Former President Clinton on Gay Rights
I came across this video today which I have to admit, I'm not quite understanding what he's saying. It seems like he's making the issue more complex than it should be. And then he gets frustrated that the girl who's interviewing him can't seem to get why he's done such a great thing... I understand how gay marriage works in Canada, or as much as I'm inclined to know anyways being that those specific laws won't be effecting me directly... but I can't seem to wrap my head around this stuff... why does this defensive marriage act need to exist? Maybe some of you guys can help explain things to me better.
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
Comments
The contention made by Etheridge is that by saying one state does not have to acknowledge another state's gay marriage, you are "throwing gays under the bus." The point Clinton is making is that had he not allowed states to individually decide on such an issue, gays would be put under even more duress due to discriminatory retaliation from people who feel forced into accepting something their state is against. If rednecks can do what they did to Matthew Sheppard out of general hatred of gays, imagine how much more they'd do if they were forced to acknowledge gay marriage!
In other words, Clinton wanted to maintain states' rights. He wanted to allow each state to decide on their own -- it's a notion that goes back to the birth of America and one that makes America great. The idea it was an anti-gay move is preposterous.
This is really the crux of the issue in a nutshell. Is marriage a religious thing or not. THAT's what should be decided upon.
BUT there are people who don't even want gays to have the same rights as non-gays, so even defining marriage seems moot at this point.
Okay. We have 50 states (plus D.C. and Puerto Rico) in the Union. As I understand it, states don't have to recognize each other's legal marriages--I don't think there's a Federal law requiring them to do so--but there's always been a sort of "gentleman's agreement" that they just do. So if you and Suzie get married in Oregon, then move to California, you don't have to get remarried in California for California to recognize the marriage for legal and tax purposes, etc. When Redz. and I moved out to Florida, nobody ever asked to see a marriage license (that I'm aware of).
[Okay, just checked--I'm right. According to the Full Faith and Credit Clause, because marriage is technically a licensed activity, and not a judicial activity, each state may decide for itself whether to honor a marriage (or any other license) from another state.]
So when Clinton says he arranged things so that states wouldn't "have to" honor gay marriages from other states, he's kind of pulling a legalistic sleight of hand, pandering to both people's anxiety about gay marriage and the general lack of knowledge about what's in the U.S. Constitution. He was "giving" people an assurance they already had. I'd feel bad about that, but if people weren't so bigotted and ignorant, we wouldn't have to feed them such horseshit just to get them to come to the table.
The other big constitutional caveat that basically makes gay marriage perfectly legal is the Equal Protection Clause in the 14th Amendment. It states that laws and rights must be applied equally among equal citizens. If citizen X can legally do something, then citizen Y must also be legally allowed to do it. If one has to first become licensed to do a given practice, both citizens X and Y must be legally allowed to apply for the license. So if it's legal for Jenny (X) to marry Joe, then it has to be legal for Jack (Y) to marry Joe, as well.
The other thing to keep in mind is that there is exactly one entity that can legally marry two people: the state. Only the state can issue the marriage license. It doesn't matter if a priest, rabbi, voodoo man, or anyone else performs a ceremony: if you don't have that license, you ain't legally married. Hence, the religious argument against gay marriage is superfluous: Because the 1st Amendment guarantees separation of church and state, the church's feelings and dogma on any given issue are not really relevant to the state's issuance of a license.
I hope this helps.
No disrespect intended, RedZ.
EXACTLY! It's sort of like the Equal Rights Ammendment (ERA). Technically, rights are (supposedly) already afforded to women in the Constitution, but we all know how well that's played out. That's why the biggest argument against the ERA was that it was pointless because it was "an assurance they already had." But as nearly every woman knows, that just wasn't the case. It's the same with this gay marriage issue. Clinton gave them an assurance they already had because the fact that assurance already existed was perceived as nonexistent. He basically re-iterated a point to appease the gay-haters, thereby sparing gays even more retributive attacks.
But you're right. Just as blacks were likely to get even worse beatings by black-haters after they were freed, so too will gays have to suffer the repercussions inherent of demanding equality from people who irrationally hate them. The best we can do is stand by them and help defend them.
Thanks for clearing this up for me, RedZ. You a smart lady. :)
Clinton...I dunno. I like him, but I never trusted him on this topic, because I think maybe he does think letting individual states choose is the best thing. And it is--for politicians--because it allows them to make most voters happy, while sacrificing other people. For actual people, though, that sucks.
It really is about states rights- although I would happily embrace what some other countries have, in that "marriage" being a religious state and all legal unions being simply civil ones.
Well, this was a lively conversation and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Here are my additional points, though they are essentially redundant:
1) Politicans want VOTES. One vote is as good as another , doesn't matter if the vote comes from a bigot or a liberal, they each count as ONE vote. The goal is to get the MOST votes. If we keep that at the forefront of our minds, we can adjust to the very real fact that there can be no altruistic heroes in government, because you need to be VOTED in. The Clintons know how to get votes and this supercedes whether or not I think Bill did a great job as prez or not.
2) The Constitution of the United States is being violated by not allowing two consenting adults to marry. If it weren't being violated, there'd be no need to add amendments to it that change the wording to "one man and one woman," which is what anti-gay rights activists want to add. In addition, the reason we have private schools and home schools is so those who adhere to certain religious protocals are free to raise their children to adhere to them, too. This is a civil right. However, some of those same religious groups are trying to violate the civil rights of others who don't adhere to their religious protocols. If we don't wake up to this insinious reality soon, well, sorry to be vernacular, but we're fucked. I lived in a country where there is no separation of church and state and let me tell you, if we allow it to happen in the US, not even the Coulter-Christians will like it, because while they might get a turn to rule the roost FIRST, sooner or later another religious group will revolt and say, "it's our turn to be on top." And that's what you have in the Middle East, India, etc.etc.etc.
With all the bullshit about gay rights and marriage, (sorry for the swearing, I try to keep it under control, but this topic really riles me up. That's because it's a- I'll say "purple" herring to keep us busy arguing while Bush bombs the crap out of any country he wants-) not the politicians nor the gay rights nor anti-gay rights have NOTICED that marriage bwtween 'same sex' people has been going on for years. Right under their noses, in the churches and synogogues and mosques, too, with the clerics blessing. What am I talking about? Transgendered people have existed for decades. Those people legally switch sexes and have the freedoms of their chosen sex. Transgendered women use the little girls' room in airports, they sign up at women's gyms, they even can play, as we will know, on women's tennis teams (Renee Richards)
So why does "God" think it's okay to lop off a penis that's in good working order, or a useful pair of breasts, but think it's unholy for gay people to sleep together? Answer - because God has nothing to do with it at all, it's all science and nature.
I'm one hundred percent convinced that those who so strenuously object to gay rights and marriage object because they seriously believe they'll go to hell if they admit to themselves that they're gay. We have proof of this over and again. the ones who protest the most are more often than not GAY. Ted Haggart? He's GAY. And seeing other gay people happily married to each other, whilst they are in a loveless, sexless, heterosexual marriage they've forced upon themselves and their innocent (or not so innocent) spouse, would be too much to bear.
It's like the old Greek expression, " I don't want a donkey, I just want my neighbour's donkey to die." Meaning, "If I'm not allowed to do it, why should anybody else be able to ?"
I agree with Redzilla in that sometimes, in order for things to change, you just have to take your lumps. Ever see the civil rights footage of blackskinned American citizens sitting in diners and having ketchup poured on their heads by angry, whiteskinned patrons? Blackskinned children being hit with a force of water from firehoses? That happened only forty years ago. If people with black skin had been able to morph white skin while they were out working and riding on buses, etc, woud they have rebelled? The problem is we can't SEE that someone is gay by looking at him/her. If we could, we would be shocked by the numbers of them and the high places they are. I wish for the sake of the civil rights of every human being that they would all stand up and say, "Here we are. Come-fucking-get us. We're ready. " ALL of them. That would change things drastically,believe me. But until they are willing to take that risk, there will be this slow erosion of civil rights. And a loss of civil rights to one American is a loss of civil rights to ALL.
Well, Toe-Knee, now you know my opinion on this subject. I feel just a little bit passionate about it. Your'e writing provocative posts whilst I'm trying to finish my work and also build a new website. Stop distracting me. ; )
1. Any self respecting advocate of the Right just knows that they are better than the common herd. So, their mission in life is to find reasons to reinforce that "unbiased' opinion. So it is that anyone in a minority group is fair game. If the "wrath of god" can be brought down on that unfortunate minority so much the better. Gay marriage serves the purpose admirably, as does abortion on demand to a lesser extent.
2. Diverting public discourse to moral issues distracts the attention of the common herd from economic issues which may disadvantage the corporate world who are drivers of public discourse through their media outlets.
3. Concentrating the attention of the masses on moral issues allows the corporate world to reinforce their "unholy" alliance with the churches to keep the masses in line as has been the case down through the ages.
Yes, it pisses me off too.
Clinton nailed the heart of the issue by saying he lives in the Real World where policy has to be formed in practical terms, so that it won't be completely rejected by the masses. Small victories are better than none at all.
While I do agree that the solution to this problem will ultimately have to result in a federal mandate, to use it to run rough shod over state's rights sets a precedent for restricting freedoms at the federal level. State's Rights have been undermined left and right - and now we have an out of control executive branch. Why contribute to the bloated federal gov't more than needs be? Why muck up the constitution even more? You'll always lose more than you gain - just look at the several steps the Progressives took backwards in order to make a few forwards. (We can have the discussion on the debacle of the Progressive Party's early twentieth century politics later if you are unfamiliar with what I am talking about.)
Before this goes to the Federal level, marriage needs to no longer be an issue of Licensure, but a basic right. Allowing the Fed to control Licensure is very dangerous. Before marriage is redefined, this must be muddled through in the States. I'd rather not have every profession (a license issue) opened up to regulation by the federal gov't.
Now I am on the same page with regards to the issue of marriage being simply a civil union and everyone needs to get over the "sanctity of marriage" crap. But when you think about it - this is at the core of the cultural struggle this country seems to be ripped apart by.
To be honest however, the rational and ethical versus the traditional and the moral will win out. Our society is increasingly urban, and it hurts the individual to blindly hold onto traditional values. So by a sheer numbers game, eventually the culture will shift, and issues like this will be a thing of the past.