Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton Endorses Gay Marriage, Because She Has Gay and Lesbian Friends, and Principles

In a video for the Human Rights Campaign

|

hrc on hrc
Human Rights Campaign

Hillary Clinton endorsed same-sex marriage today in a video released by the Human Rights Campaign, saying that "like so many others, my personal views have been shaped over time by people I have known and loved, by my experience representing our nation on the world stage, my devotion to law and human rights and the guiding principles of my faith." In 2011, Clinton backed New York's same-sex marriage law after it was passed, but in an interview later that year with The Advocate, she said she had not changed her position of opposing gay marriage. 

When Robert Portman came out in support of same sex marriage last week (because his son was gay), Mike Riggs noted that the Republican "received more flack from the left than from his fellow conservatives.  Matt Yglesias called the decision narcissistic, and Jon Chait argued that Portman's reasoning reflects a conservative 'inability to give any weight to the perspective of the disadvantaged.' This is, of course, concern trolling at its most formulaic–10 percent approval, 90 percent goal-post moving. "

Does Hillary Clinton have an empathy problem?

Video below:

NEXT: CO Gays and Lesbians Uncertain About Civil Union Impact

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Does Hillary Clinton have an empathy problem?

    What, at this point, does it matter?

  2. Yes she does. And so Clinton didn’t have any gay friends back in the 1990s? She just found out there were real live actual gay people in 2011?

    What a joke.

    1. This issue is one where the media bias sticks out more than usual. Obama and Clinton both said the exact opposite of what they’re saying now, not that long ago. Why is their turnaround any different than a Republican’s?

      1. Because TEAM, that’s why.

        1. I assumed that was a rhetorical question.

          1. It’s okay. He gave me a rhetorical answer.

        2. Exactly. I don’t get why people oppose happy marriages in the first place.

          1. Becasue they’re trapped in a loveless sham for political or business reasons and misery loves company?

            Just guessing, mind you.

          2. In my lifetime, I have seen one happily married man. Anecdote:

            Driving behind an old blue Ford from the 60s, I saw an old man behind the wheel, and an old woman who I presumed was his wife in the back seat. “huh,” I thought, strange she’s sitting in the back seat. As I pulled around the vehicle I looked over and in the front passenger seat was the man’s dog.

            I smiled to myself and said, “Now there’s a happily married man with his priorities straight.”

            1. I’m happily married. Of course, you haven’t seen me.

            2. You’re like “Norm” from Cheers, you say you’re married, but no one has ever seen or met Vera.

              1. Like Maris in Frasier.

            3. I am very happily married for 15 years now, and I expect at least 15 more.

              It took me a long time to find the right one, but the right one she most definitely is.

              1. I am very happily married for 15 years now, and I expect at least 15 more.

                The first 15 years are the hardest. I kid of course, but this will be 31 for me. Not bad considering we only knew each other less than a month before we got married at the age of 17.

                1. We were married at 19.

            4. Define Happily.

              Had my 37th anniversay last week.

              1. Wow! Congratulations! 28 this June for Mrs. Almanian and me. And no affairs! Well, at least for me…I think for her, too… 🙂

              2. Define Happily.

                Dog in the front seat, wife in the back?

                *ducks*

                1. Nuthin wrong with wife in the back every now and then.

                2. At least it *looked* like the dog in the front.

                3. Dog probably made puddle in the front seat. I wouldn’t sit there either.

      2. All right-thinking people observe the hierarchy of slack-cutting. Politicians in Team Blue get cut the most slack; politicians not in Team Blue get cut less. The private sector gets cut the least slack; consider the freakout when Best Buy and Target were downgraded on the HRC Corporate Equality Index from 100 all the way down to a horrific 85.

      3. When a politician changes their mind, they could be flip-flopping or they could be evolving. The way to tell is not by the subject or the position, but by the letter next to their name.

    2. John, you really should be cutting her slack; who can think about the marginalization of gays in the immediate aftermath of dodging sniper fire in Bosnia? There is a hierarchy of needs I’ll have you know.

      1. She dodged sniper fire because of her belief in gay rights.

    3. So what is she going to run for now and/or how much was the “donation” from HRC?

    4. No, you beats. Poor mrs. Clinton finally realized she liked to eat fish tacos in her senior years andf laid off the hot dogs, after dealing with Bill became too much of a hassle, and she gave up on men.

  3. I just heard Rush Limbaugh lamenting the fact that young Republicans are in favor of gay marriage under the banner of freedom.

    They’re misapplying freedom. Freedom doesn’t mean hedonism. Freedom doesn’t mean ‘I’m can do what I want.’

    I could have sworn that was exactly what freedom meant.

    1. Freedom doesn’t mean ‘I’m can do what I want.’

      Ugh.

    2. No, no, no, you silly billy. Freedom most certainly does not mean that you can do what you want. Freedom, when interpreted correctly, means that you can do what I want. [/statist]

    3. Freedom MEANS “I can do what I want.”

      1. I always thought it was just another word for nothing left to lose.

        My parents should have listened to better music is really what I’m saying.

        1. I’m glad you posted that – I was wondering if someone was going tag that softball floating right in the zone!

      2. I can’t click that at work, but I hope it’s Cartman.

    4. They’re misapplying freedom. Freedom doesn’t mean hedonism. Freedom doesn’t mean ‘I’m can do what I want.’

      So, two people making a commitment to honor and cherish each other in a monogamous relationship is hedonistic? WTF?

      1. monogamy is the new hedonism. When practiced by gays, apparently.

        Unless you are infringing on someone else’s rights, freedom pretty much means exactly what Rush wishes it didn’t mean.

        1. and evidently, I should have read further prior to posting due to the Rush-Randian axiom re: context.

          1. It doesn’t apply in this case; I provided the relevant context. He was speaking about the millennial generation republicans and how gay marriage is an important issue to them because they view it as a freedom issue. He them proceeded to proclaim that they are wrong because freedom ? freedom.

      2. Yeah, and hedonism is already perfectly legal, so I’m not sure what the point is supposed to be.

    5. Mensan, you’re a liar (at best).

      I just heard Limbaugh’s comments. He was lamenting that whenever the left wants freedom and liberation, it gets government more involved in people’s lives.

      Go fuck yourself. Either you’re a liar or stupid. I suspect both.

      1. Yes, usually when someone says “Rush Limbaugh said X!”, they fail to account for the five or ten attendant layers of context. Conor Friedersdorf is an especially egregious violator.

      2. Clearly we heard different portions of the program. I am neither a liar nor stupid, but it is heartening to read someone of your conspicuous brilliance making a calm and rational argument without resorting to unfounded ad hominem fallacy.

        1. I heard the entire Rush rant. He said exactly what Mensan wrote, with very little context to tone it down, and he also slammed libertarians.

          Having said that, Rush is ever so slowly, some might say ‘glacially’ moving towards being more libertarian. If he lives to be 150 he might actually be considered libertarian.

          1. Glenn Beck’s going to beat him, then.

      3. Huh… interesting.

      4. —Mensan, you’re a liar (at best).—

        Whilst driving around this morning, I heard part of the Rush broadcast. As far I can recall, Mensan’s quote is pretty much verbatim. I don’t know if he addressed the same topic later, but when I heard him say it, I thought “What the Fuck?”

    6. Seriously, why the fuck does the GOP have such a hard-on for gay marriage? Why do they care?

      1. Seriously, why the fuck does the GOP have such a hard-on for gay marriage? Why do they care?

        They believe that homosexual conduct is morally wrong — as in God said don’t do it. Here there’s a split:

        1) Some of them don’t want the government which represents them to put its stamp of approval on something they are morally opposed to.

        2) The other group wants to use the power of the government to outlaw what they are morally opposed to.

        1. and there is a segment that views marriage from the one man/one woman perspective with is either semantics or tradition. I don’t get the “save marriage” fervor from the Repubs given that heteros have not exactly done the institution proud, but there you go.

          On your list, #2 speaks to what I see as the mirror images of liberals nad social conservatives – they are both willing to use the power of govt to enforce their world view on everyone else.

      2. I don’t think it is as much about gay marriage as it is about the state destroying any kind of “familial institution”, by watering down everything from marriage to parental responsibilities, so that they can take over the job of raising the tadpoles and brainwashing them into good drones.

      3. The Left’s pushing hard on this issue, people in opposition tend to push back hard, especially since a large part of the Left’s effort was to subvert the normal political process through the courts.

        It’s very odd attitude that the side aggressively trying to change the status quo expresses surprise that there is opposition.

    7. Freedom to Rush Limbaugh means you do what I tell you.

  4. Talk about waiting for the position to become safely mainstream before adopting it.

    1. I know, is her next announcement going to be on her new position that women should have the vote?

      1. Woah, woah, don’t go too far out over the skis, mister!

  5. How many on the left will call Hillary narcissistic?

    1. “How many on the left will applaud her courage?” is a better question.

  6. Don’t forget “buyer’s remorse”.

  7. When Robert Portman came out in support of same sex marriage last week (because his son was gay), Mike Riggs noted that the Republican “received more flack from the left than from his fellow conservatives.

    With liberals, it’s never enough just to agree. You’ve got to wear the ribbon!

    1. I saw three different stories complaining about Portman only changing his mind once he found out his son was gay and the issue became personal for him. My first thought was that Portman changed his mind once he read the latest opinion polls and figured out which way the political winds are blowing. He is, first and foremost, a politician.

      Now – is it cynical of me to believe a politician mostly says he believes what it pays him to say he believes or naive of the pundits to believe a politician changes his beliefs based on principles?

      1. Why would he change now? His re-election is four years away.

        1. Why would he change now? His re-election is four years away.

          If I were the cynical type, I would say he did this so this doesn’t come up right before the election. People will have forgotten all this by the time he runs again.

          1. Right but you all would have done that anyway. If he got it out of the way right before his re-election campaign started, you would have said CYNICAL. If he did it before the Pres. election (when he was on the VP list) you would have said CYNICAL.

            1. Right but you all would have done that anyway. If he got it out of the way right before his re-election campaign started, you would have said CYNICAL. If he did it before the Pres. election (when he was on the VP list) you would have said CYNICAL.

              Who is this we? I don’t care why he did it. Look at the reaction from people at his announcement, now imagine if he had done it right before an election. You asked why he did it now, and I gave you my opinion as to why he did it.

      2. oddly, you would have thought the left would have no issue with the political being personal since that’s how most liberals live.

      3. complaining about Portman only changing his mind once he found out his son was gay and the issue became personal for him

        In other words, he is human? (I’m just assuming.)

        But yes, that is how most people arrive at decisions that aren’t force-fed to them.

        1. Thats what’s annoying about the Prairie Weather moralizing. If you weren’t born fully-formed with unassailable Progressive righteousness, you are an ugh! conservative.
          It’s a ridiculous notion and a terrible way to argue a point, if conversion to your goal. But it’s not. It is simply othering people you don’t agree with.
          It presuppose these writers have no empathy for anyone who comes out at an advanced age. They would essentially Uncle Toms to ‘gay rights’.

  8. I’ll be releasing a video [do they still make those?] later this week detailing my changed views on bazooka ownership, sodomy and the Federal Reserve.

    Stay tuned.

    1. We applaud your courage.

    2. For, for and against, I hope.

      1. So he wants to sodomize the Fed with a bazooka?! Wow, that might make a great video.

        1. Certainly better than blowing up sodomites and paying for it with stimulus money.

  9. “Does Hillary Clinton have an empathy problem?”

    No, I’m sure she can feel the pain of 300 million people, just like her megalomaniacal narcissistic douche of a husband.

  10. They’re misapplying freedom.

    As if we had forgotten for an instant the existence of the “Freedom is Slavery” wing of the Republican Party.

    1. And “we have always been at war with Oceana”

      1. EastAsia, califernian. We have always been at war with EastAsia. *texts MiniLuv*

  11. Three gay marriage posts and nothing about the potential fallout of the Cyprus bank bailouts?

    Work that cocktail party circuit, fellas. Work it hard. Maybe Dave Weigel can get you jobs at Slate.

    Cyprus Bank Holiday Extended to Thursday

    1. *eyeroll*

      OLM Troll is COCKTAIL PARTIEZ

    2. And the best unintentionally funny headline today:

      “No bank run in Spain today”
      http://www.guardian.co.uk/busi…..28f712f90b

      1. What you’ll get …. wait for it…. is

        the running of the bullshit.

    3. Its about money, Reason is trying to wrangle a big part of the homosexual wedding dress advertising market.

      Expect to see lots of wedding dress pop up ads soon.

      1. As long as the “Buy Gold” ads go away, I welcome ads for big glittery rainbow colored gay wedding dresses.

    4. YOU AREN’T TALKING ABOUT MY PARTICULAR HOBBY-HORSE, YOU COSMOS! WAAAHHH!!!!

      1. Jeez, I thought Weigel reference would be a dead giveaway.

            1. Okay, tonio. You have officially pissed me off. Go back to the gay marriage thread and answer my fucking question.

              1. There’s like 5 of them FdA, Reason is gayer than Disneyland the first weekend in October today.

                1. Aren’t the bots always saying that a Francis is making cash working from home? Maybe he was just referring to that Francis and not you.

                  1. Fucker bagged on me like 4 times for something I never said.

  12. I want to know why Lesbians are not Gay, is this part of the War on Women?

  13. Does anyone else remember how Hillary used to have a southern accent?

    1. Or when she became a Yankees fan despite growing up in Chicago and living most of her adult life in Arkansas. –

      1. She’s evolving.
        Into what, we don’t know.

      2. In this day and age, I think it silly to be locked geographically into a particular sports fandom. MLB teams haven’t been composed of locals since the beginning of free agency, at least.

        1. Eh? What’s the point then? How do you determine your team – based on their uniforms or what?

          1. Yes, based on the cuteness of their outfits and the aesthetics of their name. Isn’t that what everyone does?

            1. My wife refers to pro sports fandom these days as ‘picking laundry’.

      3. Unfortunately, there actually are quite a few Yankees fans in Arkansas.

        1. It’s the dumbest thing. The season is only 4 days and you have to buy a tag.

    2. That was back when she was first denying it but then singing the cover version of Tammy Wynette’s “Stand By Your Man”

      Now she just says “At this point, what difference does it make”.

  14. Hillary’s an A-hole, but the Southern accent thing, she was quoting someone else. Not doing the typical Dem thing of turning into a Southern Baptist soon as they step into a church below the Mason-Dixon line.

    1. I ain’t no wize tarred.

  15. Zeb: I thought you were referring to the whole “I don’t feel no ways tired” speech thing. There she was quoting another.

    She didn’t even have much of an accent in The War Room and that was filmed before they came to DC.

    1. I’m thinking of some interviews she gave when Bill was running for president in ’92.

      1. I’m not a Hillary fan and I’m not making excuses for her, but I’ll tell you that if I spend more than a few hours around Southerners, I start drawlin and y’allin with the rest of em.

  16. thing is, Yglesias was correct. Portman is clearly narcissistic, but not for any of the reasons he gave. I mean who the fuck does this two-bit senator think he is to call a CNN press conference announcing his that he’s had a major fucking conversion. Seriously.

    1. whoops hit enter too early in my rage – why does Portman think we should care about his narrative?

    2. Talk about your manufactured outrage. Were you mad about the color of his tie as well?

    3. calling a press conference does not obligate the media to answer.

  17. Should we be standing by for an announcement from Chelsea?

  18. “…..like so many others, my personal views have been shaped over time by people I have known and loved, by my experience representing our nation on the world stage, my devotion to law and human rights and the guiding principles of my faith.”

    Maybe others, but not me you bitch.

    When I was ten years old I read “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” and I thought….oh….equality before the law….so queers have the same right to form associations as anyone else.

    If the government grants privileges to blondes for that association, it must grant the same to brunettes. In the case of queers the government is violating that right.

    It doesnt take a genius to figure it out. I was ten years old for fuck’s sake. The Hildebeast has no moral compass.

    1. There are two separate and distinct issues here.

      One is the legal protections that come with the contract.
      The other is the name given to contract.

      To insist that the two are, well, inseparably married to each other is ignorant at best, and intellectually dishonest at worst.

      It’s time for the contract and it’s name to get a divorce. Then there’s nothing to argue about.

      1. “One is the legal protections that come with the contract…..It is time for the contract and it’s name to get a divorce.”

        Correct.

        It shouldnt be any more complicated than that. Equal protection before the law means not creating special classes of people who get privleges that other classes dont.

        I have not heard a single justification for denying homosexual marriages that didnt fail to pass the bullshit test, much less trump the 14th amendment.

        1. I have not heard a single justification for denying homosexual marriages

          You’re switching the burden of proof. The burden of proof is on those who want change, not on those who support the status quo.

          1. I suppose that marriage inequality was essentially supported by qualifying homosexuality as a mental illness.

            So, just show that homosexuality is no longer a mental illness.

          2. No, the burden of proof is always on those in favor of a restriction of rights, since freedom is the default.

            You need to show a number of good reasons to restrict it, and most of the ones put forward (procreation, etc.) really don’t apply since we don’t have such restrictions for heterosexuals.

            1. the burden of proof is always on those in favor of a restriction of rights

              The vast majority of those who oppose redefining marriage do not oppose legal protections for same sex couples.

              They oppose redefining marriage.

              If you can’t see the difference then you’re overly emotional about the issue, or just stupid.

              1. They oppose redefining marriage.

                I understand the impulse, but the current definition of marriage isn’t particularly rooted in ancient history. It’s been redefined multiple times in the past century (no fault divorce, changing the status of women and ownership of property). Over the last two thousand years you have changes such as the restriction of marriage to monogamy, changes in how marriages were viewed socially (we rarely use a loveless marriage to solidify political or business relationships), who gets to decide on the participants in a marriage (not your parents anymore)… the list goes on.

                1. In all cases you mention, and even the racial one that you didn’t, marriage has always been defined in terms of husband and wife.

                  Redefining it to mean “genderless spouse and genderless spouse” is not insignificant.

                  As I said, the majority of those who oppose redefining marriage do not oppose a legal framework for same sex couples.

                  1. I think that redefining it from husband and wives, or changing a woman’s place from property to partner were equally significant. I realize that how we value the weight of those changes will eventually boil down to us having to agree to disagree on the topic.

                    In Same-Sex Unions in Premodern Europe, John Boswell argues that at various points in European history legal recognition of SSM has been cobbled together under various legal loopholes like “lateral adoption” to provide property rights/inheritance benefits to same sex partners. He doesn’t argue that it was exactly common, but he does note that they were essentially solemnified as marriages and treated as such by the surrounding societies where they occurred. I don’t know that you’d find his argument convincing for a historical precedent for gay marriage, but if you have any interest on the topic he’s a meticulous researcher and the book is interesting throughout.

  19. All this fucking gay-marriage talk is a gay. Gay as FUCK. So shut up, gayboyz. It’s fucking beyond gay now. Way gay. Over the gaybow. Gone uptown gonna see my gay friend gay. Gay bar gay. Gaydar be goin off all over the place gay. Super gay. Mega gay.

    Gay talk is gay, mm’kay?

    1. I feel kinda gay for posting that…

    2. Liberace gay?

      1. I went to the Liberace museum in Las Vegas a few years ago, and I saw nothing that would indicate Liberace was gay.

        1. That’s either sarcasm or a broken gaydar… hoping for sarcasm.

        2. Exactly. It was kinda like when George Michael came out. Who would’ve ever guessed?

  20. Gay is the new straight. Or ‘guided by faith’, ‘straight is the gay, and narrow is the way…’

  21. my devotion to law and human rights

    Umm, yeah. There’s a rigorous test.

  22. In 2011, Clinton backed New York’s same-sex marriage law after it was passed, but in an interview later that year with The Advocate, she said she had not changed her position of opposing gay marriage.

    the guiding pinciples of her faith = political opportunism

  23. Portman wants govt benefits for his kids – a natural impulse, since people tend to have loyalty to family prior to loyalty to other institutions (like country). Sometimes the preference for one’s own family can block misguided idealism (eg, sending your kid to a good school despite ideological predilections in favor of bad schools). Sometimes, preference for one’s own family can harm the public (eg, getting your child a government job which which he/she is not qualified, or which ought not to exist).

    How people assess Portman’s decision will depend on whether they agree or disagree with it.

    As for Hillary, we know what Dem politicians mean when they talk about “human rights.” The mean the government regulating the private sector to protect the “rights” of people who disagree with their employers, the companies they want to patronize, the banks they want to borrow from, etc. It’s not about human rights as defined on H&R.

  24. I used to be addicted to men, but over 7 years ago Jesus set me FREE! (YouTube video) I am now free from the sin of homosexuality. Marriage is between 1 man and 1 woman according to the King James Bible (Genesis 2:24) December 19, 2010 I married a beautiful woman of God. FREE AT LAST FREE AT LAST, THANK GOD ALMIGHTY I’M FREE AT LAST!!!! JESUS IS LORD!!

    1. We’re happy for all three of you.

  25. Reason admonishing others for concern trolling? Irony meter melting.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.