2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: Of course she is for marriage equality now... [View all]mythology
(9,527 posts)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 wasnt legislating values, she noted that Sanders believed DOMA violated the Constitutions Full Faith and Credit Clause by allowing one state to refuse to recognize a same-sex marriage performed in another. Youre opening up Pandoras box here, she said told the Burlington Free Press at the time. Youre saying that any state can refuse to
recognize the laws of another state if they dont 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?