Hillary Calls Federal Marriage Amendment 'Mean Spirited,' Promises Gay Adoption
By AmandaBCarpenter Posted in 2008 | Democrats | Hillary — Comments (55) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Her staff kept this campaign stop off her public schedule, but YouTube turned up her remarks to the pro-gay Human Rights Campaign
Of the Federal Marriage Amendment she said, "This amendment was wedge politics at its worst. It was mean-spirited, it was against the entire forward movement of American history. It was the first time anyone was proposing we amend the Constitution to deny citizens rights rather than widen the circle of rights and opportunities."
"In the end, we stopped the Federal Marriage Amendment and we sent a strong message that we will not stand idly by when anyone tries to write discrimination into our Constitution."
She assured the pro-gay group, "I want you to know this is exactly the kind of partnership we will have when I am President."
She promised, "We're going to reach out and work with our allies in Congress both to change laws and change hearts. We want to make sure that all Americans in committed relationships have equal benefits from health insurance and life insurance and Social Security and property rights and more."
"These are fundamental rights," she said.
Then, Hillary vowed to promoted the most radical component of the gay agenda.
"I have long supported civil unions," she said. "We're going to make sure that nothing stands in the way of loving couples, gay or straight, to adopt children."
Hillary also said as President she would end the military's policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
At the end of her speech, Hillary joked to members of the Human Rights Campaign, or HRC that "We can accomplish these goals because we have the same determination, the same can-do attitude and the same initials."
Ben Smith, of The Politico said that the Human Rights Campaign refused to respond to his calls and emails about the address.
Permalink Edit Delete
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | The Selma Showdown — Comments (13) »
Hillary Calls Federal Marriage Amendment 'Mean Spirited,' Promises Gay Adoption 55 Comments (0 topical, 55 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
She has alienated all the social conservatives today. She alienated anyone who understands anything about economics with her trade and debt stands. (That includes liberal economists as well) She never had to win over the gay vote they were always hers. What does she gain ? Some swing voters that are pro gay adoption ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
...alienating social conservatives doesn't lose her any votes to speak of. We already hate her guts with a purple passion. I can easily see her picking up swing votes and younger people because being pro-gay is cool.
The economic populism makes a lot less sense to me. People are a lot smarter than most politicians think when it comes to their own pocketbooks. I guess it's possible that she really believes it. (Shudder)
must keep-the black vote.
Now I am not aware of Obama's stances on all things gay, but African Americans are fairly socially conservative on gay issues-not enough that they vote for republicans, but these are positions that may hurt her primary wise, because she has to appeal to the black voter.
But in general alienating the social conservatives that trend GOP isn't going to hurt her any at all with that group-she wasn't going to get their votes anyway.
Does anyone have any evidence other than personal prejudice that being raised by two people of the same sex can possibly damage a child?
What does homosexuality have to do with ability to properly raise a child?
Sexual orientation is not something that can be coerced and in my opinion, I would rather be raised by a loving couple of the same sex than by a series of foster parents or an institution.
Finally, what is so threatening about a homosexual wedding? The government is not forcing religious institutions to sanction the wedding, the people are simply petitioning the government to recognize their cohabitation and wishes to raise a child and they are not infringing upon the rights of heterosexual couples nor are they threatening the "institution of marriage."
It's so ironic, when democrats push legislation to ban spanking (currently being debated in CA) they are criticized for bringing government into the home, but apparently it's hunky dory as long as those persecuted don't have sex the same way "we" do.
as does Neal Boortz and quite a few other "fiscal and security conservatives".
Many "social conservative values" are going to be upheld but homosexuality will become a non-issue, even with the most morally righteous.
I don't have references, but I'm pretty sure that there's some evidence that implies that, all else being equal, children who have both male and female role models growing up turn out somewhat better-adjusted.
That said, all else is never equal, and there is a massive range of difference in parenting ability and style among all parents, gay and straight alike, which also has a very large impact on outcomes for the child. So your example is, I think, the right one: a loving, financially secure, educated gay couple are probably going to be better parents for a child than a couple who, for example, fight all the time, or who provide no support for their child's education.
It's also the case that conscientious gay parents could and should ensure that their child has plenty of role models of the opposite gender to the parents.
If the Baby Cheney grows to be seemingly well-adjusted, we'll have a strong argument for what a same-sex couple can do.
But I suspect like most parents-to-be, Mary isn't thinking of this as a cause----just an opportunity to bring some love into the world.
My wife and I wish her the best.
Taking children away from their biological parents because of sexual orientation ?? So Mary Cheney applies how ?
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Diversity is most important on committees. A marriage is a committee of two. As my loving spouse says, "If we agreed on everything, one of us would be unnecessary."
At which point, I usually agree with her. :-)
The main thing is that social conservatives do not want their government to sanction activity we find abhorrent. Your contention that it cannot be coerced is both unproven and a straw man, as parents don't have to coerce to influence.
And if that hurts anyone's feelings, I ask which is worse: doing something that offends, or saying something that does?
--
See the Academy.
Rather what has sexuality have to do with children, who as the story goes, grow up to be adults. A lot I'd say.
Unless we consign sexuality to the importance of how you hold your knife and fork the examples, role models, observations, and habits inculcated in childhood and adolescence are crucial to what the adult will be.
To be so casual concerning the sexuality, or as they call it now days gender, of the parents is to consign one of the more important features of life to the trivial.
You might explain why you put scare quotes around the institution of marriage phrase used in your post, considering you see no threat to it I thought that possibly interesting.
As for persecution and spanking; in the case of spanking government is telling parents, in part, how to raise their child and passing laws thereby. In marriage and or civil unions they are being asked to revise existing laws and customs in place for hundreds of years. Realizing that this means nothing to you yet it ought to temper your overwrought use of the word persecution.
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
There are no records of successfuly societies that have adopted the positions you advocate. While the abscence of evidence is not proof, it is evidence that you need to move carefully. The question isn't "why shouldn't we?" it is "why SHOULD we?" We know that on average the children of a married man and woman come our reasonably well adjusted psychologically, with moderately good income prospects, and with a sense of morality that helps sustain society. We have a great deal of evidence that if you eliminate either parent, the same is not true. We have no unbiased evidence the same thing will not happen with gay adoption.
sex with his dog in the privacy of his own bedroom, that's ok with you?
What if that same guy wants to raise a pair of Chinese twins and have the dog share parenting duties?
Admittedly, I'm making a pretty wild analogy by comparing homosexuality to bestiality (although both were categorized as "crimes against nature" just a few years ago).
But you're making an equally wild analogy by comparing spanking to gay adoption.
I think that it is not too much to ask that children who are adopted be given the opportunity to be raised by a traditional-type family, i.e. one with a mom and a dad.
I also think that Hillary is laughably wrong when she asserts that no one has ever suggested amending the Constitution to limit people's rights. Apparently, she has never heard of the Prohibition or of the federal income tax. Remarks as ignorant as these should not be ignored by the mainstream press. The same press that found every private remark by Dan Quayle to be newsworthy should also find a blunder or two by Lady MacBeth.
... the issue with the dog is consent!
cannot consent.
That was about as funny as a certain female pundit at CPAC. No, it was not that funny, even.
--
See the Academy
I'd appreciate it if you recast this story as a blog entry so that it could be recommended and locked to the top of the screen.
It's a very powerful example of exactly how organized the Left is in America. It should be something that everyone watches and listens to when they try to call the Democrats "disunited" or "disorganized." The stories about the strategy meetings to influence legislation on Capitol Hill (as the party not in power! and they won!) should be required watching.
If I remember correctly from the last election, in every state-wide ballot initiative that affirmed marriage as the union between a man and a woman, the measure passed. Just because the US Congress didn't pass such an amendment doesn't mean the people don't want it.
Thankfully, it's very, very difficult to amend the US Constitution and this is probably one of those things that is best left up to the individual States anyway.
Hillary won't be able to do a darned thing about it and I think she knows it. She's just pandering for votes.
The gay marriage initiative in Arizona failed last year.
Very interesting insights into Hiliary's political thinking by the person who introduces her. To me it's pretty obvious she's internalized Saul Alinsky's ideas.
You can't fool mother nature. You certainly cannot legislate around her.
"Damnant quod non intellegunt."
It was the first time anyone was proposing we amend the Constitution to deny citizens rights rather than widen the circle of rights and opportunities.
One word, four syllables: Proooooooo-hi-bi-shun.
guardians read history? Ignorance is as ignorance does and the less you know the more certain you can be.
If you throw in some Supreme Court decisions, carefully selected, you could come up with other denial of rights. And as another ignoramus, Nancy Pelosi said,"the Supreme Court is like the voice of God". With God who need a constitution?
"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville
Good point, Jeff.
Just as drinking was offensive to enough people at the time to allow a constitutional amendment prohibiting it, the idea of two men or two women commiting to a marriage offends enough people today that we might just end up with another Temporary Amendment.
Fundamental rights for health insurance? Life insurance, too?
-----------
FP Watergil
I can't afford to play it on my own, so the government needs to help me. Why should only one person win the lottery? It isn't right. It isn't fair.
It's just one small step in my battle to have random chance eliminated.
--
See the Academy
the most radical component of the gay agenda
First of all, if there's an "agenda" I wish to hell somemone would send me a copy. I mean why I do have to learn about our secret plans all piecemeal like this from the Internet?
Secondly, and all kidding aside, there are realworld issues for real children here. To frame as "radical" the willingness and hopes of gay couples to provide a home for children who would otherwise grow up in orphanages or abusive environments is to be somewhat anti-children, to my mind. Make the screening criteria stringent enough to ensure the children are entering a safe and nurturing home, but don't deny a child a home because of politics. That's inhuman.
Y'all've been on the forefront of that war since the early 1970s. (Google is your friend.) No fair being upset that we played on your playground.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
I was too young to be on the forefront of any war in the 1970s.
But what exactly do you mean here by playing on a playground?
This is an old, old front in the battlefield. The landscape for potential adopting parents changed significantly in the early and mid 1970s as a result of your side's determined efforts. It's not as if what happened was a mere ripple; the side effects lasted for decades.
Those determined efforts on your side's part were a deliberate attempt to, how do you say, inject politics into adoption. Just because my side started playing on the same playground -- politics in adoption, that is -- doesn't mean your end of things gets to pretend that there isn't mucky water under the bridge already.
However, as you have no clue of that of which I speak, I'd suggest your interest in adoption is more recent, and a proxy for other concerns.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
Is personal and recent, Thomas, so no, I don't see it as political. I'll admit to not having researched the history of the issue. My objection to the "radical" label is based on current thinking and realities.
Perhaps you have reason to mistrust past efforts (you could point to them to save everyone reading the need to keep guessing here), but in case you haven't noticed, the world has changed quite a bit since the 1970s. Gay couples have been adopting children for years in some places. And doing a damned good job of raising children, I don't mind adding.
Still, and most importantly, if it was wrong, as you assert, for gays to use the issue of adoption to achieve political goals, your argument that that now makes it ok for gay-adoption opponents to perpetuate that wrong leaves a little to be desired both logically and morally.
Perhaps you have reason to mistrust past efforts (you could point to them to save everyone reading the need to keep guessing here), but in case you haven't noticed, the world has changed quite a bit since the 1970s.
Lovely aside. But the essential point was that your end of the spectrum opened a full-on war on adoption services in the relevant time period; it was all about politics in the first place; the damage continues to this day; and now, you'll have to pardon me if I'm not inclined to unilateral disarmament.
That you note that the world has changed since then makes not a whit of difference; the battle is and has been joined since then, and while both sides have lost ground in their respective proposals, the battle continues. Governmental services are prone to being affected by politics; the disposition of children in the government's care is by definition guided by politics. Solly, Cholly.
Gay couples have been adopting children for years in some places. And doing a damned good job of raising children, I don't mind adding.
I'm sure you don't. Do you mind adding that they're also doing a damned bad job? A damned indifferent job?
Still, and most importantly, if it was wrong, as you assert, for gays to use the issue of adoption to achieve political goals, your argument that that now makes it ok for gay-adoption opponents to perpetuate that wrong leaves a little to be desired both logically and morally.
Well, Edward, here's a free piece of advice: Before correcting someone else's logic, be sure that you understand what he's saying. Makes you kinda look stupid to start off a sentence with a complete misreading.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
But as you offered help, I'm more inclined to see what could be done to erase the proxy war aspect of the issue you see.
How did earlier efforts to open up adoption to gay couples impact the system as a whole? What could be done now to remedy that impact?
Do you mind adding that they're also doing a damned bad job? A damned indifferent job?
Not at all. I don't mind adding that they're as human as heterosexual parents are and also represent a spectrum of good-to-awful parenting. With adoption, as opposed to biological parenting, it's the state's responsibility to apply stringent criteria to weed out potentilly awful parents.
I'm not trying to paint gays as "super parents." Just as willing and, in many cases, good parents.
There are very few conservatives that would oppose a Homosexual adopting a child when other parents were unavailable. None would argue its life would be improved by abortion.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I've been convinced it wasn't SCOTUS's finest hour.
But other parents being unavailable (mostly because of preference) is still a reality for plenty of children that gay parents would do an awesome job of raising.
I have plenty of straight couple friends who have adopted. Most of them looked long and hard for children as perfect as they could find them. Children with disabilities or other challenges were clearly not what they were looking for.
I'm in no position to judge them on that, but will note that gay parents are particularly well suited to raise children who are not "perfect" (unless you haven't noticed, we're generally hyper-empathic and fiercely defensive about the rights of minorities). I'm not suggesting gays only be able to adopt children with disabilities or what have you, but even with Roe v. Wade overturned, you'd see plenty of kids who are less than perfect keep waiting for straight parents. Opening up adoption to gay couples will help in that situation.
One of the unintended downsides of any sort of discrimination is that you shrink your potential "talent pool" (for lack of a better term here).
I'm a business owner and I hate the idea of discrimination (be it racial, religious, age, gender, sexual orientation, or otherwise) simply because doing that limits my ability to find talented, hard-working, valuable employees. If I say that I'll only hire Christians, and the best candidate for a particular position is an atheist, I not only limit myself from hiring the best candidate....I compound my problem by ensuring that one of my competitors will.
It's fine that the law says what it says on these matters and that discrimination has become something of a taboo -- but that's not why I dislike it. I think it's bad for business.
I think the same rationale stands here. I'm not as sure as you are that the white-bread, straight couples out there don't want to adopt "imperfect" children. But, still, I agree that introducing gay couples (most of whom would have to adopt to have children) increases the pool of families demanding adoptable children.
The obstacles for adopting special needs children is the courts, and not a preference of straight married couples. One couple I know wanted to adopt a baby who was taken away from a crack-addicted mother by the state. They loved the kid and wanted her to have a better life. They were solidly upper middle class, maybe even lowerer wealthy. Mother was a part-time teacher who frequently worked with special needs kids in the past. The baby would have been their third kid, with the first two already nearing college age. But the state didn't want to let her adopt because, well, how can I put this in our politically correct day in age...., the heck with it: it wouldn't be right for a white couple to be raising a black kid don't you know?
So don't be giving me trying to feed me any liberal stalking points on this issue.
You seem to have more conservative talking points on the issue to sort out than you can handle at the moment. ;-P
Joliphant,
But before we give this slippery slope more grease,
We should have an exhaustive search for a stable, non-drug-using, nonviolent heterosexual couple with sufficient financial resources and educational backgrounds--------and we must further assure that said couple mirrors "the healthy model" of their respective sexes, i.e. Dad doesn't do dress-up and can change his own oil....and Mom can bake cookies from scratch.
Otherwise, are we really protecting the child?
There is absolutely no hidden meaning in the above for any would be deconstructiontors.
Its pretty hard to find girls that know how to bake and want to these days. My own mother never baked and she was born in 1915.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
I took the joke to suggest it's problematic to suggest gays should only be able to adopt to prevent abortions because you open up a whole range of suitability criteria that few straight couples would live up to.
I can actually live with enhanced suitability for everyone. This is either about the kids or its an egotrip.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Disclaimer: I Have Never Adopted Children
I found it challenging enough to raise my own with the not inconsiderable help of my wife, who BTW bakes delicious chocolate-chip cookies.
BUT HERE ARE MY NON-EXPERT STANDARDS FOR OTHERS WHO WISH TO ADOPT(like our gov't, I like to meddle)
1. No Physical Abuse (emotional abuse is another matter, it becomes mutual when your little angels reach teenage)
2. Providing Food & Shelter: I'm even okay with your use of some public assistance, especially for a child who would otherwise need 100% government support, BUT Get Real, If you can't feed and house yourself, DON'T EVEN HAVE A PET much less a child.
3. READ to Your Child: Here's tough love but if you can't involve yourself with your child's education, Don't Pretend to Parent.
Amounts of times with their adopted children. Kids aren't a fashion accessory.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Let's face it, there's going to be some rotten gay adoptive parents just as there has been some heinous "but otherwise suitable because of their heterosexuality" straight adoptive parents.
But surely we can devise standards and REVIEW(frequent home inspections and psychological evaluations for ALL Adoptive Parents&Children----OverSight!!!) so that we can past uninformed opinions and get to what we can all agree upon:
Letting Children Have a Home.
I hope to see this on FoxNews tonight? Maybe hear Limbaugh talk about it?
"I don't have references, but I'm pretty sure that there's some evidence that implies that, all else being equal, children who have both male and female role models growing up turn out somewhat better-adjusted."
I personally believe that two parents one man one woman give a much more rounded view of the world to children and in that the child does indeed benefit. I know with my sons having my husband and myself talk about sex and other issues that relate to both sexes that they were able to become better men and relating to women in the way their dad related to me. It is not "homophobia" that negates the stand on gays being parents it is the fact that children need both sexes for information on how to relate to both sexes, period.
Peace through superior fire power:)
The issue is not really what's best in an ideal world, but what's best in the real world. In an ideal world, there would be no orphans or abandoned children available for adoption. But as there are, and as there are not enough straight couples willing to adopt them, and as there are gay couple who are willing to adopt them, it strikes me as inhuman to deny those children a home because it's not an ideal home. It's certainly better than an orphanage.
Your argument is fine in a vaccuum, perhaps. A loving biological mother and biological father might indeed be the ideal couple to raise anyone, but as that's not always possible, what is to be done about it? Punish the children who aren't lucky enough to have that?
Assuming your talking about the emotional/psychological aspects of sex "and other issues"? If so, I would assume your talks with your husband where mostly about kindness, thoughtfulness, selflessness, respect, etc. Turns out those are they same thing successful gay couples practice.
If your talking about the physical acts of sex, my guess is most gays know more than you ;-)
I think it would be a lot more intellectually honest if opponents would just admit they are motivated by fear and disgust and something they just don't like - and they plan to cast around for justifications as long as they have air to breath...
The anti-gay prejudice will go away - just as the anti-black thing did (at least legislatively) I say there are many more important things to worry about!
I think it would be a lot more intellectually honest if opponents would just admit they are motivated by fear and disgust and something they just don't like - and they plan to cast around for justifications as long as they have air to breath...
Have anything to back that up, or is that just your own bigotry and determination to take a shot at another commenter?
The answer to this question is mandatory.
-----------
We are all heroes, you and Boo and I. Hamsters and rangers everywhere, rejoice!
This one seems to me to be fairly far down the list.
As more and more states pass anti-gay marriage laws, I suspect that the issue of homosexuality will have diminishing returns for those who wish to make political hay from them.
I doubt that the spectre of gay adoption will be hovering over voters in 2008.
Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire
Please refrain from using religion as a reason for not permitting homosexual behavior. You are within your rights not to like it, but dont use God as a vehicle to defend your opinion.
The first ammendment protects our religious freedom, but we may be the ones who break it on the religious persecution end. This is where organizations like the ACLU are trying to get Christians. If we ignore them, they get nothing.
I am a strong advocate of homosexual rights because I am a Christian actually. They make up 50% of our country's suicide rate. Please do not slam Mary Cheney. Could you imagine how she must feel that she is on her own with this? She is proof that it is not a "life choice."
We should compromise with courthouse marriages and churches that will perform them. It will not ruin marriage for me or my loving husband that is bound by God. What I am afraid of is my marriage being in jeopardy of recognization in government if we keep going down this road.
We've all been having a great laugh trying to make heads or tails out of anything you say, but it's time to move on. We have standards to think of, after all.
Blam.
------------
[F]or by the fundamental law of Nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred...
-John Locke
Homosexuals make of 50% of our country's suicide rate? Got a cite for that? Because it sounds like baloney.
And even if they did make up half the country's suicides, how is that an argument for tolerating that lifestyle? There may be other arguments, but that its adherents tend to kill themselves is not one.
--
See the Academy
...no one who disagrees with adoptions by gay couples is going to be voting for her in the first place. And on the other side, they might pick up some swing voters who are attracted by the message of "inclusiveness." And of course the gay advocacy organizations have power to drive favorable media coverage out of all proportion to their numbers. So it's all upside.