Well... Here's The E-Mail... At Least It's Not Classified... Although I Bet She Wishes It Had Been..

[WillyT]

Hillary Clinton Fumed About Changing Passports For Same-Sex Parents In 2011
Because who wants to deal with Sarah Palin freaking out?
Jennifer Bendery - White House & Congressional Reporter, The Huffington Post
Posted: 09/30/2015 09:49 PM EDT | Edited: 1 hour ago

<snip>

WASHINGTON -- Hillary Clinton was furious about a 2011 State Department decision to replace the words "mother" and "father" with gender-neutral terms on U.S. passport applications, warning of the wrath of Sarah Palin, according to newly released emails.

"Who made the decision that State will not use the terms 'mother and father' and instead substitute 'parent one and two'?” Clinton wrote in an email to staff on Jan. 8, 2011. The email was released Wednesday by the State Department as part of an ongoing dump of emails that Clinton sent from a personal account during her time as secretary of state.

"I’m not defending that decision, which I disagree w and knew nothing about, in front of this Congress. I could live w letting people in nontraditional families choose another descriptor so long as we retained the presumption of mother and father," she wrote. "We need to address this today or we will be facing a huge Fox-generated media storm led by [Sarah] Palin et al."

Cheryl Mills, Clinton's chief of staff at the time, responded, "Reaching out to folks to find out."



The State Department's proposed change was intended as a nod to people with same-sex parents. Clinton learned about it from a Washington Post story published the day before. The article featured a gay rights group praising government officials for acknowledging "that hundreds of thousands of kids in this country are being raised by same-sex parents." Conservatives grumbled that the change reflected "the topsy-turvy world of left-wing political correctness."

But the department ended up not making the change. The day after Clinton's email, Mills sent Clinton an Associated Press story with the headline "State Department steps back on gender-neutral parentage, won't replace terms 'mother,' 'father.'"

A spokesman for Clinton's presidential campaign did not respond to a request for comment Wednesday.

<snip>

Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-same-sex-passports_560c68e6e4b076812700bf06

[Uncle Joe]

1. I know that "fear is the mind killer," but to be afraid of Palin!?

Thanks for the thread, WillyT.

[brush]

4. C'mon, people! It was more or being afraid of what FOX would do with it . . .

as Palin and others (et al) were just a part of FOX at the time.

Palin's name was just used as an example of FOX on-air talking heads.

[Uncle Joe]

9. Well that's comforting, Hillary was just afraid of FOX. Isn't that the same "news" organization

that has vilified the term "Happy Holidays" as being part of the "war against Christmas?"

[brush]

44. I don't know about you but I understand that FOX has tremendous influence . . .

with low-info, conservative, right wing, repug segment of society so Hillary's concern of what FOX would do with it is, IMO, quite valid.

Do you feel FOX has no influence at all?

[Uncle Joe]

48. I agree FOX does have influence with the low-info, conservative, right wing repug segment of society

so what are the odds those people would ever vote Democratic?

So that leaves you with two choices.

One can operate from a position of fear in the hopes of not offending people that wouldn't vote for you anyway or you can take the moral fight to them and perhaps change a few minds if you believe that people can evolve.

[Duppers]

73. Nailed it, Uncle Joe.

^^^

[Zorra]

94. Well said. I'm so done with Timidcrats who cower in perpetual fear over

what republicans will say.

[brush]

113. Understanding FOX's influence is not operating out of a position of fear

No need to give them even more ammo to attack with.

I agree with Hillary in this instance.

[Uncle Joe]

123. I'm of the belief that the best defense is a good offense, by aggressively supporting LGBT rights or

for that matter human rights, you are using ammo against the low info, right wing, Republican propaganda machine, that being if you believe that people can evolve.

I'm also of the belief that evil triumphs when good people do nothing.

Bernie's speech at Liberty University is a prime example of intestinal fortitude, going into the Lion's Den, stating your opposing beliefs or convictions with sincerity and winning over converts on common ground despite FOX "News."

[brush]

127. We can agree to disagree

I'm undecided in the race but I think Hillary was right in not wanting to give the righties more ammo.

Their 24/7 barrage of lies and disinformation influences more than just their base. The continued untruths, a la Goebbels "big Lie" technique, pulls votes from some undecided and independents.

It's doesn't make a lot of sense to give them more stuff to inflame people with and then say it doesn't matter because they aren't going to vote Dem anyway. Some people watch FOX and other news outlets before they decide.

[Uncle Joe]

132. People couldn't speak up against Goebbels and the Nazis or they would be killed, that's not the case

here.

Had they been willing and able to do so, Hitler may never have come to power.

It makes no difference whether you give them stuff to inflame the people, they will create it regardless, the best and most logical solution to that is in giving the people a strong counter-narrative.

Peace to you, brush.

[roguevalley]

150. Fuck fox news and my former ass hat governor, Palin. We are talking about children

here and their parents. Children.

Fuck this. 2011 wasn't fifteen years ago. When she says she supports gay rights and marriage, remember she is lying. Remember that she put her own comfort ahead of that of children. When I think this person can't fall farther, stuff like this happens. What a wretched thing this is.

[roguevalley]

151. the reason those fuckers have influence is that no one tells them to fuck off and die

no one stands up and takes the narrative back. NO ONE HAS ANY COURAGE! That's how those fascist fuckers win. She decided to sacrifice children over her own fear of these nazis. and yes, fox is nazi to the bone

[kelliekat44]

190. Pragmatism is not a family value for some Dems. nt

[Chan790]

193. Pragmatism is a vice, not a virtue, and certainly not something to be valued.

Pragmatists should be disemboweled and thrown to the lions while a loudspeaker blares overhead "It could be worse; you could be on fire too."

That's what pragmatism is, encapsulated into a pithy snark...a pessimistic worldview founded in a belief that no matter how shitty things are, they could always be shittier so we should be grateful they aren't worse and complacent enough to not strive to make things not-shitty.

If there is one thing I loathe more than corporatist center-right Democrats, it's pragmatists. In a concession to reality, they tend to go hand in hand which is convenient and reduces the number of people I have to loathe substantially.

[senz]

164. "or you can take the moral fight to them" - Bravo! As Bernie does.

He did it at Liberty U. and he does it every time he sticks his neck out to stand up for his principles, which is one more reason why he would be a far better Democratic candidate than Hillary and a far better president for this democratic republic.

He's not afraid to speak the truth, and people love him for it.

[Scuba]

172. /\_/\_This right here_/\_/\

[Fantastic Anarchist]

79. No, no it is not quite valid.

[John Poet]

169. All those FAUX-NEWS viewers will never vote Democratic anyway,

so who gives a shit what they think?!

I get vast enjoyment from watching their heads explode over things like this.

[brush]

170. Some independents and undecideds watch FOX and other outlets before . . .

they decide who to vote for so giving these extreme wingers more ammo to use in their 24/7 lies and misinformation broadcasts is not, IMO, the smartest thing to do.

[Perseus]

96. Agree with you, also...

I don't know what DU is going to do IF Hillary becomes the nominee for the Democratic party...DU has given so much ammunition to the Republicans against HRC, how do you intend to defend all that if it happens?

I feel that, as Democrats, we are shooting ourselves on the foot by carrying on this campaign against HRC.

If you support Bernie Sanders, why not follow his example and stop the negativity? In the long run it will work better for all, think of the alternative of having a Republican as president...Think about the ticket of Donald Trump/Sarah Palin. If that is not scary enough to stop the negatives to HRC, I don't know what is.

And who says that if Bernie is the nominee, that he wouldn't pick HRC for VP?

[roguevalley]

152. DU has given them ammo. I didn't know we were so powerful. Do you really believe there

is one thing she has ever done that they don't know already. Last year they were saying people were working on her dirt pile. DU? I wish we were that powerful.

[Scuba]

174. Wrong! DU never dings her on Benghazi and the right never dings her on ...

TPP
XL Pipeline
H1B Visas
Wall Street
Henry Kissinger
Pete Peterson

... or any of the other things we ding her here on DU.

[treestar]

149. et al means

and others, so Palin is simply being used here as a general metaphor for right wing.

[brush]

163. Yes, we said the same thing in different words

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. "I’m not defending that decision, which I disagree w"

Cause she's so supportive of our GLBT citizens....unless Sarah Palin complains.

Glad to know where people rank in Clintonland.

[Turbineguy]

17. Being who she is,

she's probably tired of all the RW BS "investigations", "scandals", etc.. That's the way I read it.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

23. And her tiredness comes before doing what's right for a very large number of people?

I'm looking to elect a President who actually does what people need, not whatever won't give Sarah Palin a hissyfit.

[MADem]

45. She prefers the terms mother and father to parent 1 and parent 2. So do I.

There is no reason why a child can't have two mothers, or two fathers, and why shouldn't that be recorded as such on a passport application, or what-have-you.

Why do gay people have to be stripped of their gender in order to get a passport? Why tap dance? Billy has two moms. Frances has two dads. So what?

Instead of having a form that specifies these relationships, one can ASK the question, instead: Relationship to child? Fill in the blank. Job done.

[demwing]

98. Why have these gender roles at all?

What if Billy has two dads? Do you think it would be less contentious to the fundie crowd if the application had rows for "Dad1" and "Dad2"? Do we need a separate form for gay couples?

[MADem]

117. You've just articulated the POINT she was making.MOTHER and FATHER are the way to describe PARENTS.

Not Parent1 and Parent2. Not even DAD1 and DAD2--why do we need numbers? Fred is the DAD, and Joe is the DAD. Basta. We know that there are two dads because there are two names on the form, both identifying themselves as the fathers of this child.

She has a problem with the whole "strip out the gender, number people like objects, be non-specific" thing--straight people don't have to hide their gender to be parents. And straight people aren't Number ONE (the best) and Number TWO (not quite as good).

She doesn't have a problem with Susie's parents Jane Doe-Smith, MOTHER, and Anne Doe-Smith MOTHER. But if those parents were forced to decide who got to be number one, and who had to be number two, she wasn't feeling that.

Good for her. I'm not feeling it either.

GENDER is a part of who we are. As we've learned, it can be fungible. Bradley Manning, male soldier, is now Chelsea Manning, female guest of the Leavenworth Disciplinary Barracks. But it is personal and part and parcel of one's identity, and "certain people" shouldn't be forced to have to put their gender in the back of the bus as a consequence of their orientation, just because some poor fool in the bowels of State was trying too hard. I don't see any malice on the part of the worker who came to that conclusion, but it works too hard to be "inoffensive" to a swathe of people who shouldn't give a shit, anyway, while offending those gay/trans parents who have a right to their genders like anyone else.

And as she said, she doesn't object to other descriptors. Her point, though, is that they shouldn't be foisted upon people--they need to be self-identifying descriptors that come from the affected population. Foisting Parent1 and Parent2 on gay couples IS "separate but equal" and it's just NOT right.

[roguevalley]

154. she has a problem with gays. She has a problem with courage. she has no problem keeping life hard

for CHILDREN. FDR didn't shy away from ass holes. This is not defendable to me. She had a moment for courage and leadership and she pissed it away to make sure she was comfortable. Fuck the children and families involved. Her comfort and image comes first. Semantics. Actions ALWAYS speak louder than words. She failed this 3 am phone call over SARAH PALIN! GAH!

[MADem]

175. And you are having a problem with facts. The LGBT community strongly supports her--in fact,

they are among her largest and most loyal donors.

And she has no problem with courage. She made sure gay State Department employees had full partner benefits when the Supreme Court wasn't even contemplating the equality issue.

Actions DO speak louder than words--like your actions--and your words--when you decided to delve into the depths downthread with that sleazy post about her husband.

"Anything to win" is not a sustainable strategy.

As I have said before, and I will keep saying, more than the lack of money, more than the issues of personality or name recognition, Sanders' greatest liability is not all--but just SOME--of his supporters. They do him a powerful disservice by reaching for and reiterating Ken Starr/rightwing memes. When I see that kind of thing, I have to wonder where that kind of stuff is coming from--if the Sanders campaign is putting it out (and I don't think they are) they would do well to be ashamed. And if they aren't putting it out, the campaign's "supporters" shouldn't be, either.

That leaves me to wonder, who would say things like this, if it's not coming from the Sanders campaign? WHO? That's a question for the ages...!



It is impossible to claim the high ground by spending too much time in the gutter. It's not a winning move.

[tex-wyo-dem]

106. I don't disagree with you, in general, but...

The point is that Hil was so concerned not to become a target of Fox/Palin. Basically looks like fear and running away...not a characteristic of what I want in a POTUS.

[MADem]

129. Just like Bernie was SO concerned about how he was perceived on economic justice issues that

he stopped talking about the WHITE working class and inserted BLM issues into his stump speech. Gee, he was "concerned." So "concerned" he changed the one speech he gives, over and over. Is the fact that he changed his speech "fear and running away?" Is that "not a characteristic of what (you) want in a POTUS?" I mean, come on--he didn't stick to his guns, did he? He saw a problem and he countered it when he made adjustments to his remarks.

What are you saying, here, really? That being JUSTIFIABLY concerned about optics is OK when one person does it, but if another person is perceptive enough to know that there is potential for them to be attacked--in Clinton's case, by assholes, not by people with genuine policy differences--they shouldn't mention it in a frigging email to their OWN staff? In an email you are ONLY reading because a right-wing fuckstick, who would crucify--and that's the right word, here--your favorite candidate in two shakes of a lamb's tail dogged her mercilessly over a NON-scandal that they're trying like hell to make stick?

Good grief. Like I said elsewhere--pretzel logic. That ain't fear--that's seeing all the angles, knowing who is likely to attack, and readying a defense.

Being PREPARED. That's a leadership quality. Putting your head in the sand and refusing to acknowledge the possibility that wingnut assholes might try to make hay over State's stance on letting gay/trans people identify themselves with the same parental identifiers, that are gender-specific, as any straight parent would use, is NOT leadership. It's not readying your subordinates to be aware of the potential for a problem, and that is sacrificing preparation for posturing.

Clinton didn't do that--she articulated all the angles, and did so succinctly. She was right, here.

smh.

[roguevalley]

155. living your life afraid of what might happen is fine for you and me but NOT for a president.

we must agree to disagree.

[Bonobo]

3. Not surprising considering her views on the "sanctity" of marriage. nt

[Divernan]

55. Sanctity? as in honoring the vow to forsake all others?

Last edited Thu Oct 1, 2015, 01:38 PM - Edit history (1)

Who can we think of who has mocked the sanctity of marriage with a string of adulteries for the past decades? Hmmmm?

[MADem]

135. Hey, if you're married more than once....or had a liaison with someone outside marriage, producing

offspring, those are adulteries, too.

Hmmmmmmmm? Sure you wanna go there? Think hard on that one.

AFAIK, Hillary hasn't been caught in any cheating scandal--and she's only been married once.

You might want to pack that one back up.

[roguevalley]

156. no one wants to go near her marriage because its a hornets nest for those who want to make trouble.

I feel for her being married to bill and going out to defend him when he knew he was guilty and let her. Leave the marriage out of this. It would be merciful for all.

[MADem]

162. No, no, no--let's bring all those relationships back into the mix, why don't we?

You threw it out there--you made the threat.

Bill is an old man with heart disease--that dog is finally content to sit on the porch and eat his veggie burgers. And we all KNOW about his liaisons--we knew about most of 'em before he was elected the FIRST time. And of course, he's not RUNNING for ANYTHING this time--so you're in favor of going after the candidates' family, then? Let's get to it, then!!!

My, my, there's so much the American people don't know about Sanders' first wife, his girlfriend who had his only child at the height of the Vietnam draft, or his second wife, her ex-husband, and when their relationship actually began....gee, since you want to dig dirt, howsabout we start digging in that garden? I'm betting we'll find more than enough to make a hearty meal!!!

Or will you start crying "NO FAIR!!! FOUL! Not BERRRNIE!!!!!!"

Sauce for the goose? Sauce for the gander. You be careful what you wish for. You just might want to retract all those nasty and salacious wishes, because what goes around comes around--with a bang.

And--to make the context of this conversation very, very clear--you fired off the first shot with this:

Original version with no edits.
55. Sanctity? as in honoring the vow to forsake all others?
Who can we think of who has mocked the sanctity of marriage with a string of adulteries for the past decades? Hmmmm?

One of the most humiliating things about having a husband who not only sleeps around, but then looks you in the eye and absolutely denies it (Who you gonna believe, baby? Me or your lying eyes?&quot is going in to your OB-GYN to get tested for sexually transmitted diseases.
Thu Oct 1, 2015, 01:38 PM - Unexplained edit. (Show)

Your edited and backed off, but you lit the fuse, here. You can't hold the high ground when you start talking about people sleeping around and "sexually transmitted diseases." We could ask "Why did Bernie's first marriage end? Was he ....sleeping around? Getting sexually transmitted diseases?" Or "Why didn't Bernie marry the mother of his only child? Was he....sleeping around? Getting 'sexually transmitted diseases?" Or "Why did Jane Driscoll divorce her husband after having three kids? Was she 'sleeping around?' With Bernie? Or someone else? Getting 'sexually transmitted diseases?' How HUMILIATING!!!"

See what happens when you open a can of worms?

[delrem]

194. I see someone went the full FOX/Palin on you.

Probably doesn't even recall that he's defending Palin, FOX, and the whole intolerant pseudo-religious-sanctimonious sensibility that his candidate is pandering to in this e-mail.

Memory can be such a bitch.

[seaotter]

5. Well, she did not have the courage to defend" that decision".....

Now she MUST defend this e-mail. Good luck .

[philosslayer]

12. It was four and a half years ago.

Her position has evolved. As has the Presidents. Is this REALLY the best the Hillary haters can come up with? Pretty sad. And weak.

[seaotter]

22. That was ONLY four and a half years ago.

But the bigger point is the glimpse into her decision making process. Has her process also "evolved"?

[frylock]

60. Yes, the continual excuses and rationalizations are sad and weak.

[artislife]

70. It is news. It is a fact

The fact that some find it nothing, others want to know more (me) and some are gleeful doesn't change the fact of the story.

I want to know if they passport could have two mothers or two fathers listed. If so, then I have to agree with MADem, that the genders are noted and that is cool. But then, as I type why does it matter if the genders are noted as long as the paternal rights are noted. The person traveling with an underage child would have to have their own documentation to provide to authorities and the definition of their parental rights shouldn't be uniquely highlighted. What if they are traveling to places that are homophobic? Would the notation in the passports single them out? A parent is a parent is a parent.

I am not going to have a knee jerk reaction to this NEWS item. But I don't care if others do. Just don't pass it off as hating. Opinions other than alignment do not necessarily mean they are "hateful".

[snooper2]

6. So she goes by "H" and doesn't like to write the word "with"

Time to retire "H" - time for some new blood like MARTIN O'MALLEY!

(you better be ready to debate H!)

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

24. Admit it, you just want MOM for President!

He needs to start a friendly robot factory while he's at it...

[bunnies]

7. Caribou Barbie must be pissing herself with glee.

Why the hell would *anyone*, let alone the mighty Hillary Clinton, give a flying fuck what Sarah Palin says?

[JoePhilly]

8. This is the smoking gun email????

Wow ... good thing we've got a congressional committee involved to get to the bottom of it.

[seaotter]

10. Screw a congressional committee....

She needs to explain this one to Democratic Voters. This really casts a shadow on her decision making process.

[JoePhilly]

13. Yes yes ... this is absolutely terrible.

Ummm ... why?

[seaotter]

15. Because it seems to be a window into her decision making process.

It shows lack of courage in that it seems she gives too much consideration to how something plays on FOX as opposed to what is the right thing to do. Seems to dovetail with her process on the Iraq war authorization vote.

[JoePhilly]

56. Ahhhh

Or, the words mother and father are ok.

[seaotter]

59. her words: ..." so long as we retained the PRESUMPTION of mother AND father"...

again, nice try, but no soap.

[JoePhilly]

62. So I can't be a father anymore?

My wife can't be a mother??

[seaotter]

64. Now you are just being silly.

Good luck.

[MADem]

140. If you have a mirror, you should use it.

You are the one who has totally and deliberately missed the point. Your bias is blinding you.

[seaotter]

144. Yes, my "bias" for a President who does not consider what Sarah Palin thinks when

making policy decisions does shade my view. For that I will not apologize.

[MADem]

145. Anyone who doesn't consider how political enemies might try to gain advantage is naive.

No need to apologize for that, though--it's something that is learned through experience. In time, you will learn.

Senator Sanders learned, and "considered," when he eliminated his "white working man" comments from his repertoire and included issues of salience to people of color in response to concerns raised by #blm.

[seaotter]

148. Anyone who takes a stance determined by how the political winds are blowing

is naive to think they have earned a vote of support. Not sure why you keep bringing Sanders into this thread....Must be your bias showing.

[MADem]

178. Yeah, like dropping "white working class" from your stump speech....

The political wind was blowing like hell when that went down....

Keep on, though. Keep on--you're flying your flag up high! I can see you from a mile away!

[roguevalley]

157. no they are demonstrating flexible ethics and cowardice.

[MADem]

179. You're saying Sanders should have kept pounding the WHITE WORKING CLASS drum?

That's your position? That his ethics were flexible, that he was a coward? You're seriously saying this?

[Brainstormy]

21. Yes, why?

I can't even begin to understand where the outrage to this comes from. Molehills out of mountains, in the style of the repugs.

[MADem]

141. Because when ya got nuthin' that's what ya do!

And this isn't simply molehills--this is a complete invention/misinterpretation of comments in a deliberate fashion with the hope that acolytes on their team won't go to the source and actually understand the issue.

It's Bush-style pretzel logic!

[sabrina 1]

11. What a mess! We need leaders who do not CAVE to the extremists on the right. Hillary has promised

to get along with these extremists, which we can see from this, she means. 'Let's not offend the sensibilities of bigots' isn't a policy.

[JoePhilly]

14. Why didn't Hillary get out in front of this!!!

Wait, she tried to avoid a nonsense blow up ...

Why did Hillary not not get out in front of this!!!!

Thank god we're digging through her emails to get to the real issues. Benghazi, illegal contributions to the Clinton foundation, and now, word choices.

[seaotter]

18. Language that is discriminatory to LGBT is just "word choices"?

That is an interesting take.

[msanthrope]

32. I don't know a gay parent who identifies as parent 1 or parent 2....

Allowing everyone to self identify as other mother or father as their choosing solve the problem. Secretary Clinton was absolutely correct about this.

[seaotter]

33. That was not her point.

Nice try.

[msanthrope]

38. Welcome to DU! nt

[DURHAM D]

43. Agree.

Hillary was correct.

[MADem]

49. And BOOM goes the dynamite--this is it, exactly.

Gay people don't have to be stripped of their gender in order to be parents--that was Hillary's point.

I'm laughing like hell at all of this jumping around by people so anxious to bash her, when all she is saying is that parents, gay or trans, too, deserve the DIGNITY OF THEIR GENDER when they describe their relationship to their child.

[seaotter]

51. No, the BOOM is this window into her decision making process.

THAT is one of the most important things to scrutinize in a Presidential Candidate. That is why we must all pay attention. Yes, yes one's views can evolve. I want a President who cause others to evolve, that is a leader.

[MADem]

67. Naaah, sorry. Not buying your goalpost moving.

The anti-Hillary set put their teeth into this issue by initially claiming that her stance was "anti-gay." Now you're realizing that was a clinker, and trying to play the Palin card.

If you are so obtuse as to assume that political considerations, and OPTICS, don't factor into every decision anyone in public life makes, then you don't understand how politics works. You think Sanders started talking about BLM because he had a personal epiphany? Hell no--he noted the OPTICS, and he course-corrected. I'll bet --shock!!!--he talked it over with staff, too.

You are trying way too damn hard....and it shows.

[seaotter]

72. sorry , but if you read all of my posts you would see

that my main issue with this is the poor light that is shown on her decision making process, just as her vote to authorize the Iraq war does. You can project what you will on me, but I am standing by my posts. It would seem that you, and Hillary , may rank "optics" way too high on the priority list to suit me. If you think "optics" are more important than actual policy, more power to you.
I, on the other hand prefer a leader who despite "optics" pushes what is right, and works to help others "evolve".

And , in closing, I am not trying very hard at all! Seems I do not have to.

[MADem]

80. So your gripe is OPTICS? And you're complaining that SHE was also concerned about OPTICS?

Can you see how I might regard that as somewhat hypocritical of you?

You're the only one who is allowed to say "It looks bad to be concerned about how something might be perceived?"

smh.

Bernie Sanders didn't have a Come To Jesus moment over BLM. He saw how the optics were CRUSHING him. He added a few lines in his stump speech to get the heat off him.

See how that sort of stuff works? Why is it "OK" for Bernie to take note of perception, and not OK for HRC?

Also, why would anyone object to the fact that Clinton thinks that gay/trans parents should be allowed to identify as mothers and fathers, and not parent 1 and (ewwwww) parent 2?

I thought pretzel logic went out of fashion in 2009.

[Demit]

84. Are you saying that "parent 1" and "parent 2" is the right designation for passports?

Are you saying you think Clinton should have agreed to it?

[seaotter]

109. What i'm saying is that this shines a light on Hillary's decision making process.

Just as does her vote for the Iraq War Authorization.

A far more important item when selecting the next President.

[Demit]

111. Yes, I've read the point you've been trying to make over and over.

But your point and Clinton's point are two separate things.

Maybe when you are interviewed in an exit poll, you can explain that your reason for not voting for Clinton is because she made a bad decision in voting for the Iraq War Authorization, and a bad decision in not liking the idea of calling people "Parent 1" and "Parent 2" in passport applications, which, in your view, are equally grave issues.

[seaotter]

115. Your fine skills in reasoning are far beyond mine.

Your avid skills in identifying equivalencies are far above the norm.

I cede to your intellect.

[morningfog]

120. But she doesn't say that "mother and mother" would be recognized.

[msanthrope]

153. Why wouldn't it be? nt

[morningfog]

165. Is that what she is suggesting?

She is saying that "parent 1, parent 2" is no good, which I agree is no good.

But the alternative is "mother and father." It don't see that she is saying "mother and mother" or "father and father" is okay with her. I just can't tell from this email.

[msanthrope]

185. I think that's exactly what she's suggesting. But then again, I worked for her, and remember when

she refused to fire her gay and out chief of staff at the behest of Congressional Republicans.

In the 1990s.

[morningfog]

191. I can see your reading and think that makes sense.

It wasn't clear to me at first.

[msanthrope]

192. Thank you for that. The problem with single emails is that they are devoid of

the context of history.

[msanthrope]

186. Why wouldn't it be? nt

[MADem]

46. Parent 1 and Parent 2 is discriminatory--you have to give up your gender if you're gay?

Hillary is RIGHT on this. A child can have two mothers, or two fathers, as well as a mother and a father.

It's completely discriminatory if they have a mother and a father if they come from a heterosexual relationship, and Parent 1 and Parent 2 if a homosexual one.

I have to laugh at how many people are so eager to bash her, when she's right.

[seaotter]

50. The point: ..."so long as we retained the presumption of MOTHER AND FATHER..."

This, i am sorry to say, seems to be her point. Nice try, though.

[MADem]

68. It's not a "try." It is two words--two words that sound better than Parent 1 and Parent 2.

You are struggling way too hard to try to sell your version. I'm not buying it.

[seaotter]

75. That is fine. That said, I am pleased with my "market share"!

[MADem]

81. Don't tire yourself out trying to sell your "product."

[seaotter]

116. Not a chance.

My product is not best its "best by" date, in fact , my product has a very long shelf life.

[Bluenorthwest]

119. But that's not what Hillary said at all. Not at all. The solution is obvious, if one is not phobic

and adult oriented. The form should have the heading 'Parents' followed by two blank spaces for the names of the parents. No need to label them as anything other than 'Parents' on such a form. No need for the gender based titles, nor for the absurdly rank like 'one and two'.

But of course, to remove the words 'mother and father' and replace it with just 'parents' would also cause Palin to froth over so part of the problem lies in considering the reaction of idiot conservatives when making decisions that have nothing at all to do with said idiot conservatives.

[Motown_Johnny]

19. it is her attitude toward equality that is the issue here

Not her word choice

[MADem]

65. Her "attitude" that gay parents deserve the same Mother and Father labels as straight parents?

And don't have to be relegated to the "separate but equal" Parent 1 and Parent 2 designator?

A child can have TWO fathers, or TWO mothers.

Good grief. I prefer her word choice. "Parent 1" is flat-out bogus.

smh.

[sabrina 1]

34. Let's see, 'avoid a blowup from extremists from the fringes of society' OR 'stand up for the rights

of millions of American citizens'??

That seems an easy enough choice to me. Never negotiate with bullies and bigots, it's not possible, just roll right over them and oddly enough, they will respect you more.

So having decided on the first option, has Fox changed their ways re Hillary? I can't think of anything more stimulating than watching bigots creating a 'nonsense blowup' over someone else's Civil Rights. But that' me. Why she gives one hoot about these morons is the real question.

[seaotter]

36. It seems that was her calculation.

[robbob]

87. I'm confused.

What exactly are the "right of millions of Americans" that she was refusing to support? The right to be called parent one and parent two?

The proposal to remove the terms "mother" and "father" was a ridiculous one, and Hillary was correct to oppose it. I do not wish to see HRC win the nomination, I am very exited watching Bernie Sanders gain momentum, but this really is a non-issue imo.

[sabrina 1]

90. Maybe it's the fear of Fox and Palin that stands out. As for the language, simply putting parents or

parent would have resolved the issue, parents could then identify themselves. But her immediate reaction was to worry about Faux and Palin. I can't understand that at all. She should be far more worried about the voters.

[Demit]

105. Looks to me her immediate reaction was being pissed that a decision was made

without her input. A decision she didn't agree with. And she's the one who would've had to defend it before Congress. Clinton made those three points—and a couple more—before getting to the last one about the media storm from Fox et al.

So, no, that was not her immediate reaction. It was more of a "and besides…" reaction.

[Motown_Johnny]

16. Was there even an outrage over this?

I don't remember one but I don't care about Palin or the FAUX talking heads

Was she not only wrong to disagree with this change and wrong to be afraid of FAUX outrage but also wrong about how strong the opposition would be?

It is starting to get hard to keep track of just how many things she gets wrong at once.

[MADem]

69. She was--as she has to be--alert to the possibility of an attack from the "Culture Club."

It would be amusing to see what Caribou Barbie was doing at the time--did she have her Faux platform, was she raking it in on the speaking circuit, or did she have her horrible reality show?

What's wrong with allowing a child to have two parents who are both called MOTHER, or FATHER?

She's right on this--why would anyone want to relegate everyone to PARENT 1 or PARENT 2 (and who has to be the "secondary" parent???) out of a phony sense of PC, because some conservatives will be offended and INSIST that a kid can't have two fathers, or two mothers?

What's dead wrong is your interpretation of her POV. She's right. Kids with gay/trans parents have MOTHERS. Or FATHERS. Not "Parent 1" and "Parent 2."

smh.

[Bluenorthwest]

124. You keep avoiding the fact that we are talking about printed forms, which will then be presented to

families with two Moms who then have to cross out 'Father' and write in 'Mother' or just get called Dad. Hillary is saying to leave the forms printed to serve only some families. She is not saying 'they have the right to both be called Mother'.
Also the way she is saying it skeeves me out entirely. I have defended Hillary in the past on some LGBT issues. This skeeves me out.
Straight folks affecting that they care about it and understand it better that we do are not helping sell their wares.

[MADem]

134. Nonsense. This is how you handle that kind of thing, no crossouts needed.

NAME..................................

RELATIONSHIP TO CHILD...........................................


See? How hard is that? If you can print your NAME on a "printed form" and your address and your phone number and your social security number and your date of birth, you sure as hell can print your relationship to your child on a damn form--or is that too much straining at the pen?


No one has to 'cross out' anything. Good grief. What do they do with LEGAL GUARDIANS? Aunts? Uncles? Grandparents? Step-mothers/fathers?

You know, not every kid is lucky enough to be raised by their parents, biological or otherwise. There's more than one way to solve a problem, and having a parent SELF-DESCRIBE who and what they are to their offspring is the way to go.

And Parent 1 and Parent 2? That fucking SUCKS. When you put numbers up there, you're saying someone is Number One, and someone else is SECOND BEST. It's a total fail. She saw that right off the bat. I am, frankly, ASTOUNDED that it didn't leap right out at everyone reading it, and instead, they're trying so hard to not see what is obvious to most people.

Anything to jump on the bandwagon and deliver a misdirected beatdown. Printed forms can be RE-DESIGNED. In fact, in order to get this stupidass PARENT 1 and 2 nonsense off the ground, that is what would have had to happen.

Good grief.

smh.

[Motown_Johnny]

171. You are spinning.. badly

Yes, it should have been phrased something like "Parent(s) or legal guardian(s)" and then given 2 or more spaces for people's names.

That doesn't change the fact that this was an attempt at making the forms friendlier for same sex parents.


Her outrage is clearly about how she will be portrayed in the media. She cares nothing about any steps toward equality much less the same sex couples or their children. There is no way she was worried about an attack from Palin and/or FAUX talking heads over anything other than equating same sex couples with non-same sex couples.

Spin all you want, it won't help. We can see Hillary for who she really is.

[MADem]

177. No, I'm not. The Secretary of State who gave full benefits to LGBT partners years ahead of the

Supreme Court decision knew her own mind on this issue. She understood that you don't lift people up by creating separate-but-equal designators, or tortured language to describe parental relationships.

The State employee who came up with Parents One and Two meant well--that is NOT the issue. Clinton was sharp enough to see how it would be perceived--i.e. one gay parent is "better" than the other gay parent.

Clinton also did not want a "separate but equal" attitude at State. Particularly when that was not her policy, and there was no need. And Parent One/Parent Two conveys that impression. Gay parents are MOTHERS. Except when they are FATHERS. And trans parents are mothers and fathers, too.


I am LOLing, though, at the effort by some anti-Clintonistas to make something out of this email. Every post tells me more about how they feel about issues of equality than observing them undergoing a session with an expert hypnotist, or a truth serum interrogation, could.


You keep coming back to the "media" bit like it's some kind of crime. One. More. Time. Only a complete IDIOT doesn't maintain situational awareness about OPTICS. You stay on top of that, you develop a defense against an oppo offense, you don't just let shit hit you, and then ...duuhhhhhh....start thinking how you might respond.

Sample: Why did Bernie drop "white working class" from his stump rants, and incorporate BLM concerns? Hmmmm? Can we "see Bernie for who he really is" because he made that adjustment? Hmmmm? Was he AFRAID of how he'd be "portrayed in the media?" Fuck yeah, he was--that's why he pivoted. And he was smart to do it.




You wanna play it that way, fine. Sauce for that goose. You're coming through loud and clear.

[Motown_Johnny]

195. Now you are doing worse than spinning.

You know damn well that many of the things you just posted are not true.

Case in point:

how it would be perceived--i.e. one gay parent is "better" than the other gay parent.


As if Palin was going to step up for the same sex parent who was listed second. That isn't even really spin anymore. That is simply misrepresenting reality. FOX would only be outraged because same sex couples took a tiny little step toward being equal to non-same sex couples. You must know that is true. You simply must.


Read the email again. She says in no uncertain terms that she wants to keep the presumption of Mother and Father. She described her own attitude as being "able to live with letting people in non traditional families choose another descriptor". Her attitude was not that she supported it. She was only willing to settle for, aka "live with", something that she did not want but saw that she would need to accept.




Now, as for someone running for office changing his/her messaging. You also know damn well that it is not the same as someone, who has sworn an oath to uphold the Constitution, acting in an official capacity. The fact that you are trying to equate a few words from Sen. Sanders' stump speech to an official act of the Sec. of State is reprehensible.

If you want to compare apples and apples then we can compare Sen. Sanders' wording with "Hard working white people" from (then) Sen. Clinton. Or when she accused (then) Sen. Obama of having worked for a slum lord. At least those are all statements made by candidates while running for office. That would be reasonable. What you did isn't.

[Fred Sanders]

20. The disappointment in more nothing from the email dump is frustrating, we all get it, just like the

RW is also frustrated.....nothing from nothing leaves nothing.

But keep on massaging the nothingness into somethingness.

Egazhi = Bgazhi and for the same purpose....political attack on Clinton. That some in the LW, who I thought valued truth, are joining in is just sad.

How you liking the death of the one faux scandal? Double down before the death of the other faux scandal?

[frylock]

61. Your candidate is AFRAID of Sarah Palin..

I thought Hillary was a fighter?

[Bread and Circus]

181. You have no right to decide what should and should not bother other people.

It's pretty arrogant of you to think you can de-legitimize what other people find concerning, troubling, or off-putting as a candidate.

This whole "nothingburger" mantra of the HRC supporters here on DU is your own version of "Benghazi!"

Just admit it, HRC says and does some stupid shit from time to time (a lot in my opinion)... you can't protect her from all criticism for her stupid statements by trying to invalidate other people's feelings.

In this case, there's one issue HRC undermines and that is the idea that she is a so-called "fighter" but yet here she is basically putting the breaks on what might be considered a liberal cause for what? To avoid Fox news rancor?

That seems pretty lame to me.

[deathrind]

25. Yes...

I am sure as Sec State this was the biggest fire to deal with...

Pick your battles because you cannot fight them all.

[seaotter]

29. True. Yet she fought this one?

[deathrind]

102. That's not how I interpreted it.

She did not initiate it. Sounds like she heard after the fact and was asking why were they providing more nails to those who view the world thru the lens of a hammer...

[Evergreen Emerald]

26. Damn, Imagine if Sanders had this much scrutiny...

You guys must not feel very positive about your candidate if you must create an overblown freak over nothing.

1. I have learned to pick my battles. 2. I agree with Clinton that the wording is stupid and awkward and reminds me of Thing 1 and Thing 2 from Dr. Seuss.
3. It is a huge stretch to suggest that because of this, she is not a leader, or hates LGBT community.

But go, ahead have your frenzied shit-storm.

[seaotter]

27. The "awkwardness" had nothing to do with her objection.

Leaders are the ones who cause others to "evolve".

[MADem]

76. It is discriminatory against gay/trans parents to use PARENT 1 and PARENT 2. And who gets stuck

being NUMBER 2? Yeah, that's a real good look!

She is totally SPOT on re: this issue. Gay/trans parents are allowed to express their gender. They don't have to HIDE it to get their kid a passport. That is her point, here. Just because a kid has two fathers, they don't have to be called PARENT 1 and PARENT 2--they are FATHERS. You fill out the form as follows

Joe Schmoe-Kaddidlehopper. Relationship to child: FATHER.

Fred Schmoe-Kaddidlehopper. Relationship to child: FATHER.

It's not rocket science and I am frigging ASTOUNDED at how hard the anti-HRC set is working pvertime to try to twist and "deliberately misinterpret" this issue, when anyone who understands inclusion and comes at this conversation with an open, non-discriminatory, heart and mind can PLAINLY see what her point was.

You don't eliminate a person's gender just because they identify as gay or trans. Right on, Hillary.

[winter is coming]

136. Wow, HRC must be a forward thinker, to imagine the distant day when Fox News would be

outraged because passports were denying someone's expression of gender by calling them "parent"



I've signed lots of forms over the years which said "parent" or "parent or guardian" or "parent(s)" without feeling depersonalized in any way. Your argument here is total bullshit, and Hillary's concern about what will be said on Fox News is a clear indication that she wasn't thinking about allowing gay/trans parents to express their gender.

[MADem]

158. Keep missing the point. How many forms have you signed on the PARENT NUMBER TWO line?

A permission slip for the School Field Trip to the "Punkin Patch" is not the same as a passport application. How very simplistic of you to equate the two, though! And how adorable that because YOU don't feel "depersonalized" that you believe that your feelings are the paradigm, and you are so certain that gay and trans people would share your POV! She absolutely WAS talking about gender expression--that's what the whole self-designation piece was about. Key word SELF. Good grief.


Perhaps you're unclear--and I'm pretty sure you are--that BOTH parents have to agree to get a child a passport (assuming a child has two parents, be they mom and dad, dad and dad, or mom and mom).

Why? Because international kidnapping is a SERIOUS problem. Countries like Germany and Saudi Arabia can be real shitty and ignore the judgments of US courts. Children are ripped from their custodial parent after acrimonious divorces and spirited away beyond the reach of the law.

This is why, if there is more than one parent, that TWO PARENTS MUST SIGN/AGREE.

And how they sign the form is simply resolved by allowing them to self-designate, like so:

Who is applying for this passport?

Name..........................................................
Relationship to child......................................
Name..........................................................
Relationship to child......................................

See? Easily resolved. And no one has to be excluded....not legal guardians, not grandparents raising a child, not aunts, uncles, not mother and mother, not father and father.

When heterosexual parents are mother and father, but gay parents are forced to be parent one (the best parent) and parent two (the lesser parent), that is discrimination. When a trans woman can't be mother, or a trans man cannot be father, but has to be parent one or two, that is discrimination.

But keep -ing, keep moving those goalposts, and keep missing the point. It's fascinating to hear your thought process on this issue. It's telling. VERY telling.

Some days I have to look at the banner to be sure I am at "DU." Because this kind of shit reads like somewhere else, most definitely.

[winter is coming]

168. I haven't moved any goalposts. You're the one who seems eager to direct conversation away

from the fact that Hillary was worried about what Fox News would say if mother/father was changed to parent. Kind of pathetic that you'd want to defend her cowardice on this issue, but that's your choice.

[MADem]

180. Like Bernie was worried about how "white working class" sounded.

And like you're trying to make it a crime for a politician to have situational awareness of political opponents.

It's OK if You're Bernie, though--right?

He's not a coward when he noted that "white working class" was poorly received, and he dropped it once the heat started getting too much...it was all right for years, and then, all of a sudden, POOF--gone. But hey, that's not cowardice, that's what..? Evolving? Right?

Plant your flag there, go on!

Sanders supporter insists that political astuteness by opponents is a crime! Film at 11~!

[winter is coming]

182. And once again, you sidestep what Hillary did in a clumsy attempt to bait others.

Buh-bye.

[MADem]

183. Wow, that was a lousy effort on your part--buzzword rich, though--BAIT?

Sidestep? Who's fishing, here? Not me!

No--I addressed the issues plainly. You have a view that is pretty obvious from your comments in this thread--and you live with that. Go on!

[TM99]

92. Why would I care if he was under this much scrutiny?

He would not have been caught going behind the LGBT communities back and saying such things. He would not have given a shit about Fox News or Sarah Palin. He is quite capable of taking the fight to them.

Perhaps you remember him calling out a GOP rep during the DADT debates?

[Demit]

28. "I could live w letting people in nontraditional families choose another descriptor"

It may sound a little grudging, but all she's saying is, the nomenclature change disfavors families with traditional parents. It was changing things for ALL parents, not just same-sex parents, right?

And that email doesn't read to me that she's "afraid" of Fox et al. Has Hillary Clinton ever been AFRAID of shitstorms, as many as she's faced?

[MADem]

86. In other words, "a descriptor of THEIR choosing," not one foisted on them by the State Department.

She is right. More to the point:

Who the hell wants to be "Parent Number TWO?"

[Demit]

100. I know, right? Creates some sort of weird unnecessary hierarchy.

I wonder whose bonehead idea that was. Of course Clinton was right. She could see the repercussions immediately. What were parents supposed to do, flip a coin for it?

[MADem]

107. It's totally "separate but equal" too, when you get down to it.

OK, all you straight "mothers and fathers" line up on the left, here....and all you gay/trans "Parent 1s and Parent 2s" line up here on the right! No gender descriptors for you gay/trans people!!

One of these... lest anyone driving by think that is a serious remark (gotta do it, these days).

It's clear to me that HRC sees all the angles--which is a trait I happen to LIKE in a leader. She's not about to be blindsided or put up with inferior work. Good for her. So smart.

[mcar]

130. So much ado about nothing

[MADem]

138. Clutching and grasping....and totally missing the point, too!

It's rather sad that they'd throw gay/trans people under the bus in an attempt to portray Palin as a force, here, when that's not what is going on at all. Deliberate misinterpretation is never a good look.

[msanthrope]

30. She's correct....parent 1 and parent 2 is stupid. Allow everyone to

self identify and you solve the problem.

[seaotter]

35. Again, that was not her point.

This e-mail clearly highlights her decision making process. And that IS the point.

Keep plugging.

[msanthrope]

41. Again, welcome to DU! nt

[zappaman]

31. Zzzzzzzzzzzz

Let me know when we find out what kind of toppings she likes on her pizza.
I see her as just a simple pepperoni and mushroom person.

[AgingAmerican]

42. She likes

"Walk on eggshells so as not to upset FOX news" on her pizza

[MADem]

88. Peppers and onions...

If Bill is around....he's got that vegan thing going on.

[zappaman]

97. yuck!

more proof she is a horrible person.
and also shows the Repubs want to elect her cuz they are scared shitless of Bernie!

[MADem]

184. Ha ha ha!!

[msanthrope]

40. nice catch on the misogynistic language. nt

[AgingAmerican]

39. Can't have a president who walks on eggshells

Cuz of what FOX might say.

[Broward]

47. Hillary Clinton unfiltered - very telling.

[TwilightGardener]

52. Chicken of Fox Nooz and a word-salad dimwit. Yeah, that's who I want as President.

[me b zola]

53. Birth certificates are meant to be a legal document describing the birth of a child

There should be separate certificates for those adopting a child. I never understood why my aparents names were on my amended "birth certificate" when they had nothing to do with my birth.

[SoapBox]

54. Just more Hill baggage...

It's tiresome.

No more Bush...No more Clinton...and especially No more Hillary.

[Metric System]

57. Here's a link to original AP story. "mother or parent 1" and "father or parent 2" sounds OK to me:

http://wglb-tv.blogspot.ca/2011/01/state-department-steps-back-on-gender.html

WASHINGTON -- In a bid to forestall a backlash from congressional conservatives, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton has ordered the State Department to amend a bureaucratic change that would have eliminated the titles "mother" and "father" with the gender-neutral term "parent" in reports of overseas births.

The State Department said Saturday that Clinton had instructed the department to retain "mother" and "father" in a form known as a "Consular Report of Birth Abroad" that U.S. embassies use to document the birth of a child to expatriate Americans. It said the form will now ask for the names of the child's "mother or parent 1" and "father or parent 2."

***

"She has directed that the relevant forms retain to the existing references to 'mother' and 'father' in addition to the designation 'parent'," Crowley said. He said her decision would ensure that the documents are as inclusive and informative as possible.
State Department officials said Clinton was concerned that eliminating the "mother" and "father" from the forms would spark an unwanted fight with newly powerful Republican lawmakers who are calling for major cuts in foreign operations spending and have challenged administration policy in numerous areas.

[seaotter]

63. This article also points to her fear of FOX as the prominent factor in her decision.

Not a good process. Leaders must lead. Leaders cause others to "evolve".

[Metric System]

66. "Mother or Parent 1" and "Father or Parent 2" was a good compromise to avoid a funding battle:

From the original AP article:

State Department officials said Clinton was concerned that eliminating the "mother" and "father" from the forms would spark an unwanted fight with newly powerful Republican lawmakers who are calling for major cuts in foreign operations spending and have challenged administration policy in numerous areas.

[Demit]

121. Thank you. Some posters are so intent on making this about Clinton's "fear"

of Fox that they can't see what her larger concern was: THIS Congress, as she said in the email.

[Vinca]

58. Guess that doesn't qualify as a "profile in courage."

[Duppers]

78. Yep, good point.

If she's the least bit intimidated by Fox Noise, by voters who'd never vote for her to begin with, then holly _____ (full in).

[Sunlei]

71. Jan, 8, 2011, wow, amazing how Mrs. Clinton was engaged with everything going on in our Gov.

She didn't even miss checking out changes/upgrades on our passport and passport applications.

And took the time to comment to her friends/co-workers? in group-emails.

She's a workaholic, that's what these emails show me. Would love to see republican emails over that same month, bet they didn't give a shit about passport changes.

[corkhead]

74. I don't see the problem.

This is just a snapshot of which direction the weather vane was pointed in at a specific time 4 years ago

[karynnj]

77. What I don't get is what is so hard to defend here?

This was NOT whether gay marriage, civil unions etc should be allowed, but a pretty straight forward way to change the designation to work for any family.

By the time it was written, there were children who really did have two legal parents who were women or who were men. Even in states where gay marriage was allowed, it was possible for each of two women to adopt a baby - at least in the state where a sister and her significant other adopted two children.

Under the original form, how does such a family fill it out? Cross out father and put mother # 2?

No one is hurt by the changes. My husband and I would have had no problem with filling out parent 1 and parent 2. Yes, Palin would be unhappy, but this is on the level of "War on Christmas."

[greymattermom]

82. She's right.

Gay couples are either both husbands or both wives, not spouse 1 and spouse 2, right?

[Bluenorthwest]

114. First off, this is not about spousal identification but parental. Second, if the parental terms

given are 'Mother' and 'Father' and there are two fathers, 'Mother' is not appropriate to either. The solution would be to use the term 'Parents' and then leave two spaces for the names of the parents. Labeling the spaces is not really necessary, is it?

[George II]

83. Fumed???

[RussBLib]

85. obviously an editorial comment

oh lord, how many of these "private" emails are we going to have dripped out to the public, one by one?

And what would we find if we accessed the private emails of any other Presidential candidate? Why is it OK to do that with Clinton?

[AmericanHare]

89. I think everyone is missing the point here

**long time lurker, first time commenter**

On the form, it lists father:_____ mother:_______

If there are two mothers, only one can technically list their name, and the other? Are they to identify as father?

So generically, all forms were changed to Parent 1:_____ Parent 2:______

For same sex parents, this is discriminatory because there are not a mother and father, but two fathers, or two mothers.

So for her to NOT support a change like that does bring a validity to question her dedication to LGBT causes.

[SunSeeker]

91. Hillary was correct to object. "Parent 1" and "Parent 2" is silly and demeaning.

A gay dad still refers to himself as a father. A lesbian mom still refers to herself as a mother, not "parent 2." Who the fuck refers to themselves as "parent 2"? Why shouldn't we refer to both men as a fathers?

Why should this silly Dr. Seuss nomenclature be the default for passports?

[AmericanHare]

95. But

if there is only a spot for mother and father, where does the second father put his name, under mother?

you can only put one per line...

EDITED: changed sport to spot.

[SunSeeker]

101. What are you talking about? "Sport"? You mean "spot"?

Why should a stupid form dictate how we treat people? Shouldn't the form be changed so that it allows for reality, i.e., two dads and two moms?

[AmericanHare]

103. yes

and that's what the change did...

and of course I meant spot.

the original form has 1 spot for mother, 1 spot for father.

it was changed to two spots for parents

Hillary didn't like this, and preferred 1 spot for father and 1 spot for mother.

she could have said "lets have two spots that say Mother/father" but she didn't.

the form made it inclusive to straight or homosexual couples, and her reverting the form back made it less inclusive.

what are you not getting?

[SunSeeker]

104. It is you who is not getting it.

She wanted to leave "mother" and "father" as the default options for designating what you were.

I know I would never want to be designated "parent 2."

There does not have to be "just one spot." She did say there should be more than one option. I guess her not using the words "two spots" but rather the more descriptive "default and alternate designation" is what threw you.

[AmericanHare]

108. um

There were TWO options, ONE for each parent. ONE option was MOTHER, ONE option was FATHER.

There were NOT two FATHER options or TWO MOTHER options.

If Mother 1 signed her name on MOTHER, where should mother 2 sign her name, FATHER?

it was changed to say parent, and then changed back to mother AND father.

In a couple of two men, which one is the father, and which one is the mother, or are they both parents?

[Oilwellian]

173. I've yet to see an answer to your question

which has been asked several times in this thread. It's also important to note that the LGBT community was very happy with the change, until it didn't.

[demwing]

93. "I could live w/ letting people in nontraditional families choose another descriptor"

well thank gawd she can live with this! Traditional families (WTF is THAT anyway) might get the vapors and collapse on the couch!

Actually, "traditional families" might need an extra line or two for "Parent 3" and "Parent 4" if Kim Davis is any example.

[Demit]

110. Traditional families are ones that don't sign birthday cards w/ "Parent 1" or "Parent 2"

[demwing]

112. So someone on their 3rd marriage is traditional?

I see...

[Demit]

126. If someone is "Mom" or "Dad" via a first marriage, they retain the title

They don't become "Parent 1" or "Parent 2."

Which is what this thread is about. Do you want to start a thread about Kim Davis? You can, you know.

[frylock]

146. And when someone is Dad and Dad?

What happens then? Which Dad puts their name under Mother?

[Demit]

159. I don't know. I don't know which Dad would put their name under Parent 2, either.

Do you?

[frylock]

160. They could work that out amongst themselves..

maybe a coin toss.

[Onlooker]

99. Parent one and parent two is an awful idea

Why not mother and mother or father and father or mother and father? Hillary's point is valid, since she says she would support another "descriptor" for nontraditional families.

[Metric System]

125. They ended up going with "Mother or Parent 1" and "Father or Parent 2," according to the original AP

article.

[Capn Sunshine]

128. No one on this thread wants to hear your logical point

They would rather project backwards into an environment that was completely different using things not apparent then with an agenda that paints things in the worse possible light.

DUers often forget how far we've come in a very short period of time.

As surrogates of their candidate, it is important to spread as many malicious stories about the opposition as possible.

[winter is coming]

139. We're projecting back four years, not forty.

Four years ago, I was filling out school forms that said parent(s) or asked for relationship to the child.

[Capn Sunshine]

142. Yes, and the landscape was vastly different then

so you agree with me.
(DU style posting)

[winter is coming]

143. No, I don't. Four years ago, gender-neutral forms were already in place in some

venues, yet HRC was concerned about the blowback on Fox News. That's not leadership. That's not even going with the flow. That's political ass-covering.

[frylock]

147. Did she propose using mother and mother or father and father?

[AtomicKitten]

118. The unvarnished truth: Political expediency trumps principled consistency in Hillaryworld. <nt>

[seaotter]

122. Indeed.

Too much "testing of the winds."...so to speak. Not what is best in a leader.

[senz]

167. Always. Then, now, and forever. n/t

[mhatrw]

131. What Will Palin Think?

That is the most important aspect of good public policy.

[Katashi_itto]

133. I wonder what else is percolating out there.

[99Forever]

137. NEW BUMPERSTICKER:

Hillary 2016- Unforced errors made effortlessly!

[hifiguy]

189. Often and repeatedly.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

161. "I could live with..."

Lady, it's not about what YOU could "live with".

On LGBT issues Clinton has ONLY "evolved" when politically expedient.

I want a fucking LEADER.

[me b zola]

166. So everyone continues to argue

...and I am the only one in this thread that would like to speak to the (lack of)validity and legality of falsifying information on an infants birth certificate.

Hello?

[AZ Mike]

176. If the core of her fear is right wing media criticism....

....then this is demonstrative of political cowardice.

[unapatriciated]

187. The e-mail disappoints me but these few words are a window to her soul.

"I could live w letting people"

[hifiguy]

188. Oy. And she wants to "lead?"

Fat chance of that. If you're that scared of Faux and Sparklemoose you aren't fit to lead a scout troop.