Friday, November 03, 2006

    Hillary Clear on Same Sex Marriage...Well, sort of...

What are Hillary Clinton’s closely held personal beliefs concerning same-sex marriage? It depends on who she is talking to!
First of all we have her saying this:
"Marriage has got historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage always has been, between a man and a woman." - Hillary Clinton, opposing same-sex marriages, quoted in The New York Daily News
In 1996 while on a book tour she had this to say while in that bastion of liberalism, San Francisco.
"Children are better off if they have a mother and a father,'' Clinton said in the San Francisco interview with the then-Hearst-owned San Francisco Examiner. "My preference is that we do all we can to strengthen traditional marriage ... and that people engaged in parenting children be committed to one another.''
Clearly she was unwilling to support gay marriage at that time.However, In July of this year, while campaigning for Phil Angelides, the Democratic candidate for governor, she was strangely silent on the subject, refusing to answer any questions on the topic.
Clinton's silence in the Democratic bastion of San Francisco highlighted how the issue of same-sex marriage still presents a political dilemma for Democrats. While polls show many in the party, as well as many independent and moderate voters, support the concept of same-sex marriage, California voters in 2000 approved Proposition 22, which defined marriage as between a man and a woman. Polls nationally show a majority of Americans oppose same-sex marriage -- but also support civil partnership rights
So, while she opposed gay marriage in 1996 and again in 1998, and she seemed to oppose it while running for the Senate in 2000, according to Mewsmax.com she has changed her mind now that she is considering running for President in 2008.
When it comes to same-sex marriage, Sen. Hillary Clinton has had a change of heart.
The New York senator told a recent gathering of gay and lesbian activists in Manhattan that she won’t oppose efforts to enact a same-sex marriage law in the state if Eliot Sptizer, the odds-on favorite to become the next governor, wants it enacted into law.
Worldnetdaily.com reports this from the junior senator:
When she ran for Senate in 2000, she said she opposed same-sex marriage. But that position didn't reflect the "many long conversations" she's had since with "friends" and others, and that her thinking "has certainly evolved." "I believe in full equality of benefits, nothing left out," she said. "From my perspective there is a greater likelihood of us getting to that point in civil unions or domestic partnerships and that is my very considered assessment." But Clinton did add a caveat that upset some in attendance: "If you go the next step and say, 'But I want what is called marriage,' you're going to have a problem." But then she threw another curveball, stating that she had no problem with states legalizing same-sex marriage.
So, If I had to interpret what she is saying, She was against Gay marriage, before she was for it…but she doesn’t want it called “marriage” unless states pass legislation calling it that. Ahh, it makes perfect sense to me?So, what she is saying is that if the state of New York were to enact a law banning gay marriage she would not oppose it?
Asked several moments later by Gary Parker, the Greater Voices leader who chaired the meeting, to clarify that point, Clinton reiterated, "I am not going to speak out against, I'm not going to oppose anything that the governor and the legislature do."
Of course, her answer to that question was pre-supposing that the NY legislature would enact legislation making gay marriage legal…but by her reasoning, she has no problem whichever way the legislature goes.Will this hurt her in her obvious ambition to win the Oval Office? Well, several top Democrat strategist apparently believe so.
And two top Democratic strategists, James Carville and Stan Greenberg, this week warned in a new memo that Republicans will "run hard" on the issue and urged Democrats to reassure undecided voters. "That the Democrat believes marriage is between a man and a woman is among the strongest reassurance for older blue-collar voters, seniors and those in rural areas," the memo read. "If this is what the candidate believes, it is important to say it." Twenty states have enacted amendments protecting traditional marriage, and at least five more states will vote on amendments in November. "The public is clearly on the side of preserving and protecting traditional marriage," said Republican consultant Keith Appell. If Democrats appear "wishy-washy" on this, "they can easily be painted as siding with liberal forces," he said.
So, once again she will need to re-evaluate her choices. I predict that she will waffle at least fifty more times between now and the 2008 election, being for and against the issue depending on her audience. In the end, she will be clearly ambivalent so as to appear on the side of whichever side the voter chooses to support.Remember, she learned from the best!


First posted at Redstate

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home