If gay marriage is such a slam dunk civil right for Liberals, why...?

Question

... why did they sit on their azzes while Clinton AND Gore came up with and signed the Defense of Marriage Act?

http://www.dkosopedia.com/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

This was one of the few things Clinton did that was worth a flip!

Answerman: Dont blame it on the Republicans, Clinton signed it and came up with it!

Puleaseeee... I see Liberals on here every day acting like Clinton was God...

Answer 1

That is the one and only time that I agreed with Clinton, because gays being married or otherwise is not a civil rights issue. Marriage is between a MAN and a WOMAN. PERIOD!!!!

Answer 2

We didn't. We protested all the way. Same with that ridiculous welfare reform law. Republicans complain and moan about how terrible Clinton was, yet he signed all that legislation that they like... It's almost like he wasn't really a Democrat at all.

Answer me one question. How exactly does giving gay people a right that the supreme court said was a civil right in 1967 hurt anyone. Chief Justice Warren wrote in Loving v. Virginia in 1967:

This case presents a constitutional question never addressed by this Court: whether a statutory scheme adopted by the State of Virginia to prevent marriages between persons solely on the basis of racial classifications violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. For reasons which seem to us to reflect the central meaning of those constitutional commands, we conclude that these statutes cannot stand consistently with the Fourteenth Amendment.

If denying people the right to marry solely on the basis of the color of their skin is unconstitutional because it violates equal protection, please justify to me why denying them the right to marry based on sex is any different? The problem is that conservatives are stuck. They need to try and "defend" marriage, but can't do it without actually supporting the arguments in favor of gay marriage. Please justify how straight relationships have more love, children, or stability than gay relationships? Last I checked straight people had a 50% divorce rate, there was no bar in sterile or old people getting married, and there was no requirement to swear that you are planning on having children if you do get married (if there were we wouldn't be letting old and sterile people get married). And don't give me the ridiculous line that we don't want to "encourage" that kind of behavior by sanctioning it in marriage. No one talks about "encouragement" when child molesters or felons get married. Why? Because marriage is considered a civil right in our society. We don't allow felons to vote, but they're still allowed to get married.

Eventually this all comes down to religion. Some religious fundamentalists don't want gay people to get married because it violated their religious beliefs. Well, last time I checked we had an amendment somewhere in the Constitution about not favoring religion....gee which one was it? Oh, that right, it's the First Amendment.

Answer 3

This question reminds me that when people become steeped in opinionated recalcitrant politics there is no such thing as being fair or consistent or even decent. Here, for example, Clinton and Gore are being disparaged for (if I understand it) agreeing with the conservatives. They'd certainly be lampooned for disagreeing!! Here they're lampooned for agreeing!! Can't George Bush be given credit for doing anything right? Does he deserve blame if he does and blame if he doesn't? Is that really right? (Whether it's right or wrong, it is the way of politics. Most of us are not here to learn, but to assert.)

Answer 4

I'm a gay man, and I support the right of gays to marry. (Personally, I think two men getting "married" is silly, but a right is a right.)

Yes, Clinton signed the DOMA in the dead of night. Kerry and Edwards held the same position on gay marriage as did Bush - despite the Protection of Marriage Amendment, Bush still supports civil unions of gays (however quietly he states it).

I am against a constitutional amendment against or for gay marriage. I don't like the idea of the federal government telling states what to do with that issue. I feel that the issue is best fought at the state level. Couples who want to get married need to start suing their state legislatures for the right, and force the issue state-by-state.

So, to gay activists who want gay marriage, I say "Stop stewing and start SUING."

Love, Jack.

Answer 5

As usual, either your logic stinks or you're a lair, or both.

Clinton, first off, was not a Liberal by any means. He was and is very much a Moderate. Second, very few Americans, Democrats or Republicans, support gay marriage and it will never come into law on a national level.

Conservatives like to keep bringing the issue up because it deflects from the real, serious issues that they can't defend: like the unwinable Viet Nam war in Iraq, like Bush's close ties to dictatorships, like our country going into bankruptcy while the rich get richer, like the poor losing the rights to even their own property, etc.

Answer 6

Gay marriage is legal in my country. As a middle class heterosexual woman I totally approve, as do the vast majority of my Countrymen. I had the right to marry the person I love, why should I resent anyone else being allowed to do the same? Before gay marriage became legal there were heart-rending reports of Life Partners being over ruled in decision making by families when their partner died, they did not have the same rights to their partner's pension as heterosexuals...etc. Love is love. We have no right to differentiate the rights of any groups
by legislation or other means. I might add that when homosexuality became legal in The Army, my extremely upright Army Officer husband was delighted, as some of his best Soldiers were known to be gay, and he found it ludicrous that they were not given the same benefits for their partners that the rest of us receive. It's time the rest of the World grew up and joined us in not discriminating against those who simply want to operate normally in society.

Answer 7

Wow you almost sounded like you knew what you were talking about. 1 Clinton contrary to what Neo-Cons think is not a liberal he is a moderate. But Republicans was so eager to label him that they kinda over look the truth. 2 Clinton passed a lot of act or laws that was considered conservative to the liberal wing of the Democrat party but they back Clinton over all because he tried to unite the party. And 3 Who cares if gays get married let them be able to be legally miserable like everyone else. Once they see how fast marriage mess up a good relationship they will see it ain't that big a victory.

Answer 8

Are you equating the term "liberals" with "democrats"? If you are then you are just being ignorant. There is no way to answer your question if you don't think outside of the democrat/republican box. Not all liberals support Clinton and Gore because not all liberals are democrats. But I don't think you asked that question because you really wanted an answer... I think you are just trying to be controversial.

Answer 9

I am not sure I understand you question but I am gay and conservative and for the right to marry who I chose. I don't think its a matter of liberal or conservative. For me its about civil rights. I think gay marriage will eventually be the law of the land because its the right and the American thing to do. Plus it comes at the expense of no one.

As for Commie-Bore. They are flip floppers man. You can't count on Klinton and company for anything. They are whores.

Also I think the DOMA is unconstitutional because it violates the Full Faith and Credit Clause.

Answer 10

I think it's all semantics. We say that we are all equal under God ... but we're so busy trying to prove ourselves better than some other group, any other group, that we forget what it means to be equal.

I mean, does YOUR life change if gays are allowed to marry? If not, why argue against it? By the way, I'm not gay, but I have a son who is. Guess my view is slightly biased.