Around the Corner: Clinton and Marriage Equality

By meg on Friday, July 17, 2009 - 11:00

Last week former President Bill Clinton said he now supports the right for gays and lesbians to marry. While Clinton is certainly the highest profile politician to come out in favour of gay marriage, he is not the first on a growing list of prominent American political figures to announce a change of heart when it comes to allowing all citizens to choose whomever they wish to marry.

gay marriage

Support for gay marriage from people like Clinton certainly assists in garnering further momentum behind the fight for LGBTQ equal rights, however, this news should fail to shock. Instead, this change of heart more accurately can be seen as political pandering to the gays and their allies. Clinton is in the perfect position to now support gay marriage, even though he is the reason the LGBTQ community is fighting against Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the Defence of Marriage Act, two policies of which are huge barriers against full equality in the U.S. After all, he is no longer an elected official, this makes him seem more progressive with having ‘evolved’ views on the subject and, at the same time, provides an easy political dig at President Obama who does not support marriage equality (civil unions perhaps, marriage not so much).

To raise the proverbial eyebrow further, is Mr. Clinton’s assertion that same-sex marriage equality is up to the states to decide. So, he says yes the gays should be able to marry but this issue should be determined by each individual state, any of which can say no as well as refuse to recognise a gay marriage from another state, thus still forcing members of the LGBTQ community to be second class citizens within the U.S. as a whole. How convenient to support marriage equality without really supporting it. This 50 state strategy, it turns out, seems to be the support method of choice for Democrats who want to say yes to gay marriage without ticking off their more moderate or conservative constituents.

Tags: around the corner, clinton, columns, doma, gay marriage, marriag equality, political, same sex marriage, us

Nice map

Submitted by Natazzz on July 17, 2009 - 12:20.

I think the map is very informative. I often hear about different states deciding different things, but I had no idea how it was divided.

Two things I noticed, 1. There's A LOT of states with a ban on same-sex marriage, which really puzzles me. 2. What's the difference between a civil union and domestic partnership?

- - - - - - - - - -

Who doesn't have a blog these days?

civil union is just like

Submitted by meg on July 17, 2009 - 17:25.

civil union is just like marriage (with all the same rights, etc.), it's just not called marriage because some people think that marriage is the religious whatever even though many many many marriages are performed by, or have nothing to do with, the church even for the heteros and not to mention that there are some church who do perform marriage ceremonies for all couples even if both people are named Bob.

Domestic Partnerships usually is simply a registration of your status, there is less fan fare (like downloading the form and sending it in kind of thing rather than going to a court house - at least here in WA). and sometimes the rights that are attached to domestic partnerships are less (as in they don't cover everything a 'marriage' would) however in California and now Washington, all rights of 'marriage' are granted to domestic partnerships, so again this is stupid linguistic rhetoric to help appease the ignoramus (ignorami? would that be plural? iMac says no) out there.

so, clear as mud. i hope that helps. no problem. anytime :o)

They support you but not really

Submitted by Barbara on July 17, 2009 - 13:06.

My favorite part: "How convenient to support marriage equality without really supporting it"... I think it's the strategy adopted by most people today. They support you but not really. They are not against you, they think, but then they are.

Btw I think the map is outdated. Also Connecticut, Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire and Iowa have marriage* now, although I'm not sure when the laws take effect. And I'm pretty sure that, while these states have achieved marriage equality, more have regulated civil unions. This is what wikipedia says: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Samesex_marriage_in_USA.svg

*I like to say marriage, not gay marriage, because I'm writing on a keyboard and sitting on a chair, I'm not gay-writing on a gay keyboard and gay-sitting on a gay chair... as Liz Feldman would say ;-)

i agree about your

Submitted by meg on July 17, 2009 - 18:33.

i agree about your terminology usage of 'marriage' rather than 'gay marriage' or the like. every time i write gay or same-sex marriage i cringe, but i can't keep writing equality over and over. still, i think i need to double my efforts to find more creative ways of saying what i need to say without loosing the meaning of what i am trying to say
p.s. thanks for the map. (if anyone is confused by the striped states, this means, by law, these states only allow Bob and Susan to 'marry' but Bob and Bob can have a civil union, in the case of New Jersey, or be registered Domestic Partners according to HI, CA, OR, WA, NV, CO, WI, MD & D.C.)

Iowa!

Submitted by Cath on July 17, 2009 - 13:35.

yes, I was looking for that one, too... but even with Iowa and Maine in the fold, there is still an awful lot of banning gray out there.

For Clinton, it is indeed easy now to support (and yet not) gender-neutral marriage laws: he's out of office, he can say whatever he thinks. I don't believe he was ever against it personally, but political diplomacy only allows for so much space in a country still much governed by supposedly Christian reserve against LGBT people.

I think (and hope) that even Obama in the quite privacy of his home is intelligent enough to shake his head at the absurd yes-but-no diplomacy he needs to perform when it comes to LGBT rights and the wish to be reelected.

To defend Clinton, I don't think marriage equality would have been possible in the early nineties - he did further awareness, at least, and was, I think, the first president to openly invite LGBT people into the White House. DADT and DOMA were both measurements of appeasement politics - laws that from being "the lesser evil" or a "small step forward" have turned into major barriers on the way to equal rights for all.

Just as meg, I don't see a definite solution on the state-level - those are just smaller battlefields that cost energy and money, even though they can give important momentum. But the actual end of discrimination has to happen on a federal level. The government cannot continue to push the bogeyman card onto the states to have the issue off their hands and ogle reelection stats.

Perhaps in a second term - and I hope he gets it - Obama will allow himself more leeway when it comes to LGBT discrimination and the ways to end it.

____________________________

Blogging against windmills:

1 Spaniard. 1 German. 2 pairs of glasses. 3 languages. ...and trying to get married.

Pennsylvania

Submitted by Bente (not verified) on July 17, 2009 - 14:14.

Pennsylvania WTF?
Denying black kids access to a swim club? My god! Remind me never to move to the US of A!

Home of the brave and land of the free my ass!

Come to Canada!

Submitted by Little G on July 17, 2009 - 21:29.

If only politics was clean cut and clear

Submitted by Little G on July 18, 2009 - 01:16.

... there wouldn't be much to discuss and debate about.

To this day the US is still a country where church and state aren't seperated - meaning: the church still has a lot of leverage when it comes to politics.
Then there are pressure groups - not just from the various churches - and lobbyists.

I think, despite one's own beliefs and promises, once you're the President there's a whole new political agenda added to the one you already had. Try to combine those AND keep everybody happy (in case you need your back scratched - if you know what I mean). Sooner or later there will be a political point on the agenda that needs support of the opposite party in order to start and make a change. Change often is all about being persistent and taking baby steps.

I also think President Obama started with a huge disadvantage: he had to clean up the mess former President Bush left behind. So, while I agree that no minority should be excluded from legal protection, there's a lot to be done to clean up aforementioned mess, and trying to unite the Americans.

Btw marriage is marriage - whether between a man and a woman, two men or two women. If it's a union between any two consenting adults "marriage" should be sufficient.

Everytime I hear the word Gay

Submitted by gwane on February 2, 2010 - 08:04.

Everytime I hear the word Gay Marriage it makes me think really hard on how their system would be but for me whatever makes them happy then go!.. It makes me just happy when I read a new or article that a same sex couple adopt a child and have a cohabitation agreement to be able for them to sustain the needs of the child. And they also treat the child as their real child.