Of course she is for marriage equality now...

[hoosierlib]

Its popular...she never takes an unpopular stand...

[daleanime]

1. Now I wouldn't say that....

TPP, Wall Street, pipelines, etc....

[virtualobserver]

33. Considering the smoke and mirrors....Has she taken an actual stand in terms of those issues?

[valerief]

2. "I will fight hard for whatever way the wind blows!"

[Broward]

17. She's a follower not a leader.

[Satch59]

3. Obama evolved also...

No surprise...just glad she's onboard now...

[fun n serious]

4. People evolve. The 90's were a different time.

You should know that. We've made great progress. She is being asked tough questions. Bernie could never answer those questions in such detail.

[beam me up scottie]

20. She didn't evolve until 2013.

[fun n serious]

23. I didn't know that. That's too bad.

Love is love

[Hydra]

42. She and Obama opposed it on religious grounds, or were pretending to

In order to look better to the RW religious groups. Many on DU took their lead and argued that the LBGT community's rights were not important in the context of Dem possible political gains for selling them out to the witchburners.

It was a real low point here on DU, and a lot of LBGT members were badly treated, and have been badly treated until the SCOTUS decision made it a moot point. I had the honor of helping lead the charge here and out on the ground for shifting the focus from the RW talking points and half measures offered to making it about human rights.

Your comment about love is great, but our establishment does not see us as equals or even humans. We are simply the commodities they think they own, and how dare we ask for any kind of consideration.

[fun n serious]

25. I just looked it up Neither was Sanders...nt

[beam me up scottie]

28. Bernie voted against DOMA in 1996 and never opposed marriage equality.

When asked if Vermont was ready for it he said not yet but never said that lgbt people shouldn't be allowed to marry.

Hillary in the other hand was adamantly opposed to it, this was her in 2004:

[fun n serious]

29. Here read this

Bernie Sanders Claims He’s a Longtime Champion of Marriage Equality. It’s Just Not True.

[beam me up scottie]

31. It's been posted, read and debunked countless times.

Bernie:

I was a strong supporter of civil unions, I believe that. I voted against the DOMA bill, I believe that the federal government should not be involved in overturning Massachusetts or any other the state because I think the whole issue of marriage is a state issue.

He didn't want the feds to overturn states who passed same sex legislation.

[mythology]

39. He didn't vote against DOMA on a courageous stand in favor of same sex marriage

He voted against it on state's rights grounds. I'm sure you just accidentally omitted that.

Here is the brave stand's explanation

"Explaining his vote in 1996, Sanders’ chief of staff told the Rutland Herald that Sanders’ vote was motivated by a concern for states’ rights, not equality. Explaining that he wasn’t “legislating values,” she noted that Sanders believed DOMA violated the Constitution’s Full Faith and Credit Clause by allowing one state to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another. “You’re opening up Pandora’s box here,” she said told the Burlington Free Press at the time. “You’re saying that any state can refuse to … recognize the laws of another state if they don’t like them.”"

Not a word in there about same sex marriage itself being a reason to oppose DOMA.

While mayor of Burlington, Sanders responded to a question about if he would support protections against job discrimination for gays and lesbians with "probably not".

Again, not exactly a stalwart hero.

In 2006, he was fine with civil unions instead of marriage. His Republican opponent in that election had the same position. Again, not exactly a profile in courage in liberal Vermont.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/05/bernie_sanders_on_marriage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html

It wasn't until 2009 after Vermont had passed legislation allowing same sex marriage that Sanders came out in support of it. Even his own office could only find an article from months after same sex marriage was allowed in Vermont to support their claim that Sanders had long favored same sex marriage.

http://time.com/4089946/bernie-sanders-gay-marriage/

It's not exactly hard to go look these things up and bring out the actual context.

Has Clinton evolved on same sex marriage? Absolutely. So has Sanders and both of them took too long to do so. Clinton may have done so for political reasons. What's Sanders' excuse since he's supposed to be the pure one who would never change based on political expediency?

[beam me up scottie]

41. And where in all that did he say he opposed marriage equality?

This has been hashed to death here, no one has yet provided evidence that he opposed it.

If he opposed it as you claim why didn't he support DOMA like Hillary?

[fun n serious]

43. The both EVOLVED

Sanders did support civil unions as far back as 15 years ago, but it was for the same reason he opposed the federal Defense of Marriage Act in 1996: his strong belief in state's rights. He wasn't advocating for legal marriage for same-sex couples. He actually avoided the subject.

As one Vermont columnist put it in 2000, getting a straight answer from Sanders on gay marriage "was like pulling teeth... from a rhinoceros." In 2006, Sanders said he supported civil unions but not same-sex marriage, again deferring to states.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-gay-marriage_us_569fcc4de4b0a7026bf9e06f

[beam me up scottie]

44. When did he say he opposed it?

I was a strong supporter of civil unions, I believe that. I voted against the DOMA bill, I believe that the federal government should not be involved in overturning Massachusetts or any other the state because I think the whole issue of marriage is a state issue.

[fun n serious]

46. Here

"Sanders said he supported civil unions but not same-sex marriage, again deferring to states."

[beam me up scottie]

47. That's the blogger's opinion, I provided the transcript, point out where he said he opposed it.

He specifically said he didn't want the feds to overturn states who passed same sex marriage legislation.

[SamKnause]

32. What a pant load.

I am 62.

I have always been for equality for ALL.

I did not have to evolve.

The 90's were a different time.

What a joke.

[fun n serious]

45. I have always been for same sex marriage since I can remember..

It took some people longer to embrace it. I agree it's sad

[nichomachus]

53. Why don't we wait until she finishes evolving?

Who knows where she'll end up. Voting for someone who is still "evolving" on crucial issues is taking a huge gamble.

We need an adult who has a good grip.

[EndElectoral]

5. Bernie advocates revolution, hillary continual evolution.

[LonePirate]

6. Are you implying that you would respect her more if she was against marriage equality?

DU is a strange place nowadays.

[hoosierlib]

7. I would respect her if she stuck to a position...

As she said, she "evolves"...

[LonePirate]

8. You're admitting you would respect her more if she maintained her old anti-marriage equality stance?

As I said, DU is a strange place nowadays.

[hoosierlib]

9. Yep...that would mean that she actually stood for something once...

I'm sorry, but I really can't see myself voting for her...after what I have witnessed over the last 25 years...it's going to be really really hard...like Ted Cruz potentially as President hard...

[LonePirate]

11. I thought only Repubs preferred candidates to stick to a position instead of doing the right thing

I can now see how wrong I was.

[noiretextatique]

16. she has steadfastly denied she was ever against gay marriage

and that is a lie. and she keeps lying. it is bizarre.

[LonePirate]

40. When did she deny that she was ever against marriage equality?

[noiretextatique]

69. in 2013 she was finally for gay marriage

during an interview, Terry Gross asked her about her evolution on the issue, and she accused her of "twisting her words," while she dodged the question. she was prickly when confronted tonight,

[LonePirate]

70. Technically, that is not a denial of her previous statements/position.

We're all familiar with her history on the issue. It's only a matter of whether or not people accept her evolution or change in position.

[noiretextatique]

71. technically, it is..but

it depends on the definition of what is is.

-bill clinton

[LonePirate]

73. A denial is something like "I never said that." Her words do not even approach that.

Saying her words were twisted is not her denying her previous opposition. I know it's easy to hate Hillary and reflexively criticize her but those words do not constitute a denial of what she said over a decade ago.

[stevenleser]

10. Beyond strange.

[noiretextatique]

18. yes...it is crazy.

that she keeps pretending she did evolve on the issue. lots of people did...that makes her denial

[jeff47]

12. I would respect the claim of evolution if any evolution was shown.

Clinton: I'm against "gay marriage"..........(Polls show 60% support)..I'm for marriage equality.

Obama: I'm against "gay marriage"....Leave it to the states.....I don't like it, but it's not the government shouldn't block it.....I'm for marriage equality.

I'd believe she evolved if she showed evolution. She did not show any intermediate steps. With a record of changing her position to suit what's popular, the lack of intermediate steps is not helpful.

[LonePirate]

13. So without evidence, there is no evolution?

Ohhh-kay.

[jeff47]

15. Again, she has a history.

She's changed her position on a whole lot of issues, based on what helps her at the moment.

For example, Annie Oakley in 2008 became Gun-Controller-In-Chief in 2016.

Take away that history, and she'd get more benefit of the doubt. But she has that history.

[LonePirate]

19. So it's wrong for someone to adopt a more progressive position than what they believed previously?

If we want Bernie's revolution to be successful, we will need millions of people to drop their non-progressive positions in favor of progressive ones. I don't think we should be criticizing people for adopting a progressive position or else we will alienate people we need to support the changes we want. We really need to drop this nonsensical opposition to instances of people becoming more progressive and thus flip-flopping from a previous position.

[jeff47]

22. Nope. Try reading what I said again.

And this time, try not to desperately construct a strawman.

Perhaps if I bold it you'll read it this time.

I do not believe her, because she lied many times in the past.

I do not know if she actually opposed marriage equality before 2013 or not. I do not know if she actually supports marriage equality after 2013 or not. Because on many issues, she changed her position to match what is popular at that time.

This has absolutely nothing with your "it's wrong to evolve" strawman.

One way she could have countered this lack of trust would be to publicly show evolution. We have never gotten that from her. It's always been a sudden change. And that change always occurs after her old position falls below 50% support.

[LonePirate]

24. What difference does it make what she believed before if she is for the progressive position now?

She warrants plenty of criticism for not being on the progressive side of numerous issues right now. She does not warrant criticism for changing her opinion to the progressive one. A hundred million or more Americans have changed their minds on marriage equality in the past decade or so. Do you not believe them also?

[jeff47]

26. Because 99% of being president is behind closed doors.

And with no cameras watching, her actual position is what she will do.

If we don't know what her actual position is, we have no idea what she would do.

A hundred million or more Americans have changed their minds on marriage equality in the past decade or so. Do you not believe them also?

Cling to that strawman!!!!!

Those hundred million other people haven't spent their career changing their position to suit what's popular. And in the cases where I personally know them, their changes have been in steps. Not sudden leaps when polling shows what is popular.

[LonePirate]

35. You're suggesting she would sign an anti-marriage equality bill passed by a Repub Congress.

That line of thought is ridiculous. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Clinton but it is absurd to criticize her marriage equality stance based on what you feel is a lack of evidence of baby steps from her. Your argument is completely illogical.

[jeff47]

37. No, I'm not suggesting yet another strawman.

Signing a bill would be in the 1% that is in public.

If she doesn't support marriage equality, there's plenty of far more subtle ways she could influence the situation as president. For example, have the DoJ go easy on those trying to roll it back. There's plenty of ways to not push forward with a lawsuit.

Or she could be very aggressive with the DoJ, because she actually supports marriage equality.

She took the popular position in 2004, and took the popular position after 2013. She did not give any public indication she was taking any evolutionary steps during that transition. With a history of just going along with public opinion, I have no idea what she really believes.

[noiretextatique]

14. i would not respect her even if she admitted she was against gay marriage

she refuses to admit she was against before she was for it.

[Ino]

34. I'd respect her more if she got it right the first time...

like Bernie did.

[LonePirate]

36. Was Bernie a supporter of marriage equality in his late teen age years?

I think it's safe to presume people can form an educated opinion on an issue by the time they are 18. Was Bernie for marriage equality at 18 or do we not have any evidence of his position until around 1980? If he wasn't a supporter at 18, then he wasn't right the first time.

We have got to stop criticizing and attacking and alienating people who changed their opinion on marriage equality in favor of the correct, progressive position in favor of it. It's settled law accepted by the vast majority of Americans. It does not matter when, how or why someone supports marriage equality now. It only matters that they support it.

[beam me up scottie]

38. Do you have proof he was against it?

Unless you do then you can't say he evolved.

Hillary wasn't wishy washy about it she was dead set against it.

She gets credit for evolving but not for pretending she was a champion for lgbt rights.

[LonePirate]

48. Unless his first opinion on the issue back in the 60s was in favor it, then he has evolved.

It matters not to me whether he or anyone else has supported marriage equality for 30 years or for less than 5 years. It only matters to me that they support it now given how much this country has transformed in the past few years. I may not like it if someone was adamantly opposed to marriage equality a decade ago; but I am willing to look past that provided they possess the correct position today. Everyone deserves the opportunity to change for the better. We should not be criticizing people for holding a progressive opinion on an issue just because we don't like when or why or how they adopted that position.

[beam me up scottie]

51. Nope, you claimed he evolved so it's up to you to prove he opposed it.

He wrote a letter in 1972 calling for laws outlawing homosexuality to be overturned. Why would he oppose marriage equality?

[LonePirate]

54. I never claimed he evolved. I asked if his first opinion on the topic was in support of it.

If his first opinion was in support of it, then he did not evolve. If his first opinion was against it before changing his mind to be in favor of it, then he evolved. I simply questioned the claim that he was right the first time, something we likely do not know with any certainty. That claim, not mine, is what you should be asking to be proved. He may have had an opinion on the matter before 1972 and if that opinion was not in support of it, then he obviously evolved. If he has always had that opinion, then he did not evolve. It's a pretty simple concept. I do not care if he or Hillary or anyone else evolved on the issue. I am only concerned about whether or not they support it today.

[beam me up scottie]

55. So you have no proof he evolved or needed to evolve.

That's why we can't compare Hillary's position to Bernie's, she not only opposed marriage equality because of moral/religious reasons she tried to convince others to oppose it as well.

She gets credit for getting there eventually but not until it was politically safe to do so.

[LonePirate]

56. What difference does it make when she changed her mind?

So what if she didn't publicly state her support until it was politically safe to do so. A hundred million or more Americans changed their mind on the issue during the past decade. She's simply one of them, in all likelihood.

If you are faulting her for changing her mind only when it was safe to do so, are you also giving her credit for her gun control views now, which are certainly not politically safe positions to have nowadays, especially in a general election?

[beam me up scottie]

57. It makes a difference because she pretends to be a champion but wasn't.

And her gun control views have completely flipped too, in 2008 she pandered to gun nuts, Obama called her Annie Oakley.

She's a weathervane, just last year she said she's willing to cooperate with anti-choice Republicans on late term abortion.

I don't want a president who changes her positions based on polls or what she thinks people want to hear.

[LonePirate]

58. You're changing the discussion.

There is a difference between stating you support marriage equality and stating you have been a champion for it. Your previous posts in this thread seem to be conflating the two. Has she been a champion for marriage equality? Twelve years ago, no. Two years ago, yes. You are free to make up your mind if it is more important to you what she said in the last decade or what she said in this one. If I condemned her for changing her mind on this topic because of a change in the direction of public opinion, I would need to condemn a large number of my family, friends and co-workers. I'm willing to forgive people on this particular issue. Obviously some people are not as forgiving as I am. I'd much rather focus my efforts on changing the minds of people currently opposed to marriage equality instead of complaining about people who support it now.

[beam me up scottie]

60. Obviously not.

It's not that she wasn't a champion twelve years ago, it's that she was the exact opposite. She could have remained mute, she didn't need to speak out against equality but she did, time and time again.

This is a big issue for me and her fierce opposition matters. If you have to evolve at all on civil rights you're no champion.

I give her credit for coming around but even Republicans have been known to do that.

[LonePirate]

63. It's your choice to be hung up on words from a decade ago.

There are plenty of other reasons to oppose Hillary based on words since January 1, 2015. I'm more concerned about the near present than about something which is now ancient history for this rapidly changing social issue.

[beam me up scottie]

66. I'm not "hung up" on them, I said her opposition to equality matters to me.

It's not the only reason I oppose her but it's a big one.

[Ino]

59. It does matter when and why.

Did she change when it suited her politically? It matters. It speaks to her honesty, integrity, courage, empathy, leadership... or lack thereof. She changed her opinion in 2013, when she saw the writing on the wall, when she was getting ready to run for president (again). The country was moving on with or without her, so she jumped on board once she saw it was safe. Maybe she always supported gay marriage, but pretended not to because it was politically risky. And that matters too. She is not a leader.

As far as the gay rights movement goes, yes, "it only matters that they support it."

But as far as judging Hillary's character, it DOES matter when and why.

Same thing with all other issues she has "changed her mind" about recently.

Evidence of Bernie's position in early 1970s
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/bernie-sanders-was-full-gay-equality-40-years-ago

[LonePirate]

61. It matters to you. It does not matter to me.

We are living in a period of time of rapid social and technological change. There are numerous issues on which the public is rapidly changing their mind. In 20 years, it will be very difficult to find a Democratic or progressive politician who opposes marijuana legalization; but they exist by the truckloads today.

If we are unwilling to accept anybody who has not towed the progressive line for decades, how are we going to recruit people and politicians at all levels of government to support Bernie's ideas and goals to better the country?

[Ino]

65. But if I have the choice...

between a life-long progressive, and one who just recently "converted" because she was dragged along by the tide... you better believe it will matter to me. Which one is a leader? Which one can I trust? Which one has the good judgment?

I might "accept" Hillary's conversion, but I would not trust her motives or her judgment. Especially not when I have a choice.

Does it matter to you that Hillary voted for the Iraq War? She's said it was a mistake. Do I forgive her and put her on equal footing with someone who had the good judgment to vote against it? I do NOT!

Same difference

[LonePirate]

68. I don't define leadership with time qualifiers.

For some people, it matters how long a candidate has supported or opposed an issue. For me that duration of time seldom matters as I much prefer their actual stance on the issue, whether I agree with that stance and how effective I feel they are at communicating the benefits of those stances and convincing others to support them. I much prefer to live in the present than in the past.

[Ino]

74. Lost time...

all the time lost in the gay rights movement, when just one more influential voice declaring that "gay rights are human rights" may have made a difference. But she did the opposite.

Lost lives... all the lives lost after one influential voice helped make the case for war, making "a mistake."

Lost jobs... all the jobs vanishing because one influential voice was still promoting Clintonian trade agreements... up until just before the first debate, that is.

Oh well, she's sorry now that it's politically expedient! But I trust that these really truly are her actual stances... at least until she gets elected. Then she may evolve/revolve/devolve again. Or find a million reasons to delay/compromise/backtrack/walk back/give up all those newly-minted progressive stances that she so passionately & convincingly espouses at the moment.

Yah, she's going to get all the money out of politics... right after her second term, because she needs all those bank donations to run again, doncha know! Etc. Etc.

Those who ignore the past are doomed to repeat it!

[LonePirate]

75. You seem to be only concerned about the past. I prefer to focus on the present and future.

I personally do not believe her voice was influential back in the 2000s as a freshman senator but you're welcome to feel otherwise.

[Ino]

76. I'm concerned about the past as it informs & predicts the present and future.

Fool me once...

[840high]

64. Thank you. Some people

seem to have a hard time understanding this.

[beam me up scottie]

67. Well said.

[Motown_Johnny]

21. Or is she lying? She called marriage a "Sacred" bond between a man and a woman.

"Not just a bond but a sacred bond...."


How can anyone flip on something they hold sacred?


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sacred

^snip^

Full Definition of sacred
1
a : dedicated or set apart for the service or worship of a deity <a tree sacred to the gods>
b : devoted exclusively to one service or use (as of a person or purpose) <a fund sacred to charity>
2
a : worthy of religious veneration : holy
b : entitled to reverence and respect

[fun n serious]

27. Bernie Sanders Claims He’s a Longtime Champion of Marriage Equality. It’s Just Not True.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/05/bernie_sanders_on_marriage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html

[beam me up scottie]

30. The blogger lied, Bernie never opposed marriage equality.

How many times do we have to debunk this?

Here is the transcript:

I was a strong supporter of civil unions, I believe that. I voted against the DOMA bill, I believe that the federal government should not be involved in overturning Massachusetts or any other the state because I think the whole issue of marriage is a state issue.

He didn't want the feds to overturn states who passed same sex marriage legislation.

When you can find proof that he said lgbt people should not be allowed to be married or that marriage is a "sacred bond" between a man and a woman let me know.

[one_voice]

50. I find this part:

I think the whole issue of marriage is a state issue.

To be the most interesting and thought provoking (for me) part in that entire quote.

[beam me up scottie]

52. And he explained that, he wanted states to be able to pass it without being overturned by the feds.

If he OPPOSED marriage equality he would have supported DOMA.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

62. Yup yup... finger meet wind!

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[SheenaR]

72. What the heck is wrong with some of you

She held the same position on marriage for SIXTY-SIX years!

And this new evolution is the real her? Don't insult the LGBT community like that.