded through the “progressive” blogosphere) is a planned event.

But is it really strategically advantageous for someone already viewed as a crazy liberal opportunist by mainstream America to fall in AFTER Bill Clinton did weeks ago (again, so carefully “planned”)?

Well, once again, it’s strategetically advantageous for the Clintons’ political ambitions, just not necessarily gay rights.

Let’s not be so naive as to forget who is serving whom.

Headlines of “Hillary Clinton Supports Gay Marriage!” isn’t convincing anyone who isn’t already on our side to be on our side. And certainly not anyone sitting on the Supreme Court.

Who are these people running the media campaign, and why are they leading with a figure like Hillary?

She learned her lesson with the Obama beat down in 2008 and will now be a conformist for the PTB. I wonder who the greater of two evils will be to run against her?

Who cares?

No offense to LGBT community. I’m 1million% behind total civil rights for the LGBT community.

But nearly ANY pol, esp the Clintons, standing up on their hind legs & braying about these issues is done for only ONE reason: how can it benefit them, personally?? Nothing else.

HRC is no better or worse than that Portman who finally “came out” in favor of gay marriage now that he’s officially off “the list” of potential GOP Veep candidates but ONLY bc his son is gay & out. If, somehow, Portman could’ve *avoided* speaking in favor of gay marriage, believe you me, he would’ve avoided it like the plague.

blah blah blah: that’s all this amounts to.

Where was she before the polls turned on this issue?

Next week Shrillary ’16 comes out with a bold stand on the cuteness of puppies and kittens.

So she comes out on the side of LGBT…..somehow,someway they Clintons are going to get emselves a nice little paycheck from this.

The lovely Chelsea Clinton & George Stephanopolus are already laying the ground work for so call progressives to support Pete Peterson “fix the debt”.

Let me use this opportunity to say it here,If Obama fails to “FIX” social security,Hilliary Clinton is in the wings to make a try to “FIX” it for us,so that her WALL ST acolytes get what they been fighting for.

Whats the fascination with the Clintons is beyond me,BClinton is almost singel handedly responsible for all the crap we are in today,yet somehow people revere this creep.

Same place Obama was. “There go my people, I must follow them for I am their leader.”

Yes exactly…if people can’t see through these phony baloney creeps..well,well.

What could be more Murrican (or consumerist) than choice? Just as it was a better selling strategy for big corporations to sell to everyone, and play up their multi-hued strategies of consumerism, sexual choice is the obvious and easy way to go for the Dems. Not to diminish the struggle of LGBT people, but there is a dovetailing of interests occuring here–the Dems are merely taking belated seats in front row center here.

Fortunately, the Republicans are tethered to the right-wing crazies in perpetuity on this one. . . even if the very wealthy often don’t give a damn.

“why are they leading with a figure like Hillary?”

Maybe part of the calculus is her extremely high approval rating? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/01/23/record-high-for-hillary-clinton-as-she-faces-little-regarded-congress/

But to me it doesn’t matter why. To me it simply matters that she has now clearly and unequivocally endorsed marriage equality. We can beat up Clinton and HRC with second guesses, or we can welcome her into the fold and use her vocal support to move the ball forward. I’m for the latter.

Yes we want and need more converts but not con artists. She is more likely the latter.

Ah, but your forget, Laurel. To a lot of commenters and diarists here, she’s the antichrist, and they react accordingly — which is darkly amusing as one of the claims the hardcore Obama apologists used to make is that FDL is run and frequented by rabid Hillary worshippers who never got over the 2008 primaries.

It is about time she made a statement to this nature, but her actions bringing rights to same sex spouses and individuals in the State Department has been VERY commendable. I also believe she had no place to say anything until after she stepped down from office.

LAte to the Party, but glad she’s finally said it.

Where was she? I guess you missed all of the rights she secured for same sex partners and families for Federal Employees. She’s been working on this issue as Secretary of State behind the scenes, and in that position, I think holding her tounge until Obam came forward on the issue was the right one. Yes, it’s a little late, but she HAS achieved a lot for ALL of the LGBT community at least those in the Federal employ.

But to me it doesn’t matter why.

And thinking like this is exactly why the LGBT movement in the US is years behind other developed and less-than-developed countries.

Knowing when you’re being used matters a great deal.

And how will “her vocal support” help us “move the ball forward”?

She’s not bringing anybody new to the table.

What will HRC do next? Have Harvey Fierstein come out in support of gay marrriage?

I just find that in the last six years or so it seems being cynical of the motives of main stream politicians is a safer way to go. I hope her motives are true but I wouldn’t bet my MF Global bond fund on it.

“And how will “her vocal support” help us “move the ball forward”?”

Are you kidding me? As with any national figure with a huge pool of supporters, as a leader that they respect, she can help bring them along on LGBT issues. She already did a huge amount as Secretary of State. Now she’s continuing support for LGBT human rights as a private citizen.

First, good for her. It was less risky to do it now than back in 08, but whatever. I’ll try not to be cynical.

Gay marriage has ceased to be an important issue for me. I say this as a gay man. For a few reasons. I think marriage is a conservative institution and I have no interest in it. And more broadly I would prefer we tackle some other LGBT issues first, like the fact it’s still legal to discriminate in many states, for jobs, housing, etc. ENDA trumps the repeal of DOMA, though I suspect DOMA is going down.

The public, and now politicians, have made huge strides toward supporting marriage equality in the past five years. Fast, fast progress, that will not be reversed. At the same time we’re going backward on economic equality. As Rachel Maddow said, if Rob Portman’s son had come out as poor, that would be something. But he wouldn’t, because he’s the son of a 1 percenter, as are all offspring of Senators. I don’t think there are any senators who are not millionaires; maybe Sanders or Tester but very few.

Those are issues that concern me now, more than LGBT rights, and again I say this as a gay man who cared more passionately about gay rights in my youth. I saw the writing on the wall a while ago, even as states were passing anti-marriage legislation as fast as they could circa 2004. I knew we’d make progress on gay equality. Why? Because gays and lesbians are a convenient political football for the GOP… until we’re not. And more importantly, we are not nor have we ever been, a threat to the economic elite in this country.

Economic justice, Hillary (and other contenders). Let’s hear about that.

I very much appreciate this post. And I have to say that while I agree with you–and wrote of Hillary’s statement above with some cynicism–I also have gay friends here in very conservative Florida who continue to feel threatened as gay people. So it’s important not to infer that all the work is done, or that a lot of hatred–and potential scape-goating–isn’t out there.

Hi, good point. I should mention that I’m coming from the bubble of Los Angeles, where I feel safe being out. Still I didn’t grow up here and I realize that a lot of the country is nowhere near as progressive on gay rights and other issues. I don’t mean to suggest all the work is done. Far from it. And great to have a champion like Hillary or whoever saying they support them (whatever that “support” means). But to have a leader come out and promise to prosecute Jamie Dimon et al, who promise to not steal from Social Security and other programs to pay off the Wall Street gambling debt, and hell let’s throw in a promise not to use secret drone warfare and go after whistleblowers… THAT would really excite me. Waiting.

I understand the cynicism here, and it’s well justified, but…

I’m just not feeling it right now.

Go Hillary! Hillary 2016!

Wholeheartedly with you on every count!

Another Profile In Courage! Where was she when that fucked-up husband of hers was signing that DOMA shit into law?

I don’t know if we can say the timing is politically motivated for Hillary.
I’d say the timing has more to do with the prop 8 and doma cases, as this adds another weighty voice to the repeal chorus.
That said, the let’s-have-a-respectful-conversation stuff is disingenuous. Hillary Clinton knows very well that those promoting marriage equality have been very fair. The scare tactic ads and mean-spirited rhetoric has come from the other side. So, she lost points from me for “wanting to sound balanced.” uggg… what baloney.
Still, I’ll vote for Hillary for loads of reasons, including the fact that her record on gay rights both at the state department and on the world stage is spectacular. And if she picks the smart/sincere sen. Sherrod Brown of super-swing-state Ohio as her running mate, I think she’ll be unbeatable and we’ll be able to cement the nation’s progressive future. Hopefully, we’ll be Sweden someday. Fuck you, Mitt Romney.