Hillary Clinton on her opposition to gay marriage, her support for overturning Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and why she wouldn’t put a homophobic judge on the bench.
On Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell:
On her opposition to gay marriage and support for civil unions:
HOW TO EMBED VIDEO: See the small blue downward-facing arrow in the blue cube at the bottom of each video? Click that, and then click “Embed.” Copy the code and post the video wherever you want!
On States rights:
On why attitudes need to change:
On her previous “immorality” comment:
Her closing remarks:
Posted: Aug. 10. 2007 at 12:41 AM EDT
Digg This
You can leave a response or trackback from your own site.
The term is used colloquially for any kind of Linkback.It has since been implemented in most other blogging tools.A Trackback is one...
Look inside and remember that turning a giant ship takes time and cannot happen immediately -- right or wrong, we must get it back on track and support equality and undertanding of all people.
Be careful what you write and what your energy sends out into the universe, all together we are a powerful force for good and understanding -- isn't that what we all want anyway? I can hope for the best in all things -- we can change things together.
Useful, thank you!...
And I thank all of you; older Gays and Lesbians, who sacrificed so much, you shared your wisdom and experience every day of your lives.
I saw you at the meetings, at the bookstore, in the street, talking and marching, denouncing the injustice. You tought all of us about freedom, rights, love and family. I listened. I learned so much. You never held me back. You all pointed the way. I grew.
We owe you.
Thank you,
A very gratefull Gay (Hispanic)living in NY.
Daniel/Morgan you should both be ashamed of yourselves, a disgrace for sure. A full page of babble on a subject you know nothing about.
You are quite short in the tooth on anything that has happened in the LGBT community outside of the last five years and that is being generous. Have either of you even been to Washington on a field trip, or unaccompanied by an adult to see the Smithsonian, let alone sitting in the baking sun for hours trying to be noticed by the White House? Have you ever been surrounded by hundreds of thousands of people all fighting for the same thing? I doubt is seriously! But I can tell you Melissa and I, along with many others on this blog, were there risking everything fighting for not only us but for you, long before you noticed you had a shadow let alone feelings about the same or opposite sex.
Your angry at Melissa because she isn't what you think she should be or do in life, tell you what -why don't you join the rightwing Repubs, they love your type mentality! “It’s not what he or she did, but what they didn't do"... blah blah blah.
Can I ask, exactly what LGBT publication covers have you graced for your overwhelming contribution to our community or society in general? How many outreach programs have you started to help LGBT teens? What about AIDS? I lost more friends to AIDS before you were born.
What a joke! Your comments remind me of Obama on the LOGO debate when he had the nerve to say that his civil rights predecessors went about "it" the wrong way. Babies criticizing their silver spoons!
Daniel/Morgan you should both be ashamed of yourselves, a disgrace for sure. A full page of babble on a subject you know nothing about.
You are quite short in the tooth on anything that has happened in the LGBT community outside of the last five years and that is being generous. Have either of you even been to Washington on a field trip, or unaccompanied by an adult to see the Smithsonian, let alone sitting in the baking sun for hours trying to be noticed by the White House? Have you ever been surrounded by hundreds of thousands of people all fighting for the same thing? I doubt is seriously! But I can tell you Melissa and I, along with many others on this blog, were there risking everything fighting for not only us but for you, long before you noticed you had a shadow let alone feelings about the same or opposite sex.
Your angry at Melissa because she isn't what you think she should be or do in life, tell you what -why don't you join the rightwing Repubs, they love your type mentality! “It’s not what he or she did, but what they didn't do"... blah blah blah.
Can I ask, exactly what LGBT publication covers have you graced for your overwhelming contribution to our community or society in general? How many outreach programs have you started to help LGBT teens? What about AIDS? I lost more friends to AIDS before you were born.
What a joke! Your comments remind me of Obama on the LOGO debate when he had the nerve to say that his civil rights predecessors went about "it" the wrong way.
Babies criticizing their silver spoons!
In your 20's now, you would have been a child when Melissa came out, (and you're just barely out of your teens now,) so I'll forgive your ignorance, as I'm sure Melissa will, if she reads your comments. But I've got to set the record straight on your misrepresentations as well:
Fact: Melissa was very Out all along. She was playing music at the Q.S.S. in Long Beach, and far more "dyke" looking in those days. Like all of us, she has progressed in life, become more completely herself.
Fact: When she came out, it was already common knowledge to the gay community, BECAUSE she was already out to everyone. In doing so (rather boldly, upstaging the president's inauguration by the act) she had perfect timing. Earlier in her career, nobody would have recognized her enough for the act to have any impact or make any difference.
Fact: Though you make disparaging remark about it, she described the sentiments EXACTLY as they were for those of us who were adults at the time when she said our hearts were broken and we were thrown under the bus. We'd been ignored, looked down upon, cast aside and made invisible for our entire lives. Then along came Bill Clinton, and during his campaign he made mighty promises to us in his campaign to get our vote. When he took office, we believed in him -- and found ourselves left behind, put out to the curb. We were no longer essential to his campaign, and so we were sold off. I remember thinking that the ONE thing he had full autonomy on, as Commander In Chief, was gays in the military, and that even there, where there was no need to gain bipartisan support, he left us stranded and proved that he had lied to us. Throughout the Clinton administration, we (and other minorities) were given tokens, crumbs... but where it really mattered, we were still minor/side issues. I was furious, then hurt, when Bill Clinton put up DADT. I remembered my own fear when I was in the Army, and how we could die for our country and then be spat upon.
If you had your facts straight, you'd know that Melissa has been there all along - both as a lesbian and as an artist. If you had bothered to listen to her music before spouting off at the fingers, you'd have know that she has used that vehicle to bring our issues to the forefront (while expressing our hearts) all along. From early lyrics in early songs, throughout her career... "Scarecrow" for Matthew Shepherd, "Tuesday Morning" for Mark Bingham... names and people and events you may not even have been aware of were made common household names by Melissa's music, and she NEVER ONCE flinched from being open.
As an aside, it's both sad and typical that today's gays would rather attack their own than to attack the issues, or the real enemies.
Michael/Morgan, the very fact that you COULD come out in your teen years, you owe to her and to the rest of us who paved the way for you. You owe her a complete apology. I don't particularly expect one, but at least now the record has been set straight.
Finally, I was disappointed to find myself in agreement with Melissa as I watched Hillary's comments and answers. I'd been withholding judgement, thinking that she is not her husband, and unwilling to dispense of her based on his presidency. Having watched her responses, her excuses and her justifications, heard the rhetoric and the switching, I find she's Politics/Business As Usual. Yet again, a disappointment from the Clintons. I stayed in a hotel for 2 nights after selling his house in order to vote for Bill Clinton's first term. Driving across the country, I stopped and let out an excited whoop! when, in the middle of the night, it was announced that Bill Clinton had won. "Now we will have equality in the eyes of the White House," I thought, after living through through decades of watching friends die of a disease that our presidents wouldn't even name. NOW we'll see some changes. But, as Melissa said, my heart was broken. We'd been lied to, and tossed under the political bus, our issues and our people swept under the carpet. Now I see Hillary speak... and though I want to believe in her, I don't. I can't. She's lying, just as politicians do.... and I won't be fooled into voting another Clinton into the White House.
Barak Obama may be a slick version of Slick Willie (a nickname Bill Clinton earned, for those of you too young to remember). Perhaps he's lying, too... but if he is, at least he's a bit convincing an actor.
If I had my druthers, there'd be other choices. The Democrats MUST have a strong, credible, viable candidate this time. The nation has proven twice now that they'll elect an insensitive, uneducated, unsophisticated moron rather than a weak Democrat. History repeats itself. The other candidates I've seen so far lack the charisma and stage presence, the oratory skills, to be a serious contender in the upcoming elections. Accordingly, unless something changes, my vote will have to go to Barak Obama.
Michael/Morgan, I hope you've learned not to go running off at the fingers and making disparaging remarks at those who have paved the way for your personal triumphs. The enemy is out there, (and yes, within,) but certainly not found in Melissa Etheridge.
If your a Hillary fan go to this link. If you still vote for her your a dumbass.
Watch,decide,and vote...In my opinion Gravel is the man for the job. Hillary is a lame sell out.
Why wasn’t there any discussion, when Obama said marriage is religious, about removing the government from being involved in marriage at all? If marriage is religious why are there tax breaks? What happened to the seperation of church and state? Why didn’t anyone point out that the state should only be involved in granting civil union certificates not marriage licenses (similar to France)? We need the government out of marriage and leave that to religious institutions and the government involved with the granting of civil unions only. This way no religious group has a right to say who should not be allowed the various tax benefits for being in a committed relationship.
Why wasn’t there any discussion about lowering the divorce rates among different sex couples? Would the candidates favor limiting the number of marriage certificates that one could be granted? Would they be willing to impose a one marriage certificate law? For any future relations, (post divorce) previously married parties would enter, they would be granted civil union certificates. If it is the same as marriage, different sex couples should be fine with this and this way those who stayed married to their original partner would rightfully have the words marriage applied to their relationship. It would make marriage special and extremely unique!
Are the candidates open to raising the marriage age to let’s say 25? This would substantially cut down on diviorce. This would cause some religions problems. They could continue to offer marriage but the couples would not realize any of the benefits from the state until they reach 25 and were still married.
Why didn’t anyone ask the candidates about changing the divorce process and making it much harder? Divorce only helps to encourage promiscuity among married people (see Rudy Guiliani and third wife Judi). Would the candidates be willing to begin charging substantial fees for divorce proceedings to lessen the burden on tax payers? Currently all tax payers pay for someones divorce through the money that the courts receive and the cost is becoming a huge burden fincially. Why should I have to pay for the proceedings for some different sex couple who were never comittied in the first place. All this is is special rights that they want the electorate to subsidize and approve. Special rights are wrong!
Would the candidates be willing to begin enforcing the laws for adultery? Would Ms. Clinton be willing to have her husband do time for his adulterous actions? I would have loved to have heard her answer on this.
In some religions if a couple cannot procreate they are denied a marriage. Would the candidtaes be willing to campaign for those who cannot procrate to only get civil unions as well? Why do elderly couples who marry need marriage rights? They aren’t breeding and will have no children. They should be fine with this and accept a civil union form of relationship. It is the same as marriage right?
Where do the candidates stand on this concept of “blended families?” Why does society have to accept these “new” set ups? I thought you were to remain committed to your spouse and do everything you could to raise one family not a few? Isn’t that polygamy? Why do people who make commitments to each other and then raise a family have to explain why Johnny in their kids class, has two daddies who each have had their way with his mommy and mommy perfers a new daddy or in some cases both? What about those of us that stay committed to their original partner? What do the candidates have to say about this? Will first grade reading include “Johnny’s Mom Has Three Daddies with extra kiddies”?
It is time for the gay and lesbian community to change the debate. The debate should not be on gay marriage but who is allowed to be married and strengthing the current marraige laws. I think if we begin to change the dialogue, many individuals might begin to reconsider their opposition to gay marriage when the validity of their own relationship and status as well as benefits would be called into question.
Finally, to have people who want this discussion to go away to win the election have no morals at all. When society begins to treat a class of people differently it can only go down hill from there. In 1933, Hitler got the German people to treat a certain type of person differently and enacted laws to support that. It was wrong then and many people died becasue they remaind silent. I want a candidate who can say what they truly believe and not what some poll or adviser says is what people
Presidential politicans are not "Superpersons" they are human beings striving to become the Director of the Ship of State. America foolishly elected a man who had never been off the North American Continent and so, we are caught up in a damnable war. Republicans don't live in the same America that I live in. I have health care issues, employment issues, and Senior issues. So, Gay Marriage is NOT number one on my agenda. I want an intelligent, well educated, well travelled, culturally aware, and a political astute U S President. In my mind that is Sen Clinton. On my wishlist is Sen Obama as her V P.
You must have handled every cross-road in your life with grace and perfection in order to stand in such judgment of Melissa. So you came out at 16, what have you done lately.
Melissa came out just when we needed her most, so back off. Live and let live. And try not to judge others lest ye be judged!
Wow. I find it hard to believe you would spend time to attack Melissa Etheridge when she is a person who has a home, family, and life that do not affect you. Isn't this the way we feel about bigots? They spout off without knowing the person. And what risks did YOU take to advance the gay movement? What financial contributions have you made? Couldn't you contribute more?
I found your attack vile, uncalled for, and simply mean-spirited.
I'd prefer YOU stay out of gay politics. You're only hurting us.
Sarah
Well, Right Now, how about using her power as a Senator in supporting Federal legislation that benefits LGBT people.
In particular, an issue she didn't even address is immigration rights for foreign partners of American citizens. Let's see her sign on to the Uniting American Families Act, which would let LGBT Americans sponsor their partners for residency the same way a married couple would be able to. Civil Unions in some states, won't help all of us who need access to that Federal right.
"I'm confused because several people have commented very negatively on Hillary's performance at this wonderful event."
She wants to "leave it to the states" in terms of marriage equality, which equals red state after red state trampling on our rights. That right there was probably the least progressive thing said on the issue out of everyone.
"She can not only name bills, she can number them. She can not only talk about recent history, she can also talk about her own reactions intelligently."
Fair point.
"She has been on many influential committees, often with openly hostile members who bar the way for all Democrats, but she's never quit a committee as far as I know."
So she deserves kudos simply for not quitting?
"I fully think that every person there said what they said in order to get as many votes as possible."
No, just most candidates. Kucinich actually believes what he's saying and isn't frightened that he'll alienate all the bigoted people, which is why he actually supported our issues.
"Don't be foooled into thinking that any of these wolves in sheep's clothing are more righteous in their pursuit of Democratic candidacy than any other potential candidate merely because they either "stand with us" or "against us" on a single issue or set of issues."
Fortunately, Kucinich is there on *all* the issues. Seriously - check out his website: www.kucinich.us He *is* more righteous because he actually has *principles* that the other candidates just can't handle. And it's frustrating that some members of the LGBT community can't even handle it - why flock to the mediocre corporate corruption? If that's what can "win", then spend your time and money to MOBILIZE for what's right! We can do better than mediocre corporate corruption that throws us crumbs here and there.
"They're all politicians, and they've only gotten to where they are by being opportunistic. Elections are bloodbaths and the only people who get elected are the people who can outwit each other."
It took Kucinich five times to be elected to Congress. I don't think he necessarily follows this trend. The current presidential "front-runners" are where they are because of "outwitting", i.e. being "centrist" and having millions of dollars. Kucinich is not like this and can make some real progress through grassroots support from not just the LGBT community but also by bringing in other, often overlapping, marginalized groups, including the working-class and poor communities. Kucinich is all about workers' rights, from his not-for-profit single-payer health care plan to his plan to withdraw from workers'-rights-abusing NAFTA and CAFTA.
"I give Hillary my vote because America deserves a leader with experience, charisma and character. I believe that she exemplifies these three magical qualities."
I'm sick of it always being about some PR spree - why are "charisma" and "character" the most important instead of the ISSUES? I don't want what's "magical" - I want what will create a better America. [Having said that, Kucinich *is* an incredibly charismatic person with an amazing character!] It reminds me of the '04 elections when people just couldn't vote for Kerry because he wasn't "charismatic" and Bush was the guy you could hang out with while having a beer or whatever. How pathetic.
"I am willing to accept that the LGBT community is not her first priority. We should not be any president's first priority, not at this point in our short American history."
Obviously it shouldn't all be about us, or firstly about us. But some *basic acknowledgment* of all our rights is *not* too much to ask of any candidate. The candidate who is already committed to us is Kucinich.
"We need a President who will fix bridges. We need a President who will evacuate cities in danger. We need a President who can strategize with leaders of other countries."
Do you really think that any of the candidates there would be unable to do that?
We also need a president that will care about its 45 million citizens without health care. Kucinich is the *only* candidate to have a single-payer health plan a la reforms discussed in "SiCKO".
www.kucinich.us
I fully think that every person there said what they said in order to get as many votes as possible. Don't be foooled into thinking that any of these wolves in sheep's clothing are more righteous in their pursuit of Democratic candidacy than any other potential candidate merely because they either "stand with us" or "against us" on a single issue or set of issues. They're all politicians, and they've only gotten to where they are by being opportunistic. Elections are bloodbaths and the only people who get elected are the people who can outwit each other.
I give Hillary my vote because America deserves a leader with experience, charisma and character. I believe that she exemplifies these three magical qualities. I am willing to accept that the LGBT community is not her first priority. We should not be any president's first priority, not at this point in our short American history.
We need a President who will fix bridges. We need a President who will evacuate cities in danger. We need a President who can strategize with leaders of other countries. I think Hillary can be that President and her performance at Visible Vote has reinforced that image in my mind.
I hope this letter finds you well. As a gay twenty-something who witnessed your performance at last night’s Logo/HRC Democratic Presidential Debate, I would like to ask you to go back in the closet. I partially blame HRC and the Logo Network for allowing you to sit on the panel, but ultimately it was your behavior that deserves the majority of the criticism.
Let’s start with the most obvious. In questioning Senator Hillary Clinton, you began with a tedious story about how you “came out” in 19923 during President Bill Clinton’s Inauguration. You went on to express your extreme disappointment in the Clinton administration’s handling of gay rights. “Our hearts were broken, we were thrown under the bus,” you said.
Well, Ms, Etheridge, I hope you realize the obvious hypocrisy in your statement. Isn’t it odd that you, Ms. Etheridge, only chose to come out of the closet after the multi-platinum success of your 1998 self-titled album, Melissa Etheridge, at the age of 31? Wouldn’t it be fair to say that you didn’t come out sooner because you were afraid of the implications it would have on your professional career?
This being said, I think it’s fair to say that you, as a lesbian, chose your career over the gay rights movement. President Clinton, who is not a lesbian, also chose his career over the gay rights movement at times, and I don’t see why you, of all people, have the right to chastise him for making the same decision that you made.
You are not a leader, you are a follower. The role of leader is reserved for those of us who made the decision to come out in college, high school or sooner. I, and many people like me, came out when I was 16 years old or younger. We recognized, that despite the implications our decision could have on our personal and professional lives, it was the right thing to do. Our decision was, and is, part of an over-arching goal to build equality from the bottom looking up, instead of from the top looking down.
Earlier in the debate you chose to make a mockery of former Senator John Edwards, who allegedly once told an aide that he was “not comfortable around those people,” referring to homosexuals. You quoted Mr. Edwards and never said that this was the second hand gossip of an aide (shame, shame) until he confronted you about it.
Is this the way we want to treat people? Are we, as the LGBT community looking for equal rights and understanding from our fellow citizens, going to openly confront, chastise, and embarrass every man, woman, and child who doesn’t immediately understand our issues?
Finally, if nothing else provided us with insight into your lack of qualifications to be a panelist at this forum, you’re biased cooing of Congressman Kucinich spoke for itself. Your love fest with the Congressman diminished the LGBT community to being a one issue group, and that doesn’t represent the knowledge, accomplishments, or diversity that exists inside our community.
I share many of the same ideals as heterosexuals and I look at all the issues. I want to know where a candidate stands on: business, technology, immigration rights, civil liberties, choice, education, health care, and war, to name a few.
I am gay, Ms. Etheridge, but I am also an American citizen, and out of respect and understanding for my fellow neighbor, I get it. I wish you did too. Please, for the love of all that is good in the world, stay home and raise your kids. We didn’t need you prior to 1993 and we don’t need you now.
Sincerely,
Daniel/Morgan
However, many aspects of marriage law affecting the day to day lives of inhabitants of the United States are determined by the states, not the federal government, and the Defense of Marriage Act does not prevent individual states from defining marriage as they see fit; indeed, legal scholars have stated that the federal government cannot impose a definition of marriage onto the laws of the various states.
It was the most realistic answer I heard all night.
That Hillary does not want to make this a federal issue concerns me. That it is not as important to her as other issues she WANTS to make a federal issue concerns me more. To me it seems that this state individuality thing, which might be important to some point, will furnish individual countries with immigration problems rather than a united one. I'm already ready to emigrate myself.
We have heard the handful of common responses more often than I can stomach. Marriage is between a man and a woman. Marriage is linked to religion. The country isn't ready for gay marriage.
My response? Fine. But then why don't we ask the candidates - would you be willing to give all people, heteros and the glbtxyz mix, civil unions under the law? This easy alternative would treat everyone the same, distinguish all our angst about separate but equal, and allow those religious groups that are not ready to bless GLBT families their privacy to discriminate within.
I am amazed no one has brought this up. Are we really that attached to having the word marriage in law? No one is saying you can't get married. Go to the courthouse, legally register your relationship, then walk down the street to your house of worship and get married in the way that is best fit for you.
The one person that did impress me is John Edwards. I may not like everything that he said but he was honest. Honest about himself and how he felt about the issue of Gay Marriage. I personally would rather have someone that is going to fight for equal rights knowing that I am NOT being lied to rather than another that is just trying to get our vote with what we want to hear.
If Civil Unions is the word that allows us to finally get our equal right - if terminology is the thing that blocks us - then fine - change the word but give me the right to be with my partner in the same way that my mother was with my father. In a loving committed relationship that is recognized under the law. Now was that so hard :)
Speaking of broken hearts, Kucinich said it would be devastating if some law prevented him from marrying the person that he so deeply loves. Accepting civil unions, I agree, is like supporting separate but equal. Everyone deserves full marriage rights. It is a matter of freedom and love. As mayor of Cleveland, Kucinich had members of his Cabinet who were gay. He's not playing politics. He's genuine, and he needs our support! dennis4president.com
Edwards is not going to do damn thing for LGBT
Gravel is perfect, but like a Stanley Kubrick film, won't be recognized until 20 years later.
Bill Richardson is like a Dad, trying to accept his gay son.
Clinton was (I think) more subtle than people realize.
Obama has been careful with his words...because he wants to remain consistant. And personally, I think that once he becomes president, he will keep his promise, create equal law in a civil union, and leave it for the church to decide the rest.
it boggles my mind why people pick someone just because they are familiar with a name.
Hillary is our lady!
I soooooo agree with that !!!!! There is so little difference between the accepted political game and compulsive lying... it turns my stomach daily! The only thing I hate more than being manipulated is having that person believe they are manipulating me and not being able to tell them face to face that I'm on to them! Argghhh!
I hope she will change her stand...
Here is the link to write her with your opinion...
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/action/sendmessage/
if you want rights, you need to draw a line in the sand like Gravel mentioned with Barny Frank. people wont like it at first but that is what will drive the change. being wishy washy and allowing discrimination through -the same but different- only HELPS perpetuate discrimination.
id call her the loser if it werent for Richardson destroying himself.
aside from the fact that she could care less about any issue, electing her would be the biggest mistake the country could make in 2008 unless we actually want to live in a monarchy system. these people arent ruling families, they are opportunists standing on top of name recognition.
say no to plutocracy!
My family is so touched of her being so humbled.
God bless AMERICA & HILLARY!
Obama has made a lot of claims and guarantees that i believe he cannot keep if he were elected president. And this comes from the lack of experience.
Hillary has this experience and knows what can be done. And he hasn't dug herself into guarantees that she won't be able to keep.
Life is not a dress rehearsal.
Make your vote count.
Vote Hillary for President and be an active part of history.
Obama has principles. He is willing to face up to difficult issues; he is consistent in his support for equal rights for all Americans and willing to stand by those principles even when he speaks with homophobic Evangelical christians.
If Hillary is President, we will get tiny improvements in our rights and still be talking about the same issues 20 years from now.
Great job. You're right - we may not always agree on every issue, but I believe you - your answers were honest and forthright and i think our community has a friend in you.
GO HILLARY!!
Would it be OK for even a Republican Presidential candidate in 2007-2008 to be in favor of racial segregation if the blacks-only facilities were guaranteed to be of the same exact standards as the whites-only facilities? Then why is it OK with many GLBT people for Democratic Presidential candidates for the 2008 election to use the "separate, but equal" line of thinking for GLBT people?
Separate is NEVER equal. It never has been. It never will be.
Seems we were soft on Ms. Clinton on the marriage issue. She didn't answer the question and wasn't pressed on it like Richardson was.
Personally, I like Hillary and think she is the strongest candidate (most electable) but I sure do wish she answered that question more directly.
Richardson should have politely declined the invitation... what was he thinking?
Poor melissa had a hard time keeping her emotions in check... there were a few moments she looked like she was sitting on her hands so she wouldn't clap or cheer and and a few times her face said "your a XXXXing XXXhole". I would have done it, she should've.
I don't know what world Gravel is living in where over half of our population supports same sex marriage???
Edwards and Obama were suprisingly evasive on the issue of marriage vs. civil union not being equal and Edwards completely avoided answering the question on his personal beliefs.
Someone should have asked how important the label marriage is to Obama.
Again, JMO.
Rock on.
Yes it's about votes, however, she cannot say because it is a defenseless argument.
Is Hillary so religious? No. Does she believe a woman should honor and obey her husband? No. Is she in a strictly monogamous relationship for the express purpose of love? No. Is her relationship a business arrangement between high aspiring people in a nation where the appearance of marriage is primary? Yes.
Double standards !!!!
Does she want to be the leader of the free world? Yes. Fine, then give the people their freedom !!!
Please remember folks how hard she has fought for us in the past and i see nothing in her being that would ever change that. remeber healthcare, remeber all the dirty jokes about her and" It takes a village". I say the damn village people better get it together and get a real woman to do the job. this message is from a 60 yr old woman firefighter and longtime activist. She is the real deal.
No doubt about ... she is a great lady. But what do we do, however, about the "hatred" some "red state" feel about about another another Clinton"?
I truly appreciate her long-term view of issues like marriage, DADT, and DOMA -- that we are on a journey with these issues, but I feel like Ms. Estridge (sp?), I have waited long enough, these issues are about justice, about equal justice, and I'm no longer willing to support half "ways" and "vote for me, because I'll bring you along" ... I want full justice, not half way; I wanna to be there now ... just like I'd like a woman to be president ... Mrs. Clinton needs to understand that, you know?
LOL.
OMG.
Melissa should have spit in her face at that horrid comment.
The REASON ms. BilAryy WE ALL WANT OUR HUMAN RIGHTS NOW is no different than why blacks have equal rights. Even in the FACE of staunch pro-white opposition just forty years ago...America gave blacks their human rights.
What the fek are you WAITING for, for people who happened to love the same sex. Do you THINK everyone will one day come around and AGREE that GAYS ARE HUMAN.
THis day WILL never never never come. Because no matter what we do. People do hate. Even today racism is wide spread. IT does not mean that we do not have or make laws to protect the race of people.
OMG.
DO NOT VOTE for anyone who can not SAY outloud
that gays have 100 percent human rights.
Do not settle and do not accept being 'belittled' in the way Hilary did to Melissa.
I personally live in the Middle East and can not believe you are all not more OUTRAGED.
What is democracy?
Please do not leave your borders until you can answer this.
Dictatorship are easy to find, the world doesnt need American Dictatorship spread.
Thank you for listening.
Love and Vale,
~Leavaros Dapple
Likely because it is not good for votes.