Last week, President Bill Clinton accepted GLAAD’s ‘Advocate for Change’ Award in Los Angeles last night but not everyone was buying Clinton’s latest change of heart over gay marriage. GLADD notably left out of the award that Clinton not only signed but helped push through the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This was not in 1896 but in 1996. Clinton was heckled by some in the crowd as he accepted the award as a leader on gay rights, yelling “you signed it” when he referred to DOMA as if it was some alien or GOP legislation. What is truly annoying is Clinton’s “some of my best friends are now gay” rationalization.
Clinton called on the Supreme Court to strike down DOMA which he made law without acknowledging his key role. GLADD attempted to help him in this piece of historical revisionism not only with the award but the omission of his inglorious role. At the time of DOMA many people denounced Clinton and the Congress for codifying what was seen as an act of open discrimination.
Clinton quickly adopted the mantra of many Democratic and Republican leaders who suddenly became aware of gay rights or had a personal change of heart just as polls showed that they could now support it.
I have become increasingly irritated by politicians who have cloaked themselves in principle in supporting gay marriage after years of opposition . . . after polls showed a majority of voters supporting it. Sen. Claire McCaskill (D., Mo.) waited until after an election when this issue was raised to change her position. She was showered with praise by those who failed to ask why she opposed gay rights for years on the issue.
It is particularly maddening to see leaders who explain that they just didn’t understand the issue until one of their kids revealed that they were gay. That is the case with Sen. Rob Portman (R. Ohio) who changed his position when his son revealed he is gay. Dick Cheney changed his public position on gay rights generally when his daughter came out. Wouldn’t it be a wonderful thing if civil rights were recognized even without having a personal stake or interest in the matter? It is hardly redeeming to say that “I really didn’t think of the denial of basic rights to other people until my son was included in the disenfranchised group.”
As for Clinton, he says that he really did not understand why DOMA was such a big deal or a bad idea until his daughter Chelsea explained it to him:
“She has had a profound impact in many ways on the way I see the world. It’s sort of humbling when you get to be my age when your child knows more than you do about everything….Chelsea and her gay friends and her wonderful husband have modeled to me how we should all treat each other regardless of our sexual orientation or any other artificial difference that divides us. Many of them come and join us every Thanksgiving for a meal. I have grown very attached to them. And over the years, I was forced to confront the fact that people who oppose equal rights for gays in the marriage sphere are basically acting out of concerns for their own identity, not out of respect for anyone else.”
This is one of the classic methods of politicians to avoid personal accountability in their prior actions. By citing to a father’s love for a child, the politician raises positive images to counter the image of their prior role of leading the mob against an insular minority. Did Chelsea really have to explain this to Clinton? In 1996, thousands of people were in Washington asking to explain it to him. He did not want to hear it because it was politically popular to be against the gays and lesbians on the issue. You should not have to “have grown very attached to them” to recognize equal rights. That sounds a lot like “some of my best friends are now gay.” The test of true principle … supporting rights that do not directly benefit or personally appeal to you. That is one test Clinton never tried to pass as president.
I have to agree with the naysayers at GLADD. I think the omission of this role by the organization in its award is hypocritical and wrong. I also do not believe Clinton deserves any award or acclaim for finally and belatedly doing the right thing — particularly after leading the effort to deny this right to millions.
What do you think?
Source: Raw Story
You grow some fine sarcasm there in Washington state, Darren.
Gene,
Once the states start passing laws, the Feds are forced to sit up and take notice.
That’s why I’m in favor of State Banks
Tune in next week when David Duke accepts the presidential medal of freedom for his tireless efforts in advocating civil rights.
nick,
For once, you’ve said something I can agree with. I’m glad to see the Cult of Billary fall. When Clinton left office, I gave him a C-; passable but barely. However, after seeing the full extent of the damage done by repealing Glass-Steagall on his watch, that has been revised to an F. Which is still better than Bush and Obama with their F-. And Hillary is cut from the exact same political cloth as her husband. I’ve caught flack from some of the regulars here for not supporting Hillary in the past. However, it was never about her being a woman. It was all about her being a scumbag. I wouldn’t vote for her for city alderman let alone President. While “evolving” on an issue does happen, a leopard doesn’t change it’s spots.
All apologies to leopards who are majestic beasts.
Medical marijuana is gradually being legalized. Maryland just did so. I am looking forward to the day a red state legalizes it. Kansas just passed a law that offers the strongest protection in the country to the second amendment, and they also passed some of the most restrictive anti-abortion laws. We have an actual ban on gay marriage in Texas.
SwM,
Yep, that’s another one that in a few years will find all kinds of folk suddenly “seeing the light”.
Dredd, As I’m sure you know, former Wi. Senator Gaylord Nelson is the founder of Earth Day. There’s a Wi. State Park on the northside of Lake Mendota in Madsion that I’ve been to many times. He would shutter to see how that beautiful lake has become a weed lake thanks to runoff. I’m “horny” for clean lakes and do my part on that matter.
And cannabis legality, Obama is more right wing than many Republicans on that!
Blouise, The politicians are clearly lagging in the gun debate.
It’s heartening to see folks are now realizing the Clintons have no soul, just a finger in the political winds. Although, in our current duopoly, those w/ a conscience, soul, integrity, are voted out of office. Russ Feingold is a prime example.
Blouise,
A rather striking parallel to the whole marijuana legalization debate, no?
Gene H. I have never been sure how I feel about marijuana and legalization. It makes sense in many ways but I have stood to the side. Now a study has come out (small one) that shows vaporized cannabis can help with neuropathic pain which I have. Suddenly I have changed my position and will be more active in working for its legalization. Sadly, sometimes it takes a personal relationship with an issue before you take a stance.
(I always figured people are able to get it for some medical conditions and maybe that was sufficient.)
This is one issue wherein the people actually led and the politicians were forced to follow. It’s quite humorous to watch the politicians trying through any means possible to come from the back of the crowd pretending they were in the front all along. “Get out of my way, clear a path, I’m supposed to be your leader god da*n it! See, here’s my award that says so!”
Idiots
I do not think Clinton has had any change of heart, I think he says whatever is politically expedient at the time. -Tony C.
Applies to both of the Clintons.
On Hillary’s “run”…
http://youtu.be/8BfNqhV5hg4
It will come back to bite her in 2016.
‘Politicians are not evolving. These vile cretins are merely seeing which way the wind blows in order to maintain public favor. They are lying, narcissistic psychopaths.’
G. Mason has this right, though I think there are a few (very few) who really want to represent the people. Professor Turley is also right in his feeling that there is hypocrisy afoot.
I understood in my teens, a long time ago, that this society of “freedom” was oppressing people wrongly. That was still in the days of Jim Crow for one, but the idea of police raiding Gay nightclubs and arresting people for their sexual behavior was so obviously wrong that one would have to be obtuse not to see it. Many people, men especially, did not really have an epiphany that we were mistreating Gay people, but they were too cowardly to publicly say so, for fear they too would be labelled as such.
Specifically in Clinton’s case R. Shea lays out the truth succinctly:
“Clinton is a professional liar and hypocrite, now seeking to burnish a liberal image that’s false. From DOMA to his “welfare reform” to his role in eviscerating financial regulation, Clinton was and is a DINO who helped push the Democratic Party rightward, a trend continued by Obama.”
I have a relative who was very antihomosexual, then someone very close to her turned out to be gay and suddenly she was very accepting of it, only because she had to or she would not have been able to continue a relationship with the person (not my story to tell or I would be more specific).
There is evolution. I cringe when I read people write ‘oh no, only partisan, only politics, you cannot evolve.’ (here or elsewhere)
Yes, you can. I hope he did but I also know as a politician you do what is expedient. It was expedient to pass DOMA. It may be expedient now to change (although I personally am not sure it would have any impact if Hillary runs. She would be the candidate, not Bill.)
Tony C.,
Yep.
Clinton probably did evolve, but he still does not deserve the award. You can count on Hillary getting support from the gay community if she decides to run. They preferred her to Obama in 2008. I wonder if the republican party will evolve enough by 2016 to take the call for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage out of their platform?
I do not think Clinton has had any change of heart, I think he says whatever is politically expedient at the time. I don’t think he cares about Gays one way or another; his support or his opposition on any issue is just a token he trades for popularity points. When he thought it would make him more popular, he opposed. Now he thinks support will make him more popular.
Clinton does not actually care about people, their rights, or their suffering, he pretends to care because he wants to be praised as a leader on the world stage. That is not partisan, I do not think Bush or Obama actually care either.
GLAAD is an acronym for Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation. The award to the guy who invented Dont Ask & Dont Tell is quite telling. Had no one asked about the girlfriend in the White House with the cigar preferene over the eeneyWay then no one would have told. It was defaming to say the least. Which is what the notion is all about. But for a guy like Clinton to be expected to say the least when he has the floor is like expecting the mop to remain in the bucket when Hilary has the floor. Now if someone else would explain what DOMA is then we will all be enlightened. We live in the Second Enlightenment and Clinton is the Second Coming. To a theare near you.
Well he at least got the “Don’t ask, Don’t tell” in…but then he got a crap load of flack from BOTH sides on that one.
And then when Janet Reno killed men, women, & children at Waco, in a government sponsored massacre, we don’t get anywhere near the outrage.
People are strange….