Hillary Clinton Supports Gay Marriage

Monday, March 18, 2013

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton formally announced her support for same-sex marriage in a statement today, a move that was widely anticipated after she stepped down from the Obama administration. In her announcement, which she made in a video with the Human Rights Campaign, Clinton argues that gays and lesbians are "full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship."

Posted by sames1 at 04:22 PM | 43 COMMENTS | permalink | Comment on This Entry |

Front Page
Breaking News
Comments
Flagged Comments
User Blogs
Write a Blog Entry
Create a Poll
Edit Account
Weekly Digest
Stats Page
RSS Feed
Back Page

Subscriptions

Read the Retort using RSS.

RSS Feed

Author Info

sames1

Joined 2012/07/23
Visited 2013/05/23

Status: user

The Earned Income Tax Credit Fraud (15 comments) ...

Gun-toting Utah teachers: Your kids are safe with us (15 comments) ...

A Couple Of Flashbacks To Bill Clinton’s Audits (3 comments) ...

UN urges people to eat insects to fight world hunger (11 comments) ...

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Personal attacks, profanity, abusive conduct and expressions of prejudice are not allowed. If you have comments about site moderation, contact the site publisher in email.

Shocked I tell you, I'm shocked. In other shocking news The Pope is Catholic.

#1 | Posted by sames1 at 2013-03-18 01:12 PM | Reply | Flag:

A real profile in courage...lol

#2 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-18 01:14 PM | Reply | Flag:

and I want to announce as well...

there is no mystery here...find me an article on the subject and you will RARELY if EVER see a report where one thing is not mentioned or even highlighted

gay marriage is ONLY ABOUT THE MONEY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#3 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-18 01:32 PM | Reply | Flag:

gay marriage is ONLY ABOUT THE MONEY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#3 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-18 01:32 PM

Why is it a bad thing for gay people to do with their money as they please? Would you, a small government conservative, want the government confiscating their property and telling them what they can and cannot do with their private belongings? Sounds pretty socialist to me.

#4 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2013-03-18 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

"gay marriage is ONLY ABOUT THE MONEY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Marriage is a legal contract, gay people want the right to enter into that contract with the person of their own choice. I just wonder how many gay long term gay relationships, where couples shared homes, expenses and lives for decades only to end in the death of one partner but then the surviving partner losing the home, money, etc. of the partner who died because that partner's relatives claimed them as next of kin? I've known several cases like this personally, one was quite well known here in S. Florida when a TV helicopter pilot, who had a long term gay relationship and lived with his partner. The brother and sister of the pilot came to town, threw the partner out of his home, took all the posessions and would not even allow him in to get his personal belongings and dog.

#5 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-18 01:51 PM | Reply | Flag:

And the Nobel Peace prize goes to Ms. Sack of Doorknobs.

#6 | Posted by wisgod at 2013-03-18 02:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Danni, based on your last post, let me ask you something that has always made me go "hm.". Hypothetical situation: There are two states (we'll call them State A and State B). State A passes a law approving gay marriage and State B passes a law approving civil unions for gay partners. Both states' laws carry the same legal bindings as existing heterosexual marriages in both states. What are your thoughts on the two laws? Which would you prefer, for instance?

#7 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2013-03-18 02:04 PM | Reply | Flag:

gay marriage is ONLY ABOUT THE MONEY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#3 | Posted by afkabl2

Regular marriage is only about "love".

Gay marriage is only about "money".

Thats why if I got divorced it would only cost me 50% of my "love".

#8 | Posted by donnerboy at 2013-03-18 04:30 PM | Reply | Flag:

#8: NW flag.

#9 | Posted by ness_gadol at 2013-03-18 04:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

An interesting commentary on some of Dan Savage's commentary on the homosexuals view of monogamy in marriage: thegospelcoalition.org (Don't mind the source, mind the content)

It discusses Dan Savage and the homosexual marriage crowds aversion to "monogamish" (created by Dan Savage) relationships over monogamous relationships.

Monogamy with homosexual marriage - maybe

Monogamish with homosexual marriage - no

#10 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2013-03-18 05:00 PM | Reply | Flag:

It's common knowledge that Hillary is actually a man.

#11 | Posted by mysterytoy at 2013-03-18 06:59 PM | Reply | Flag:

So I imagine we should expect Bubba to be served with divorce papers soon since Hillary is obviously moving on to "greener pastures"

#12 | Posted by Gimme_a_Scotch at 2013-03-18 08:03 PM | Reply | Flag:

Jeez - can't wait to hear the collective head explosions from repukelickin's when whoever they sacrifice in 2016 gets his lilly white ass kicked by Senator Clinton...

...you didn't seriously think Rubio would get the nod, did you...he's just the latest version of Herman Cain - a minstral show in brown face...

...LOL...

#13 | Posted by 1EyedMan at 2013-03-18 08:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

you didn't seriously think Rubio would get the nod, did you...he's just the latest version of Herman Cain - a minstral show in brown face...

And the left alleges that the republicans have a lock on racism. LOL

#14 | Posted by goatman at 2013-03-18 08:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

#4 | Posted by LIVE_OR_DIE at 2

they can eat THEIR money if they want but they're talking marriage and BENEFITS...many of which come from coffers that MY MONEY GOES INTO...

think SS is in trouble now...add multiple thousands of benefits paid out to widowed gay spouses....

find an article where the arguement doesnt have MONEY In it somewhere...you will have to cherry pick

#15 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-18 09:52 PM | Reply | Flag:

#5 | Posted by danni at 2013-03-18 01:51 PM | Reply | Flag: Flag:

gay people WANT THE MONEY........and I SHOULDN"T have to subsidize that OR people killing babies..

#16 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-18 09:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

Thats why if I got divorced it would only cost me 50% of my "love".

#8 | Posted by donnerboy a

which comedian said that he was thinking about getting married BUT INSTEAD he just went out and found a woman he hated and bought her a house.

#17 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-18 09:55 PM | Reply | Flag:

Look,I don't care where a guy puts anything he has or what a woman does to who or where and IM not gonna tell you I have gay friends because that doesn't matter...although in the music business...well its not like we're all welders...

but I SHOULD NOT have to subsidize ONE single penny towards it

#18 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-18 09:56 PM | Reply | Flag:

#16, 17 and 18.

How much Crazy do you spew in one day?

#19 | Posted by ClownShack at 2013-03-18 09:58 PM | Reply | Flag:

"...but I SHOULD NOT have to subsidize ONE single penny towards it..."

So don't subsidize it any more than you do straight marriages.

Easy peasy.

#20 | Posted by REDIAL at 2013-03-18 10:05 PM | Reply | Flag:

Right after the polls said it was safe for her to "come out".....so slimy.

Yet another group that needs to be saved by the left from ...well somebody...they just need to be saved from the hate that we are sure is out there.

Unlike voter fraud we know there is none of that.

#21 | Posted by MENSAKOOK at 2013-03-18 10:08 PM | Reply | Flag:

#18: Well, you could always just die first.

#22 | Posted by ness_gadol at 2013-03-19 07:07 AM | Reply | Flag:

but I SHOULD NOT have to subsidize ONE single penny towards it

#18 | POSTED BY AFKABL2 AT 2013-03-18 09:56 PM | REPLY | FLAG:

But it is okay for you to subsidize heterosexual survivors benefits. Is that somehow magically different?

Heterosexual marriage is all about the love.

Homosexual marriage is all about the money.

But hey, there is no bigotry in the GOP.

#23 | Posted by 726 at 2013-03-19 07:25 AM | Reply | Flag:

#23 Who said there wasn't? There is bigotry everywhere that man is present. That include both the GOP and DNC as well as your own posts.

All people have it to one degree or another in one direction or another.

#24 | Posted by HeuristicGratis at 2013-03-19 08:44 AM | Reply | Flag:

How regressive of her.

How CE 70 of her.

This too shall pass.

#25 | Posted by kirk at 2013-03-19 09:08 AM | Reply | Flag:

I support a gay marriage. There's nothing wrong with being happy.

#26 | Posted by kamakiri at 2013-03-19 09:53 AM | Reply | Flag:

Obama's half-hearted "support" of gay marriage is starting to make sense. By not pledging complete support, he has left the door open for the next Democrat candidate to be even more of a super awesome progressive than he is.

Political strategy at its finest. Obama seems to have a way of making people think he supports things that he doesn't, and incrementalizing just about everything.

As for Clinton, she was "against gay marriage in her 2008 presidential run." Anyone who takes her newly evolved position seriously is a moron.

#27 | Posted by JOE at 2013-03-19 10:02 AM | Reply | Flag:

" Obama seems to have a way of making people think he supports things that he doesn't, and incrementalizing just about everything."

Exactly. As I posted--via Matt Taibbi--back in 2008...

"As far as political positioning goes, his strategy seems to be to appear as a sort of ideological Universalist, one who spends a great deal of rhetorical energy showing that he recognizes the validity of all points of view, and conversely emphasizes that when he does take hard positions on issues, he often does so reluctantly. He is a black man from Chicago who gets away with praising Ronald Reagan, which is not an easy task. His political ideal is basically a rehash of the Blair-Clinton "third way" deal, an amalgam of Kennedy, Reagan, Clinton and the New Deal; he is aiming for the middle of the middle of the middle. "

www.alternet.org

#28 | Posted by nullifidian at 2013-03-19 10:36 AM | Reply | Flag:

How much Crazy do you spew in one day?

#19 | Posted by ClownShack at 2013-03-18

I don't care.

#29 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-19 11:42 AM | Reply | Flag:

But it is okay for you to subsidize heterosexual survivors benefits. Is that somehow magically different?

Heterosexual marriage is all about the love.

Homosexual marriage is all about the money.

But hey, there is no bigotry in the GOP.

#23 | Posted by 726 at

I don't care.

But I must answer your ridiculous silly charges. Marriage STILL in this country is defined as between a man and a woman..DOMA...even though the pos potus has decided that he is more important and bigger then the constitution.......and there are plenty of cases where divorce of hetero is about money...every met a WOMAN before ?????

find articles pro gay marriage and somewhere benefits will enter the conversation USUALLY the first and last thing mentioned.

#30 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-19 11:45 AM | Reply | Flag:

I welcome this woman's entry in that race. MAYBE Then the truth about four dead americans will finally come out EXCEPT the lib media will do exactly the same thing for her that they did and have done for obama...leaving stories out and lying.

#31 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-19 11:47 AM | Reply | Flag:

BL2

www.youtube.com

But citizens should all have the same rights, no matter whom they marry, don't you think?

#32 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-19 11:48 AM | Reply | Flag:

All that Clinton's sudden about-face says is "I'm running for President in 2016." I expect there will be something like this every month or so for the next two years; just enough to keep her in the news. The real campaigning won't start until 2014.

#33 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2013-03-19 11:51 AM | Reply | Flag:

I love how people come out in favor of this once they are no longer seeking office or are out of power.

STOP MAKING SPEECHES AND DO SOMETHING ALREADY!

#34 | Posted by kanrei at 2013-03-19 11:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

NICE TOUCH there corkster...

I do not believe that gay marriage is something that this country should endorse and FORCE people to financially support which is exactly what would happen. I can go with it being a state's rights issue so if you want to get taxed to death and support a gay 'widow' with STATE money for the rest of their life, be my guest because I DON"T CARE...

I could give you the ole joke about how I think even gays should get married and be miserable like the rest of the married crowd but thats WAY too old of a joke for me.......I like to keep my humor fresh..

there once was a man from nantucket....

#35 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-19 11:54 AM | Reply | Flag:

and once again before the dupes show up..

I dont give a you know what about anyone's sexual preference or activity unless it's the lady undercover vice cop who comes into my starbucks...I WANT to know EVERYTHING about her sexual activity,...as in WITH ME..

otherwise, I DONT CARE and if you think I hate gays, you simply do not know what your'e talking about.....I should NOT HAVE TO PAY for their lifestyle.,

THATS what the left says about people who smoke...( a convaluted example perhaps but the point is the same )

#36 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-19 11:57 AM | Reply | Flag:

-I do not believe that gay marriage is something that this country should endorse and FORCE people to financially support which is exactly what would happen.

That wasn't the question. The question was should all citizens have the same rights, no matter whom they marry?

And the answer to that is yes.

#37 | Posted by Corky at 2013-03-19 11:59 AM | Reply | Flag:

How can the federal government force churches to bestow the religious Sacrament of Marriage on a gay couple if homosexual unions are against a Church's doctrines?

The federal government could mandate that civil unions be allowed to take place in every State and when doing so grant gay couples all the same federal benefits as they now give to heterosexual couples. But when it comes to the federal government dictating a homosexual civil union be termed a "marriage" then I question whether the federal government would have that religious authority.

#38 | Posted by CalifChris at 2013-03-19 12:10 PM | Reply | Flag:

I like Hillary and would vote for her should she run for President. I feel she'd be a good one and certainly has the experience for the office.

But now I have a problem. I dislike flip-floppers and don't trust them -- at all.

It's not because of Hillary's change of view on gay marriage, but my overall concern that if she'd flip-flop on this one issue then what other issues would she change her mind about once she was elected President.

It boils down to a matter of whether or not you can trust a person to stand by their convictions. I vote for a Presidential candidate not based on their political party but for their stated stance on various issues. But if they are going to do a reversal on a number of them once they get elected, then I can't trust them with my vote.

#39 | Posted by CalifChris at 2013-03-19 12:26 PM | Reply | Flag:

She's an opportunist, but who running for office isn't? Depending on who runs, I'd vote for her, which kills me to say.
I can't think of any repub or dem right now that I'd prefer over her, but then again, I hadn't heard about Gary Johnson at this time last election cycle.

Gay marriage is noise. Abortion is noise. Guns are noise. Tell me about controlling spending and holding people accountable and you'll have my ear.

#40 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2013-03-19 12:36 PM | Reply | Flag:

#40 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2013-03-19 12:36 PM

You made some good points, 101. And I'm glad to read you're an independent voter (as am I) and that you vote on the issues rather than just a straight party line.

In reality, I suppose one will never get everything they want in a Presidential candidate so, as you stated, you have to push the minor and personal issues out of the way and vote for the one who takes the best stance on those most crucial to our country.

I'm sure I'll end up voting for Hillary too. Not because she's a woman, but because she'll be bringing more experience to the office than either of the last two persons elected, plus I don't find her views to be too far to either the left or right.

#41 | Posted by CalifChris at 2013-03-19 12:57 PM | Reply | Flag:

I sucked that dick (or licked that click) but I didn't swallow?

#42 | Posted by reitze at 2013-03-20 12:40 AM | Reply | Flag:

That wasn't the question. The question was should all citizens have the same rights, no matter whom they marry?

And the answer to that is yes.

#37 | Posted by Corky at 2013-0

not if you don't support the question. This is not civil rights...it's not about true love because if it was there would not be a story EVERY SINGLE TIME about

THE MONEY !!!!!!!!!!!

#43 | Posted by afkabl2 at 2013-03-20 01:40 PM | Reply | Flag: