Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton's Struggles on Gay Issues Are About Her Honesty, Not Her Transformation

Her credibility is what's really in question, not when she actually came around.

|

If your candidate says she loves you, check it out.
Credit: mdfriendofhillary / photo on flickr

Dan Savage is increasingly frustrated with those who want to continue to treat Hillary Clinton as though she's the same politician as the woman who once vocally campaigned against gay marriage recognition when she was running for Senate.

Savage, who is openly supporting both Clinton and Bernie Sanders as potential candidates, blogged that he is tired of those who want to hold Clinton to a standard of past ideological purity that is honestly not very reasonable given the history involved:

A lot of progressives are slamming Hillary for her past position on marriage equality and the rather noxious comments she made back then—which, again, are similar to the rather noxious comments made by most Dems at the time, including Barack Obama (who said the exact same shit, in fewer words)—and … they hammer and hammer away at it. And you know what? Most of the people I see out there hammering away at this—most of them, not all of them—are straight. Oh, there are queer folks doing it too. But it's mostly straight people and, man, are they losing their patience with queers who support Hillary. But straight or gay, here's what I have to say to those who can't understand why any gay person could possibly support Hillary over Bernie—or, like me, support Hillary and/or Bernie—when Bernie Always Had the Right Position On Marriage Equality and Hillary Used To Have the Wrong Position on Marriage Equality.

We're taking motherfucking yes for a motherfucking answer.

Hillary Clinton's support for marriage equality may be a political calculation. And you know what? We worked hard to change the math so that those political calculations would start adding up in our favor. So sincere change of heart or political calculation—either way—I will take it.

Savage is absolutely correct about the application of these weird purity tests when it comes to those who have come around to support gay issues. And they're not confined to Clinton. Whenever a political figure or celebrity or other public figure of any political leaning has announced a change of position toward gay marriage or supporting other gay issues, there is frequently an odd undercurrent of resentment expressed because they did not hold the correct position all along. There was, for example, Caitlyn Jenner, who was heavily criticized following an interview with Ellen DeGeneres last September where she admitted that, despite now openly identifying as transgender, she actually opposed gay marriage until more recently. She says she's on board now because she realizes that it's important to the people who want access to it (which is how a conservative comes to accept gay marriage), but somehow that wasn't enough of an endorsement for some folks.

Savage notes that this is not exactly the kind of attitude that encourages political transformation: "If pols who are currently on the wrong side of any of those issues see no benefit to changing their positions—if they see no political benefit—they're going to be harder to persuade. Why should they come around on our issues, why should they switch sides or change their votes, if we're going to go after them hammer and tongs for the positions they used to hold?"

But there's a larger issue with Clinton that Savage isn't addressing here: It's not whether Clinton's positions on gay issues are formed by political calculations now but rather whether they were formed by political calculations then, what that means for the promises she's making now, and how the way she talks about gay issues can be placed contextually into criticisms of her overall honesty.

For example, was Clinton's opposition to gay marriage a political calculation in the first place? Clinton insisted that 2013 that her position had "evolved," just like President Obama's. Statistician Nate Silver looked at the positions of other women from her demographic and political background and found that the vast, vast majority of them (potentially as high as 90 percent) were supporters of same-sex marriage recognition by 2008. Was Clinton an outlier back then? Or an opportunist?

Then there is the matter that she was caught out recently by leaders in the gay community attempting to mislead the public about why President Bill Clinton originally signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which forbid federal recognition of same-sex marriage even when legally recognized by individual states. She is now attempting to claim that the reason President Clinton signed the legislation was to "protect" gays from a possible constitutional amendment in the works to ban same-sex marriage. But there was no amendment being discussed at the time at all. It simply wasn't true. Either the president actually opposed same-sex marriage recognition, or it was politically important for him to be on the record doing so.

As such, Clinton's positions on gay issues have to be considered not just on their own, but with the other issues of honesty and transparency that seem to be a top problem for her candidacy. Her many issues with the private e-mail server to conduct government business as secretary of state highlight problems with her honesty and her reluctance to be open and forthright (and I'm being diplomatic). Just last night she said she'll only release transcripts from her speeches to big banks if other candidates (including the Republicans) do, too.

Ignore the "Never read the comments!" web warning and read some of the replies to Savage. You'll see that the issue driving some progressive voters away from Clinton is not that she recently "evolved" on gay issues, but rather whether even progressive voters trust what she says. She has put out a lengthy agenda on LGBT issues that endorses every single item progressive community leaders want to happen, but if you don't see her as being honest, would you believe she's going to actually push for any of these things? (Not that I personally support most of the items on the agenda, which make a federal matter out of many issues that should be handled privately.)

Since Savage supports both Sanders and Clinton, one may well ask why he is even frustrated about the situation. After all, it's probably unlikely that Sanders' primary voters are going to turn around and vote for the Republican candidate should he fail to get the nomination. Rather, that Clinton is getting criticism for the same change of position over which Obama was heavily praised is a potential warning sign that she may have problem getting out voters who ran to the polls for Obama. There is a group of people on the left looking for reasons not to vote for Clinton, and they could just stay home come November. Her history on gay issues is really more of a symptom of the dislike, not the root cause. You can't take those issues out of the context of the other concerns about Clinton as a candidate and politician.

NEXT: Charges against Rick Perry dismissed by Texas high court, on constitutional grounds

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. The good news is that it looks like GOP voters are done with the establishment. The downside of course is that they are like an angry mob smashing store windows and setting cars on fire. But they are apparently going to nominate a candidate who has never before held public office and doesn’t seem to have any sort of team or political identity outside of running as a Republican.

    The Dems on the other hand are falling miserably short. Their ‘outside’ guy who is playing the non-establishment role has been in politics his entire adult life and really he just represents the future farther left dem establishment. And even so, the nominee is going to be someone who has running for president since the fall of Rome.

    GOP +1

    1. Their ‘outside’ guy who is playing the non-establishment role has been in politics his entire adult life

      Technically, only since he was 40 and got his very first job as mayor of Burlington.

      1. At Bernie’s age, that’s sort of like a lifetime.

        1. Just his life in public office is old enough to run for President.

    2. I have not smashed any windows, and it is too rainy to set any cars on fire.

      1. You can go a step further and vote for Trump.

  2. We’re taking motherfucking yes for a motherfucking answer.

    Did he also take Obama’s “we’re gonna close Gitmo” as a motherfucking answer?

    Does he actually believe Clinton can be trusted?

    1. Republicans made it illegal to spend any money to transfer Gitmo detainees. Anyone blaming Obama for it being open is being a partisan hack. That’s on Republicans, 100%. It’s not that he couldn’t find the “close Gitmo” button.

      1. Please cite the legislation.

        1. National Defense Authorization Act.

      2. Republicans made it illegal to spend any money to transfer Gitmo detainees.

        The Repubs/Congress didn’t appropriate money to transfer Gitmo detainees. It is illegal for the President to spend money for any purpose other than that for which it has been appropriated, and has been since the founding of this country.

        Has Obama made the slightest effort to work out a deal with the Repubs to close Gitmo? Not that I recall. He’s the one who wants it closed, and he has refused to do what he needs to do to make that happen.

        1. The law contains specific prohibitions. It wasn’t an oversight. But do keep defending Republicans.

          1. Which NDAA are you talking about? If it is 2012, the law (which was signed by Obama) allows for indefinite detention. It also requires that those being held under this law must be detained by the US armed forces. Where in this law does it state that the prisoners at Gitmo (or others) can’t be released?

            This law affirms the power the President already had under the AUMF. Most of the arguments have been over whether or not this law allows for the detention of US citizens.

            The NDAA of 2013 prohibits the transfer of Gitmo detainess to US soil. That doesn’t prevent Obama from processing military tribunals faster or releasing them to their home (or other countries).

          2. If he’s so keen to avoid breaking laws, explain Obamacare. Please! He’s spent funds illegally, illegally not spent funds he was required to, shifted funds, done everything but stuff money into his trousers.

      3. So what? Presidents make campaign promises already knowing that they may face a hostile Congress. If they can’t deliver something without cooperation from Congress, they shouldn’t promise it.

        Of course, in this case, that’s a lame excuse anyway. The president had a Congressional majority for two years. In addition, he went out of his way to antagonize Republicans in Congress and refuse to compromise on anything.

        And breaking his promises on Guantanamo and gay marriage are the least of Obama’s problems; his continued use of drone killings, continuation of NSA espionage, persecution of whistle blowers, and massive expansion of executive power all were under his control, and it was his choice and his choice alone to do a 180 on his campaign promises.

    2. Scott hits on this at the end when he says, “would you believe she’s going to actually push for any of these things?”

      But, it’s understated. That should be the main point. The objection to Clinton’s BS here isn’t that she was a flip-flopper or that she was once on the wrong side. It’s the fact that there is zero reason to believe that she’ll actually do something about these beliefs that she currently claims to hold and previously disagreed with.

      I think most people recognize the incessant hackery of the flip-flopping politician. But the issue isn’t that they have “evolved” is that no one can seriously trust that they actually hold the new belief strongly enough to act on it.

      1. I wouldn’t mind?in fact I’d prefer?if politicians just said they’d do whatever the polls said, rather than pretending to want to do a particular thing. They’re supposed to reflect the electorate anyway, not act on their own beliefs. If you want a monarch, then you should care about what they think.

  3. Gay marriage is now legal in all 50 states. Why the fuck do we care about anyone’s position on it?

    1. Gay marriage is legal in all 50 states. But will you be forced to bake a gay wedding cake in all 50 states? Untill the answer is yes, you’re racist!

    2. Sorry, but I never really cared before. I sort of felt sorry for the gays when they were given the right to marriage. Now they’re just like the rest of the poor serfs who are trying to avoid the horrors of family court by staying in a marriage that’s been more like a prison for 10 years.

      1. Every time I look at my girlfriend and think, “you know, I could really spend the rest of my life with this woman,” I read a Hyperion comment and it’s like my balls have been hooked up to a car battery and I’ve been tossed in an ice bath.

    3. Because the gay stuff along with pot, abortion and open borders are Reason’s version of the Nicene Creed: a list of things you must profess to believe to be a member of the Communion.

      1. Didn’t realize anyone here was monitoring my views on stuff, and even if they were, WTF can they do about it? Say mean stuff about me to * try * to make me cry and demand a safe space?

        Not a big fan of being a member of any organization, really.

        1. I wasm’t thinking of anybody in particular, just the publication’s philosophy. I realize that libertarian-leaning individuals aren’t joiners, but the magazine staff has a stable of hobby horses, four of which I mentioned.

          1. Trump-bashing is a recent addition to that list.

      2. They’re just called principles. It’s the same reason people are quick to mock american socialist.

    4. If our government worked the way it’s supposed to we wouldn’t care, especially when it comes to the President. The President has no rightful authority regarding marriage (gay or otherwise) and his/her opinion shouldn’t matter at all. But the presidency has been elevated to a cult, and the current holder of the office is regarded as a deity. So now every opinion on every conceivable subject “matters”.

      1. “The President has no rightful authority regarding marriage (gay or otherwise) and his/her opinion shouldn’t matter at all.”

        An irrelevant point.

        Because regardless of the president’s authority of marriage itself, the president *does* have authority over the DoJ. For example, at the beginning of Obama’s first term the DoJ was defending DOMA in court. By the time it got to the SCOTUS the DoJ was no longer defending it and was joining the plaintiffs in arguing it was unconstitutional.

        Similarly, after DOMA Article II was declared unconstitutional, many different departments, under the direction of the president, had to figure out how and what to recognize. There was some push-and-pull at the time between whether federal agencies would recognize “state or ceremony” or “state or residency” for federal purposes.

        As much as you may prefer our government worked a certain way, the fact is that even before you get into the ideological ramifications of the presidency and the president’s ability to influence legislation, there are a lot of bureaucratic details that the president indirectly affects.

        And that’s before we even get to SCOTUS appointments. See, for example, how Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio (and sometimes Trump) keep promising to appoint SCOTUS nominees that will overturn Obergefel.

        So even by staying strictly within their “rights”, the president affects a lot. Hell, it’s only because of a Clinton executive order that gay people can even get security clearances.

  4. [Hillary] is now attempting to claim that the reason President Clinton signed the legislation was to “protect” gays from a possible constitutional amendment in the works to ban same-sex marriage. But there was no amendment being discussed at the time at all. It simply wasn’t true.

    Damn it, Scott! She’s *doing all she can* to *try* to not mislead us!

  5. Dan Savage is a loathsome fag and an even more despicable human…

  6. If you haven’t figured out by now that Hillary will say whatever she determines is politically convenient at a given moment, even if it contradicts something she said mere seconds earlier, well…there’s just no hope for you

  7. As a principled libertarian, I find that Team Red and Team Blue partisans frequently make an argument like this. “Stop being so extremist; ya gotta be pragmatic! Don’t push away an ally just because he/she doesn’t pass the Libertarian Purity Test!”

    I understand where they’re coming from, and I won’t say that a libertarian should never ally with a “major” party player. But I think it’s important to understand that the Team Red and Team Blue folks are coming from a different place than you are, and the needs of their party and their political career will always come first for them. So choose carefully and don’t get emotionally invested.

    1. The problem is that either team has a bunch of positions that libertarians agree with. But each team claims that if you advance only their position that is already partial progress towards libertarianism, when it often is not. Granting more liberties to a special interest group often is contrary to libertarian goals if the same liberties aren’t granted to others. For example, granting free speech only to socialists means government sanctioned socialist propaganda, not partial progress towards free speech for everybody.

  8. Hillary Clinton’s support for marriage equality may be a political calculation. And you know what? We worked hard to change the math so that those political calculations would start adding up in our favor. So sincere change of heart or political calculation?either way?I will take it.

    Just so you’re aware that when the political calculations swing back to throwing the gays into the camps you know who’s going to be arguing in favor of building the camps. Oh wait, no you won’t – because you just said it doesn’t matter whether Hillary changed her mind or merely lied about changing her mind so you have no idea what her stance on the camps is going to be.

    1. Probably a wide stance.

      1. +1 Larry Craig

    2. Wait, so are you saying your against gays going to camp?

      1. Wait, isn’t Camp a thing any more?

    3. Technically, the only camps that Democrats actually put people in were for Japanese-Americans during WWII — for which they were * punished * with like 80% of Japanese-Americans currently voting Democratic, IIRC.

  9. I wonder if the Republicans will have the balls to run clips of her hating on gay marriage and saying that white working people will not vote for a black guy for president?

    Remember those days?

    I hate to sound over the top but I honestly suspect that she is a sociopath who is willing to try anything to attain the presidency.

    1. You only suspect she is a sociopath? Talk about giving her the benefit of the doubt.

      My GF stares at me like I’m a mutant when I say Hillary is a sociopath and a chronic liar.

    2. I’m fairly certain that a prereq for a sincere presidential run is a good amount of sociopathy.

  10. This is nothing but Bernie bros trying to “straighsplain” why Hillary is awful for gays (despite being the obviously best SoS in history for gay rights policy at that department). It’s politics as usual in this Dem primary. Maybe it’s mysterious to some how Hillary can go from late-to-the-game on gay rights to being kind of a gay icon. Savage explains it well. We don’t have the luxury of only supporting pure politicians on this issue, because there are none.

    For those of us whose lives are actually affected by which party is in power–and that is a group that only includes straight white dudes once everyone else has been screwed over first–pragmatism and political calculation are, like, good things.

    1. If there was ever any doubt that Tony is a sock, bookmark the above post and re-read it every so often.

      1. aw, come on. I read it once. Isn’t that enough? also, he’s not really a ‘sock’. He’s more like a towel.

        1. It has 2 (two) of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard in the same post. This one is a cut above.

        2. You’re a towel!

          1. i will enquire as to your interest in the consumption of this cannabis product forthwith

      2. despite being the obviously best SoS in history for gay rights policy at that department

        Are you telling me only a sock would type that line? IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE SAYING!?

        1. best SoS in history for gay rights policy at that department

          Tell me, exactly what does “gay rights policy” have to do with the State Department’s mission, por favor? Put another way, what difference, at this point, does State’s policy on gay rights make?

    2. (despite being the obviously best SoS in history for gay rights policy at that department)

      I know you’re a sock, and all, but what could Hillary have possibly done for gays as SoS? What has the State Department done for gay rights in general? Serious question. Besides telling gays which countries will still imprison/kill them. Don’t even think about pointing to her quote about “human rights = gay rights” as SoS in 2011 as an example.

      1. Extended benefits afforded to married couples to all gay diplomats’ partners.

        1. How many gay diplomats with partners are there currently?

          1. I don’t know, but the policy change benefited them all. She also put gay equality on the international agenda for the US for the first time. Are you trying to argue that there was a more pro-gay SoS in our history?

            1. She also put gay equality on the international agenda for the US for the first time.

              International agenda? Is that where international agents meet to do international stuffs? Is Saudi Arabia invited? Is she still getting contributions from their royal family?

              1. “Putting things on an agenda” is diplomatic code language for “Doing Nothing To Appear To Be Doing Something

                Just like “Facilitating dialogue” or “enabling communities” or “helping to foster the environment” etc.

                Was it Brian D. that had a great article a while back on the typical ‘bullshit-speak’ of Diplomats? They have 1000 words to describe very-complex and vigorous inaction.

                1. oh, this

                  re: the WHO –

                  “”one overwhelmingly finds talk of forming coalitions to manage and monitor systems that lay the groundwork for plans to coordinate actions to develop the knowledge and skills necessary to begin the process of forming coalitions””

                  That’s an epic summary of how people in the ‘international relations’-business bullshit their way around “never actually doing anything”

              2. She certainly was excited to sell the Saudi’s jet fighters. Too bad the Saudi’s routinely execute gays. 🙁

                But hey someone got health insurance so….!

            2. Are you trying to argue that there was a more pro-gay SoS in our history?

              James Buchanan?

            3. As I mentioned earlier, unless she was SoS in 2000, gay domestic partners were already receiving benefits before she arrived.

        2. I NO RITE SHEZ LIKE WAY BETTER THAN JOHNQUINCYADAMZ WUZ ON TEH GARY RIGHTS SHEZ LIKE HEART HEART HEART ZOMGGAYS NO WHUT IM SAYIN BRAH!!!!

        3. The State Department began recognizing domestic partners that could not marry (i.e., gays) in 2000. I was paying attention because at the time I was the straight domestic partner of a diplomat who wasn’t offered the same benefit since we chose not to marry at that time (while living at Embassy Moscow).

        4. Gay Diplomats Say State Department Is Failing Their Families

          “stories told by some gay foreign service officers suggest that the human resources officers in Washington and in the embassies may shift them away from desirable posts in non-gay-friendly countries without adequately consulting them. Even more troubling, they say, is that human resource officers sometimes blame them for raising concerns and don’t provide support for answering basic questions about whether they will be able to go to their post with their partners.

          In one case, a diplomat who asked not to be identified out of fear of retaliation told BuzzFeed News that since joining the foreign service in 2010 he has twice been all-but-promised a plum post in a country where they needed his specialized language skills only to be reassigned at the last minute because of this country’s policy toward same-sex partners”

          IOW, they use them as political props for stupid domestic audiences like Tony, not as any sincere effort to influence other nation’s own policies. Shocker.

          1. “Gay Diplomats Say State Department Is Failing Their Families”

            It would be grand to hear what Chris Stevens would say about this, but he’s dead for some reason

        5. A fair point, but that benefits a rather small section of gays, no? Can you point to anything bigger she’s done? You said she’s obviously been the best in history, so I’m expecting some huge and sweeping changes, stuff like that. Also, anything before 2013 (when she “evolved” on gay marriage”) should just be considered vote pandering, right?

          1. I’m not saying it’s a very high bar. Any other Democratic SoS would have probably done the same at the time.

            I don’t know when she was first pro-equality in her heart. I do know that no serious national politician could be until pretty recently. I can either forgive the ones who are good on the issue now or act like a libertarian and whine that the world isn’t perfect for all eternity.

            1. ZOMG TOWNY !!!111! IT IZ WHUTS IN HER HART THAT MATTERZ AND NOT TEH POLISEES SHE ADVOCAYTZ!!!! BEST SECRETARY STATE EVER OR BESTEST SECRETARY OF STATE EVER???? ICAN’T DECIDE EITHER!!!!

            2. “I don’t know when she was first pro-equality in her heart.”

              She’s not. You already knew that, though.

              1. Good lord that laughably gullible even for him. The correct answer is “she doesn’t have a heart”.

            3. I can either forgive the ones who are good on the issue now or act like a libertarian and whine that the world isn’t perfect for all eternity.

              Man, I’ll give credit to whoever runs this sock that they can come up with some nice and dry jokes.

              I’m not saying it’s a very high bar. Any other Democratic SoS would have probably done the same at the time. I don’t know when she was first pro-equality in her heart.

              That being said, this sounds like a rather flaccid-dicked endorsement of someone you supposedly hold in high regard. I say stick to the snarky jokes on the dead threads. The one about us wanting a free-wheeling libertarian paradise was great.

          2. Small section of gays? Yeah, few enough that I can count them with the fingers on one hand.

            BEST SoS IN HISTORY

      2. “what could Hillary have possibly done for gays as SoS?”

        OMG Did you not see how she imposed boycotts on African nations that make homosexuality a crime!?? Did you not see when she challenged Putin to his face by forcing him to shake hands with her Openly-Gay Ambassador to Russia??! Did you not see when she insisted that Buju Banton records be banned….

        Actually, you didn’t because she never did a fucking thing. Maybe she put out a bullshit press release, or attended a “conference”…. but, just like her bullshit about “Afghan Women’s Issues“, she used them as a platform for self-promotion, not anything that actually required use of political capital or offered any real change to the status quo.

        1. Then you’re simply misinformed. Anyway, the point is about forgiving politicians for past impurities. As someone who’s an unreconstructed bigot, if I’m not mistaken, you’re not adding much here.

          1. Inform us, please. You failed above.

            And where exactly did you see any evidence of “unreconstructed bigotry?”

          2. CERRECT AGAIN TOONY!!!!!! WE SHUD BE CONFIDINT THAT HILARY WILL PROTEK THE RITES EVERYWON BECUZ SHE IS WILING TO CHANGE HER POZISHUN WEN IT BECOMS UNPOPULAR!!! THAT MAYKS ME CONFIDINT THAT OTHER DISAADVANTIJD GROOPS WILL BE SAFE IN A HILLARY PREZIDINSEE!!!

            YOU ARE JUST TOO SMART FOR THIS SITE BUDDY!!! TAHNK YOU FOR CLEARING THAT UP FOR US!!!!

        2. Did you not see when she challenged Putin to his face by forcing him to shake hands with her Openly-Gay Ambassador to Russia??!

          I feel like that was in a House of Cards episode.

      3. Well, she was the first lesbian SoS.

    3. This is nothing but Bernie bros trying to “straighsplain” why Hillary is awful for gays (despite being the obviously best SoS in history for gay rights policy at that department).

      This is the funniest sentence i’ve read in a long time. Thanks, Tony.

      1. See? That’s what I’m saying. Whoever runs this sock has a career in comedy waiting for him.

        *Has sudden realization, stares at Fist from across the room*

      2. Still not better than his magnum opus:

        “Hilary said a few harmless fibs. Fiorina’s lies got people killed.”

    4. I’m gay and I don’t want Hillary’s version of “gay rights”. I don’t want government sanctioned marriage, I don’t want equal opportunity employment, or other such bullshit. In short, I don’t want Hillary and progressives to do homosexuals what they have done to African Americans, namely turn most of them into mindless, helpless dependents.

  11. I don’t get how anyone who is a net tax payer even cares about sideshow issues like this. But Hillary knows that folks like Savage are often single-issue voters and no vote is easier to grab than that. It’s the same reason Republicans won’t shut up about abortion.

    1. OK, then, let’s look at these taxpayer-related questions:

      (a) who gets to file federal taxes jointly based on marital status?

      (b) to what degree does a business owner get to run his own business or, alternatively, will he be able to hurt his competitors by imposing moral standards on them which the competitor doesn’t share?

      (c) who gets to live or die (I would have thought that paying taxes wouldn’t blind you to that particular issue)

      1. Of course, the libertarian answers to these questions are pretty simple:

        (a) nobody; marital status shouldn’t figure into taxes

        (b) business owners should be allowed to discriminate against any customer; that means striking down public accommodations protections for both homosexuals and Christians, as well as tax exemptions and other special government favors

        (c) for adults, they themselves decide; for unconscious adults without prior instructions and children, the legal guardian decides

        Neither Democrats nor Republicans take the libertarian positions. Both are statists.

    2. You want to reduce it to taxes?

      Go check out the Windsor v. United States decision. It’s all about taxes.

  12. My only reaction to this is to note that Dan Savage is a vile cunt and should be ignored at all times.

  13. After more than two decades of watching progs cudgel their enemies with increasing force and tediousness over these issues, I’ve pretty much given up on caring about anything affecting gays. I am not for them, I’m not against them – I just can’t conjure up a single fuck to give anymore.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.