Gay Activists Confront Dem Senators (Hillary gets an earful)

Thanks for posting this.

I loved your music video by the way! :headbang: :yourock:

I think I've found my newest hobby.

Activists aren't obliged to work within the political process. The only reason they were even able to get a meeting with these legislators is because most are sympathetic with their cause. Barney Frank once commented after Bill Clinton put in don't ask don't tell that he viewed criticism of Clinton counterproductive. Why scream at those who are trying to help instead of the ones hindering progress?

I am so freakin' fed up with politicians who tell me that I should be happy with a seat in the bus at all so I shouldn't complain that I have to sit in the back.

The Republican party in the grip of the fundamentalist radicals are the enemy.

I agree with Alan Van Capelle, the executive director of Empire State Pride Agenda, when he said that Clinton was “a complete disappointment,” and she is no friend with her opposition to same-sex marriage and her support for the Defense of Marriage Act.

She can try taking me for granted, but it won't work.

I'm sure you will find more support among Republicans!

Spitzer has come out in favor of gay marriage in his campaign for governor. So has every candidate for statewide office, save one.

She is more concerned about her own political aspirations than about us gay folk here in NY.

Are you suggesting that she is really in favor of gay marriage but is lying about it to get more votes?

Her personal feelings probably do not reflect her policy positions...yes.

Eliot Spitzer won't be running for Presdident...

The fact is, if Hillary Clinton made gay marriage a strong plank in a Presidential election...she would lose...sad political fact!

BTW lets look at other great leaders in American history

FDR...how'd he do on race? Appeased southern white Democrats to get their support...interred an entire race of people based upon their appearance...yet through the New Deal FDR did more for blacks than any President since Lincoln

Teddy Roosevelt...advocated a form of passive Eugenics to keep undesirable people from polluting American stock..recognized as a progressive leader, famous for busting the power of large corporations...

Abraham Lincoln...advocated colonizing slaves to Africa, resisted repeated entreaties by Abolitionists to take a strong position on slavery, resisted any public action which would make it look like the Union was trying to abolish slavery...viewed by several generations of blacks as "Father Abraham", their liberator

But to disagree with Clinton's pandering and centristic behavior doesn't mean I consider her an "enemy". No one in this discussion has called her an "enemy".

and I reject that black/white argument.

I see more attacks on her for her positins than from the same groups on Republicans for far worse views.

Haven't seen anyone on this thread do as much.

In what way do you see her attacked more than Republicans? Can I see some examples?

and Hill is one of those so-called leaders

I didn't like her participation in the St. Patrick's Day parade last week especially after the head of the parade went off a homophobic tirade

it's guilt by association

has she called for legalization of same-sex marriages

has she called for the repeal of DADT, which her husband signed?

what has she done for the GLBT community lately?

in my view, not a damn thing

When the ball is rolling down the hill, she'll accept it. Well of course...she wouldn't want to get rolled over.

Sorry, Hillary is not a leader on this issue and will not be remembered as such. She's fully prepared to throw us under the bus just like anyone on the right. If prominent Democrats are going to support discrimination, as many clearly do, then just come out and say it: "I support discrimination just like any Republican."

I posted this article mainly because it adds a good point to the ongoing discussion here, namely, that not only do borderline Dems not help us on this issue, they actually hurt us by making stronger politicians who do support full civil rights look more "fringe."

She has gone futher than most politicians, and much further obviously than you are going to get from RW Republicans. Unfortunately, politicians have not only to do what's right, they have to do what's possible. There of course can be debate over what is possible, but the fact is the country is not yet ready for gay marriage...it's getting there, but not there yet. Assuming Hillary is running for President, making gay marriage a feature of her platform would be asking her to slit her throat politically. Sad but true!

This is why people buy the untruth that Democrats don't stand for anything. Exactly for this reason. This country has never been "ready" for progress without real leaders to give them the CONFIDENCE to do what is right. FDR didn't change history by waiting until people were "ready." He just fucking did what needed to be done. And even at that, half of his reforms were undone by conservatives on the courts.

The hard truth is that on an issue like this, most people know in their GUT how they feel about it--this is an all-or-nothing proposition. That's why nobody buys these "tortured" (in the words of the article) positions, and why they will never win Dems anything but resentment and ridicule. Either stand for something, and do it boldly, or step aside.

And how has she gone "farther than most?" What has she done except to take every opportunity to "clarify" her position against us?

I'm sick and tired of having our elected employees not listening to their bosses.

Feingold came out and supported gay marriage. Why can't Clinton? Because she's a centrist do-nothing who cautiously watches what she says when she could be showing some leadership, out side of leading the DLC. Remember, this is the party who blamed our community for Kerry losing the election.

That being said, I will not be voting for her during the primary.

The man who interred an entire race of people for no reason other than their ethnicity. Was he racist, or simply doing what was politicall expedient?

The man who turned a blind eye to racism to appease southern white Democrats...was he racist, or simply doing what was politically expedient

FDR was a MASTER of doing what was POSSIBLE...as was Abraham Lincoln

Abolitionists were all over him from day one...he did what he could when he could. Leadership mens getting things done...which cannot be done without power.

Its all well and good to come out strong on an issue, but if doing so keeps you from power it avails you nothing. The fact of the matter is, more than half the people in this country are against gay marriage. If she runs, she is not running to be President of the Democrats, if she were the decision would be easy...and the cold, hard, political fact is, if strong advocacy of gay marriage were in her platform she would lose...

I'm sure if and when she does lose, we'll all know which group to blame.

Blame the media!

Aping the Republican idiots...

WOuld equate Hillary's positions on Gay Issues with those of the Republican majority...

better than most

Leaders who have to take a less than perfect position are what you are going to get...

Better Clinton than Frist

Better Feingold than Clinton or Frist.

But he will not win

and that half is going to continue to be wrong if our so-called leaders don't take the right stance

she and the other could easily say that marriage should be for all but she hasn't

she has taken the position that marriage should only be between a man and a woman

she is saying that gays and lesbians are second class citizens

so tell me why I should support her or any other politician that says that

But they vote...

Do you really believe that if our nominee, whoever it is, takes a strong pro-gray marriage stand in 2008 will win?

Let me ask you this...would you have voted for FDR in 1932 if you were black? Would you have voted for Lincoln in 1860 if you were an abolitionist?

We've been TOLD who votes, and what we know is that most people DON'T vote. Since more Democrats are registered voters than Republicans, we need a strong voice rather than a poll-driven centrist candidate.

Would vote to put shrub back in office in the face of the overwhelming evidence of his incompetence is pretty good evidence of who is out there voting. And the polls I have seen show a significant chunk of Democrats still oppose gay marriage...

And before I go on, I do want to make clear I am for gay marriage...always have been. My sister is gay, and I've talked to her about this quite a bit, and she largely agrees with me that a strong gay marriage plank will not fly in the general election. I am also a monthly contributor to HRC.

I am also a history student (literally), and know that there are very few instances in American History were a major shift in social policy was achieved by a strong public advocate of that policy. We never saw an abolitionist president for example. Lyndon Johnson may be the exception, but he spent 30 years in politics polishing his good old boy bona fides first.

I don't think that half of this country voted for Bush.

But we can talk about this at a different time and place...

:pals:

To still be incredible to me... :-)

There. I said it. I believe it, too. When dems stop pandering to the homophobes out there (both without and within the Dem Party), people will respect them for that, even if they disagree with that stance.

I strongly support gay marriage.

But history tells me you are wrong.

Could Abraham Lincoln have won on an abolitionist plank ?

Could FDR have won on a Civil Rights plank ?

and I certainly don't know if our nominee would lose or not

if our nominee takes principled stands on issues, I think they'll win

people are tired of politicians who don't lead and there are plenty of other candidates out there that are leaders

Hill ain't one of them

To take a strong advocacy position on a social issue that won...

Historically they are few and far between...LBJ is the possible exception, and he did not take a position until 30 years into his political career.

I think there are more gay marriages in the US now than there were when he came in! Not alot, but some...

I have no doubt the day is coming...but I don't see that it has yet been accepted by enough people to risk making it a strong plank in our platform in 2008.

as some here like to do?

they have to lump gay and AIDS issues together to speak to either. How pathetic, how diminishing of both independent issues.

They want to allow us state rights, but not federal rights, while taking our federal tax dollars.

They think that maybe equal marriage is not REALLY as important to us as some of us loudmouths keep telling them. They're deluded.

They are going to lose without our vote. It is the height of hubris to think that likely voters are going to vote for a democrat just because they're not a republican, all other issues being equal.

They had better wake up and smell the coffee.

Couldn't agree more.

A) Does injustice to both issues
B) Allows more weaseling (i.e., makes their attention to gay issues seem more "health-related")

Watching folks like Hillary pander to the lowest common denominator on issues like gay rights and abortion is disgusting and shows just how low some of the leaders of the Democratic Party have stooped.

Democrats used to be a party of passion and conviction under leaders like JFK, Eugene McCarthy and the like. Now, under the Clintons, it's become the party of expediency where it doesn't matter what constituency you sell out as long as you can pick up more votes than you lost.

Now we get opportunists like Hillary cozying up to the anti-choice crowd, joining with Sen. Sam Brownshirt ... oops! I mean "Brownback" ... to cluck about video games and distancing herself from gay issues. She's a disgrace. And if the Democratic Party puts her at the head of its ticket in 2008, then it's a disgrace, too.

Too bad Hillary apparently never read any of Truman's writings. He said: "Voters are very smart. Give them a choice between a real Republican and a phony one and they'll vote for the real one every time."

Democrats didn't trap themselves by dealing with whether or not they approve of gay marriage. They should treat it as a Constitutional issue, that all Americans are equal and that their personal views on the matter should have no bearing on who the Constitution applies to since it applies to all citizens.