Clinton Says She Would Be Best To Defend Gay Rights

(Washington) Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she would defend gay rights as president and eliminate disparities for same-sex couples in federal law, including immigration and tax policy.

Clinton said states such as New Jersey and Massachusetts are extending rights to gay couples "and the federal government should recognize that and should extend the same access to federal benefits across the board. I will very much work to achieve that."

Clinton's comments came in an interview with the Philadelphia Gay News that was posted on its Web site.

Clinton said she and her husband have many gay friends that they socialize with when they get the chance. "I've got friends, literally, around the country that I'm close to. It's part of my life," she said.

http://www.365gay.com/Newscon08/04/040408clint.htm

***

Yes, because she did so much of that when she was a Senator.

Please forgive me to anyone who is a supporter of Ms. Clinton or Mr. Obama. I cannot stomach either one of them. They pander to any group they talk with and I just cannot willingly lend my support to them. When the general election comes I will likely hold my nose and vote for whomever is the candidate, but that's as far as it will go. My vote will not be condoning them, only a vote against the Republican candidate.

Hillary fooled me in 2000, when I voted for her as senator after all the pledges she made to the LGBT community in New York, none of which she kept.

I won't be fooled again by her.

I expect no surprises from Obama either, as far as LGBT rights are concerned.

But it can't get worse. It can only get better. Right?

I have no doubts that neither Gore nor Kerry would have vetoed gay civil rights measures from the right.

I have few doubts that Hillary would.

I have quite a few doubts that Barack would veto from the right.

neither candidate will be able get any legislation to sign.

there were ten cowards that voted to strip away bankruptcy judges power to negotiate terms of settlement..a power they have under chapter 13

Maybe she will step up where that other Clinton didn't?

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/punitivearticles/a/mcm125.htm

The UCMJ still has sodomy listed.

DADT exists because the Democratic leadership in 1993 refused to allow integration by Executive Order. Without the consent of Congress, it's not an immediate guarantee.

:yourock:

At least not until they support marriage equality.

like removing DADT or DOMA or even suggesting to pass a new inclusive ERA? What can words possibly mean if they remain just words.

But without actions to back the words up they are merely hollow promises, much like many politicians give.

To be honest, I truly hope that I'm wrong about either candidate. But in 44 years I've seldom not been disappointed that a politician would sink to the lowest of levels when it comes to gay rights.

I'll vote for whoever is nominated, but I won't shut up about how they BOTH need to stand up for equality.

clearly its use is quite minor relative to the actual happening.

Still, advances begin with positions.

True. But when your position changes depending on who you're talking with there is no conviction to those positions.

:shrug:

Will she support ALL of our civil rights, and acknowledge that "civil unions" and the like are NOT marriage?

Until and unless she does, she is lying yet again.

. . . in that interview is this little bit:

PGN: In 1948, President Truman issued an executive order banning discrimination based on race. Would you issue an executive order or a signing order with a military appropriations bill to temporarily — until Congress had a chance to deal with it — end “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell?”

HC: If I were legally able to do it. I don’t know what the legal framework would be because you remember that, in the face of what Bill was trying to do in ’93, the act, by veto, proved majorities made prohibitions on doing that. So whether the president has authority to do it by executive order or not, I’m not sure. But I have been committed for more than nine years to eliminating “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.”

We've had DADT for fifteen years, her husband was instrumental in instituting it, she claims to oppose it greatly, and yet Senator Clinton has no idea whatsoever who's in charge of repealing it? If you or I were greatly against a piece of law that discriminated against a group of people, wouldn't there be an expectation that we'd be passingly informed of how to go about repealing it?

How does she not know who's in charge of that? She's a U.S. Senator for crying out loud, and she just has no idea?

It sounds to me like it's preparation for a future shafting. She isn't doing anything about it as a senator (and to be fair, neither is Obama). Yet, I get the feeling if she's president and does nothing, it'll be "Oh, well, you know, the legislature . . ."

I don't like where her head is at on this one.

She hasn't a f-ing clue, and seems willfully stubborn against getting a single one.