Hillary on gay rights

[saabman]

Contrary to common belief on this site - Hillary may actually be a human being..YouTube - Hillary Clinton on "Ellen" - Part One.:smile:

 

[cocksucker1969]

I like Hillary Clinton...she has substance, unlike her opponent who, in my opinion is just an empty suit.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Both Obama & Clinton have similar stances on Gay Rights, although I think Clinton may have the slightest of edges on the subject. Both have better views on the subject than McCain, IMO.

 

[Industrialsize]

Actually both candidates have SIMILAR yet different gay rights stands. Obama mentions gay people in EVERY speech no matter who the audience is. He spoke of gay rights from Dr Kin's pulpit in Selma. Senator Clinton mentions gay people ONLY in front of gay audiences.
As far as policy differences it revolves around DOMA(defense of marriage act) that Bill CLinton signed into law in 1996. Senator Obama sees it as highly discriminatory and favors the repeal of DOMA in its entirety. Senator Clinton support ONLY a PARTIAL repeal of Doma. She wants the FEderal government to recognize gay marriages and afford gay couples all the rights that flow from marriage. The part of DOMA she favors keeping is the part where a state DOESN'T have to recognize a gay marriage that took place in another state. I am a gay man married legally in massachusetts. I plan on moving to Florida. The part of DOMA that senator Clinton favors keeping would mean that I would NOT be married in Florida. BIG DIFFERENCE!

pride.barackobama.com | Obama Pride Home

 

[Freddie53]

Both Obama & Clinton have similar stances on Gay Rights, although I think Clinton may have the slightest of edges on the subject. Both have better views on the subject than McCain, IMO.

That's the understatement of the year.

 

[dreamer20]

Contrary to common belief on this site - Hillary may actually be a human being..YouTube - Hillary Clinton on "Ellen" - Part One.:smile:

I find it interesting that she & her parents were well acquainted with a gay couple who happened to be her neighbors many years before she entered the White House. She knew of the situation in which the gay partner was denied the rights of a spouse when his love became deathly ill. If she felt so strongly about his rights and gay rights why didn't she advise her husband to block DOMA in 1996 by using this tragic episode to justify her opposition?
This gay neighbor annecdote reeks of the same stench as the sniper fire in Bosnia one IMO.

Obama currently, of the 3 candidates, is the only one calling for the repeal of DOMA.

Hillary Clinton only wants Part 3 repealed.

Senator McCain voted for DOMA in 1996: an act that allowed states to refuse to accept civil unions and same-sex marriages conducted in another state.

 

[Industrialsize]

I find it interesting that she & her parents were well acquainted with a gay couple who happened to be her neighbors many years before she entered the White House. She knew of the situation in which the gay partner was denied the rights of a spouse when his love became deathly ill. If she felt so stongly about his rights and gay rights why didn't she advise her husband to block DOMA in 1996 by using this tragic episode to justify her opposition?
This gay neighbor annecdote reeks of the same stench as the sniper fire in Bosnia one IMO.

Obama currently, of the 3 candidates, is the only one calling for the repeal of DOMA.

Hillary Clinton only wants Part 3 repealed.

Senator McCain voted for DOMA in 1996: an act that allowed states to refuse to accept civil unions and same-sex marriages conducted in another state.

YES! an informed voter.!

 

[saabman]

Actually both candidates have SIMILAR yet different gay rights stands. Obama mentions gay people in EVERY speech no matter who the audience is. He spoke of gay rights from Dr Kin's pulpit in Selma. Senator Clinton mentions gay people ONLY in front of gay audiences.




Why do you feel the need to lie to us with these broad sweeping comments? Quit forcing your "Obama Zombie Kool-Aid" down our throats, and quit lying. I respect your opinion to support someone for the highest office in the world with no experience. (Remember all those "present" votes Barry made four years ago while he was skipping around the Illinois state senate? The republicans won't...)

I saw Senator Clinton at a huge campaign rally in CT - and she mentioned gay rights before an audience of voters. Period. It was in no way shape or form a gay rally. Get real.

 

[Industrialsize]

Actually both candidates have SIMILAR yet different gay rights stands. Obama mentions gay people in EVERY speech no matter who the audience is. He spoke of gay rights from Dr Kin's pulpit in Selma. Senator Clinton mentions gay people ONLY in front of gay audiences.




Why do you feel the need to lie to us with these broad sweeping comments? Quit forcing your "Obama Zombie Kool-Aid" down our throats, and quit lying. I respect your opinion to support someone for the highest office in the world with no experience. (Remember all those "present" votes Barry made four years ago while he was skipping around the Illinois state senate? The republicans won't...)

I saw Senator Clinton at a huge campaign rally in CT - and she mentioned gay rights before an audience of voters. Period. It was in no way shape or form a gay rally. Get real.

That was the exception rather than the rule..listen to Senator obama's and Senator Clinton's "stump" speech, the one they make every day........BTW...the difference on DOMA is real and not a lie. I see you're a Bit younger than I am. I voted for Bill Clinton twice. The first time with a lot of hope for all the advances Bill was going to make for the gay community. But as soon as he started taking political "heat" for trying to push gay rights, under the bus we went, and the result was Don't ask Don't tell and DOMA. It hurt.

 

[Trinity]

Actually both candidates have SIMILAR yet different gay rights stands.

The part of DOMA she favors keeping is the part where a state DOESN'T have to recognize a gay marriage that took place in another state. I am a gay man married legally in massachusetts. I plan on moving to Florida. The part of DOMA that senator Clinton favors keeping would mean that I would NOT be married in Florida. BIG DIFFERENCE!

Obama Does Not believe the full repeal of DOMA will require States to recognize same sex marriage due to the Full Faith Credit Clause.

Obama views DOMA as unnecessary on the theory that states already have adequate discretion to refuse recognition. He has explained that DOMA is irrelevant because the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require one state to recognize another state’s same-sex marriages. That theory has considerable scholarly support. It is explained in more detail here.​

Clinton and Obama on DOMA

A San Francisco-area columnist has exaggerated the difference between the positions of U.S. Democratic Presidential candidates Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama on repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

Paul Hogarth, writing for Beyond Chron, correctly observes that Clinton supports only a partial repeal of DOMA while Obama supports a complete repeal. Clinton would retain section 2 of DOMA, which purports to authorize states to ignore out-of-state same-sex marriages notwithstanding any contrary requirement of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Hogarth omits to mention, however, that Obama has explained that although he supports repeal of section 2, he does not believe that the Full Faith and Credit Clause compels recognition in any event. Like Clinton, he supports the prerogative of each state to decide whether to recognize out-of-state same-sex unions.

Given the consensus among conflict-of-laws scholars in support of Obama’s constitutional interpretation, the difference between the candidates’ positions seems largely symbolic, which is not to say that symbolism should necessarily be irrelevant to voters.
My most recent post on this topic elaborates the candidates’ differences more fully.

Bilerico Project
What DOMA's repeal still wouldn't do

Filed by: Don Sherfick


April 3, 2008 8:00 AM
A couple of days ago guest poster Jeremy Bishop, Executive Director of Pride at Work, discussed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as an impediment to marriage equality. I fully agree with almost everything he says and commend him for saying it, but believe that one part deserves a bit of extended comment and clarification. I don't believe that his comment about the effect repeal of one part of DOMA would have on a state's recognition of another state's same-sex marriage is totally accurate.

Jeremy states, in discussing DOMA and the presidential nomination race:

As LGBT people face the decision on who to vote for in this Democratic presidential primary, there is only one candidate that supports the full repeal of DOMA, and that is Senator Barak Obama. Senator Hillary Clinton supports a partial repeal but would leave the language that other states do not have to recognize marriages performed in other states. The practical application of this partial repeal would mean that for people who got married in Massachusetts, but now reside in Pennsylvania, their marriages would not be worth the paper they were written on. The only way for our community to see full parity under the law is to repeal this unjust and un-American law.

I agree with his characterization of the different positions Senator Obama and Senator Clinton have taken on DOMA. But I don't believe he is completely correct in inferring that the repeal of the part of DOMA which says that a state is not required to recognize same-sex marriages contracted in another would achieve "full parity" for the same-sex couples involved.
Here's why: Despite the fact that alarmed right-wingers pushed DOMA was because of fears that under the Full Faith and Credit Clause (FFC) of the U.S. Constitution, same-sex marriages valid in one state would have to be considered valid in all, most legal scholars disagreed with this interpretation of that clause. Fairly well-established precedent prior to DOMA had established that the FFC applied to "judgments" rendered in one state that others had to accept, and not to marital status itself. If a particular state found an out-of-state union to be "against strong public policy", it did not have to recognize it. (One might be tempted to object that since the Loving vs. Virginia decision no states can ban interracial marriages, but this decision was based upon the Equal Protection Clause, not the FFC).

The part of DOMA involved for the most part simply reflected what was already accepted law. That law depended neither on the FFC nor on DOMA for its validity. Therefore the repeal of that section of DOMA would still leave a state with a strong public policy against same-sex marriage with the ability to deny recognition to it. Keep in mind that DOMA states "need not" recognize; it doesn't say that they "shall not" recognize them.
In stating that the repeal of the DOMA section on state recognition would have no legal effect in that area, I'm not disputing Jeremy's advocacy of repeal of both sections. I would add, though, that one argument the supporters of the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment have made for its adoption is that if DOMA were declared unconstitutional, a backup would be need to keep same-sex marriages from spreading. That argument is very flawed, but the factors that drive backlashes frequently do not meet the test of being logical. So there could be an element of "be careful of what you wish for" in this regard.
That aside, it should be kept in mind that the repeal of all of DOMA would not, by itself, mean that same sex marriages valid in one state would automatically require recognition in all others. There would seem to be only one way for that to happen: a decision by the United States Supreme Court under the Equal Protection Clause that a state creating or recognizing another state's marriage cannot distinguish between same-sex or heterosexual marriage. Some have suggested federal legislation to bring about the same thing but for reasons too long to go into here I believe that this approach would have constitutional hurdles and would not have the same universal sweep. In any event, the Supreme Court decision referred to above doesn't seem likely anytime soon, given its makeup.

My main point in going into all of this, other than to take mild issue with Jeremy's comment, is that in our rightful zeal in working for marriage equality, as in other rights important to the GLBT community, we need to be armed with as accurate a picture of what this or that development might or might not do in achieving the overall goal. The same is true in the current discussion over the merits of civil unions versus marriage, a topic that I will be writing on in the near future.

 

[B_boynextdoorkpt]

GO HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[HazelGod]

GO HILLARY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Yes, please go, Hillary. And when you're gone...stay gone.

 

[Industrialsize]

There is a rift in the gay community on DOMA. Specifically the marriage equality movement. Trinity, if Senator Clinton believes that states would not have to recognize same sex marriages from other states if part 2 of DOMA were repealed, why does she want to keep it?What is its prupose?

There are many of us who believe and are working toward litigating same sex marriage under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the constitution. Unfortunately part 2 of DOMA is a major impediment. In the past, states in which inter-racial marriage was illegal did not have to recognize inter-racial marriages from other states. Why leave a Major Impediment(part 2 of DOMA) in the way of achieving marriage equality for all the citizens of the USA.

 

[Freddie53]

HILLARY CLINTON

:You_Rock_Emoticon:



I keep reading the complaints about Hillary being negative about Obama. Yet, every time an issue comes up, we can depend on some Obama supporter to make broad sweeping statement about Hillary only to have another person to then show evidence that refutes that very broad sweeping pro-Obama statement.


That is part of a campaign. Candidates for public office and/or their supporters usually engage in broad sweeping statements. Those broad sweeping statements are rarely completely true. This goes all the way back to times of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

Using this campaign tactic is something I expect in every contested campaign. What irritates me is when supporters of the a certain cadidate want to claim that their candidate is so pure and innocent and their chosen candidate.

No doubt some Clinton supporters are making broad and sweeping statements as well. I don't like that either. I really try not to do that.

The worst Clinton broad and sweeping statement is that "Obama has no experience." While I could write up facts to support a claim that Clinton has more experience than Obama, there is no way to prove that Obama has no experience. He does. Whether he has enough experience is an opinion, not a fact.

While I do beleive that Clinton has more experience than Obama, it is still an opinion and not a fact. Clinton has served in the United States Senate than Obama. Which one has been the best Senator is opinion, not a fact.

 

[Industrialsize]

HILLARY CLINTON

:You_Rock_Emoticon:



I keep reading the complaints about Hillary being negative about Obama. Yet, every time an issue comes up, we can depend on some Obama supporter to make broad sweeping statement about Hillary only to have another person to then show evidence that refutes that very broad sweeping pro-Obama statement.


That is part of a campaign. Candidates for public office and/or their supporters usually engage in broad sweeping statements. Those broad sweeping statements are rarely completely true. This goes all the way back to times of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.

Using this campaign tactic is something I expect in every contested campaign. What irritates me is when supporters of the a certain cadidate want to claim that their candidate is so pure and innocent and their chosen candidate.

No doubt some Clinton supporters are making broad and sweeping statements as well. I don't like that either. I really try not to do that.

The worst Clinton broad and sweeping statement is that "Obama has no experience." While I could write up facts to support a claim that Clinton has more experience than Obama, there is no way to prove that Obama has no experience. He does. Whether he has enough experience is an opinion, not a fact.

While I do beleive that Clinton has more experience than Obama, it is still an opinion and not a fact. Clinton has served in the United States Senate than Obama. Which one has been the best Senator is opinion, not a fact.

I'm sure you're referring to me.......what broad and sweeping generality are you referring to? Is it that Hillary rarely mentions gay people while campaigning? That wans't a generalization but has been widely reported in the press.One quick citation i found using google news:
CHRISTOPHER BARRON CLAIMS he is mystified­­­­­­­ why so many in the LGBT community embrace Sen. Barack Obama and asserts that Obama’s 20-year association with his pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, demonstrates bad judgment and disqualifies him from becoming president. Barron is far off the mark.

Gays support Obama because his positions on gay issues, by all objective measures, are superior to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s. He reached his positions early and didn’t have to be dragged to them by his primary opponents as Clinton was. Obama supports full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, Clinton does not.

Most importantly, when addressing the general public, Obama embraces the gay community and our issues whereas Clinton is afraid to even use the word gay before a general audience.

Southern Voice Atlanta - Point / Counterpoint

 

[Trinity]

There is a rift in the gay community on DOMA. Specifically the marriage equality movement. Trinity, if Senator Clinton believes that states would not have to recognize same sex marriages from other states if part 2 of DOMA were repealed, why does she want to keep it?What is its purpose?

More important is that Obama DOES NOT believe that the full repeal of DOMA will require States to recognize same sex marriage. Read the articles...your answer is in them. Sen. Clinton has stated her position on DOMA repeatedly.

Believing that D.O.M.A. is not needed to protect states from having to recognize marriages that are contrary to their own public policy, Obama has broken with his top-tier rivals in taking the controversial step of calling for a complete D.O.M.A. repeal. -ABC News Political Radar​

While Obama has said he would “oppose any effort to stifle a state’s ability to decide this question on its own,” (see previous blog entry), he nevertheless has endorsed a complete repeal of DOMA.​

Obama views DOMA as unnecessary on the theory that states already have adequate discretion to refuse recognition. He has explained that DOMA is irrelevant because the Full Faith and Credit Clause does not require one state to recognize another state’s same-sex marriages. That theory has considerable scholarly support. It is explained in more detail here.​

There are many of us who believe and are working toward litigating same sex marriage under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the constitution. Unfortunately part 2 of DOMA is a major impediment. In the past, states in which inter-racial marriage was illegal did not have to recognize inter-racial marriages from other states. Why leave a Major Impediment(part 2 of DOMA) in the way of achieving marriage equality for all the citizens of the USA.

This is covered in the Bilerico article. There are those in the Gay Community who disagree with you Indy and Obama's legal stance on the Full Faith and Credit Clause tends to show why they do.

The part of DOMA involved for the most part simply reflected what was already accepted law. That law depended neither on the FFC nor on DOMA for its validity. Therefore the repeal of that section of DOMA would still leave a state with a strong public policy against same-sex marriage with the ability to deny recognition to it. Keep in mind that DOMA states "need not" recognize; it doesn't say that they "shall not" recognize them.​

 

[Industrialsize]

You're right Trinity. I disagree with Obama on his opinion of DOMA and the Full Faith and Credit Clause and their impact on gay marriage. There are also those in the Gay community who I disagree with. Gay people fall on BOTH sides of this argument. The gay community is not a monolith. But i'm happy that Obama would like to see DOMA entirely expunged.

There are also constitutional scholars on both sides of this issue. Some claim DOMA unconstitutional BECAUSE of the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Others think the Full Faith and Credit Clause has no effect. At least with the barrier of DOMA removed, thos of us in the marriage equality movement have a chance to litigate this issue to the Supreme Court if necessary. Steps are already being taken to do so.

 

[B_VinylBoy]

Personally, I think Clinton would like to have DOMA repealed as well. But even she knows that it has to be done in doses. Remember, Bill Clinton in '92 had an extremely difficult time to release the ban on Gays in the Military. He tried for an all-out change and wasn't able to get it done due to the opposition from Congress. That's why we had to settle with "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". It may not be the complete goal, but it's a piece in the right direction. Eventually, more people will see just how ridiculous DADT is and eventually repeal it altogether. Same thing with DOMA.

The same way Clinton is ambitious about Health Care, I tend to think Obama is just as ambitious with DOMA. I want to be optimistic, but I don't think it going to be fully repealed for a while. There's too many blind, bible-thumping idiots in Congress that are against anything homosexual to make that happen in one quick move. With Clinton or Obama in office, we'll probably get it to be a state issue. If that starts rolling, the fact that people can be married in Massachusetts, but not "legally married" in Mississippi, would be ridiculous. THEN, maybe people will come to their senses and repeal DOMA soon thereafter.