Has Sanders really always supported marriage equality

[dsc]

unlike the vile wishy washy Clinton who evolved. We have been regaled with tales of the courageous Bernie supporting marriage equality back in 1972. When I was asked for any evidence that his vote against DOMA in 1996 was due to favoring marriage equality as opposed to, like every other straight Congressperson who opposed, being opposed to a law singling out gay people, I was ridiculed. Well, I was searching for stuff the other day and found something rather interesting. This is a piece from 2000 during the Civil Unions debate in Vermont. For the uninitiated, Vermont had a decision which required the Vermont legislature to find some way to honor gay and lesbian couples in Vermont. The legislature was left to choose how. Here is how some politicians in Vermont responded.

I found this recently and have to say I was waiting for a chance to bring this up.

http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/fuggedaboudit/Content?oid=2291039

The two Democrats running for Jeffords’ senate seat disagree with him on this. No problemo, they say. Ed Flanagan and Jan Backus both support gay marriage. Like Associate Justice Denise Johnson, they say it’s time for Vermont town clerks to provide marriage licenses to all couples who pay the fee.

snip

Obtaining Congressman Bernie Sanders’ position on the gay marriage issue was like pulling teeth...from a rhinoceros. Last month, shortly after the decision of the Amestoy Court was issued, Mr. Sanders publicly tried walking the tightrope — applauding the court’s decision and the cause of equal rights without supporting civil marriage for same-sex couples.

This week we were no more successful getting a straight answer. All we did get was a carefully crafted non-statement statement via e-mail from Washington D.C. And Bernie’s statement wins him the Vermont congressional delegation’s Wishy-Washy Award hands down.

Once more he “applauds” the court decision but won’t go anywhere near choosing between same-sex “marriage” and domestic partnership. “By all accounts the legislature is approaching this issue in a considered and appropriate manner and I support the current process.”

Supports the current process, does he? What a courageous radical!

end quote

Now, unlike the author of this piece, I have no problems with Sanders' behavior in this regard. What I do have a problem with, a rather big problem with, is being regailed with tales of the oh so horrible Hillary and the Oh so true Bernie when apparently that isn't even remotely close to the truth.

[TexasProgresive]

1. I guess the "vile" Obama evolved as well as

quite a few other people. I think that when someone moves from a bad position to a good one that's a good thing and is rather normal. What is vile is standing firm holding onto what is wrong.

As to your question about Sen Sanders that will be up to someone else to answer.

[milehighmilehigh]

2. Ummm...

[dsc]

4. that isn't about marriage equality

it just isn't. If you are so ignorant that you don't know that then you shouldn't be posting about LGBT issues at all. If you are so dishonest that you post this anyhow, you shouldn't be posting about any issues at all. First, removing all laws actually would not have led to marriage equality, unless your form of equality is no one being married. There wasn't a law banning LGBT from being married in Vermont, there was a law defining marriage in Vermont as being between a man and a woman, and even that was apparently debatable enough that some friends of the court argued that there was no such definition. Second, no one, not a single, solitary LGBT person nor straight person had marriage on his or her radar in 1972. What this letter does refer to is anti Sodomy laws and possibly housing discrimination.

[Zorra]

9. What does "abolish all laws which attempt to impose a particular brand

of morality, or "right" on people. Let's abolish all laws dealing with abortion, drugs, sexual behavior, adultery, homosexuality, etc. mean to you?

Or do you want to play "Leviticus Games" here, and claim abolishing "all laws dealing with...homosexuality" has nothing to do with the laws preventing same sex couples from marrying?

Some writer back in 2000 claiming he could not get a straight answer out of Bernie concerning same sex marriage, without providing any proof of it whatsoever, means nothing.

For petesakes, why are you so hellbent in attacking the one elected official who has been a staunch supporter of LGBT rights in government over the last several decades?

Give it up.

[dsc]

11. There was no law that banned gay marriage in Vermont

there wasn't a law that said gays can't get married. There was a law that said, marriage involves a man and a woman. Getting rid of that law would mean getting rid of marriage all together, which is why that doesn't have a god damned thing to do with marriage. No person, LGBT or straight, would have read that letter in 1972 and said Bernie Sanders favors gay marriage or marriage equality. No one. Not a single, solitary soul would have read that letter that way. Incidentally, even as marriage equality was being fought for we didn't use that construction because it made no sense. I have asked, repeatedly, and nicely for any contemperanous evidence of support of marriage equality. And have gotten nada. well except for delusional readings of this letter.

[dsc]

16. BTW you don't like my source, fine, I have another

his name is Bernie Sanders.

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-on-gay-marriage-time-for-supreme-court-to-catch-up-to-the-american-people

WASHINGTON, April 28 – As the Supreme Court today took up cases on gay marriage, Sen. Bernie Sanders said gay Americans in all states deserve the right to wed.

“Of course all citizens deserve equal rights,” Sanders said. “It’s time for the Supreme Court to catch up to the American people and legalize gay marriage.”

Vermont was a pioneer in enacting laws giving gay couples legal recognition, beginning with a history-making statute in 2000 permitting civil unions and the nation’s first marriage law passed without a court order in 2009. Gay marriage is now legal in 36 states.

Justices also agreed to decide by the end of their term this June whether states that do not permit same-sex weddings must recognize couples legally married in other states.

Sanders has a long record of support for the right of gays to marry. In the House, he voted in 1996 against the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which barred federal recognition of gay marriages. The Supreme Court in 2013 struck down part of that law as unconstitutional.

In Vermont, Sanders supported the state’s 2000 civil unions law and the 2009 law legalizing gay marriage.

Note the last sentence. In 2000, Bernie supported civil unions, those vile civil unions that such vile people as Hillary Clinton supported.

[beam me up scottie]

25. And again you fail to breathe life into that straw man.

In the House, he voted in 1996 against the so-called Defense of Marriage Act, which barred federal recognition of gay marriages. The Supreme Court in 2013 struck down part of that law as unconstitutional.

In Vermont, Sanders supported the state’s 2000 civil unions law and the 2009 law legalizing gay marriage.

Note the last sentence. In 2000, Bernie supported civil unions, those vile civil unions that such vile people as Hillary Clinton supported.

So you admit he supported same sex marriage in 1996 by voting against DOMA when Hillary supported it and this is proof of what, exactly?

That Bernie did support same sex marriage before Hillary and supported lgbt rights for decades?

Yes he did and yes he did.

Your op is still an epic fail.

[dsc]

32. No all of the following voted against DOMA but didn't support marriage equality

Senator Kerry, Senator Boxer, Senator Inoye, Senator Akaka, both house members from Hawaii, Charlie Rangle, and a bunch of others. The Congressional record is crystal clear on this. To a person they all stated in clear, unambigous language, that their vote against DOMA wasn't a vote in favor of marriage equality. Kerry reiterated that point in 04. I provided the record before.

[beam me up scottie]

34. Prove Bernie didn't support same sex marriage or stop saying it.

Seriously, you're the one making a claim you can't support.

Everyone else including the authors of the articles you keep dismissing never said he supported same sex marriage in 1972, they said he supported lgbt rights for decades.

[dsc]

37. It doesn't work that way

it is your claim he supported marriage since 96, not mine. It is you who are saying he is pure and Hillary is a vile evolver on this issue. That means you have to find where he said it. If you are correct it should be easy. But it is proving to be not so easy. I have searched the Congressional record and it wasn't there. One of his supporters found his book, it wasn't there. It wasn't in Civil Wars the book about the Civil Unions fight in Vermont (I own a copy so I looked there). There is literally no evidence at all, that he was in favor of marriage equality before 2009 that I have found. He did vote against DOMA, but literally every single straight congressperson, every last one, that gave a rationale for that vote stated, to a person. that the vote wasn't in favor of marriage equality but instead was against a law they felt was unnecessary and targeted gay people unfairly. Now maybe such a statement exists somewhere, if you find it, then I will shut up. But the fact is it looks like he was just as much, or to be fair a little bit less of, a play it safe politician on this as Hillary and O'Malley. The best you can say at this point is that he was silent and voted correctly while Hillary gave an unfortunate speech and voted correctly in 2004 and that he voted correctly in 1996 while she supported the wrong position. In fairness, that makes him a little better than her, but it isn't the tale your spinning now.

[beam me up scottie]

39. Yes, it does work that way.

You started a thread claiming that people say he supported same sex marriage in 1972 except that never happened.

Now you're trying to claim he didn't support it in 1996 but voted against DOMA anyway which is absurd.

You are the one using straw man arguments and demanding that we argue for something we never said.

It's so disingenuous that most HC supporters aren't even helping you out because they see it too.

[dsc]

45. several are saying that in this thread

Goldstein uses the word decades, that is more than one decade, as in two or more. Since she has supported it since 2013 that means you have to go back to 1993. To get there you need the letter because none of your links or anyone else's are from before 1996 aside from the letter. Oh Zorra, also states it. Again, every single straight congressperson, every last one, who provided a rationale stated clearly that they didn't favor marriage equality but opposed the law.

Here is just one example, Senator Kerry, in 2004.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28118-2004May14.html

With his home state set to begin marrying same-sex couples on Monday, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) reiterated his opposition to the idea yesterday, even as he met with gay and lesbian groups to shore up their support.




The presumptive Democratic nominee has long opposed gay marriage, favoring instead state-sanctioned civil unions that extend legal protections to gay couples.

Yet Kerry has taken several positions on the issue: He voted against the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as a union only of a man and woman, saying it amounted to gay-bashing. Kerry has opposed President Bush's call for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage but said in February that he favors such a ban in Massachusetts.

"If the Massachusetts legislature crafts an appropriate amendment that provides for partnership and civil unions, then I would support it, and it would advance the goal of equal protection," he told the Boston Globe.

end of quote

Now this is 8 years after his vote on DOMA. I don't think he can be clearer on his opposition to marriage equality. Again, not a single solitary person who is straight who provided a rationale for his or her vote said anything different. So unless they are all ridiculous, then it seems more than reasonable that Sanders had the same rationale the rest of them did.

[beam me up scottie]

47. Kerry is not Bernie and I agree with virtualobserver in their post 40:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=500689

That's good enough for me.

You can keep trying to prove otherwise but it won't change anything.

You failed to make your case.

[dsc]

48. I provided the Congressional record from the law

and again, every single, soltiary straight Congressperson who provided a rationale provided the same one that Kerry did. Oh, and which is it? Is it no one is making the claim that the letter means he supported marriage equality or the letter supports marriage equality. If you are going to claim no one is making that case and I am some sort of big fat liar for saying people did, you can't then turn around and say that you agree with the post you just cited here.

[beam me up scottie]

49. You haven't proven that Bernie didn't support same sex marriage.

Not in 1972, 1996 or any other year.

Unless you can provide evidence that he didn't support it you failed.

[Ed Suspicious]

51. This sounds an awful lot like the PoC smear. "Not good enough, Bernie." is the spirit of the

argument.

[beam me up scottie]

56. Yes, it does.

Now that you mention it.

It uses the same 'some people say...' tactic of smearing both Bernie and his supporters without having to come right out with the accusation.

It really doesn't help Hillary and it sure doesn't hurt Bernie so I'm not sure what they think they're accomplishing here.

[dsc]

58. yeah you know us minorities just a bunch of smear merchants

[Ed Suspicious]

63. I don't know about minorities. I only know about what I'm reading from you. And what I'm gathering

is that there really isn't a way that Bernie can convince you that he is a friend. I'm just trying to figure out if it pays to bother.

[RichVRichV]

38. He also supports the ACA.

I guess that means he's not in favor of single payer.

Supporting a step in the right direction does not negate wanting to go farther.

[dsc]

52. This isn't a stand alone vote

it is a statement from his website given now. It is reasonable to assume that if he favored marriage equality back in 2000 then he would have written that one would think. I will admit it is hardly dispositive itself but with the site I have in my OP it seems to be a fair, but rebuttable, conclusion that he wasn't a supporter of marriage equality back in 2000

[RichVRichV]

67. So he wrote a letter in the 70's

that wanted to abolish all laws that promote a sort of morality on people, including specifically mentioning homosexuality. He then voted against a law that specifically prohibited gay marriage in 1996 (sounds pretty definitive to me).

He then de-evolved his position to being against gay marriage by 2000. And then once again evolved to being for it again at some point leading up to today.


Yep, that makes much more sense than he was just for it all along.


You can claim everyone you knew voted against DOMA for whatever reason you want, but the simple fact is if you don't have a direct statement from Bernie himself on why he voted against it then all we have to go on is the vote itself. A vote against prohibiting gay marriage is a vote for allowing gay marriage. They are functionally equal statements. 'Allow' is an antonym of 'prohibit'. So unless you have proof otherwise, Bernie has been at a bare minimum for gay marriage since at least 1996. That's when he officially went on record with a stance.

[dsc]

77. No that is isn't what I said

what I said was the Congressional Record, that is the official record of Congress not a survey of Congress people I know, and for which I provided a link. and will again right here http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/scotts/ftp/wpaf2mc/senate-debate.pdf shows that people opposed the bill and opposed marriage equailty. you can use Kerry's speech as an example, it is there.

[RichVRichV]

78. So what did Bernie say as to his reasons for voting against it?

n/t

[dsc]

79. He didn't which is my point

and I said that if you had read previous posts.

[RichVRichV]

85. Let's recap the actual facts posted in this thread.

1) Bernie has supported gay rights since the 70s.

2) He voted against prohibiting gay marriage in 1996.

3) He voted against banning gay adoptions in DC in 1999.

4) He supported granting civil unions in Vermont in 2000.

5) He voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage in 2004.

6) He voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman in 2006.

7) He was rated 100% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance in 2006.

8) He voted to prohibit employment discrimination for gays in 2009.

9) He supported the legalization of gay marriage in Vermont in 2009.


What I see from these facts is a longstanding history of supporting gay rights. How you can come to any other conclusion is beyond me. All you have done is cherry picked his support of civil unions legislation in 2000 and contorted that into meaning he had to be against marriage equality without actual proof that he was.


Absolutely everything else posted in this thread has been speculation. You're the one that started this thread and are making the claim that he hasn't supported gay marriage for very long. The burden of proof therefor falls on you to preset facts that back up your claim. Stating that 'a lack of a statement from him explaining his reasoning for the facts above proves your point' is a fallacy. If you have actual hard proof that he has been against marriage equality then lay it out.


If this were a trial the defense would be burying you with circumstantial evidence and character witnesses. You need a smoking gun.

[beam me up scottie]

86. ^^^THIS^^^THIS^^^THIS^^^

That was perfect.



Bookmarking because I just know some HC supporter down the line will try to use this thread as PROOF! that Bernie doesn't/didn't/won't support lgbt rights.

And that, I believe, was the intention all along.

[Ed Suspicious]

89. Fantastic post.

[dsc]

100. we come to a an opposite conclusion with a similar set of facts when the candidates name is

Hillary or O'Malley.

[TM99]

103. Oh bullshit.

There is no similar set of facts with regards to Clinton. She was actively opposed to LGBT civil rights and then decades later she was not. O'Malley has not be in the public eye long enough to compare his positions over the same 30 or 40 years that we can Sanders or Clinton.

[dsc]

105. that is the bullshit

the only issue, the one and only issue she opposed was marriage. And despite my repeated requests, as in over and over and over again, for any contemporaneous statement of support for marriage from Sanders that predates 2009 I have been repeatedly stiffed. Now he did oppose DOMA while she supported it and he was silent while opposing the amendment in 2004 while she gave an ill conceived statement on the floor of the Senate while opposing the same amendment. Otherwise the evidence is pretty much the same. Including even in the 1970's when Sodomy was decriminalized in Arkansas while Clinton was AG. Yes, in Arkansas of all places. It wasn't a perfect thing but it did change the law against sodomy to a misdemeanor instead of a felony which means that it couldn't be used to deny custody of children or professional licenses. In comparison, sodomy was still a full out felony in NC in 2003 when the Supreme Court overturned the law.

[TM99]

107. You continue to distort reality

to rationalize your choice in candidates on this issue.

Facts have been presented to you over and over again showing the incredibly real differences between the two on LGBT civil rights, and you still push the bullshit that they are pretty much the same.

They are not. They never were. They may be now, but that is only because she evolved.

[dsc]

108. If he was in support of marriage equality in 1996

then why has no one, not a single person, provided any article or video of any sort, with him saying those words in 1996 or 1997 or 1998 or 1999 or 2000 or 2001 or 2002 or 2003 or 2004 or 2005 or 2006 or 2007 or 2008. He was on the ballot in 96,98,2000,02,04, and 06. His state legalized civil unions in 2000 while he was on the ballot. And still not one statement, not one has been found of him uttering those words, and when it is Hillary and O'Malley we sure as hell want to talk about words and not votes. For all we know he may well have evolved on this issue just like the vile Clinton.

[TM99]

113. He voted against DOMA.

Period. Being against DOMA means being for marriage equality.

I am sorry that your rubric is some video of him grandstanding his support between those years.

That is not Sanders. He voted against DADT. He voted against DOMA. He supported same sex unions in 2000 in VT and full gay marriage rights in 2009. He has received time and time again a 100% approval rating from the Human Rights Campaign. Obviously they do not care about such a video like you apparently do. And his actions do not fit the agenda you are trying to paint - well there is no video of him saying it so despite his actions he may have evolved as well. That is a specious pile of horseshit, and I really can't believe that you think members here are stupid enough to fall for that shit.

He has supported LGBT rights since the 1970's. There was very little to no talk about gay marriage until the 1990's. You get that right?

When it comes to Hillary, her words are her votes. She ran campaigns on those words including in 2008. She was a very vocal opponent of LGBT rights including marriage rights. She supported DOMA and DADT. Up to the late 2000's she was still stating quite openly that marriage is a bond between an man and a woman only. She was the First Lady in the 1990's. She didn't have a vote. But she sure as hell had a voice. And that voice was against LGBT civil and marriage rights.

[dsc]

117. No it doesn't

it just doesn't necessarily mean that. It didn't mean that for Kerry whose record I site in this very thread. It didn't for any of the straight Congresspeople who went on the record. It didn't for Hawaii's congresspeople. It didn't for leahy. It didn't for lots of people.

Name one issue, other than marriage in which Hillary was a vocal opponent of gay rights in 2008 or any year since 2000 for that matter. Name one. Go ahead.

DADT was a compromise, that Kennedy, Kerry, Boxer and several others voted for at the time. Sanders did oppose the bill which included it which was the military budget for 1993. DADT was a defeat maybe you would have preferred we keep jailing gay servicemen and women, which is what we were doing prior to DADT.

Their records, in terms of votes, in the time they both were in Congress is identical on gay issues. You can call me names and huff and puff from now until the cows come home and give birth to aliens but that doesn't change that simple fact.

Now I do find your point about little talk of gay marriage before the 1990's to be quite persuasive. So that means I am correct that his letter in 1972, and his pride proclamation in 83 are than not about marriage, right. Since there was little to no talk about gay marriage. You get that, right?

[TM99]

118. I am done playing your stupid little games.

Your candidate has a bad history on LGBT civil and marriage rights. Own it. Move on. She has thankfully evolved.

My candidate has a stellar history on LGBT civil rights (1970's & 1980's) and marriage rights (1990's to the present).

Play all the fucking tortured logic games you want, but it does not change that very simple reality.

DADT was the Nunn's little baby. Nunn is a founder of the DLC/Third Way. Clinton was the chairman in the early 1990's prior to his election. He ran on their platform and policies. He owns DADT as the triangulated piece of shit that it was. Kennedy, Kerry, Boxer, and others were equally wrong for voting on this.

I was in the Army during the 1990's. I know exactly what DADT did and didn't do. Yet again you have your facts very, very wrong.

http://www.leonardmatlovich.com/dadtbeforeafter.html

http://www.palmcenter.org/files/One%20Year%20Out_0.pdf

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2012/09/study_of_don_t_ask_don_t_tell_repeal_helped_the_military_.html

It was an unnecessary law. It made zero difference. Once repealed, all that was feared if LGBT's were allowed to be open about their sexuality was exposed for the lies and distortions which they were.

I am done arguing reality with someone so hell bent on distorting it.

[dsc]

109. except that is proven to be a left wing smear job

but nice try. Oh, and the prayer breakfast, Sanders went as well.

[RichVRichV]

116. Who is "we"?

I have not attacked Hillary or O'Malley on gay rights. I commend both of them for being on the right side of history at this point in time, as are most Democrats. Hence why thing have changed so dramatically.


All I have done is highlight the fallacies used to attack Bernie and the ample record he has to defend him.

[beam me up scottie]

127. No, we don't. Direct quotes showing Clinton's opposition to same sex marriage:

1996: “My preference is that we do all we can to strengthen traditional marriages, and that the people engaged in parenting children be committed to one another and to the child. We also have to be realistic and know there are others who can do a good job, as well, of raising children,” Mrs. Clinton told The San Francisco Examiner.

2000: “Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman,” Mrs. Clinton said while running for the Senate in New York.

2003: “Well, marriage means something different. You know, marriage has a meaning that I think should be kept as it historically has been, but I see no reason whatsoever why people in committed relationships can’t have many of the same rights and the same respect for their unions that they are seeking, and I would like to see that be more accepted than it is,” Mrs. Clinton speaking to WNYC on the difference between gay marriage and civil unions.

2003: “I am, you know, for many reasons. I think that the vast majority of Americans find that to be something they can’t agree with. But I think most Americans are fair. And if they believe that people in committed relationships want to share their lives and, not only that, have the same rights that I do in my marriage, to decide who I want to inherit my property or visit me in a hospital, I think that most Americans would think that that’s fair and that should be done,” Mrs. Clinton, in an interview with CBS, on whether she still opposed same-sex marriage.

2006: “My position is consistent. I support states making the decision. I think that Chuck Schumer would say the same thing. And if anyone ever tried to use our words in any way, we’ll review that. Because I think that it should be in the political process and people make a decision and if our governor and our Legislature support marriage in New York, I’m not going to be against that,” Mrs. Clinton telling Gay City News that she would not block legislation supporting gay marriage in New York.

2007: “I am very much in favor of civil unions with full equality of benefits,” Mrs. Clinton told Ellen DeGeneres, explaining that she still believed the decision should be left to states.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/04/16/hillary-clintons-changing-views-on-gay-marriage/

You don't get to create your own facts.

Bernie supported lgbt rights for decades, Hillary had to evolve on same sex marriage.

[Zorra]

94. You seem to be having a sad over Bernie's better and longer record than

Hillary's record, and that he has clearly, in reality, been much more of a champion for LGBT rights than Hillary has.

This may make you unhappy, but you will find no statements opposing same sex marriage from Senator Sanders, ever, anywhere, like the ones posted below made by Hillary Clinton, anywhere. So you'll just have to keep making shit up about how Senator Sanders did not support same sex marriage, right up until the point where you say he did, whatever year you decide that is.

But it's no big deal, it's all good. The important thing is, marriage is legal. And Hillary did evolve. Be happy!

* In October of 2000, Clinton made clear in response to a question from a gay voter that she did back civil unions -- implemented in Vermont that fall. "I don't support gay marriages, but I do support extending benefits to couples, domestic partner benefits," she said, "and the kind of civil union that Vermont adopted seems to be the way to create that opportunity for people."

* In early 2006, the head of the group Empire State Pride Agenda called for a boycott of a gay and lesbian Clinton fundraiser over her opposition to gay marriage. "In the 2008 cycle, I don't think any candidate can come out and say, 'I am for gay marriage,'" gay activist and Clinton supporter Ethan Geto said in the senator's defense.

* In August of 2007, Clinton reaffirmed her opposition to gay marriage but tried to cast it in a less negative light. "I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions," Clinton said at a forum held by the gay and lesbian television station Logo. "It's a personal position ... we have made it clear in our country that we believe in equality. How we get to full equality is the debate we're having, and I am absolutely in favor of civil unions with full equality ... of benefits, rights, and privileges."

* In June of 2011, Clinton hailed the “historic vote in New York” to legalize same-sex marriage. “I've always believed that we would make progress because we were on the right side of equality and justice," she said. But she did not come out in support of gay marriage herself.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/03/18/how-hillary-clinton-evolved-on-gay-marriage/

From wikipedia:

Same-sex marriage

In a letter he published in the early 1970s while running for governor of Vermont, Sanders called for the abolition of all laws against homosexuality.[152]

In the House, Sanders voted against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996.[153] The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996.

Vermont was the first state to legalize same-sex unions in 2000 and in 2009 was the first state to legalize same-sex marriage by statute. When the Supreme Court took up the issue in 2015, Sanders issued a statement reaffirming his support, saying gay Americans in every state should be allowed to marry: "Of course all citizens deserve equal rights. It's time for the Supreme Court to catch up to the American people and legalize gay marriage."[154]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders#Same-sex_marriage

[Armstead]

119. Geeze you're being a nit picker

What the hell. You wont be satisfied unless someone finds some evidence that Sanders explicitly said something in 1972 that referred specifically to gay marriage, while you reject all evidence that he was outspoken in defense of rights overall throughout the years?

I would also note that some of the response by Sanders supporters about this kind of BULLSHIT is a defensive reaction to these bogus claims that Sanders is some kind of neanderthal who cares nothing about "social issues " and ips insensitive to mininorites despite all evidence that he has been courageous and was fighting for those things in accordance to the situations if the times.

[damonm]

21. No, but...

It seems to me your argument is a bit disingenuous... You appear to be castigating Sanders for not being pro-marriage equality in this 1972 letter, but say nobody had marriage on their radar in 1972 (which, BTW is false in my experience - I distinctly recall hearing the subject broached that early, although I stipulate not widely so).

Given the climate at the time, I have to give Sanders full props for raising the issue at all. IIRC, Homosexuality was still listed as a mental disorder, and was so for another couple of years afterwards. To be calling for ANY Gay equality at that point is laudable.

That said, I do NOT think less of Hillary or Obama for having "evolved" - many have, and that's part of what's been moving the public opinion needle in the right direction. My issue with Hillary revolves more around Wall Street and Iraq, on both of which points Sanders has consistently been correct.

[dsc]

35. I have no problem with Sanders letter

and to my knowledge he isn't trying to peddle the nonsense that that letter is about marriage. I do have a huge problem with supporters of candidates telling stories they like instead of the truth. No reader of that letter, not a single one, would have said back in 1972 that the writer supported marriage equality. Not one.

If supporters want to honestly state that Bernie voted against DOMA while Hillary supported it I have no problem with that. If they want to further say that his silence while voting against the amendment in 2004 is better than her speech while doing so, I have no problem with that. I do have a problem, when I have asked over and over and over and over again for any contemperanous statement of his support of marriage equality and have been stiffed every time, with them saying he favored it since 1972 or 1996 or whatever other date they want to choose. I can't even find one from his Senate run in 2006 nor has one been supplied. The oldest one I found was from 2009

[Thinkingabout]

3. Are you saying there isn't any evidence Bernie supported same sex marriage in the past?

[dsc]

5. yeah pretty much

He did vote against DOMA, but as I supplied when I asked for the quote, he didn't make a statement for the Congressional record and without exception every straight opponent of DOMA, every last one of them who did provide a statement, stated that they didn't favor marriage equality but opposed the law since it singled out gay people. I supplied the link to the Congressional record then.

[Thinkingabout]

20. I have not spent a lot of time checking on the claim given here but I did not find any evidence

Either. Thanks for your research. I will bookmark for future reference.

[Ed Suspicious]

53. Color me shocked. I didn't really look, and I didn't notice anything either.

"I did not find any evidence . . . "

[jeff47]

61. You didn't manage to find 1972 with "a lot of time checking"?

You flipping through books at the library or something?

[Zorra]

6. Nice try: Bernie Sanders Was for Full Gay Equality 40 Years Ago

There is however one prominent politician who did not wait so long to call for full gay equality: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

In a letter he published in the early 1970’s, when he was a candidate for governor of Vermont from the Liberty Union Party, Sanders invoked freedom to call for the abolition of all laws related to homosexuality:



http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/bernie-sanders-was-full-gay-equality-40-years-ago

A Major Milestone on Gay Marriage

Wednesday, May 9, 2012

President Obama on Wednesday publicly endorsed gay marriage. "I applaud the president's historic announcement and his commitment to equal rights for all Americans," said Sen. Bernie Sanders. "I am proud to represent the first state in the country to allow civil unions and the first state where the Legislature allowed same-sex marriage without a court order. I am glad that the president is now on board."

http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/recent-business/a-major-milestone-on-gay-marriage

Now that he's officially announced he will seek the Democratic nomination for president and challenge Hillary Clinton, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders will be talking about his positions on major issues on the campaign trail, and one very big issue he has championed for years is gay marriage. Sanders, unlike some of his potential Republican opponents, seems like he would not turn down an invitation to a gay wedding (and he might actually get invited to one).

In 1996, then-Representative Sanders voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred recognition of gay marriage at the federal level (DOMA was ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 2013). Sanders' and his home state of Vermont were the first to legalize same-sex unions in 2000, at first recognizing them as civil unions. Gay marriage has been legal in Vermont since 2009, and as The New York Times reported, Vermont was the first state to pass legislation in support of same-sex marriage, rather than in reaction to a court ruling.
snip--
The Human Rights Campaign, which advocates for civil rights issues, gave Sanders its highest possible rating for his stance on marriage equality. He's far to the left of Hillary Clinton on many issues, and while Clinton's position on gay marriage has changed over time (when she ran in 2008, Clinton opposed gay marriage), Sanders has been a supporter for more than 15 years. It appears safe to say that having Bernie Sanders in the White House would be a positive for the gay community and their civil rights.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/79951-bernie-sanders-views-on-gay-marriage-show-hes-been-a-supporter-for-a-long-time

[beam me up scottie]

7. I've never seen that claim, what I have seen is that he supported lgbt rights for decades.

And I'm not alone:

32 Years Before Marriage Equality, Bernie Sanders Fought For Gay Rights



But these are only very recent developments. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton may be champions of same-sex marriage now, but you don’t have to go far back to find a time when they weren’t. And hey, we’re happy to have their evolved support.

Not only did Sanders vote against the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 which defined marriage as between one man and one woman, signed into law by then-president Bill Clinton — an unpopular position then — a look back at Sanders’ political career shows consistent support of the gay rights movement. Even when it was more than just unpopular, it was downright controversial.

“In our democratic society, it is the responsibility of government to safeguard civil liberties and civil rights — especially the freedom of speech and expression,” Sanders wrote later in a memo. “In a free society, we must all be committed to the mutual respect of each others lifestyle.”

...

“It is my very strong view that a society which proclaims human freedom as its goal, as the United States does, must work unceasingly to end discrimination against all people. I am happy to say that this past year, in Burlington, we have made some important progress by adopting an ordinance which prohibits discrimination in housing. This law will give legal protection not only to welfare recipients, and families with children, the elderly and the handicapped — but to the gay community as well.”

http://www.queerty.com/32-years-before-marriage-equality-bernie-sanders-fought-for-gay-rights-20150719

On LGBT Rights, Bernie Leads and Hillary Follows

Of course, Clinton has since evolved on LGBT rights, as many have. That's wonderful. But the problem is, she only came out in support of marriage equality after it was not politically risky to do so. In fact, by 2013 - the year Clinton announced her full support for marriage equality - Democratic support for same-sex marriage was the norm, not the exception.

On such an important moral issue that affects my life and the lives of thousands of other Americans, making decisions in this manner is rather despicable. Additionally, Clinton's habit of doing what polls deem politically popular is the reason why so many voters find her inauthentic. Now, if Clinton were the only option for the Democratic presidential nomination, I would understand why we should support her despite these flaws.

But she isn't the only option.

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the longest-serving Independent in the history of Congress, is also running for the nomination. And unlike Clinton, his record on LGBT rights is historically excellent.

Sanders voted against DOMA, one of the few members of Congress to do so, at a time when such a stance was not politically popular. Four years after DOMA passed, Sanders helped champion Vermont's decision in 2000 to become the first state to legalize same-sex civil unions. This set a national precedent for LGBT equality achieved via legislative means. In 2009, when Vermont became the first state to allow marriage equality through legislative action rather than a court ruling, Sanders expressed his support once again. Truly, Sanders has been a real leader on LGBT rights, even if this leadership isn't recognized in the way that Clinton's current support is.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-novak/on-lgbt-rights-bernie-lea_b_7662682.html

Bernie Sanders Was for Full Gay Equality 40 Years Ago

Today’s Supreme Court decision was a monumental moment in American history, as it guaranteed the right for gays and lesbians to get married and established full marriage equality.

Many politicians offered their words of support, including President Obama and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

Yet it is important to remember that Obama and Clinton both opposed marriage equality as late as early 2012. It is a testament to the work of thousands of activists over decades that the political class was pulled towards supporting equality.

There is however one prominent politician who did not wait so long to call for full gay equality: Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT)

In a letter he published in the early 1970’s, when he was a candidate for governor of Vermont from the Liberty Union Party, Sanders invoked freedom to call for the abolition of all laws related to homosexuality:

http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/bernie-sanders-was-full-gay-equality-40-years-ago

Sanders: I was ahead of the curve on gay rights

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Saturday he has been waiting for the nation to catch up to his support for same-sex marriage.

Sanders’ remarks come a day after Friday’s landmark 5-4 Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

He argued he was well ahead of the historic decision, unlike Hillary Clinton, his main rival for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

...

Sanders at the time served in the House of Representatives, which voted 342-67 in favor of DOMA. The Senate voted 85-14 in favor, before former President Bill Clinton signed it into law.

“That was an anti-gay marriage piece of legislation,” he added of the law that defined marriage at the federal level as the coupling of one man and one woman.

Sanders on Saturday praised Americans for creating greater opportunities for same-sex couples. Friday’s Supreme Court ruling, he charged, was not possible without national pressure for gay rights.

“No one here should think for one second this starts with the Supreme Court,” Sanders said.

“It starts at the grassroots level in all 50 states,” he said. “The American people want to end discrimination in all its forms.”

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/246370-sanders-i-was-ahead-of-the-curve-on-gay-rights

Bernie Sanders was decades ahead of the country on gay rights and ending the war on drugs

Most Americans now support legally allowing gay and lesbian relationships, same-sex marriage, and personal marijuana use after decades of shifting public opinion. But one Democratic candidate for president, Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, was calling for many of these changes decades ago.

In a 1972 letter to a local newspaper — which was recently resurfaced by Chelsea Summers at the New Republic — Sanders wrote that he supported abolishing "all laws dealing with abortion, drugs, sexual behavior (adultery, homosexuality, etc.)" as part of his campaign for Vermont governor:

These stances were far removed from public opinion at the time, according to Gallup surveys on marijuana and gay and lesbian rights. In 1972, 81 percent of Americans said marijuana should be illegal — which suggests even more would favor the prohibition of more dangerous drugs like cocaine and heroin. In 1977, the earliest year of polling data, 43 percent of Americans said gay and lesbian relations between consenting adults should not be legal, while 43 percent said they should be legal.

...

But it took decades for the American public to come around to majority support on these issues: It wasn't until 2013 that a majority of Americans supported marijuana legalization, the early 2000s that most consistently responded in favor of legal gay and lesbian relations, and 2011 that a majority first reported backing same-sex marriage rights.

Sanders has carried many of these positions to this day. He was one of the few federal lawmakers to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act, the federal ban on same-sex marriages, in the 1990s. And while he told Time's Jay Newton-Small in March that he has no current stance on marijuana legalization (but backs medical marijuana), he characterized the war on drugs as costly and destructive.

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/7/8905905/sanders-drugs-gay-rights

Your straw man is awfully cute.

I'll give you an A for effort but an F on the rest because you failed to complete the project by doing the research.

Better luck next time!

[dsc]

8. On the subject of research

I already addressed the Huffington Post piece you posted when it was posted before, in June. It was just as slipshod then too.

An article from a college paper was posted here, which quite amusingly instructed us to read history books, that claimed that Clinton signed a travel ban on HIV infected people and that one should vote for Sanders due to this. There are sadly some problems with this.

We tried to get rid of it in the 1990 immigration bill by mandating that the list would henceforth be maintained by the CDC, and that it would include only conditions with a solid medical justification. To his credit, President Bush (41) signed it into law, and his CDC issued a rule in 1991 knocking everything off the list except tuberculosis. There was a revolt in the Republican Conference in the House, led by then Rep. Bill Dannemeyer (R-CA). The CDC pulled the rule and the INS kept the old list in place.

Clinton campaigned on a promise to remove the ban. Shortly after he got to the White House, in February of 1993, Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) offered an amendment to the NIH reauthorization to keep the old list. Ted Kennedy tried to offer an alternative, but it failed 42-56. The Nickles Amendment then passed 76-23.

(All 23 “no” votes were Democrats. Notably, Joe Lieberman was one of the “yes” votes one of the many early examples of his cozying up to Jesse Helms on gay rights and AIDS/HIV issues.

When the House and Senate went to conference on the bill, then-Rep. Tom Bliley (R-VA) offered a motion to instruct conferees to agree to the Nickles Amendment. It passed 356 to 58. Again, all 58 who voted “No” were Democrats (plus Bernie Sanders). At that point, both chambers of Congress had voted to block Clinton's planned executive order by veto-proof margins. When Congress sent Clinton the NIH authorization in June of 1993, he signed it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2006/12/the-hiv-travel-ban/232005/

Now here's the kicker. Sanders voted for the bill that Clinton signed.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1993/h178

In short, Sanders and Clinton both did the same thing. Both favored an ending of the travel ban, both fought the amendment that added it to the NIH appropriation in 93, and both wound up supporting the final bill after being beaten back. And both made the correct decision at every step of the process. That NIH bill was vital to all people but especially those with HIV. It funded both care and research. That research is why the writer of that editorial doesn't have to fear AIDS as a deadly disease like I did when I was his age. Read history books indeed.

[beam me up scottie]

12. No, I meant the research you didn't do when you constructed your straw man.

It pretty much invalidates your whole argument.

[virtualobserver]

15. this endless attempt to justify Hillary's questionable record is just embarassing

no reasonable person questions Bernie's stand.

[dsc]

17. I notice not one substantive comment on my takedown of the huffington post piece

fancy that. Of course name calling you seem to excel at.

[virtualobserver]

24. no name calling, this is just a waste of time

the evidence is clear.....Bernie has always stood against discrimination in any form.

Sifting through the minutiae in these attempts to spin some tiny detail as an inconsistency in Bernie's record is just about the least meaningful thing that I could do in life.

Doing that based on your attempt at establishing a false equivalency with Hillary's enormous "evolution" on this same issue makes it even less meaningful.

To say that this attempt is embarrassing is putting it mildly.

[beam me up scottie]

26. It is embarrassing.

Their whole argument is that people are claiming that Bernie supported same sex marriage in 1972 which isn't true.

[dsc]

29. yeah the hiv travel ban is minuta

But the fact is the piece you and beam me up scottie is treating as gospel is a hot mess. Plain and simple.

[beam me up scottie]

33. It's a good thing you edited your post.

You wouldn't want to get locked out of your own thread before you're done making false claims about everyone who disagrees with you.

[virtualobserver]

40. a don't care about any particular article

I look at his platform listed in his 1972 letter.

Lets abolish ALL laws which attempt to impose
a particular brand of morality or "right" on people.

That would cover restricting Gay Marriage. Until 1973, there was no restriction on gender in any marriage statute in any state within the U.S.


Lets abolish ALL laws dealing with abortion,drugs,sexual behavior
(adultery,homosexuality, etc.)

even more reinforcement

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage#1970s

Michael McConnell (l) and Jack Baker apply at the Hennepin County courthouse for a license to marry.
October 15 1971: The Supreme Court of the U.S. state of Minnesota upholds the decision of a lower court that denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple did not violate the U.S. Constitution." This was in reference to a marriage application filed by activist Jack Baker and Michael McConnell in 1970, which garnered extensive media attention. An appeal of that decision ended when the U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case as required by a law in effect but then dismissed it "for want of a substantial federal question". (see Baker v. Nelson). Until 1973, there was no restriction on gender in any marriage statute in any state within the U.S.

1. two years before Bernie ran for Governor
2. extensive media attention

Bernie is an activist. He would have been aware.

[dsc]

43. It depends on what the meaning of restriction is

many statutes mention gender explicitly and did so in 1973. But they weren't as separate laws but as a definition. Which is precisely why no one would read the words eliminate all laws that impose morality as meaning marriage equality. Removal of the law would leave no law in regards to marriage at all.

[virtualobserver]

44. no reasonable person could read the following....

Lets abolish ALL laws which attempt to impose
a particular brand of morality or "right" on people.

Lets abolish ALL laws dealing with abortion,drugs,sexual behavior
(adultery,homosexuality, etc.)

....and possibly believe that he would not support gay marriage
unless they were just determined to believe otherwise.

[dsc]

46. yeah they pretty much could and did

Again, removal of the law would have meant no marriage law at all. Incidentally I don't consider marriage equality sexual behavior.

[virtualobserver]

55. the point is about what Bernie believed

read the first one again

Lets abolish ALL laws which attempt to impose
a particular brand of morality or "right" on people.



He believed in no restrictions, period. He couldn't have been more clear.

as for

removal of the law would have meant no marriage law at all.

give me a break....A new law concerning marriage that does not discriminate would also abolish the old law which is how things happen in the real world.

[dsc]

57. then he would have written that

He would have said alter or change the law not remove the law. That is why we know he wasn't talking about marriage equality. Again, even now, we don't consider marriage equality a matter of sexual behavior and certainly haven't been comparing it to adultery.

[virtualobserver]

59. Lets abolish ALL laws which attempt to impose a particular brand of morality or "right" on people.

why is this sentence incomprehensible to you?

[dsc]

60. because marriage isn't sexual behavior

which of course you leave out of the sentence. Again, no one, not a single solitary human being on planet earth in 1972 would have taken that to mean supporting marriage equality. It would have been a stretch but I would give it meaning ending employment and housing discrimination. But no, no one would think it meant marriage equality.

[virtualobserver]

64. there are two separate sentences

the second one talks about sexual behavior,

but the first one

Lets abolish ALL laws which attempt to impose
a particular brand of morality or "right" on people.

What "particular brand of morality or right" was he talking about?
This is separate from the sexual statement below.
Marriage is a moral law and it was a right that was denied to gay people
and he wants to abolish ALL laws which attempt to impose a particular
brand of morality or "right" on people.

That line is stated quite differently than the next line which list behaviors...

Lets abolish ALL laws dealing with abortion,drugs,sexual behavior
(adultery,homosexuality, etc.)

[MannyGoldstein]

10. "Bernie embraced same-sex marriage fewer decades before Hillary"

"Bernie embraced same-sex marriage fewer decades before Hillary than some people think"

This is some sort of argument... for what? Are you serious?

[dsc]

13. actually it might not even be decades at all

Did he support it in his 2006 Senate run for example?

[MannyGoldstein]

19. "These are not the Droids you are looking for."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=500529

[dsc]

23. that doesn't apply to marriage equality

No one, not a single, solitary soul. Not one would have read that letter in 1972 and thought that the writer of that letter was referring to marriage equality. It literally wasn't on the radar. But even more to the point, in Vermont the bar to marriage wasn't a law stating that gays couldn't marry but instead a law which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. So removing that law, would have removed legal marriage, which is why, no one, not a single solitary soul. Not one would have read that letter in 1972 and said the writer of it supported gay marriage or marriage equality.

[jeff47]

62. What prevented "gay marriage" in 1972?

Laws based on sexual orientation.

What did Sanders want to do in 1972? Eliminate laws based on sexual orientation.

[dsc]

65. a definiton not a separate law

and not based on behavior, the word he used. In VT, the law was a definition. Remove the law and you remove marriage. It wasn't a case of there was a law for marriage and a separate law that said gays can't marry (as many states later did indeed to). No one, not a single, solitary soul, would have taken the words he wrote to mean we should have marriage equality. They could mean that there should be a civil rights laws for gays in VT but even that is frankly a stretch. the vast majority of the people reading that letter would have taken it as a call to legalize sodomy (and marijuana and adultery).

[jeff47]

68. The definition was based on sexual orientation.

It wasn't a case of there was a law for marriage and a separate law that said gays can't marry

The existing law said man and woman. You don't need a separate law banning "gay marriage" when the existing law restricts it to heterosexuals.

The laws explicitly banning "gay marriage" were a fundraising and voter drive gimmick everywhere but CA's prop 8. Prop 8 actually did something, but last I checked, VT was not CA.

No one, not a single, solitary soul, would have taken the words he wrote to mean we should have marriage equality.

So....you think "they would totally misunderstand" makes the letter disappear.

What is your goal here? Clinton opposed "gay marriage" until 2013. Moving Sanders up to 1996 or 2004 does not move her position any earlier. She was still among the last major Democratic party figures to "evolve". That is not a good mark for her, and lying about Sanders does not erase it.

[dsc]

70. the best I have found for him is 2009

but my goal is for us to be honest. No one in 1972 would have taken that letter to mean what you are saying it means. No one. Not gay people, not anti gay people, not people who didn't give a flip one way or the other. The letter, at its most generous, meant that gays shouldn't be discriminated against in housing and employment. I doubt even that was intended but it could have been. But there is no way the writer of that letter intended it to mean, or that the readers of that letter thought it meant, that gays should be free to marry. In CA, prop 8 was proposed after a court decision that legalized marriage equality, it wasn't a measure to help Bush get elected. In most states where they were proposed they were constitutional amendments which made the restriction stronger.

What ever the actual case is, I am fine with. If he supported it in 96, then fine, he supported it in 96. If he did so in 2000, then fine on that. But so far the evidence suggests that neither one is likely to be true. He certainly wasn't broadcasting this support in any easily found way. It isn't in the Congressional record of 96 when DOMA was passed (he didn't speak on DOMA). It isn't in David Moats book about the Civil Union battle in Vermont (I own a copy). And now I found a source which states he didn't take a position on the issue in 2000. Now if, in 1996, he had taken the position that he favored marriage equality and didn't simply oppose DOMA, then unless this source is a liar, incompetent, or a crack pot, that would likely have been noted no matter what Sanders email did or didn't say. I have searched extensively but I don't have lexis nexis. I have asked for a contemporaneous account of his support in either 96 or 2000 and haven't been given any. He wrote a book about his service in the House and though he addresses his vote against DOMA in it, he doesn't say he favors marriage equality. His own website says he supported the civil unions bill in 2000 and the marriage bill (in VT) in 2009 in a statement he wrote this year when the marriage decision came down. Nowhere in that statement does he say he supported marriage equality since 72 or 96 or 2000.

[jeff47]

73. No, your goal is to "help" your candidate.

Honesty really isn't important. For example, you skipping right over his vote against DOMA as "not evidence".

What ever the actual case is, I am fine with. If he supported it in 96, then fine, he supported it in 96.

Then why did you just claim he did not support it until 2009. With your honesty.

Get your story straight before you post.

Now if, in 1996, he had taken the position that he favored marriage equality and didn't simply oppose DOMA

What, exactly, would be a position where one opposes marriage equality while also opposing DOMA?

His own website says he supported the civil unions bill in 2000

Was there a "marriage" bill? No? Then why oppose the civil unions bill when that's the only thing on the table?

Oh, right. Pragmatism is only a virtue for one candidate.

[dsc]

75. It isn't evidence when every single solitary straight person who cast the same vote he did

who addressed why they did so in the Congressional record said they did so EVEN THOUGH THEY OPPOSED GAY MARRIAGE. Every last one of them. so yeah, absent a statement saying he favored it I am going to think his rationale was the same as there. I am further going to think that WHEN HIS OWN BOOK IMPLIES THAT. As to a position opposing DOMA and also opposing marriage equality you can use this link and read Kerry's statement in support of his vote on this bill. http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/scotts/ftp/wpaf2mc/senate-debate.pdf

Oh, and yes there was a marriage bill filed as well, it just didn't go anywhere.

[jeff47]

80. Again, what was the position where you oppose both "gay marriage" and DOMA?

The only point of DOMA is to block "gay marriage". How do you oppose both?

Oh, and yes there was a marriage bill filed as well, it just didn't go anywhere.

So he should have opposed the civil unions bill that did go somewhere?

[dsc]

81. Read the link I provided

it is a pdf and I can't cut and paste it. If you are too lazy or don't have time to read the link I took the time to provide you that isn't my problem. I found the link. I refuse to type paragraphs of text by hand. Kerry lays out his reasoning and that of EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY STRAIGHT CONGRESSPERSON WHO OPPOSED DOMA rather well, but you do need to actually bother to read it.

[jeff47]

83. Because the concept of a summary is difficult?

Kerry's argument was basically Congress shouldn't decide this.

Wow...that was utterly impossible to type.

Btw, Congress not deciding this means allowing other states to "have the debate". The point of DOMA was to pre-empt those states that were legalizing it. Like Vermont.

But hey, this is a great distraction from Clinton supporting DOMA.

[dsc]

101. I don't do summaries due to then, I am sure, being accused of slanting said summaries

[Zorra]

22. Here: Read it, and weep for your lost cause.

Voted NO on Constitutional Amendment banning same-sex marriage. (Sep 2004)

Voted NO on banning gay adoptions in DC. (Jul 1999)

Voted NO on Constitutionally defining marriage as one-man-one-woman. (Jul 2006)

ENDA: prohibit employment discrimination for gays. (Jun 2009)

Rated 100% by the HRC, indicating a pro-gay-rights stance. (Dec 2006)

http://www.ontheissues.org/senate/bernie_sanders.htm

[dsc]

28. I will try this very slowly

very, very slowly. Yes, Bernie voted against DOMA. I know that. I have stated that several times. But, he didn't say then, and he didn't say in 2000 that he favored marriage equality. every single straight congressperson who gave a reason for the record in 1996, Bernie didn't, stated that they didn't favor marriage equality but felt the law should be opposed as it targeted gay people for no good reason. I provided this sitation already and it is getting late so you can search my posts for it. Now as to the specific votes you put up. Hillary also voted against the amendment (while not favoring marriage). She was out of the Senate by 2009 but her husband and her fought for ENDA in 96 (I assume Sanders who have voted for it had the House had a vote). She also had a 100 percent rating in 06 (again while opposing marriage). The vote from 99 apparently didn't pass the House so Clinton didn't act on it. I would presume he would have vetoed it had it come to that but it didn't.

But bottom line, this is about one thing and one thing only. We have been regaled with tales of two candidates. One supported marriage equality longly and loudly since 1972 or at least since 1996. The other, is a vile flip flopper who evolved on it and can't be trusted. Yet, I keep asking for evidence of the first candidate's support and keep getting stiffed. Now there are some differneces, I agree with that. He voted against DOMA and she supported it. He was silent while opposing a Constitutional amendment in 2004 while she gave a rather unfortunate speech while doing so. But both voted the right way, it should be noted. I have no problem with honestly pointing out differences between candidates. I do have a problem with dishonestly doing so. It is dishonest to say that the letter written in 1972 has anything at all to do with marriage. Not only that, it is profoundly disrespectful to those of us who were alive back then and know just what being gay was like back then. It is also dishonest to say he was a loud supporter of marriage equality back in 96 or in 2000. Not only haven't I found anything with him saying he was such a supporter back then, no supporter of his here or elsewhere has found any either. And yes, I did search for it, because I try to be honest with all candidates. The fact is he might have supported it very quietly, I admit there is no video of him opposing it, nor have I found statements of him opposing it. I know what you would say of Hillary if this were the state of the evidence, you would say, quite fairly, that she certainly wasn't a huge leader on the issue and she was playing it safe. And if supporters of Sanders were to stick to saying he voted against DOMA and didn't give speeches about opposition to marriage equality both of which make her record better than Hillary's in this regard, I wouldn't say a word. But that isn't what you all are saying. When you type unmittigated nonsense like a letter written in 1972 that was clearly about removing sodomy laws was some sort of marriage manifesto, I am going to call you on it.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

14. yes

yes
more info out there

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-novak/on-lgbt-rights-bernie-lea_b_7662682.html

[dsc]

18. Yeah I already discussed that hot mess of a piece but here you go again

I already addressed the Huffington Post piece you posted when it was posted before, in June. It was just as slipshod then too.

An article from a college paper was posted here, which quite amusingly instructed us to read history books, that claimed that Clinton signed a travel ban on HIV infected people and that one should vote for Sanders due to this. There are sadly some problems with this.

We tried to get rid of it in the 1990 immigration bill by mandating that the list would henceforth be maintained by the CDC, and that it would include only conditions with a solid medical justification. To his credit, President Bush (41) signed it into law, and his CDC issued a rule in 1991 knocking everything off the list except tuberculosis. There was a revolt in the Republican Conference in the House, led by then Rep. Bill Dannemeyer (R-CA). The CDC pulled the rule and the INS kept the old list in place.

Clinton campaigned on a promise to remove the ban. Shortly after he got to the White House, in February of 1993, Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) offered an amendment to the NIH reauthorization to keep the old list. Ted Kennedy tried to offer an alternative, but it failed 42-56. The Nickles Amendment then passed 76-23.

(All 23 “no” votes were Democrats. Notably, Joe Lieberman was one of the “yes” votes one of the many early examples of his cozying up to Jesse Helms on gay rights and AIDS/HIV issues.

When the House and Senate went to conference on the bill, then-Rep. Tom Bliley (R-VA) offered a motion to instruct conferees to agree to the Nickles Amendment. It passed 356 to 58. Again, all 58 who voted “No” were Democrats (plus Bernie Sanders). At that point, both chambers of Congress had voted to block Clinton's planned executive order by veto-proof margins. When Congress sent Clinton the NIH authorization in June of 1993, he signed it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2006/12/the-hiv-travel-ban/232005/

Now here's the kicker. Sanders voted for the bill that Clinton signed.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1993/h178

In short, Sanders and Clinton both did the same thing. Both favored an ending of the travel ban, both fought the amendment that added it to the NIH appropriation in 93, and both wound up supporting the final bill after being beaten back. And both made the correct decision at every step of the process. That NIH bill was vital to all people but especially those with HIV. It funded both care and research. That research is why the writer of that editorial doesn't have to fear AIDS as a deadly disease like I did when I was his age. Read history books indeed.

[BainsBane]

27. There is no end to this sort of thing

Last edited Sat Aug 8, 2015, 12:49 AM - Edit history (1)

Clinton is responsible for changes in sentencing because she was First Lady at the time, but Bernie has absolutely no responsibility for his votes on the two crime bilsl. Gun manufacturers and Lockheed Martin evidently aren't considered "corporations" like the evil Wall Street. Evidently making money from murder and war is a superior form of capitalism than usury. It's unacceptable for Clinton as SoS to be seen with a former SoS, the Israeli head of state, and Republican presidents, but it's perfectly acceptable for Bernie to speak at Liberty University and maintain hawkish policies on Israel. Super PACs for Bernie are fine, but one's for Clinton are not. Black LIves Matter is a Koch conspiracy, while Liberty University is populated by good, Republican allies.

Oh, and Clinton's attending events by the Family is horrible, but they'll just ignore the fact that Bernie has also done so.

[beam me up scottie]

30. What sort of thing?

Bringing up guns, Lockheed Martin, Liberty University, hawkish policies on Israel, and Black Lives Matter in a thread about something else entirely in an attempt to further tarnish Bernie and his supporters?

I agree, there is no end to this sort of thing.

The topic is support of lgbt rights, Bane.

Not how many points you can score against Bernie Sanders while completely ignoring the actual issue.

[jeff47]

66. She has responsibility for her own statements in support of sentencing, welfare reform, etc.

It's unacceptable for Clinton as SoS to be seen with a former SoS, Israeli head of state, and Republican presidents

Make sure to leave out any pesky context. Like all her positive statements about Kissinger. Including those would be awkward.

but it's perfectly acceptable for Bernie to speak at Liberty University

Fucking Ted Kennedy!! Oh wait, that was a different Democrat who spoke at Liberty university.

How many votes do you win by speaking to people who already support you?

and maintain hawkish policies on Israel.

Like supporting a two state solution, and the current Iran deal....oh wait, that's not hawkish.

Super PACs for Bernie are fine, but one's for Clinton are not.

Because Clinton setting up Super-PACs and coordinating with them is entirely the same thing as someone else deciding to set up a Super-PAC without talking to Sanders.

Black LIves Matter is a Koch conspiracy, while Liberty University is populated by good Republican allies

Link to the claim that Liberty University is full of allies?

Oh, and Clinton's attending events by the Family is horrible, but they'll just ignore the fact that Bernie has also done so.

Clinton didn't just attend events. She was a regular at their prayer group.

Sanders would be barred from those, since he's not Christian.

You know, for a supposedly inevitable and wonderful candidate, you spend an awful lot of time slinging bullshit at others.

[BainsBane]

72. Sanders mentions one of the Family's events on his website

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251500101


In fact, I read on Wikiepdia that the Family is criticized by RW evangelicals for being too inclusive.

Clinton is responsible for her statements, and Sanders is responsible for his votes. If changes in crime policy were the fault of the first lady more than the congress who voted for it, than that would make Laura Bush more responsible for the Iraq War than Hillary Clinton. Of course there will be no more consistency on that issue than any other.

That whole thread about LU and the one about Clinton in Beijing is talking about how great it is that Bernie is going to get votes from RWers. They are saying it is more important than Clinton speaking out for global women's rights in the 90s.

It is illegal to coordinate with Super Pacs. One thing Sanders has done is make claims to the the public that he isn't taking money from Super Pacs. He willfully uses their ignorance about campaign finance law, and that you think that better than Clinton's not claiming to be superior for following the law shows how little the issue matters to you. His authorized PAC was also fined for failure to submit the basic paperwork required under the already meager campaign finance law.

Everything I said in my post is true. Not only is it true it is common. Anyone who is remotely open minded has seen it. There are even Sanders supporters who have commented on some of the above. That you make excuses for blatant hypocrisy doesn't mean the hypocrisy doesn't exist. It merely shows your commitment to it.

I like Clinton fine. I don't think she is perfect, and I don't treat her like the messiah. I disagree with her on lots of issues. She's a politician, not a spiritual leader. I have never presented her as perfect or anything close. I don't worship politicians. I don't expect them to be mirror images of myself, and most importantly I don't throw social movements for racial equality under the bus because I fear a politician can't take criticism. She can handle herself fine. I don't need to surrender my character to support her or anyone else. Voting is something I do. It's not who I am.

Everything I said is obvious to anyone who pays attention. You willfully ignore the obvious, and you have recommended threads attacking Black Lives Matter. You think I'm going to actually take seriously your pretense at moral righteousness? Anyone who attacks movements for civil rights like BLM shows themselves to be diametrically opposed to the fundamental values that are central to my politics. Clearly we are not friends or allies, and you have no reason to scold me or even speak to me again.

[jeff47]

76. So still can't quite grasp the difference between attending an event and joining their group.

Clinton is responsible for her statements, and Sanders is responsible for his votes. If changes in crime policy were the fault of the first lady more than the congress who voted for it, than that would make Laura Bush more responsible for the Iraq War than Hillary Clinton. Of course there will be no more consistency on that issue than any other.

So Clinton is responsible, but she isn't responsible.

Could you pick one, or would logical consistency be too awkward?

It is illegal to coordinate with Super Pacs.

It is illegal to coordinate with superPACs after you declare you are a candidate. Guess what? Time didn't start when Clinton declared her candidacy. Her SuperPACs were set up before she declared. By Clinton and her allies. Now that she's declared, most of her SuperPACs are being run by her allies.

Correct the Record has stated that they are coordinating with the Clinton campaign. Which as you point out is illegal. Fortunately, the Republicans have rendered the FEC unable to enforce election laws.

Everything I said in my post is true.

Yep, you just left out relevant details in order to mislead.

I like Clinton fine. I don't think she is perfect, and I don't treat her like the messiah. I disagree with her on lots of issue She's a politician, not a spiritual leader. I like her best of the available choices. I have never presented her as perfect or anything close. (...) I don't need to surrender my character to support her or anyone else.

You realize your posting history is public and searchable, right?

and you have recommended threads attacking Black Lives Matter.

Yep, I believe their leadership has made mistakes. Now, someone who just lectured about not worshiping and the importance of pragmatism wouldn't use that to immediately leap to claiming to not support the cause. That would be highly hipocritical. So that would be entirely wrong....

You think I'm going to actually take seriously your pretense at moral righteousness? Anyone who attacks movements for civil rights like BLM shows themselves to be diametrically opposed to the fundamental values that are central to my worldview.

Hello, Pot.

[beam me up scottie]

84. That was outstanding.

[Cha]

92. Brilliant post, Bains. Mahalo!

"That whole thread about LU and the one about Clinton in Beijing is talking about how great it is that Bernie is going to get votes from RWers. They are saying it is more important than Clinton speaking out for global women's rights in the 90s."

They would.

"You willfully ignore the obvious, and you have recommended threads attacking Black Lives Matter. You think I'm going to actually take seriously your pretense at moral righteousness? Anyone who attacks movements for civil rights like BLM shows themselves to be diametrically opposed to the fundamental values that are central to my politics."

Anyone who attacks #BlackLivesMatter does so at their own peril and that of the candidate they are ignorant trying to protect.


"Poll Shows Why Black Lives Matter Activists Should Be Proud"


snip//

Nearly one year after Michael Brown was shot dead by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, a new poll shows a growing number of people believe there's much to be done before black lives will be valued as much as others.

Fifty-nine percent of Americans now believe changes are needed to give African-Americans equal rights, according to a Pew Research Center poll released on Wednesday.

That's up from 46 percent in a Pew poll just last year, before Brown was killed by officer Darren Wilson on Aug. 9, setting off a series of demonstrations and fueling the Black Lives Matter movement.

MOre..
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/poll-black-lives-matter-activists_55c24a2de4b0d9b28f0525e9?utm_hp_ref=black-voices&kvcommref=mostpopular&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000051

I love the amazing work #BlackLivesMatters activists have been doing.. especially at Netroots Nation!

Michael Brown

[BainsBane]

93. We've got a movement for civil rights going on right now in America

and people who claim to be so progressive are lining up to denounce it. It is unconscionable.

For Michael Brown and the hundreds since.

[Cha]

95. Yes, For Michael Brown, the hundreds since, and the hundreds before~

"We've got a movement for civil rights going on right now in America

and people who claim to be so progressive are lining up to denounce it. It is unconscionable."

It is unconscionable and unfathomable.

[eridani]

97. Jus like the 2007 candidate of "hardworking people, white people"? n/t

[SunSeeker]

31. K & R & bookmarked. Thanks for the research. nt

[NCTraveler]

36. Hillary and Sanders are both on my side on this.

Fuck anyone who says differently, not you of course. Clinton has some serious accomplishments at the highest level of government in this area. Sanders, when he does speak on the issue, is on my side. I do like Clinton going all in and actually making change.

[dsc]

42. I agree with that

I have no problem with Sanders, who isn't peddling the crapola that he has been in favor of marriage equality since 1972, as some of his supporters are. I also don't really care from the stand point of Sanders himself if he supported marriage equality in 96 or 2000. But what I do care about is his supporters making crap up. If he supported marriage equality back in 96 that would be fine and I wouldn't post again on the subject. But I have tried, using several different sources, to find any evidence at all that he did so, and have come up totally empty. I asked on more than one occasion for such evidence and got nothing. At this point, I think he was likely very quiet on the matter and voted right. That is still marginally better than Clinton was during her time in the Senate, as she voted right but said unfortunate things. But it isn't the tales we have been told by any means.

[jeff47]

69. What change did she make?

She opposed "gay marriage" until 2013. So what change did she make as a private citizen in the last two years?

[dsc]

74. she got state to let gay spouses travel on diplomatic passports

and at state department expense which was a huge deal. She also provided family leave and other benefits that had been denied. If you actually cared about this issue you likely would have known that. Her cabinet department was the first to make those changes and the recently released email shows it was at her behest that the changes had been made. This was in 2010

[NCTraveler]

41. Thank you for this dsc.

Including your replies throughout. I read every one of your replies and you simply nail it throughout. including to some who are simple offensive. Same posters who are excited to pick off some isolationists and Paul supporters at Liberty U. It isn't about civil rights to them. It is about economics. They will now be fighting for some kind of economic end to bigotry. How no one knows, but keep the faith. As are the attacks on the one candidate who has changed regulation for the better in this area at the highest level of government. I consider each attack on her in this area to be an attack on one of our greatest allies and the one person willing to stick their neck out and actually change the system itself.

Seems I wanted to add a little more. Thanks dsc.

[beam me up scottie]

50. Has Bernie ever not supported marriage equality?

When you can support your contention that he didn't, let me know.

[Cha]

71. bernie is not the perfect saint his fans make him out to be. And, they've done him no favors pushing

that meme.

I have the same problem as you, dsc.. the hypocrisy.

[virtualobserver]

87. the song of hillary supporters in relation to Bernie...

(sung)

Come with me
And you'll be
In a world of
Pure imagination
Take a look
And you'll see
Into your imagination

We'll begin
With a spin
Traveling in
The world of my creation
What we'll see
Will defy
Explanation

[delrem]

82. Bernie didn't stand up and recite, from memory,

a diatribe against same sex marriage. In honor of Christian tradition. To satisfy some Christian group thought necessary to his campaign.

The guy he was back then has been jostled forward by the results of victories.
And don't anyone try to tell me that he wasn't on the right side of those victories.

It didn't take him until 2013 to figure out the proper focus group inspired pass-phrase into political correctness. His entire history shows that he's been an OK guy.

[NCTraveler]

88. How much do they care?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251500703

[Cha]

90. "It's amazing what campaigns will bring out of people ... Sometimes, their real self shines..

through."

Wow, I guess so!

Thanks again for your OP, dsc.. too bad stating the truth about Bernie is taken as a "smear against a liberal".

They can't debate so they resort to personal attacks.

[TM99]

91. Another day, another hit piece.

You did not "find" this recently. Your link is from a Daily KOS blog from July 31st. The blogger is a Clinton supporter. This is yet another Rovian/Atwater attack piece. Find a candidate's strengths, set up the straw man that he and/or his supporters think he is perfect, then find, imagine, or even create what might be an imperfection and exploit it. Wow, if Sanders has one such flaw then perhaps Clinton and he really aren't that different, and golly gee, they both evolved so Clinton is the better candidate for other reasons.

Utter and complete horseshit. Sanders has a long and well-documented history of supporting LGBT civil rights long before it was acceptable to do so in this country politically or personally. He has supported gay marriage once gay marriage became a political reality. It was not even on the land-scape in the early 1970's. Then, homosexuality was still a DSM classified mental health disorder.

You are trying to take one article and use it to dismiss the truth, yes the fucking truth, that he is miles and away better on LGBT civil rights than Hillary Clinton was for decades.

This is happening now in so many areas and with such alacrity that it is appearing orchestrated. I like Sanders but I have concerns. Sanders supporters think he is perfect, walks on water, etc. Saint Bernard. On and on.

I could give two shits about a single instance of him not answering a direct question from a journalist. Why? Because I can research and see decades of meaningful support beyond words. DOMA had one purpose and one purpose only - stop LGBT marriage before it could start. Sanders voted against that. He took action in support of LGBT marriage with that vote and his statements then regarding it. The Clintons, yes both of them, have yet to own their putting forth and complete support for DOMA. Evolution is great. Apologizing and owning up to your past bad behavior is even better.

Fuck this noise.

[Zorra]

96. Bernie Sanders, 1983: “It is my very strong view that a society which proclaims human freedom

as its goal, as the United States does, must work unceasingly to end discrimination against all people.

To end discrimination against all people.

All people.

No exceptions, no caveats, no fine print.

[beam me up scottie]

98. Don't let the "article" in the op fool you.

It's an opinion piece from a guy who couldn't even bother to publish this "carefully crafted non-statement statement via e-mail" he supposedly got from Bernie's office. It sounds like the guy was pissed because Bernie wouldn't give him the time of day and this was how he was going to get even.

It's short on facts and long on conjecture, which is why it's ridiculous to even cite it as a source.

This last part was left out of the op:

That’s as far as Ol’ Bernardo would go. It’s an election year, yet despite the lack of a serious challenger, The Bern’s gut-level paranoia is acting up. He’s afraid to say something that might alienate his conservative, rebel-loving rural following out in the hills. Something that could be interpreted as “Bernie Loves Queers!”

So Bernie's not facing a serious challenger yet he's "afraid" to say something?

That doesn't even make sense.

I'm from Vermont and Bernie ALWAYS stood up for the lgbt community, he never hesitated to speak up, never pulled his punches, never cared what was popular at the time.

And it wasn't easy, it did take courage because there was a backlash against him.

He didn't give a shit about "his conservative, rebel-loving rural following out in the hills".

If he did he would never have championed lgbt rights in Vermont.



The op has absolutely no evidence that Bernie Sanders didn't support same sex marriage or lgbt equality. It's pathetic that they're pretending they finally found the "gotcha" story that's going to put an end the mythical lgbt support they've heard so much about on DU.

To prove their point they completely dismissed not only Bernie's record but his own words.


And to what purpose?


Why would anyone smear a tried and true ally like that?


I was wondering when the next desperate installment of "Not Good Enough Bernie" would appear and here it is.

[dsc]

102. Do you have a link for that

[Zorra]

110. Here

“It is my very strong view that a society which proclaims human freedom as its goal, as the United States does, must work unceasingly to end discrimination against all people. I am happy to say that this past year, in Burlington, we have made some important progress by adopting an ordinance which prohibits discrimination in housing. This law will give legal protection not only to welfare recipients, and families with children, the elderly and the handicapped — but to the gay community as well.”

http://www.queerty.com/32-years-before-marriage-equality-bernie-sanders-fought-for-gay-rights-20150719

[dsc]

115. fair enough doesn't specificaly mention marriage but is a good statement

Many marriage opponents have said or signed similar statements. Here is one example.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/John_Kerry_Civil_Rights.htm#Gay_Rights

Personally believes marriage is between a man & a woman

If the Massachusetts legislature crafts an amendment that provides for partnership and civil unions, then I would support it, and it would advance the goal of equal protection. I personally believe marriage is between a man and a woman.
Source: Paul Farhi, Washington Post , May 15, 2004
Defense of Marriage Act is fundamentally ugly

In 1996, John Kerry again parted with the church when he voted against the Defense of Marriage Act, which created a federal defintion of marriage as the union between a man and a woman and prohibited the extending of federal marital benefits, such as Social Security, for same-sex partners. Kerry called the Defense of Marriage Act “fundamentally ugly, fundamentally political, and fundamentally flawed.”
Source: Complete Biography By The Boston Globe, p.294 , Apr 27, 2004
Opposes Massachusetts DOMA since there’s a federal DOMA

Q: You say you oppose gay marriage. You also oppose the federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. Do you think other states should have to recognize a gay marriage performed in Massachusetts?
KERRY: I said very clearly that I believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. But notwithstanding that belief, there was no issue in front of the country when that was put before the US Senate.
Q: You also said that you believe the Defense of Marriage Act was fundamentally unconstitutional.
KERRY: I was incorrect in that statement. I think, in fact, that no state has to recognize something that is against their public policy. For 200 years, we have left marriage up to the states.
Q: So would you support the Massachusetts Defense of Marriage Act?
KERRY: No, because the Defense of Marriage Act is the law of the land today.
Source: Democratic 2004 primary debate at USC , Feb 26, 2004
For partnership rights and civil union

Q: What can you do to help make sure that gays and lesbians have an opportunity to build and love their families?
A: I have always fought for the right of people to be able to be treated equally in America. Long before there was a television show or a march in Washington. In 1985, I was the sole sponsor of the Civil Rights Act to make sure we enforced that in America. I am for partnership rights. I am for civil union. I am for the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. I am for the hate crimes legislation
Source: CNN “Rock The Vote” Democratic Debate , Nov 5, 2003
Provide gays and lesbians with full coverage of civil rights

We have great difficulties in providing people with full coverage of civil rights in this country, particularly gays and lesbians.
Source: KERRY/WELD: CLASH OF THE TITANS, PBS.org , Jun 5, 1996

end of quote

The fact is in 1983 and quite later even, banning gay people from getting married wasn't actually considered discrimination by most people, including pro gay liberals. So yes, it is quite possible to say the words Sanders said and still be opposed to marriage equality as many, many people were back then and well into the 2000's. I know I could find similar things said by Obama for example and likely Hillary Clinton as well. I chose Kerry only because he was actually in office in the early 80's and I knew would be easy to find stuff for.

[Betty Karlson]

99. His support preceded hers, and came at a time when it wans't yet "safe" to give it.

And like with her, I don't care that he may have wavered once at a time, the important thing is he came out if full support later.

[dsc]

104. actually his support did predate hers

but by how much and how unsafe was it. The earliest I have found is a self serving statement after the fact of support in 2009 when his state enacted marriage without a court ordering it to do so. I believe they were the first to do that but I might be wrong on that. Conversely she was serving in a non political position in an administration that opposed marriage equality so we have no idea what her opinion on marriage was from 2009 through 2012. Quickly after leaving that position she announced she favored marriage. Now he might have favored marriage back in 1996. He might have in 2000. I don't know. I have repeatedly, as in over and over and over again, asked for any contemporaneous record of him having done so. I have repeatedly, as in over and over and over again been stiffed.

[Zorra]

120. Everything has its time. It takes a long time to lay the groundwork for social change.

It is the considered sacrifices and radical actions of the pioneers, of the activists, which lay the foundations for eventual social change. If people like Bernie Sanders did not stand up for LGBT like Bernie did in what still exists of the written record of his support for advancing the cause of LGBT equality and rights back when it was unheard of for straight people to do so, we would not have the right to legally marry today.

It is the actions of brave people willing to take action, real risk, for an important social cause that bring about eventual "evolution" in politicians like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, both of whom were apparently basically unconscious regarding the essential nature of the struggle and equal humanity of LGBT until relatively recently. Bernie Sanders, a straight person, was advocating for us just a few years after Hillary ended her tenure as a Goldwater Girl.

Forcing ideas regarding social change into the public consciousness and subsequently into the political process requires years of creating social tension. It never gets done overnight.

It takes years, decades, sometimes centuries. One step at a time, everything in its time. Nitpicking, trying to find information on the internet seeking statements about when Bernie Sanders first supported same sex marriage, in order to fit your agenda, is a waste of time. Bernie's actions as a public servant, in concert with the actions of so many others, helped bring about our recent victory regarding marriage equality. Bernie has unquestionably been one of the good guys for a very long time.

So if you really want to know when Bernie first supported same sex marriage, it may be best to ask him. Like most of us old liberals, he won't remember the exact date, because he has understood for a very long time that no one should be discriminated against, ever, in any way. It's a matter of consciousness. And actions speak so much louder than words.

Still, two years later, when Vermont became the first state to legalize civil unions for gay couples, it was a national earthquake. Then-Gov. Howard Dean signed the bill in 2000.

"The phone calls, from mostly out of state, were so awful," he recalls. "I actually took a turn, without identifying myself, answering the phone in the office just to see how hateful they were, and they were really repulsive."

"My security detail asked me to wear a bulletproof vest for the summer when I was campaigning after I signed it," Dean says.

For all the controversy, civil unions soon took a back seat to the push for marriage. In 2004, the Massachusetts Supreme Court allowed gay couples to wed.

http://www.npr.org/2013/03/21/174879832/as-gay-marriage-heads-to-court-a-look-back-at-the-bumpy-ride

“All I can say is I think I have one of the strongest, if not the strongest record, in the United States Congress on LGBT issues,” Sanders said. “My record speaks for itself, and I will compare it to any candidate who is out there.”
snip---
“I remember being on the floor at the time,” Sanders said. “It was politically a very difficult vote, and despite what some may say, the Supreme Court evolves as does the American public. I think it’s also fair to say that very few people would have predicted the degree to which gay rights have changed, the dramatic change in a relatively short period of time.”

Sanders pointed to the pioneering role Vermont has played on LGBT issues. He said Vermont “arguably is the leading state that has advanced gay rights.” In 2000, Vermont became the first state in the country to enact civil unions, which Sanders said he supported at the time, even though it was “very, very difficult” politically. In 2009, Vermont became the first state in the country to legalize same-sex marriage through the legislature.

The country could see another milestone in a little more than a month, when the U.S. Supreme Court is set to rule on whether same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/05/15/sanders-touts-lgbt-record-in-white-house-bid/

[dsc]

123. yes gay people had nothing to do with it it was all Bernie

wow just wow.

[Zorra]

125. How deliberately obtuse, and deceitful.

It's assumed, and known, by every reasonable person, that we are behind our own struggle.

Ever heard the expression, "It goes without saying"?

I'm putting you, and your stream of ludicrous strawmen, and your strawman OP, on ignore.

But by all means, please, carry on, feel free to damage your candidate's cause even further.

Have a nice day.

[LWolf]

111. You had to work hard to find

something to go after Sanders supporters with, it's true.

Sanders is, to the surprise of many who take the "socialist" label and assign their own assumptions, not really radical at all. He HAS been an advocate for social justice his entire life. It's really hard to refute that.

While HRC has some hiccups when it comes to social justice, that's not why she doesn't get my support. She doesn't get my support because she is a neo-liberal. That's an issue of economic justice.

I've certainly never categorized HRC as "Oh so horrible." That's a bit of hyperbole on your part. And Bernie? No politician is perfect, including Sanders. He's just the best on the plate right now. In my view, which is what counts when it comes to my vote.

Sanders nails both social AND economic justice, and gives the nation a chance to change direction away from neo-liberal policies that feed the oligarchy. That's why OWS backs Sanders. That's why I back Sanders.

I'm thrilled that the nation is moving forward on marriage equality, and I know that Sanders backs that movement. It's an important part of social justice, and I'm glad he gets it.

[dsc]

112. actually I found that by accident while looking for something else

I did bookmark it when I did though. Again, if he was this staunch supporter of marriage equality it should be easy to disprove this or at least to show a much earlier than Clinton statement of support. Supporter after supporter of Sanders tell us directly he supported marriage back in 1996 while Clinton was supporting DOMA. Yet I ask for any contemporaneous statement and get stiffed. At some point one has to wonder if the reason the statements aren't forthcoming is because the statements don't exist meaning he was as much a politician on this as Clinton.

[LWolf]

114. Does opposing DOMA, voting against it

while Clinton was supporting it, count as any kind of statement? Do actions speak at least as loud as words?

[MisterP]

121. the important thing is now Libya and Honduras are gay paradises after her intervention

hey, wait ...

[dsc]

122. and they were before

If you are going to blame her for Libya do you give her credit for saving Bengazi from being raised? That is what was going to happen if Gaddaffi was going to stay in power.

[Enthusiast]

124. Unrecommended to the max.

[Zorra]

126. [phone]

[Motown_Johnny]

128. So a 15 year old non-answer is the best you got?

Sad.


OK, so the very worst that you could possibly say is that he "evolved" on the issue around 2000.

On the other hand, Hillary is still flip flopping on the TPP as we speak.

If you want to support someone with a consistent message, the choice is clear.

[dsc]

129. Where is the around 2000?

I see nothing say he supported marriage then either. But more to the point, we have had post, after post, after post about just how vile that evil Hillary is for having evolved. O'Malley is also evil for this but fewer virtual trees were killed for that. Now we find out that Bernie may have evolved too and the reaction, oh evolving that is just peachy keen.

[Motown_Johnny]

130. Isn't that article from 1/26/2000?

If so, then it would be around the year 2000 that he was "evolving". Unless you can find something more current, it would seem that his non-answer in January of that year would imply that he was on the fence back then.


Hillary did not evolve until after the polls were clearly in favor of it. So, if you count the entire population of America (including every "God Hates Fags" sign carrying lunatic) Hillary is well below the 50th percentile. Somewhere around 45 I would think.

Is this really the argument you want to have? It just reminds everyone how terrible she is on this subject.