Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
20 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Should We Care About Hillary Clinton's Anti-LGBT Past? (Original Post) Smarmie Doofus Feb 2016 OP
No!! LW1977 Feb 2016 #1
Agree. Amimnoch Feb 2016 #3
Times have... indeed... changed. Smarmie Doofus Mar 2016 #15
Why bother, she lies about that too Politicalboi Feb 2016 #2
This is the Hillary Clinton group Coolest Ranger Mar 2016 #17
No, it is the LGBT group. I think you are "Lost." Nt LostOne4Ever Mar 2016 #18
Dan Savage had a great post about this very thing dsc Feb 2016 #4
It's pointless to hold it against her Bagsgroove Feb 2016 #5
No, I'm with both Savage and Signorile. Meldread Feb 2016 #6
This message was self-deleted by its author Old Union Guy Feb 2016 #7
To be blunt, I don't trust her. backscatter712 Feb 2016 #8
x 2 Omaha Steve Mar 2016 #10
It was CIVIL UNIONS she supported in 2013 Fearless Mar 2016 #12
And Sanders didn't evolve until 2009 dbackjon Mar 2016 #13
If by 2009 you mean the 1970's LostOne4Ever Mar 2016 #14
Kick. RIP Nancy Reagan, anti-AIDS pioneer. Smarmie Doofus Mar 2016 #9
We should care about her IGNORANCE of our past CURRENTLY Fearless Mar 2016 #11
This message was self-deleted by its author Coolest Ranger Mar 2016 #16
Yes, especially when she starts praising Nancy or cavorting with know homophbic religious leaders. Betty Karlson Mar 2016 #19
I think she's evolved honestly so no. nt OhZone Mar 2016 #20
 

Smarmie Doofus

(14,498 posts)
15. Times have... indeed... changed.
Mon Mar 14, 2016, 05:17 PM
Mar 2016

And, well..... so has Ms. Clinton.

And changed. And changed AGAIN. AND CHANGED AGAIN!

AND YET AGAIN! AND AGAIN!

Here's "THE QUESTION": Do the multiple changes bring up any other concerns with which we should sensibly be "concerning " ourselves ?


"Tonight.... the light..... of love is in your eyes;

But will you love me.......* tomorrow*?"

(OK: I'll go out on a limb: The Chrystals?)

dsc

(52,130 posts)
4. Dan Savage had a great post about this very thing
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 09:22 PM
Feb 2016
http://www.newnownext.com/dan-savage-goes-off-on-democrats-who-cant-forgive-hillary-clinton-for-past-gay-marriage-stance/02/2016/

Queer people who are doing this? We’re f**king ourselves with this shit, not Clinton. Stop it,” he wrote in one of his columns this week.

“Straight people who are doing this shit?” he added. “You may be hurting Clinton, but you’re also hurting the queers you claim to care so much about. Stop it.”

He went on to call these Clinton criticisms “f**king moronic” and “political malpractice.”

“Hillary Clinton’s support for marriage equality may be a political calculation,” Savage wrote. “And you know what? We worked hard to change the math so that those political calculations would start adding up in our favor. So sincere change of heart or political calculation — either way — I will take it.”

Bagsgroove

(231 posts)
5. It's pointless to hold it against her
Wed Feb 24, 2016, 10:00 PM
Feb 2016

I'm with Savage on this one. We all know that Hillary puts the finger to polling winds on every issue, gay rights included. But keep in mind, President Obama spent month after agonizing month "evolving" on the question of marriage equality and only reached his final evolution after Gallup told him the public had passed the 50% mark in favor. (A bit of a push from Joe Biden helped too.)

This is what politicians do. We don't have to like them or admire them or believe they are sincere. We simply need to make a rational judgment about which politician would be most likely to advance the causes we care about. And on that basis, we win with either Hillary or Bernie.

Meldread

(4,213 posts)
6. No, I'm with both Savage and Signorile.
Thu Feb 25, 2016, 04:02 PM
Feb 2016

Savage is absolutely right that it goes against our political interests to hold Hillary responsible for her past actions. We worked hard to move people from the position she held to the position that she holds today. Whether she moved because of a political calculation or moral reasons is not relevant. What matters is that she is on our side now.

You could argue that it speaks to her character that she was likely making cynical political calculations, but as Dan Savage points out in his article, Bernie Sanders was doing the same thing. That is what politicians do. It is political malpractice for us to shoot down people who have "reformed" themselves to stand strongly with us on the issues as both Hillary and Bernie Sanders do now.

Then as Michelangelo Signorile pointed out in an article he wrote a couple weeks ago, our focus should be on what promises they are making right now, and they should be judged on what they want to do for us in the future. Both of them have tried to "justify" their past positions on marriage equality, and obscure their past from us--if not rewrite it entirely. What matters is that they both are with us now.

Thus, how I am judging the candidates based on the issues is two-fold. First, who seems to be most concerned about our issues, and is making promises that we can hold them too in the future. Second, who is most likely to work most effectively from the White House to further our issues both in the Congress as well as Nationwide by taking on Governors and State Legislatures.

Response to Smarmie Doofus (Original post)

backscatter712

(26,355 posts)
8. To be blunt, I don't trust her.
Fri Feb 26, 2016, 08:11 PM
Feb 2016

She didn't "evolve" on marriage equality until 2013.

It's great that she did evolve, but did she do so because she genuinely believes in equal rights for the LGBTQIA community, or just to score political points after marriage equality became popular.

And who's to say she won't throw the LGBT community aside if the popular mood shifts and she gets pressured to roll back gay rights?

No. I don't trust her.

Fearless

(18,421 posts)
12. It was CIVIL UNIONS she supported in 2013
Sun Mar 13, 2016, 04:40 AM
Mar 2016

It wasn't until the weekend after national polling showed 50%+ support for marriage equality that she came out in favor of it. Burying it on a slow news weekend day as well. That was 2015!

Fearless

(18,421 posts)
11. We should care about her IGNORANCE of our past CURRENTLY
Sun Mar 13, 2016, 04:39 AM
Mar 2016

As evidenced by the allies she thinks we have in Nancy Reagan and company. If she knew ANYTHING about us, she would have known the truth. She is only pandering to us for votes. I'm sure she still believes that marriage is meant for one man and one woman. At least then she was being honest about her own opinions.

Response to Smarmie Doofus (Original post)

Latest Discussions»Alliance Forums»LGBT»Should We Care About Hill...