« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »
09/04/2007
Video: Hill gets gay with Ell
You might remember that on Friday we, working off a NY Times blog report, told you that Sen Hillary Clinton had filmed an Ellen Degeneres Show appearance, wherein it was reported that she danced around the "civil unions vs. marriage" decision. Well, now we have the video:
So actually it's slightly more direct than we had expected. In fact, even though this is along the lines of her usual answers, it sort of sounds more like Clinton saying, "I promise I'm there with ya, but this word 'marriage' is like a political mouse trap I must avoid if I want to eat cheese in the Oval" than usual. So it's of course annoying to hear a Dem hopeful publicly preaching the virtues of the separate but equal civil union system, as marriage equality is an inevitable concept that any enlightened, reasoned mind should be able to both comprehend, accept, and respect. However, for whatever reason, Hill's latest response strikes us as slightly less annoying than some of the other short-sighted answers that we've seen from both the Senator and the rest of Dem slate.
Although if we hear that backstage, Clinton wasn't comfortable with calling Ellen's loving partner by her full and equal name and instead insisted that she only call her "civil-Portia" -- well, then we're gonna really bitch!
Clinton on Ellen discussing gay marriage [YouTube]
**In terms of saying the answer was more direct than expected, we should clarify that we had set the bar VERY low. The first-hand reports we had heard from the Ellen taping, as well as some of Hill's past answers, made it seem like she was never even going to actually address the concept of marriage at all.
Your thoughts
Other than the fact that she did dance around the question, I was bothered by her saying that this was an issue for individual states to decide. Since her 1994 healthcare proposal and other ideals of hers, it's pretty clear to me that she believes social issues are best handled at the federal level. To suggest that gay marriage should be left to the states just shows her cowardice.
Posted by: Kristen | Sep 4, 2007 2:17:29 PM
Justice is incremental.
As horrible as it sounds, the theocrats will eat the Democrats alive if a stronger position is taken now. The optimal time to address it fully at the federal level would be during the second term of a Democratic presidency, with a Democratic Congress in control. The Supreme Court is at stake too, lest we forget. We risk more Scalias and Alitos if we're not careful and we can kiss it all goodbye. (consider that Brown v. Topeka was decided with a court of majority-FDR appointees).
I too hear the implicit message, "Patience... let me win first so I can do something about it."
If Iowa is any indication, the tides are slowly turning.
Posted by: George | Sep 4, 2007 3:06:16 PM
I think if gay people get civil unions with the same rights as straight people then whose to say it's not marriage. After all it's just a word, if you have the same rights and same benefits and you start to call it marriage then it is (I'm an athiest, so to me marriage is marriage in a registry office not a church). It's a pragmatic approach but it'll get u there just the same.
Posted by: anon | Sep 4, 2007 5:36:13 PM
Anon: It's the implication of having to call your union something separate. For a community that still has a long way to go in terms of society's view, we cannot accept attempts to marginalize our relationships and rights.
While we applaud civil unions as a step in the right direction, there's absolutely no reason for a separate system.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Sep 4, 2007 7:50:16 PM
Hillary Clinton is the enemy. (Or one of them, to be more accurate.)
The Clintons and the Democrats are responsible for DADT and DOMA. Those laws were written and rammed through Congress by Democrats, not Republicans. Republicans use the DOMA as a precedent against us in state after state. Howard Dean promises us that if we vote Democratic we'll get an EDNA, but warns us not to expect too much too soon. I believe him, because in 2006 they were elected to end the war in Iraq, and well, we're waiting, and waiting, and etc. .
Hillary Clinton supported and voted for the criminal invasion of Iraq. So did most Democrats. AFTER it became unpopular they faked opposition to the war and the overwhelming antiwar sentiment regained the Congress for them. Then the inevitable betrayal ensued as they refused to impeach Bush, defund the war, or order the troops home without delay. The Democrats moan that their hands are tied but the killing goes on and on.
George Bush is currently busy connecting the dots prior to making a serious threat to use nukes on Iran. Hillary Clinton defends him and she agrees with his opposition to the Cuban Revolution.
Our best hope is to join and build the union sponsored US Labor Party. Check them out at www.thelaborparty.org
Posted by: Bill Perdue | Sep 5, 2007 9:20:39 AM
comments powered by Disqus
