Alex Blaze

Hillary Clinton's interview with the Washington Blade

Filed By Alex Blaze | February 11, 2008 1:39 PM | comments

Filed in: Marriage Equality, Politics
Tags: DOMA, Don't Ask Don't Tell, ENDA, Hillary Rodham Clinton, marriage, UAFA

Clinton just did an interview with Washington Blade editor Kevin Naff to clarify some of her positions on LGBT issues. They discussed the usual laundry list of legislation and a little bit more.

First on her noted position that only Section 3 of the DOMA should be repealed, she's sticking by it:

In 2002 and 2004, Republicans controlled Congress, but now, a year after Democrats took control of both houses, Clinton warned that it would be wrong to assume it is safe to push for a full DOMA repeal.

Lots more after the jump.

“We cannot count on the political atmosphere staying favorable,” she said. “That’s something we’ve learned to our unfortunate detriment and I think we are in a much stronger position to bury forever the Federal Marriage Amendment and other mean-spirited, discriminatory legislation.”

She repeated her call for a repeal of Section 3 of DOMA, because it prohibits the federal government from recognizing decisions made by the states in terms of enacting civil unions, domestic partnerships or, in the case of Massachusetts, full marriage rights.

Soooooooooo... how many Republicans have to support a position before the Democrats will stop preemptively capitulating?

I also enjoy the assumption that Republican Senators were listening to arguments about the FMA, that they were voting on the Amendment because they were actually worried about same-sex marriage instead of the Republican votes that could be reaped off fear-based politics.

On ENDA, she repeats that she's pro-trans-inclusion but doesn't really define what that support means:

As for other pending gay rights legislation, Clinton said she was not aware of a timetable for Senate consideration of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, which passed the House last year after supporters removed a provision aimed at protecting transgender workers. She declined to comment on the House strategy of stripping the trans provision, but urged the Senate to consider a trans-inclusive bill.

“I would prefer an inclusive bill in the Senate and have been urging that that’s what the Senate would consider,” she said. “That would be in keeping with my position.”

And since a few people on this site have asked what she thinks about UAFA:

Clinton also reiterated her support for the Uniting American Families Act, which would permit partners of U.S. citizens to obtain permanent resident status.

“I’m supportive of it and the strategy was to do it as part of comprehensive immigration reform,” she said. “We still need to do comprehensive immigration reform … that is my preference.”

She reiterated her support for federal DP benefits, DADT, and partner benefits for gay partners of 9/11 casualties. And she'll march in Pride (OK, does that promise sound just a little bit desperate?):

She also said she would become the first U.S. president to march in a Gay Pride parade and that she had not heard about former Vice President Al Gore’s recent video endorsement of same-sex marriage.

What do you all think? Change anything?


Recent Entries Filed under Politics:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Sounds like her time on the campaign trail has made her constituent-weary. Not that I want millions of people asking me how I'm going to handle their "individual" issues, mind you. Then again, I'm not running for president.

This is my problem with the Clintons, generally. Seems like they wrote their play book for Democratic politics a LONG time ago, and are suspicious of/resistant to change -- in both the political climates and in responding to what Democrats and other progressive people actually want and need.

Queers don't want a lecture of policy and politicking. We want to get things done, and we need to stop chastising ourselves for expecting as much.

Again, as someone who's been squarely pegged as an Obama supporter on this site, I'm not saying Obama will fight for us in a way Clinton won't, but I believe if either of them is more likely to, it's Obama, not Clinton.

She reiterated her support for federal DP benefits, DADT, and partner benefits for gay partners of 9/11 casualties.

You mean support for repealing DADT, right?

Anyway, this doesn't change anything for me. The only new thing here seems to be her promise to march in a pride parade. And although I think that is a pretty funny thing to say, I'd actually like to see less politicians and corporate sponsors in pride parades rather than more. Her promise is practically meaningless in an era when even creeps like Mitt Romney are using pride as a platform to gain more political power and when June has become a target-marketing wet dream.

She can march Parades all she wants; but I'm still going to punish her for her lack of symbolic drive to fully repeal DOMA, even if the legal consequences of fully repealing it and only repealing section 3 are the same.

This is the typical Democrat M.O.

Unlike their Republican counterparts, Democrats have never been known for having the backbone to drive controversial legislation.

It is why we're still in Iraq, why we still don't have ENDA or Hate Crimes protections. After the whole DNC fiasco, does anyone still doubt the reality that we're so easily taken for granted? Should we be contributing financially to the Democratic party so liberally?

Well, if we do not support Democrats, then who do we support? Or do we just keep our money to ourselves and settle for four or eight more years of vitriol and hate in the white house?

There are only three choices; Democrats, Republicans, or take our toys and go home. We know that we face a very unfriendly atmosphere in the Republicans, and we know that if we just sit it out, then we are most likely to see a Republican win.

The Democrats have not always been spineless, look at the great society programs of LBJ, including civil rights legislation. The problem today is that All politicians are basically spineless, paid mouthpieces of various special interest groups. Money talks, all else walks. National politics have become nothing more than the playground of the rich and powerful corporations and monied interests. There isn't really any Democracy anymore, it is just a game we keep playing at, trying to avoid seeing the truth that our political process is broken, and no one wants to fix it.

And Alex, how could you leave out the part where Clinton zings Obama for the Donnie McClurkin incident??

That's the best part!

Michael Bedwell | February 11, 2008 4:05 PM

This just in:

"At 3:59 Eastern Time today, Sen. Hillary Clinton revealed that she is withdrawing from the race in order to begin her transistion to male. Reporters were still gasping from that news when she quietly removed a small amethyst geode from her pocket, placed it on the table, stood back, and in a beam of glowing light everyone who ever died of AIDS stepped alive and healthy before them. They were joined by every woman who had every died of cancer; LGBTs and people of color who had died from hate crimes; Holocaust victims; and children cut down by leukemia. Lincoln appeared, stovepipe hat in hand, and Lassie finally came home. When asked to comment, an Obama supporter said: 'Bleh.'"

LOL! Michael, did Lincoln say anything?

Michael Bedwell | February 11, 2008 6:25 PM

Well, Abe, saying something about "a streak of lavender, and spots soft as May violets," has been asking everyone if they've seen someone named Joshua Speed. And, also, about a Captain David Derickson, commenting that he hopes they've been keeping the bed warm as it's expected to get down to 20 degrees in DC tonight.

Obama supporters meanwhile informed the press that Lincoln himself is a myth as, were it not for the Clinton Conspirators, they would realize that life as we know it did not begin until August 4, 1961, when Sen. Obama was born in a manger in Honolulu, Hawaii. Assuming it's not frozen over, after winning the DC primary, Sen. Obama will prove his divinity by walking on the water of the National Mall reflecting pool between the white marble Obama Memorial and the 555 ft. Obama Monument.

Zinger? I don't think so. Here's the passage:

"She responded to critics who say Obama is more likely to address gay issues in front of a non-gay audience.

"'I find it ironic since Sen. Obama had his gospel tour with [Donnie] McClurkin that he and his supporters would take credit for that.'"

This is typical Clinton evasion and distortion, the kind of thing that finally drove me away from her campaign. As she well knows, the question was about numerous Obama appearances before black audiences during which he criticized homophobia, particularly in the black church. She's done nothing comparable, nor before her heavily courted latino base either. So what was her answer to the complaint that she erases gays and lesbians when she addresses non-gay audiences? Change the subject, twist the question, and attack Obama. Across a whole range of issues - and most disgustingly her Iraq war vote - that's what her campaign has been reduced to lately. No, thanks.

Michael Bedwell | February 11, 2008 9:54 PM

“So what was her answer to the complaint that she erases gays and lesbians when she addresses non-gay audiences?”

I’m sorry, Steve. Are you talking about some other interview? Perhaps I read too quickly, but I find nothing close to such a question in the one being discussed. Of course, one wouldn’t want to suggest that you are “twisting” the question.

As for her response including McClurkingate, let’s compare it to a fantasy exchange.

“Sen. Demonized responded to critics who say Sen. Foghorn is more likely to address spousal abuse.

“’I find it ironic since Sen. Foghorn campaigned with Simon Legree who has made a career out of supporting wife beating’.”

Or, put more directly, what exactly did she “distort”?

Did Sen. Obama ask Donnie McClurkin to campaign for him? YES.

Did Sen. Obama admit that he was subsequently told about McClurkin’s history of attacking gays verbally? YES.

Was Sen. Obama begged by myriad black and white LGBT writers, activists, and groups including the National Black Justice Coalition to cancel McClurkin’s invitation [as he had his personal pastor’s invitation to pray at his Presidential candidacy announcement over other issues] and did he refuse? YES.

Was Sen. Obama asked to at least tell McClurkin’s audience that night that he disagreed with McClurkin and did he refuse? YES.

Did Rev. McClurkin both endorse Sen. Obama that night and use the stage and microphone Obama paid for to repeat his claim that being gay is something one needs to be “delivered from” by God? YES.

Has Sen. Obama repeatedly effectively blamed the victims of religious homophobia for their "unwillingness" to "listen" to their attackers? YES.

Whatever she has allegedly not done, is there anything comparable in Sen. Clinton’s entire campaign in which rabid homophobia is paraded in her name on her dime before three let alone three thousand potential voters? NO.

I’ll give you a pass on your hyperbolic claim that he has “criticized homophobia” in “NUMEROUS Obama appearances before black audiences” and just ask you to document five. Please note: saying merely that it is an obstacle to fighting AIDS doesn’t count. Bad condoms are an obstacle to fighting AIDS but that doesn’t make condoms bad. Nor does simply listing us in a five-second drive-by litany of groups “feared” or “blamed” in a half-hour speech.

One Mississippi. Two Mississippi. Three Mississippi.....

Michael, we disagree. Your string of mocking posts demonstrates the pointlessness of have any discussion with you. Your obsessed with McClurkin to the exclusion of everything else. Enjoy having President McCain continue to deny you rights, as Hillary Clinton is utterly unelectable in a race against him.

My two cents worth:

If it's a McCain/Huckabee ticket against Senator Clinton/???, the GOP will be united enough to defeat her.

If the race is against Senator Obama, not only will the Democrats be fairly united, but many in the GOP and independent voters will support him, too.

Do you really want 4 or 8 more years of the same policies as the last 7?

I sure as heck don't.