Gay Patriot Header Image

Bill Clinton’s Recent Statement on Gay Marriage:
More Mush for Gay Activists Eager to Praise a Democrat

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 12:41 pm - September 26, 2009.
Filed under: Gay Marriage

When I saw that Glenn Reynolds had posted, “BILL CLINTON WAFFLES ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE“, I assumed that if I followed the link I might find fodder for an original post, but basically just found that Ann Althouse had said pretty much all there was to say about the Democrat’s comments on CNN reiterating his sudden support for gay marriage.

Clinton is a master blabber, but what did he say? He’s not even for a right to marry, only for leaving it up to the states: “if gay couples want to call their union marriage and a state agrees….” He’s only implicitly admitting that the Defense of Marriage Act — which he signed — was wrong. He doesn’t even apologize for what he did back when he had actual power to do something. He’s presenting it all as a personal journey of his. He’s older and wiser. Bleh!

Clinton signed DOMA when he thought it was in his political interest, and I suspect he thinks it’s in his political interest now to embrace same-sex marriage.

This is nothing more than a has-been politician trying to get some attention.  As I wrote back in July when first addressing Clinton’s about-face on gay marriage, “there’s no political cost” to changing his mind.  Since he can’t run for office any more, he can’t lose any votes.

Back in 1996, he signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), calculating there would have been a political cost to vetoing it, socially conservative Democrats might balk at supporting him a second time.  Assuming (correctly as it turned out) that gay voters wouldn’t desert him if he backed the meaure, he signed it.

If today, safely out of office, he had said he did the right thing in signing DOMA, he wouldn’t have made any news.  But, when he says he’s changed his mind, well, that’ll get him a few headlines–and earn him the accolades of gay activists and bloggers ever eager and always willing to praise a Democrat.

Share

12 Comments

  1. I don’t know. This is one of the few times I think he’s being sincere. But I’ll have to watch the video to see if his lip quivers, he bites his lip, or he points at us and says he DID NOT have sex with that opinion poll, just to make sure.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — September 26, 2009 @ 4:34 pm - September 26, 2009

  2. Where the hell is everybody?????

    Comment by Sonicfrog — September 26, 2009 @ 9:20 pm - September 26, 2009

  3. So you’re problem is that this shows an insufficient commitment to gay marriage? Seriously? That’s why you’re not a Democrat? That’s why you’re a Republican? The other party’s insufficient commitment to gay marriage?

    Comment by Little Boots — September 27, 2009 @ 12:31 am - September 27, 2009

  4. #3: Has anyone ever seen better proof of the fact that close-minded, ignorant liberals are more interested in ridiculing conservatives based on what they have been spoon fed about our beliefs rather than having the intellectual curiosity to actually understand what we believe?

    Comment by Sean A — September 27, 2009 @ 1:05 am - September 27, 2009

  5. Little Boots, I think Mr. Blatt has been clear in post after post why he’s a Republican; his support for economic prosperity, national defense, personal liberty, and the pursuit of freedom and democracy internationally are only a few examples.

    However, when Mr. Blatt advocates the party that most embraces these cornerstones of American exceptionalism (i.e., the Republicans), too many of critics demand he support the Democrats instead because they’re the only party that supports gay marriage.

    Thus, in order to show fellow gays that their blind faith to the Democrats is based on an illusion (and support of the Republicans is therefore a viable and even desirable option), our Mr. Blatt points out that the Democrat party does not, in fact, really support gay marriage.

    At which point we get someone like you, who pretends this means that the Democrats’ “an insufficient commitment to gay marriage” is the only reason Mr. Blatt chooses not to support them. Ignoring about eight zillion posts is much easier than discussing them on their merits, isn’t it?

    Please read (and try to absorb) more than one or two of the posts here, Little Boots, before you let loose your feigned, incredulous accusations.

    Comment by Laura — September 27, 2009 @ 1:25 am - September 27, 2009

  6. So, Sean and Laura, what exactly are your beliefs about gay marriage? And if pro, how many of your fellow Republicans do you think share those beliefs?

    As to economic prosperity and personal liberty, Laura, were you and Mr. Blatt in a coma during the past nine years, because if so, I have to tell you that Bush and the Republicans pretty much sucked at providing any of that. Please make a note of it. And please don’t tell me you really believe that your party’s fondness for war is based on some abstract belief in freedom and democracy, either at home or abroad.

    Comment by Little Boots — September 27, 2009 @ 2:26 am - September 27, 2009

  7. #6: “So, Sean and Laura, what exactly are your beliefs about gay marriage? And if pro, how many of your fellow Republicans do you think share those beliefs?”

    You’re still missing the point entirely, Little Boots. I know this is going to be difficult for a narrow-minded liberal like you to wrap your brain around, but I actually didn’t decide on my political affiliation based on an assessment of who is or is not in favor of gay marriage. So, it’s irrelevant how many of my “fellow Republicans” do or don’t support it.

    In contrast, it would appear that support for gay marriage is very important to you and that it is a relevant factor with regard to the political party you align yourself with. Therefore, I have a question for you: how many CURRENT US Presidents (that you presumably voted for) support gay marriage?

    Comment by Sean A — September 27, 2009 @ 3:04 am - September 27, 2009

  8. As to economic prosperity and personal liberty, Laura, were you and Mr. Blatt in a coma during the past nine years, because if so, I have to tell you that Bush and the Republicans pretty much sucked at providing any of that

    You really are an idiot arent you?

    Bush brought us out of the Clinton dot.com recession in very short order, almost unbelievably kept us from going into a second recession after 9/11 and fostered 52 months (over 4 years) of concurrent job growth (longest in history) 6 years of economic growth, and GDP growth of more than 17%– a gain of nearly 2.1 trillion dollars in GDP — gains which Democrats have spent many times over.

    Bush also warned and publicly predicted that a financial crisis exactly like the one we had could happen if we did not reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

    He tried to pass such reforms over 25 times, but Democrats filibustered them EVERY time, eager to protect their corrupt cash cow.

    Meanwhile, the economy was growing robustly when Republicans lost control of congress and Democrats took over, and it continued to grow for 12 months, until the weight of bad liberal policies became too much for it.

    Republicans also handed over budget deficits that were on track to be ELIMINATED by 2010 according to the CBO. Democrats quadrupled the deficit with their very first budget, and then quadrupled that again when Obama became president. They have now spent more than every president and congress in American history COMBINED and have NOTHING to show for it except very rich campaign contributors.

    Your willful ignorance is mind boggling.

    Comment by American Elephant — September 27, 2009 @ 4:34 am - September 27, 2009

  9. Caligula in #6, please check my past posts and note how regularly I criticized W’s big government ways. Still, we did manage a good deal of prosperity under W’s watch, with the recession not beginning until about one year after a Democratic Congress came to power.

    Your final sentence is just childish. Our party has no fondness for war. By asking us not to tell you something, you’re basically trying to tell us what beliefs we can and cannot hold. It shows that you’re not interested in hearing our ideas, but ascribing the motives to us that fit your caricature of what a conservative should be.

    If you’re not interested in our ideas, fine, we’re not forcing you to read this blog. But if you don’t want us to tell you what we believe, then don’t read this blog.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — September 27, 2009 @ 4:45 am - September 27, 2009

  10. #2 — Answer: Waiting for the name-calling to start.

    Comment by Julie Kelleher — September 27, 2009 @ 8:42 am - September 27, 2009

  11. Never takes long, does it.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — September 27, 2009 @ 5:40 pm - September 27, 2009

  12. #10: “#2 — Answer: Waiting for the name-calling to start.”

    Well, there’s that and also the lefty sock puppets’ other method of avoiding issues and answering questions that, if answered with intellectual honesty, would blow their worldview out of the water: calling us psychotics and instructing us to “take our meds.” Of course, this insult is telling because it happens to be perfectly consistent with their belief that they have to right to tell everyone else what to do when it comes to healthcare.

    Comment by Sean A — September 27, 2009 @ 6:08 pm - September 27, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.