It's not the 2 million. It's DOMA.

[noamnety]

If it were JUST the 2 million being spent on the Clinton wedding, I admit I would still be disgusted by the crass display, but whatever - that's what weddings have been since the concept of dowries began.

The hypocrisy of having a 2 million dollar wedding event of the century because your own damn kid is just that important, while denying the same right to others is pissing me the hell off though.

It's not the belief that your own kid is worth going to extreme lengths to make happy. It's the sense of entitlement in believing that you should be able to go to whatever extreme length you can afford for the ceremony while denying others the right to even have a marriage.

[Sebastian Doyle]

1. Well, that and the fact that she's marrying a Gold Mansacks felon.

A Clinton literally in bed with a Wall Street Criminal isn't exactly the right message for the DLC to be sending to the country right now.

[noamnety]

6. Agreed, but Chelsea hasn't held office

and doesn't have an obligation to fall in love with someone for the sake of a proper political message. I don't think parents should be telling their adult children who they can or can't marry, in other words. (But I recognize the values and events that put her in a position to even be in a relationship with him).

[No Elephants]

Isn't she a hedge fund manager? Seems like a match made in,

well, you decide.

[Sebastian Doyle]

16. Hell?

or Wall $treet (which is Hell's NY embassy) :evilgrin:

[Warpy]

2. There are a lot of reasons it looks tacky, that not the least of them

but do consider how much of that is being spent to keep tabloids and Republicans away. Security is likely the biggest ticket item in the whole shebang.

I'm just glad I didn't get invited. I hate weddings.

[AndyA]

3. I agree. The Clintons should be ashamed.

I guess they've never heard of equality. Constitution. Bible. Take your pick. All are supposed to be equal.

Hypocrite, anyone?

[blue_onyx]

7. The Clintons?

Why Hillary....she didn't pass DOMA?

[noamnety]

9. During the primaries

she made it clear she personally opposes gay marriage. "The Clintons" have an issue with special privileges for straight people.

[blue_onyx]

11. Opposing gay marriage is wrong

but I think people are just using Chelsea's wedding as opportunity to bash the Clintons. First, it was the amount of money being spent. Now it's their position on gay marriage. What's next....their wedding attire was too tacky?

[noamnety]

12. Please don't equate anger over the denial of equal rights

to critiquing wedding dress fashions.

[blue_onyx]

13. Seriously?

I was saying that the anti-Clinton posters on DU are determined to turn this wedding into a Clinton bash party, even if it took a lame reason like wedding attire.

BTW, I'm gay so don't you dare lecture me on anger over gay rights.

[noamnety]

14. So your point is?

The Clinton's hypocrisy, sense of entitlement and bigotry regarding marriage is not above criticism simply because some people aren't fans. That doesn't give the Clintons a free pass when their actions deserve criticism.

[blue_onyx]

15. "sense of entitlement"

That part of your sentence shows that this has more to do with your dislike of the Clinton than it does gay marriage...that's my point.

[noamnety]

17. Are you arguing that it's NOT a sense of entitlement

to plan a wedding worthy of nobility while denying others the right to marry?

If you think the criticism is inaccurate, I'm open to hearing why.

I don't understand why you'd defend someone who opposes letting you have the same rights as they have, or why you think a sense of entitlement isn't an accurate description here.

[blue_onyx]

18. No I don't think....

they have a "sense of entitlement." They are rich and can afford to have a fancy wedding for their daughter. If they are oppose to gay marriage (I believe Bill now support it...although it's a little too late for him to actually do anything), then they are bigots.

I, however, don't understand the sense of entitlement argument or your criticism of the extravagance of the wedding. Like I said, I believe these parts of your statement show that your argument is being driven largely by your dislike of the Clintons.

Did you vote for Obama in 2008 and do plan to vote for him in 2012? Will you also criticize him when his daughters get married because of his opposition to gay marriage?

[noamnety]

19. attacking the messenger

to divert a discussion away from the topic is disruptive.

Yes they are homophobic bigots, we agree on that. (Obama is as well.) They are making a spectacle of being able to do something they have denied others the right to do. We apparently disagree on whether or not "a sense of entitlement" is an accurate description for people who do such things while believing that others are not deserving of the same rights.

[blue_onyx]

20. I'm in no way attacking you

People on DU seem gleeful that this wedding has provided the opportunity for criticizing the Clintons. The goal of the thread is to criticize the Clintons, not have a discussion on gay marriage.

When I heard about the wedding, my thought was "Oh, she's getting married." Then I moved on when my day....until I came on here.

Edit: One last thing. It's Chelsea's wedding so it's her opinion on gay marriage that should matter. Why criticize her wedding because of her parent's opinions and actions.

[noamnety]

21. The goal of the thread is to point out the hypocrisy of homophobes

- particularly when they are politicians or lobbyists with a great deal of influence. And the goal is to not let them off the hook for being homophobes with a sense of entitlement regardless of party. Please join me in that effort.

[Oregone]

4. You aren't allowed to criticize because you must think just like I do

And since that money will go to the shareholders of some huge catering corporation, I imagine they will trickle it down for gooey economic goodness.

[bluestateguy]

5. Now THAT is a legitimate criticism of Bill Clinton

For whatever it is worth, he now says he favors gay marriage, but we should not forget that we are in this mess with DOMA because a reelection minded Bill Clinton signed DOMA in 1996.

[Orsino]

8. A show-stopper, in fact.

Chelsea gets what others don't--even without the $2 million.

It's not exactly Bill's fault, though. He was, after all, only following orders.

[Oregone]

10. "he now says he favors gay marriage"

Didn't he do the same thing about marijuana legalization?

[Divine Discontent]

22. ugh... such cons these political fams are. he brings us this & other sh*t & now, woh, surprise,

he's FOR Gay marriage now that he's out of office, he's for marijuana use now that he's out of office. Laura B*sh opens her yap and says she's for Gay Marriage after she's mostly irrelevant. Dick Cheney too, Cindy McCain, etc....

when they're trying to get votes or their husband's are, they throw Gays under the bus repeatedly for their base of bigots....


disgusting. I had no idea of the $2 million wedding til now, that is just sad... And I knew it was to a Sachs guy, so I think little of the choice without even knowing what kind of person he is - he works for a disgusting company.

[noamnety]

23. I thought the same thing.

"Hypothetically I would like this to happen but not when I'm in charge or accountable for it in any way."

(The battle cry of fierce advocates everywhere.)