Another reality check for sHillary
Chris Crain at The Washington Blade posts his take on the infamous memo by Empire State Pride Agenda’s Exec Director Alan Van Capelle, which scorched sHillary for her stand on same-sex marriage (my post here). Chris piles on, and sHill deserves every bit of it.
Clinton’s haughtiness on marriage is particularly galling given her own rocky experience with the institution. She did vote against an unprecedented amendment to the U.S. Constitution that would ban gays from marrying, but to do otherwise would have been unthinkable for her politically.
In her speech on the Senate floor, she said, “I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman.” Another reality check: She’s known for decades that in her own case the institution was never so limited and in fact was a not-so-sacred bond between a man and several women, including his wife and untold Gennifers, Monicas and others. [Ouch!]
Hillary opposes allowing gays to marry in New York, and she backed the Defense of Marriage Act, signed by philandering Bill, which not only deprives married gay couples of federal legal recognition, it allows states to ignore marriage licenses issued to gay couples in Massachusetts or elsewhere.
With that kind of track record, Van Capelle rightly argued that there’s no good reason for New York gays to throw good money after bad support.
And yet again, we see that those working on our behalf, just don’t get it. Not only is sHillary unelectable, she’s following the Dean/DNC logic that gay civil equality issues are best handled by “flying under the gaydar,” the whole work-silently-from-within so as not to offend flyover country tactic. That’s really worked out well so far, hasn’t it?
“As she gears up to run for president, it’s a broader stage, and these issues matter in a way that perhaps they don’t when she’s in the Senate,” Jeff Soref, a prominent gay Democrat and co-chair of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force board, told the New York Blade.
Let’s get this straight. Hillary Rodham Clinton can’t support gay marriage because she’s running for president. Because we all know Hillary Rodham Clinton has a great shot being elected president so long as she doesn’t back gay marriage.
The statement would be laughable if it weren’t being uttered by someone like Soref, who has a leading role in the Democratic Party and the gay rights movement. And he’s among the more courageous gay Democrats willing to speak out when the party tacks to the right, leaving gays in the wake.
But Soref has chosen a quixotic battle, taking Howard Dean to task for retooling the party bureaucracy in a way that reassigned those in charge of selling the party to gay voters. What about taking Howard Dean, Hillary Clinton and others to task for avoiding, rather than fighting, for legal recognition of our relationships, even if it’s short of marriage?
You’re preaching to the choir here at the Blend, Chris. It’s high time to stop the Liberal Failure Support Organizations from enabling the cowardice of the pols. Their passive (and sometimes active) encouragement of silencing calls for gay civil marriage equality only allows the homobigots to crow that there is something inherently wrong/bad/immoral with supporting gays and lesbians.
Except, of course when Dems and LFSOs need to pass the hat around — then they come a callin’.