2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhy did Sanders evolve on gay marriage?
I see quite a few people attacking Hillary over her evolving on Gay Marriage, yet no one seems to remember the fact that Bernie evolved on that same subject.
People like pushing Bernie as some sort of lifelong defender of LGBT rights, when he isn't.
He stood against marriage equality in Vermont in 06 - Know why? Because he felt that the LGBT community didn't need full marriage equality because civil unions were 'good enough for now' because Vermont had seen enough change for one decade. (Basically, he didn't want to rock the boat in Vermont with such drastic changes... hmmmmmm...)
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/10/27/sanders-defends-2006-opposition-to-same-sex-marriage/
At the time, Sanders was opposed to the amendment, but is quoted as saying when asked if Vermont should legalize same-sex marriage, “Not right now, not after what we went through.” Sanders defended his 2006 opposition to same-sex marriage to Maddow by recalling Vermont had legalized civil unions just six years ago in 2000.
Although Sanders and Clinton both have undertaken an evolution on the issue of same-sex marriage, both have come to support marriage rights for same-sex couples.
And, ofc, lets not forget about his votes against DOMA - They were NEVER because he felt the LGBT community deserved equal rights to marry, they were because he felt marriage - and the stripping of a persons right and freedom to marry - should be a states issue.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/05/bernie_sanders_on_marriage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html
...Explaining his vote in 1996, Sanders’ chief of staff declared that it was motivated by a concern for states’ rights, not equality.
...Perhaps Sanders’ team used this states’ rights rationale to limit backlash from anti-gay voters. That would be a perfectly acceptable tactic, since his vote—not his explanation of it—is what matters most. Still, if that’s the case, then Sanders should be honest about it.
... But in his statements to the press at the time, Sanders defended states’ rights and made no mention of gay Americans’ dignity. His vote may have been brave. But it was hardly a full-throated cry for equality.
...Ten years later, Sanders took a similarly cautious approach to same-sex marriage. In 2006, he took a stand against same-sex marriage in Vermont, stating that he instead endorsed civil unions.
...Earlier in his political career, Sanders was even more indifferent toward gay rights: As mayor of Burlington in 1990, Sanders told an interviewer that LGBT rights were not a “major priority” for him. Asked if he would support a bill to protect gays from job discrimination, Sanders responded, “probably not.”
This is, really, the difference between the two candidates. Hillary took stances that were against LGBT equality. She has outright admitted that she was wrong to have done so, and that she never should have done so. Bernie took stances that were against LGBT equality, and he REFUSES to admit that he was wrong to do so.
People are flawed. People make mistakes. Hillary and Sanders both made wrong choices, and terrible mistakes, in the past when they stood against LGBT equality. But of the two, Hillary is the only one courageous enough to admit that she was wrong. Sanders? He's still pushing that his vote against LGBT equality was a GOOD thing.
Sanders had a opportunity in 06 to push for progressive ideals. But he didn't. He felt that Vermont had 'changed enough' and that it wouldn't be a good idea for force such a 'drastic' of change in such little of time.
...Come to think of it, that's another area he evolved on. He wasn't willing to push drastic changes in short amounts of time (6 years) in 06, but he now he wants to push even more drastic of changes in four?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
stonecutter357
(13,010 posts)
ElliotCarver
(74 posts)decades before it was a "safe" political position. Clinton helped lead the charge in marginalizing our gay brothers and sisters
virtualobserver
(8,760 posts)vorgan24
(50 posts)Or was his stance against marriage equality in 06 a GOOD thing for LGBT rights?
mythology
(9,527 posts)When it came time to fight, Sanders was behind many elected officials in Vermont.
Politicians were very slow to change on things like same sex marriage across the board.
dsc
(53,341 posts)Bernie was mayor for 8 years of one of the most progressive cities in the US, during that time he made no effort at all to advance gay rights apart from a pride proclamation and a fair housing ordinance that included multiple groups. In 2006 he directly said that he was opposed to marriage equality due to it being too divisive using the very same reason he derides now in regards to health care. Hillary did oppose marriage equality (though it should be noted the video of her words was when she voted against a Constitutional Amendment) so no she wasn't leading the charge against marriage equality.
ElliotCarver
(74 posts)and all the many times she went on to say "marriage is between a man and a woman"
if Bernie said it's too divisive to push for right then, that's his same answer to reparations, which makes sense from a tactical political standpoint. he never ever ever put gay people down as second class citizens the way Clinton did for decades
dsc
(53,341 posts)and note the two, and apparently only two, issues we are to not promote because it is divisive are ones that favor minority groups, fancy that.
ElliotCarver
(74 posts)in order to aid the passage of Bill's tough on crime bill which doubled the prison population by disproportionately targeting minorities for prosecution
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Plus it is even getting Recs. How low DU has fallen.
This letter was published in the early 1970's while Bernie was running for Governor. Please read the last sentence of the paragraph on the top right (it starts with the number 3).
What part of "abolish all laws dealing with ..... homosexuality" do you not understand?
Bernie was always for equality. You can spin it all you want but it is dishonest to do so.
dsc
(53,341 posts)nor was it in any way, shape, or form about it, He is on tape, opposing it. He said the words.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)During the debate Friday, Hillary was complaining about her referring to herself as a moderate and a centrist was just picking out quotes out of context. I believe that is exactly what you are doing now. Bernie wanted civil unions because it was an achievable goal (yes he can be pragmatic) and because it would be defensible. Remember, when this happened there were no civil unions. Vermont was first and the law that got passed, and held, was historic.
Your post is dishonest.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)It is almost like we haven't seen this horseshit trotted out here every few weeks. The camp clearly has the horseshit on a rotation. I guess the theory is we won't notice the stink if they keep changing the horse.
dsc
(53,341 posts)there is literally no one, not a single solitary person with a law degree of any sort, saying that letter was about marriage equality nor saying that removing sodomy laws, which is what that letter was about, would in any way, shape, or form lead to marriage equality. Not a single god damned person. And yes, he is on video, saying that he was against marriage equality in 2006 as it was too divisive. He said the words and yes, even St. Bernie has to stand by his words.
dsc
(53,341 posts)it wasn't banned. Unlike sodomy laws, which is the only thing that letter was about in regards to gays, thus that law wouldn't have been removed as it wasn't anti gay per se.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Lawrence v Texas
http://www.equalityontrial.com/2012/06/26/a-look-back-at-justice-scalias-dissent-in-lawrence-v-texas-nine-years-later/
^snip^
Scalia’s dissent is largely an expression of anger at the Court’s willingness to uphold abortion rights in an earlier case, Planned Parenthood v. Casey, while not showing the same ‘respect for precedent’ in his view in the Lawrence case. In the process, though, Justice Scalia warns of the impending dangers of same-sex marriage he foresees as a result of the outcome in Lawrence. Attempting to establish a parade-of-horribles argument against overturning the odious precedent Bowers v. Hardwick, Scalia writes:
State laws against bigamy, ;same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers’ validation of laws based on moral choices. Every single one of these laws is called into question by today’s decision; the Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from its holding.
dsc
(53,341 posts)simple democratic removal of law A doesn't affect laws B and C. The simple fact is, no one, not a single person felt that altering sodomy laws in 1974 would lead to marriage. No one. And he is on video saying that he is opposed to marriage equality, he said the words.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)Clearly Scalia thought that the decision striking down the anti-sodomy law in Texas would open a path to same sex marriage. It is in his dissenting opinion and can't be argued. It is simply a fact.
Bernie was always for marriage equality. He was pragmatic about how to achieve it. The first step was civil unions, and he was against a marriage equality law instead of a civil union law because he felt one could be passed but not the other.
Trying to pretend that the letter I posted doesn't exist is simply wrong.
Trying to pretend Scalia's dissenting opinion does not exist is simply wrong.
Trying to pretend that the fight for same sex marriage had not already begun when Bernie wrote that letter is also wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/17/us/the-same-sex-couple-who-got-a-marriage-license-in-1971.html?_r=0
^snip^
The Same-Sex Couple Who Got a Marriage License in 1971
In 1970, in Minneapolis, Mr. Baker and Mr. McConnell became the first same-sex couple known to apply for a marriage license. Turned down by Hennepin County, they fought to the United States Supreme Court, where they lost their case in a one-sentence dismissal that has reverberated in federal courts and played an indirect role in pushing same-sex marriage to the high court this year.
The couple, though, did not give up. With some sleight of hand involving a legal change to a gender-neutral name, they obtained a marriage license in another county, and in 1971, in white bell-bottom pantsuits and macramé headbands, they exchanged vows before a Methodist pastor and a dozen guests in a friend’s apartment. Their three-tiered wedding cake was topped by two plastic grooms, which a friend supplied by splitting two bride-and-groom figurines.
Ever since, they have maintained that theirs was the country’s first lawful same-sex wedding. The state and federal governments have yet to grant recognition, but the pastor, Roger W. Lynn, 76, calls theirs “one of my more successful marriages.”
The couple, now in their early 70s, spoke this month in a rare interview in the house they share here, nearly half a century after they joined their lives and earned a place in the history of gay rights, helping to make Minnesota an early center of gay activism.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)
mak3cats
(1,573 posts)