Hillary Clinton, " I am unequivocally against gay marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman". Hillary in 2008. She changed her unequivocal view? Really. People buy that stuff? She is not a hooker for votes?

  • Triggerman

    Posts: 528

    May 19, 2016 12:41 AM GMT
    Cracks me up that people believe anything she says. She will say anything to anyone to get back in the White House. Gay Straight Black White. What is the definition of whore?
  • NHLFAN

    Posts: 370

    May 19, 2016 3:27 AM GMT
    News flash. All politicians pander to whatever group / voters will get them elected. That's what they do and always will.
  • Jeepguy2

    Posts: 162

    May 19, 2016 3:54 AM GMT
    I am unequivocally against gay marriage and I am gay. I have gotta admit the whole gay marriage thing just has never made sense to me IMO the only people who will benefit from it are divorce lawyers.

    They WILL make a killing! icon_lol.gif

  • bro4bro

    Posts: 1034

    May 19, 2016 4:06 AM GMT
    Jeepguy2 saidI am unequivocally against gay marriage and I am gay. I have gotta admit the whole gay marriage thing just has never made sense to me IMO the only people who will benefit from it are divorce lawyers.


    Obviously you need to watch this movie.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2016 4:11 AM GMT
    Ciyn1IDW0AAYHJZ.jpg
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2016 4:18 AM GMT
    theantijock%20engage%20stalker%20reducti

    OP: Hillary Clinton, " I am unequivocally against gay marriage. Marriage is between a man and a woman". Hillary in 2008. She changed her unequivocal view? Really. People buy that stuff? She is not a hooker for votes?

    Really now? In 2008? She said unequivocally did she? In quotes and everything? Wow! Yer quite the genius. Please cite a credible source proving she said what you just said she said.

    Perhaps you are referring in error to this 2004 speech...

    http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4535174/hillary-clinton-gay-marriage-2004

    wherein what she said AGAINST AN AMENDMENT TO CONSTITUTIONALLY DEFINE MARRIAGE AS ONE MAN ONE WOMAN
    was....

    Mr. President, I have listened with great interest to the debate over the last several days. I believe there are many sincere positions being advocated on this floor on really all sides of this issue, because there are many sides. This is an incredibly important and quite solemn responsibility that we have before us.

    S.J. Res. 40, this joint resolution, proposes an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to marriage. So maybe even more than the usual debate, this calls for each of us to be engaged, to be accurate, and to be thoughtful about the positions we take with respect to this proposed amendment.

    Now, a number of my colleagues have come to the floor to speak about the solemn responsibility that we hold in our hands with respect to amending our Constitution. I am in agreement that the Constitution is a living and working, extraordinary human accomplishment that protects our citizens, grants us the rights that make us free, and we in this body took an oath; we swore to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States.

    So to consider altering this document, one of the greatest documents in the history of humanity, is a responsibility no Member can or should enter into lightly, for what we do here will not only affect our fellow citizens in the year 2004, but it will affect every generation of Americans to come.

    As Henry Clay once observed:

    The Constitution of the United States was made not merely for the generation that then existed, but for posterity--unlimited, undefined, endless, perpetual posterity.

    So we do owe an obligation to those we represent today and to future generations as we embark upon this very solemn undertaking. We should not amend the Constitution to decide any issue that can and will be resolved by less drastic means. We should not amend the Constitution to federalize an issue that has been the province of the States since our founding--in fact, as Senator Kennedy reminded us, even before our founding as a nation.

    I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage. So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman, going back into the midst of history as one of the foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principal role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they become adults.

    Now, if we were really concerned about marriage and the fact that so many marriages today end in divorce, and so many children are then put into the incredibly difficult position of having to live with the consequences of divorce, perhaps 20, 30 years ago we should have been debating an amendment to the Federal Constitution to make divorce really, really hard, to take it out of the States' hands and say that we will not liberalize divorce, we will not move toward no-fault divorce, and we will
    make it as difficult as possible because we fear the consequences of liberalizing divorce laws.

    If one looks at the consequences of the numbers of divorces, the breakup of the traditional family, you could make an argument for that. If we were concerned about marriage, why were we not concerned about marriage when marriage was under pressure over the last decades because of changing roles, because of changing decisions, because of the laws in the States that were making it easier for people--husbands, wives, mothers, and fathers--to get divorced?

    We searched, and I don't see anyone in the history of the Senate or the House who put forward an amendment to try to stop the increasing number of divorces in order to stem the problem and the difficulties that clearly have been visited upon adults certainly but principally children because of the ease of divorce in this society over the last decade. We didn't do that.

    We could stand on this floor for hours talking about the importance of marriage, the significance of the role of marriage in not only bringing children into the world but enabling them to be successful citizens in the world. How many of us have struggled for years to deal with the consequences of illegitimacy, of out-of-wedlock births, of divorce, of the kinds of anomie and disassociation that too many children experienced because of that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2016 4:21 AM GMT
    http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4535174/hillary-clinton-gay-marriage-2004 continued
    I think that if we were really concerned about marriage and that we believed it had a role in the Federal Constitution, we have been missing in action. We should have been in this Chamber trying to amend our Constitution to take away at the very first blush the idea of no-fault divorce, try to get in there and tell the States what they should and should not do with respect to marriage and divorce, maybe try to write an amendment to the Constitution about custody matters. Maybe we should have
    it be a presumption in our Federal marriage law that joint custody is the rule. Maybe we ought to just substitute ourselves for States, for judges, for individuals who are making these decisions every single day throughout our Nation.

    We did not do that, did we? Can any of us stand here and feel good about all of the social consequences, the economic consequences? We know divorce leads to a lowered standard of living for women and children. Then, of course, if we were to deal with some of the consequences of out-of-wedlock births, the lack of marriage, we could have addressed that in a constitutional amendment. Perhaps we should have amended the Constitution to mandate marriage.

    Is it really marriage we are protecting? I believe marriage should be protected. I believe marriage is essential, but I do not, for the life of me, understand how amending the Constitution of the United States with respect to same-gender marriages really gets at the root of the problem of marriage in America. It is like my late father used to say: It is like closing the barn door after the horse has left.

    We hear all of these speeches and see these charts about the impact on marriage. We are living in a society where people have engaged in divorce at a rapid, accelerated rate. We all know it is something that has led to the consequences with respect to the economy, to society, to psychology, and emotion that so often mark a young child's path to adulthood.

    So what are we doing here? Some say that even though marriage has been under pressure--which, indeed, it has--and has suffered because of changing attitudes toward marriage now for quite some years, even though most States are moving as rapidly as possible to prohibit same-gender marriages, we have to step in with a Federal constitutional amendment.

    The States, which have always defined and enforced the laws of marriage, are taking action. Thirty-eight States--maybe it is up to 40 now--already have laws banning same-sex marriage. Voters in at least eight States are considering amendments to their constitutions reserving marriage to unions between a man and a woman. But the sponsors argue that we have to act with a Federal constitutional amendment because the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution will eventually force States, if
    there are any left, that do not wish to recognize same-sex marriages to do so.

    That is not the way I read the case law. With all due respect, the way I read the case law is that the full faith and credit clause has never been interpreted to mean that every State must recognize every marriage performed in every other State. We had States that allowed young people to marry when they were 14, and then States that allowed young people to marry when they were 16 or 18. The full faith and credit clause did not require that any other State recognize

    the validity of a marriage of a person below the age of marital consent according to their own laws.

    Every State reserves the right to refuse to recognize a marriage performed in another State if that marriage would violate the State's public policy. Indeed, the Supreme Court has long held that no State can be forced to recognize any marriage. That is what the case law has held. But just to make sure there were no loopholes in that case law, the Congress passed and the President signed the Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA.

    The Defense of Marriage Act has not even been challenged at the Federal level, and because the Supreme Court has historically held that States do not have to recognize laws of other States that offend their public policy, it is assumed that any challenge would be futile.

    So what is it we are really focused on and concerned about here?

    If we look at what has happened in the last several months--and there are others in this body who are more able to discuss this than I because it affects the laws of their States--as Senator Kennedy said, in Massachusetts, a court decision will be challenged by a referendum. In California, San Francisco's action permitting the licensing of same-sex marriages was stopped by the California State courts. The DOMA law that was enacted already protects States from having to recognize same-sex
    marriage licenses issued in other States.

    So I worry that, despite what I do believe is the sincere concern on the part of many of the advocates of this amendment, they have rushed to judgment without adequate consideration of the laws, the case laws, the actions of the States, and that their very earnest, impassioned arguments about marriage have certainly overlooked the problems that marriage has encountered in its present traditional state within the last several decades in our country.


    So clearly she spoke in defense of the dignity of LGBT, drawing arguments against the REPUBLICAN effort to write into The Constitution our 2nd class citizenry.

    Unless you've information to the contrary, please stop being so fucking full of shit.

    Thank you.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2016 4:29 AM GMT
    To the hidden anti-jock who has a lot to say, but wants no one to see him.......

    CiNDIexUkAEiZHN.jpg

    LOL
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2016 4:30 AM GMT
    To2Bnaked gofuckyourself
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 19, 2016 8:09 AM GMT
    She could have been pro-gay and yet have said it to please her voters and political factions or may be she is anti-gay and now acts like the gay cheerleader to please her voters and political factions.

    It is about votes in the end and Hilary can change colours faster than a chameleon.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 20, 2016 5:57 AM GMT
    Yep, they have both lied. Trump is running around saying he's not for gay marriage now and that sure seems like a de-evolution to impress fundies.

    But I'm not sure I know what the point of this is. I'm not voting for a Republican, not now, not ever.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 20, 2016 7:24 AM GMT
    bro4bro said
    Jeepguy2 saidI am unequivocally against gay marriage and I am gay. I have gotta admit the whole gay marriage thing just has never made sense to me IMO the only people who will benefit from it are divorce lawyers.


    Obviously you need to watch this movie.


    I did. Thanks
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 20, 2016 2:41 PM GMT
    Don't forget Obama's "evolution" in 2012...

    Vice President Joe Biden really did get ahead of President Barack Obama on accepting gay marriage in 2012 — and the White House really wasn’t happy about it, despite the two leaders’ many attempts to claim otherwise.

    That script wasn’t far off from what Obama eventually said as he went public with his “evolution,” and though he did the interview solo, he did do it with as Mehlman advised, with a female interviewer (ABC’s Robin Roberts).

    http://www.politico.com/story/2014/04/joe-biden-gay-marriage-white-house-response-105744
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    May 20, 2016 2:52 PM GMT
    please, this rotten whore Hillary has never had an original thought in her corrupt little mind . . . ever
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 20, 2016 2:57 PM GMT
    The lie here is saying that Hillary said "I am unequivocally against gay marriage." That quote is not hers; it is the lying OP's words alone.

    And when she said marriage is between man and woman, that was pulled out of context from within her argument against a GOP attempt to permanently deny us marriage rights through Republican efforts to introduce and establish a constitutional amendment permanently relegating LGBT to 2nd class status.

    Were it not for Hillary and the Democrats, your rights would be so fucked right now.

    So fuck you, you fucking ingrates.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 20, 2016 5:01 PM GMT
    theantijock saidThe lie here is saying that Hillary said "I am unequivocally against gay marriage." That quote is not hers; it is the lying OP's words alone.


    As I pointed out in another thread, the best the Hillary haters can come up with are fake stories, fake pictures, half-truths and oft-parroted misogynistic slurs. Now we can add "fake quotes" to the list.
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    May 20, 2016 5:49 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said
    theantijock saidThe lie here is saying that Hillary said "I am unequivocally against gay marriage." That quote is not hers; it is the lying OP's words alone.


    As I pointed out in another thread, the best the Hillary haters can come up with are fake stories, fake pictures, half-truths and oft-parroted misogynistic slurs. Now we can add "fake quotes" to the list.






    "Haters Gonna Hate"
  • Triggerman

    Posts: 528

    May 21, 2016 6:06 PM GMT
    This is called Stockholm Syndrome. When you want so hard to please your captures that you believe anything they say now.

    Clinton gave nukes to the Northern Koreans. They said it would be for peaceful stuff.

    Clinton signed DOMA: The law that made gay marriage illegal federally.

    Clinton signed Don't Ask Don't Tell: The first and only law outlawing gays in the military.

    Argue all you want. Facts are facts.

    And she was against gay marriage. CNN, MSNBC google it
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2016 6:42 PM GMT
    rnch said
    Ex_Mil8 said
    theantijock saidThe lie here is saying that Hillary said "I am unequivocally against gay marriage." That quote is not hers; it is the lying OP's words alone.


    As I pointed out in another thread, the best the Hillary haters can come up with are fake stories, fake pictures, half-truths and oft-parroted misogynistic slurs. Now we can add "fake quotes" to the list.

    "Haters Gonna Hate"

    Here is what she said at about 0:12 into the clip. So no - she did not use those exact words:
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2016 7:16 PM GMT
    desertmuscl said
    rnch said
    Ex_Mil8 said
    theantijock saidThe lie here is saying that Hillary said "I am unequivocally against gay marriage." That quote is not hers; it is the lying OP's words alone.


    As I pointed out in another thread, the best the Hillary haters can come up with are fake stories, fake pictures, half-truths and oft-parroted misogynistic slurs. Now we can add "fake quotes" to the list.

    "Haters Gonna Hate"

    Here is what she said at about 0:12 into the clip. So no - she did not use those exact words:


    You're out of historical context. What a surprise.

    That clip was from 2002 when Hillary and most of the country would not say they supported gay marriage.

    But even before that, in 2000 Hillary was already championing same sex civil partnerships. She didn't come around to calling for full marriage rights until 2013.

    To that horseshit above you about doma and don't ask don't tell, there was at those times overwhelming GOP pressure on the Democratic presidency and there's only a ton of evidence to that. Go ahead and google it.

    As to whether Hillary flipped or flopped or "evolved" with the sentiments of the country--and, I'd add, to which side she was on all along, unlike the GOPers....

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/
    December 1999: Clinton told a group of gay contributors at a fundraiser that she was against the "don't ask, don't tell" military policy signed by her husband.

    The New York Times reported that Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said she supported the Defense of Marriage Act but added that "same-sex unions should be recognized and that same-sex unions should be entitled to all the rights and privileges that every other American gets."

    April 2000: Clinton again expressed support for civil unions....

    July 2004: Clinton spoke on the Senate floor against a proposed federal amendment to ban same-sex marriage...

    October 2006: Clinton told a group of gay elected officials that she would support same-sex marriage in New York...

    May 2007: In a questionnaire for the Human Rights Campaign in 2007, Clinton backed away from the Defense of Marriage Act:

    "I support repealing the provision of DOMA...

    ...she stated she supported civil unions...

    March 2013: After leaving her position as secretary of state, she announced her support for same-sex marriage in a video with the Human Rights Campaign on March 18, 2013...

    June 2013: Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton issued a joint statement about the U.S. Supreme Court ruling overturning the Defense of Marriage Act... "the Court recognized that discrimination towards any group holds us all back in our efforts to form a more perfect union."...

    April 2015: On the day of the Supreme Court hearing oral arguments about same-sex marriage bans in a handful of states in April, Clinton changed her "H" logo to rainbow-colored and tweeted a message of support: "Every loving couple & family deserves to be recognized & treated equally under the law across our nation. #LoveMustWin #LoveCantWait."...


    So while she did move from supporting civil unions for same sex partnership to marriage for same sex partnership, you GOpers are completely full of shit to try and paint her as someone who was ever against gay rights.

    Being against our gay rights? That's your job.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 21, 2016 7:21 PM GMT
    Ex_Mil8 said
    theantijock saidThe lie here is saying that Hillary said "I am unequivocally against gay marriage." That quote is not hers; it is the lying OP's words alone.


    As I pointed out in another thread, the best the Hillary haters can come up with are fake stories, fake pictures, half-truths and oft-parroted misogynistic slurs. Now we can add "fake quotes" to the list.


    Yeah, and we'll be seeing a lot of that from Trump and the trumpettes. They've deteriorated from the devious approach of words don't matter of Reagan or that it doesn't matter that words and actions don't match to oh, fuck it, we'll just make up our own words and attribute it to them.

    It's not even their usual revisionism anymore. They've all but give up on that too. It's outright pathological lying.

    The GOP has transmuted completely into scum.
  • Triggerman

    Posts: 528

    May 21, 2016 9:42 PM GMT
    2008 she said she was against gay marriage. Not that stupid interview with Chris Mathews, another closet case, but Against!! not thinking it over, not mulling the situation!! She was adamantly against gays getting married. So was Obama.
  • Triggerman

    Posts: 528

    May 21, 2016 9:51 PM GMT
    Her husband signed the Defense of Marriage act. The DEFENSE? Against WHOM? Gay folk? Was Marriage attacked by terrorists? Who exactly was he defending against? Gay people. Bill and Bob. She stood by this and endorsed it.
  • Triggerman

    Posts: 528

    May 21, 2016 9:54 PM GMT
    will vote for Hillary just to see how far we can go down.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    May 22, 2016 1:33 AM GMT
    Triggerman said2008 she said she was against gay marriage. Not that stupid interview with Chris Mathews, another closet case, but Against!! not thinking it over, not mulling the situation!! She was adamantly against gays getting married. So was Obama.


    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/17/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-change-position-same-sex-marriage/
    August 2007: In a Democratic primary debate sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign and LOGO Network (a gay-oriented TV station) Clinton was asked "What is at the heart of your opposition to same-sex marriage?"

    Clinton replied: "Well, I prefer to think of it as being very positive about civil unions. You know, it’s a personal position. How we get to full equality is the debate we’re having, and I am absolutely in favor of civil unions with full equality of benefits, rights, and privileges."


    http://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2007/06/hillary-repudiates-doma-001627

    Hillary repudiates DOMA
    06/03/07
    05:46 PM EDT

    ...Human Rights Campaign has released the results of its candidate questionnaires...

    ..."I support repealing the provision of DOMA that may prohibit the federal government from providing benefits to people in states that recognize same sex marriage. I strongly support ensuring people in stable, long-term same sex relationships have full equality of benefits, rights, and responsibilities," she writes.

    Clinton spokeman Phil Singer adds, "Sen. Clinton (had previously) backed the Defense of Marriage Act because it enabled us to fend off right wing attacks like the Federal Marriage Amendment ...