Bizarre, Constitutional Law, Media, Politics, Society

Not So Gladd: Clinton Heckled In Receiving Award For Opposing Law He Created In Denial Of Gay Rights

225px-Bill_ClintonLast 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

94 thoughts on “Not So Gladd: Clinton Heckled In Receiving Award For Opposing Law He Created In Denial Of Gay Rights”

  2. leej, We may have discussed this previously. Cannaboid receptors are virtually identical to opiod receptors. However, while opiods have a high % of success w/ opiod meds, cannaboid receptors have a lower[no stats that I’ve yet found] % of success w/ cannabis. As you know, opiods don’t work w/ some people. That is true to a greater extent w/ cannabis. What you read about vaporized cannabis is as much to do w/ it’s safety as w/ its effectiveness.

    Smoking or vaporizing is the quickest pain relief, however there are no carcinogens w/ vaporizing! Up until very recently, there have only been the cumbersome vaporizers[The Volcano is the best] w/ those large bags. Well..you have to love capitalism, @ least I do anyway. Just VERY recently the folks in California have used the technology for electronic[vaporized] tobacco cigarettes, and created both disposable and rechargeable cannabis vaporizers, the size of a pen or small cigar! Again, this is quick relief but it only lasts ~2 hours. What is the longest acting pain relief are edibles. And, there is a long list of edibles and drinkables available. They can be effective 4-8 hours. The downside is it takes awhile to work, depending on your metabolism, 45min- 90 minutes. The other downside is you can overdose. A person eats some edible, waits an hour, feels nothing and eats more. Then, BAM..you’re seeing Jimi Hendrix wailing on his guitar and melting before your eyes! The edible industry has improved exponentially in just the past few years. It is quality controlled and if you find a cookie, brownie, lozenge, lemonade, etc. that works, you can be assured of what amount you should ingest and it is consistent. The Venice Baking Co. in Ca. is the Sara Lee of cannabis edibles.

    There are two types of cannabis, sativa and indica. The latter is for pain, the former for nausea. Sativa gets you high, indica gets you stoned. Of course, there are many hybrids[the names are great Presidential Bubba, AFGOO, Train Wreck and hundreds more]. But for pain, it’s straight indica. It doesn’t take more than a few tries to know whether it will work for you. I’ll do anything I can to help you w/ your pain..I’m a chronic pain sufferer as you know.

    1. Thanks Nick.
      Im in Pa so it is illegal here.

      A number of years ago I obtained seeds from a site in Canada that sent them to folks with medical issues (although all you needed was to give a diagnosis, no med letter or proof.) I grew them in a sink in my utility room.
      I was unsure how to use it, how much etc, but that worry quickly faded the morning I found my cat jumping and running around the house. All the plants had been eaten down to the roots. That was probablyher happiest hour or two ever.

      And for those who think Clinton is always a liar just my anecdote, when I was in my early 20’s long, oh long time ago, a friend kept pestering me to try his ‘pot’. Just to stop him I took a puff but honest and truly I did not inhale so maybe he didn’t either) 🙂

  4. “I would prefer Warren stay where she is and may have more power.” (leejcaroll)

    Agree

  6. Well here goes the thread to off topic discussions trying the smoke and mirror to delude what the Clinton’s are really about…. Self Promotion….regardless of the cost…..

  7. The president is less a maker of policy then a figurehead and proselytizer (well except for all those executive orders). I think I would prefer Warren stay where she is and may have more power.

  9. SwM,

    I sincerely doubt Brown and Warren will … they are far too progressive for the majority of the country.

  11. SwM,

    Lots of finagling on the horizon. If Rand Paul runs this blog is going to be hilarious.

  13. Swarthmore: If Elizabeth Warren refused to run solely because Hillary was running, I would be extremely disappointed in Warren for putting politics ahead of the welfare of the people. Surely Warren knows as well as we do that Hillary is a bald-faced liar, an opportunist, and a dismal manager of her own campaign. I cannot think of any justified reason to politely stand aside for Hillary that would not be corrupt, and if Warren did that, it would make me suspect her commitment to the people; in my mind it would be the equivalent of colluding with the Clintons to deny people the fair choice between Warren and Hillary.

    1. “Swarthmore: If Elizabeth Warren refused to run solely because Hillary was running, I would be extremely disappointed in Warren for putting politics ahead of the welfare of the people.”

      Tony,

      That’s one possible reason Warren may not run, but I’d put my money on the fact that she’s not a sociopath. To me only sociopaths would want to be President. I certainly wouldn’t……….absolute Dictator maybe.

  14. Blouise, If Hillary runs,all the action will be in the republican primaries. W has hinted that Jeb is running. He will have to fend off Rand Paul and Rubio.

  18. “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.” (Gene)

    Tex just pulled his pair of calfskin gloves from his scabbard belt and gave you a Glove Slap trope. Slingshots at dawn … twenty paces. Not to worry … he can’t see beyond ten.

    He is a huge Hillary supporter … always has been, always will be.

  19. Thank you Gene:

    Washingtonian Generation X-er, it doesn’t get any more sarcastic.

  20. Gene, It’s my opinion our disagreements are more personal, male/testosterone than substantive. That’s not to say our differences are not substantive, they often are. But the subplot is often testosterone. I’ve stopped taking Androgel in an attempt to remedy that. However, it would be presumptive of me to ask a younger man to take depoprovera!

Comments are closed.