Bill Clinton Explains Why He's Now For Marriage Equality

Source: The Atlantic

Bill Clinton Explains Why He's Now For Marriage Equality

Anderson Cooper has the scoop. Amazingly, no one has asked him so directly before:

AC: You said you recently changed your mind on same-sex marriage. I’m wondering what you mean by that. Do you now believe that gay people should have full rights to civil marriage nationwide?

Clinton: I do. I think that, well let me get back to the last point, the last word. I believe historically, for two hundred and something years, marriage has been a question left to the states and the religious institutions. I still think that’s where it belongs. That is, I was against the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage nationwide, and I still think that the American people should be able to play this side in debates. But me, Bill Clinton personally, I changed my position. I am no longer opposed to that. I think if people want to make commitments that last a lifetime, they ought to be able to do it. I have long favored the right of gay couples to adopt children.

AC: What made you change your mind? Was there one thing?

Clinton: I think, what made me change my mind, I looked up and said look at all of this stuff you’re for. I’ve always believed that—I’ve never supported all the moves of a few years ago to ban gay couples from adoption. Because they’re all these kids out there looking for a home. And the standard on all adoption cases is, what is the best interest of the child? And there are plenty of cases where the best interest of the child is to let the gay couple take them and give them a loving home. So I said, you know, I realized that I was over 60 years old, I grew up at a different time, and I was hung up about the word. I had all these gay friends, I had all these gay couple friends, and I was hung up about it. And I decided I was wrong.

That our society has an interest in coherence and strength and commitment and mutually reinforcing loyalties, then if gay couples want to call their union marriage and a state agrees, and several have now, or a religious body will sanction it, and I don’t think a state should be able to stop a religious body from saying it, I don’t think the rest of us should get in the way of it. I think it’s a good thing not a bad thing. And I just realized that, I was, probably for, maybe just because of my age and the way I’ve grown up, I was wrong about that. I just had too many gay friends. I saw their relationships. I just decided I couldn’t, I had an untenable position.

Read more: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/bill-clinton-explains-why-hes-now-for-marriage-equality.html#more

... admit he's been wrong and then change his public stance.

This country is actually making progress, and he's part of that.

Hekate

If I recall it was Sen. Sam Nunn who chaired the Senate Arms services Committee at the time and he was the one who made it impossible for Clinton to integrate gays into the military. He was the author of "Don't ask, Don't tell" discriminatory law.

He figures if we get healthcare, marriage, and the military now, we'll all become gay republicans.

Obama has done more for gay rights in 6 months (even though there is still alot to be desired), than any Republican, or for that matter who the hell knows about independent intentions, would have done for gays in 300 years or ever.....

what? Sheesh.

For your information, due to the Obama Justice Department's excessive, overzealous, and enthusiastic DEFENSE of DOMA in federal court, gay people are now WORSE off federally than we were under Bush.

You can cheerlead for Obama all you want, but if you claim he's done fuck-all for gay people, you're either a lying cretin or an ignorant jackass. Given the fact that you can't discern "beliefs"* from "acts", I'm guessing you're the latter.

*Intelligent people, feel free to substitute "lies" for "beliefs" here, which would be more in keeping with Obama's equality policy.

up. Tell us, what has BO done for gay rights?

about all these many things Obama has done for gay rights...

Do tell.

His election marks the turn in the road.
In the first few month's of his administration various states moved to legalize gay marriage.
On His suggestion, the legislature has moved to repeal the Protection of Marriage act which Bill Clinton established and now rejects.
Thereby laying a legal groundwork for a huge leap forward in equality.
Courts are now relieved of the conservative influence and are now ruling for equality.
Obama hasn't even been in office for one year.
I salute him and am enthusiastic to see what's next.
I see progress!
And don't you see?
All the hatred and bigotry and ignorance being thrown against us is because of just that.
We are making progress.
When no progress was being made, they all tolerated us and maybe even liked us.
I'm not approval seeking.
I"m equality seeking.
Tell ya what though....
Come back in a few years...
I mean after people have actually had a chance to do something.. and we'll see....whats been done.

so it won't cost him anything.

It's easy to take a stand when you know it won't hurt you in any way.

I had the same thought.

What every 1st term president wants is a 2nd term and they don't want to do things that will jeopardize the odds.

Not to 'pick on' Obama but in 1996 Obama said:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0109/Obama_backed_samesex_marriage_in_1996.html

"I favor legalizing same-sex marriages,and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages"

in response to a questionnaire. Keep in mind this was 1996, when a position like that was more radical (gay rights have advanced massively since 1996).

But now he has to worry about oversensitive conservatives, reagan democrats and other groups. So he doesn't say that anymore.

Makes you wonder what Obama 'really' believes. If Obama is progressive enough to support gay marriage in 1996 and single payer in 2003 (back when these issues were more controversial. Sicko was in 2007) I wonder what the guy really stands for. I think he is far more progressive than he leads on, but I guess he has learned to hide that part of himself.

In 2002 Al Gore came out in favor of single payer. Same thing IMO. He lost and had nothing to lose by being honest.

Clinton pushed for, it was the worse than they thought it would be compromise. . Clinton tried to live up to his campaign promise to allow every one to serve in the military, regardless of sexual orientation. Democrats in congress opposed him, Rethugs used it to whip up hysterical anti-gay and anti-Clinton sentiment. Now he gets blamed for the compromise. Clinton was right to try and get military service for all Americans. Now he is right about gay marriage, good for him.

It is a human rights issue.

get there.

Since the beginning of this country, matters like addoption, abortion, marriage, death, sex, reproduction, inheritance, and other "domestic" issues were indeed considered for the states to decide, as a matter of federalism. The Supreme Court changed that in Griswold v. Connecticut as to reproductive education and devices and and, of course, Roe v. Wade as to abortion. Other Supreme Court cases followed those two. (Later Supreme Courts have begun to cut back on prior cases.)

So, Clinton would be partly justified in saying what he is saying--IF he had not signed DOMA. I think he is just trying to take the issue out of national politics. I could be mean and add "in case Hillary decides to run for President again," But that would be sheer speculation on my part. I am not a mind reader.

She's on record as saying that the states should decide also. If nothing else, the two of them are consummate politicians who work well together.

It's the Supreme Court's job to jump in on cases where one or more states are denying human rights, as in Loving vs Virginia and Roe vs Wade. I'm hoping that before Hillary running for president is again an issue, that the Court will again jump in and settle this patently unconstitutional and grossly immoral discrimination against gays once and for all.

Just like the State or Federal governments have no choice but to recognize you as an American citizen if you're born here in America. I feel the same thing about recognizing the marriage status of ANY couples because who we love and chose to be our spouses is nobody's business but our own. Its nobody's business if we're heterosexual or homosexual. The only thing that should concern the government is, is the marriage consensual and between adults. That's it - period. Anything else is government sanctioned categorizing a class of people as second-class citizens.

Too bad he wasn't then asked if Loving vs. Virginia should have been decided by state instead of the Supreme Court.

edit: Oops, just saw your reply #16, sorry.

Clinton and Republican POS Dick Morris came up with it and then Clinton had Powell, whom Clinton twice asked to be Sec. of State (according to POwell) write it up to send to Congress. It came at the cost of the integrity of gay service members. Yet, it does not always protect them from discharge, even if they "don't tell. If they are seen anywhere, even in civilian areas, say kissing or holding hands, with a member of the same gender, they can be discharged.

" The "don't ask" part of the policy indicates that superiors should not initiate investigation of a service member's orientation in the absence of disallowed behaviors, though mere suspicion of homosexual behavior can cause an investigation."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell


If Clinton had really wanted to keep any campaign promises about equality, he could simply have signed an executive order soon after he took office to make it okay to be in the military if you were gay. Truman did it to integrate the military when Jim Crow laws were still alive and thriving. Carter signed an Executive Order to give "draft dodgers" amnesty before he even walked up Pennsylvania Avenue on Inaguration Day, at a time when sentiments were very high against them. Instead, Clinton did nothing until he lost the Democratic Congress he had when he was elected and the Republicans in Congress made it an issue. Even then, Clinton could have signed an Executive Order.

Difference is, Truman acted on principle. Clinton acted with an eye toward re-election. And, to cut him some slack, maybe also with an eye to protecting the Democratic Party.

And, I don't believe Clinton is being honest now. I don't think he ever had a problem with equal rights for gays, so saying he changed his mind after he got out of office is dishonest.

I've been a Democrat all my life, but I think being out of reality about members of either Party is more dangerous to America than Al Qaeda is, ever was or ever could be.

what he asked for. Congress deserves the blame the democratic majority could have passed it. And at least don't ask was supposed to stop the witch hunts. but it is past time for every American to be allowed to serve, as it is past time for marriage equality.

Executive Orders.


On edit: I don't think it was a question of push back, either. I don't think he did anything at all until Congress looked as though it would act, whereupon he came up with DADTbut I could be mistaken about that.

I never exonerated Congress, either.

if they really stopped and thought about the realities of the world around them.

There are a lot of people who will never be able to throw off those old ingrained taboos and see that gay people are just like the rest of the human race, but this old Southern boy can see the positive changes in attitudes all around him. And it makes him very happy.

So, thank you, Bill Clinton, for opening your mind and your heart and going public with your new attitude.

think many of them ever had a problem with gays. I don't think Bill did either, or he could not have been for adoption by gays all along.

Cinton is the consummate politician.

Where I live in the south there were lots of folks who liked the drug and sex part of hippie life but their attitudes toward gay people remained rooted in Southern religious and social culture that didn't even want to admit that there ARE gay people, much less talk about them or treat them as human beings. Just as President Clinton said, there were gay friends, relatives, acquaintances all around, but most were in the closet and the few who were openly gay (by choice or just because they couldn't hide it if they tried) were/still are considered to be different and are tolerated but not recognized as equals. They were kind of like the eccentric uncle or the black-sheep sister that nobody really liked to talk about because "you know how they are".

To this day, in my hometown, homosexuals are still treated as second-class citizens even though they are more open and honest about their existence in the community. Granted, more people are tolerant, but the vast majority still see gay men and women as being abberant. I'm talking about a town that went strongly for McCain in a state that barely squeaked into the blue column in November.

Believe it or not, there were even LOTS of other Americans who never became hippies or got caught up in the issues or revelry of those days. They were and still remain the same old, died-in-the-wool Republicans that their parents were. Of course, you'd never know that if you just saw pictures or movies about the era.

Another aspect of this that I have experienced recently among people who are Democrats and who supported Clinton and Obama is the attitude that even though gays deserve to be treated as human beings, they are still very uncomfortable around gay people and do not like the fact that gays are feeling free to be themselves in public. I now live in one of the most liberal and gay-supportive areas in the state and in the nation, and an area that has a very large population of GLBT folks because of the open atmosphere, but I'm sorry to say I have friends who are resentful that so many gays are moving into the area.

For some people, the transition from being homophobic to accepting that our gay brothers and sisters are just people like us, is a very long and difficult journey for many different reasons. It sounds like Bill Clinton has finally made the transition. I cannot imagine why he would be politically-motivated to do such a thing since he will not be running for elected office again.

Well that's a welcome change.

He said, "I thought about it long and hard, and looked at how it affected real people I know and care about, and I realized I had been wrong. I changed my mind."

I want to hear it from Obama too. As I do with Clinton now, I would respect him so much MORE, not less.

If all you're going to do is advance the cowardly and bigoted meme that "marriage is a states issue", kindly shut the fuck up and stop talking about equality.

Should each state get to decide if black people can marry white people, Bill? Should they get to decide if YOUR marriage is valid?

Not even the President anymore, and still waffling. At least Obama's cowardice is understandable.

get over themselves?

Nope. Selfish thinking like that is what kept civil rights dead for so long. For someone so intelligent to be so completely blind to history--it just underscores the personal bigotry that folks have to have slapped out of them.

not enough. It is akin to the "apologies" after folks screw up (e.g., School board members refusing to allow students to watch the President speak live, the anti-LGBT practices rampant at all levels of society, police brutality)


Clinton's apology is no where near enough. His stance then was cowardly at best, and homophobic at worst.

Now--it's just condescending cowardice.

I also wonder if part of the reason is his legacy and his power are dependent more on what Democrats think of him - and this is an area where people have shifted enormously since 1996. This is a no risk change, with possibly of gain, position for him now. However, it is needed that big voices, that had been on the other side, say that they are ok with it to accelerate the movement.

What would you have him do? This is better than agreeing with DOMA publicly as he did in 1996 or pushing Senator Kerry to say that he accepted all of the state anti- gay amendments in 2004 - something Kerry immediately rejected.

(Let's not resurrect another problem (discrimination in adoption against unmarried or divorced parents) while trying to fix discrimination in marriage.)

If he wants to, he could be a huge advocate for same-sex marriage. I bet it'd be a down deal in Maine if he went there and spoke strongly for it.

issue, for each state to decide for itself. Maine is in the process of deciding for itself.

The upcoming referendum is pretty much 50-50 right now. Way too close.

Swap out a few verbs here and this could be a quote from any Dixiecrat douchebag asshole in the early-mid sixties.