Question about Sanders

[boston bean]

Was Bernie Sanders an activist in the LGBT movement? Did he march with activists for the last 40 years?

Did he author legislation to overturn DOMA, Don't ask don't tell, demanding equal rights for LGBT?

I'm not saying he didn't make some good votes and was ahead of his time with his voting, but beyond that what was his role?

Around here the way he is discussed, you would think he was the Father of the LGBT movement.

[Vattel]

1. Oh no, here we go again.

[monmouth4]

2. So transparent....sigh..n/t

[Divernan]

5. Good indicator of rising level of desperation, though!

[monmouth4]

23. Yes it is....n/t

[MissDeeds]

37. Bingo

There would be outrage if someone asked about HRC's record going back 40 years. This is getting so tiresome.

[hifiguy]

136. It's all some people have.

Sad, isn't it?

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

3. I'm pretty sure he wasn't the Father of the LGBT movement.

I'm equally sure that the records we've seen posted onsite have shown that he's been far more consistently pro-LGBT than Hillary. I'm sorry if that gives you a sad.

[demmiblue]

8. +1

What is it with these hyperbolic accusation threads disguised as 'question' threads.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

9. I believe the online term is 'JAQing off'.

'Just Asking a Question'.

[demmiblue]

10. Hmm... never heard that term before.

I wonder how long it will be before it is misconstrued and twisted into meaning something else far more nefarious.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

14. Well, the more convoluted phrase I heard for it was

'meretricious mental masturbation'.

(I had to look up that one myself. Meretricious - adj., based on pretense, deception, or insincerity.)

[arcane1]

129. I believe it originated to describe Glenn Beck, Trump, etc.

They loved saying things like "Was Obama groomed from birth to lead a Muslim caliphate? We're Just Asking Questions"

But unfortunately the tactic pops up on DU from time to time.

[Ken Burch]

13. Can we get a smilie for that? n/t.

[quickesst]

72. hahahaha...

After months of low brow mudslinging just skimming under the Randi "Hillary's a fucking whore" Rhodes line, Sanders supporters are offended, by any standard, simple queries about Bernie. Thats what I call the definition of desperate, and very easily offended.

[tazkcmo]

104. Queries that can be answered

by a simple web search.

[quickesst]

121. Yeah, but

"What is it with these hyperbolic accusation threads disguised as 'question' threads."
I will assume that this is aimed at supporters of both Hillary and Bernie? Surely your statement would cover all of those "question to Hillary supporters" questions posted here that seem to start out innocently enough but soon devolve into a hit piece on Clinton. Besides, hyperbolic accusations are a lot more entertaining than simple web searches. Wouldn't you agree? I mean after all, it does give one an opportunity to express oneself with such clever phrases as yours. Heck, I'm trying to think of a good one to come back with right now, but.... I just can't seem to think of anything.

[KingCharlemagne]

4. Thank God for 'Trash this Thread.' - nt

[Ken Burch]

6. He voted against DOMA in the first place

He was always opposed to DADT(a policy that was a clear defeat for the LGBTQ community).

Supported same-sex marriage as soon as the LGBTQ community itself did.

I'm sure he's marched in many LGBTQ parades over the years.

Since you back his much more conservative opponent, you're going to dismiss anything Bernie's done.

[TM99]

7. Question about Clinton.

So outside of marching in a few Pride Parades and making some slick ads for this election cycle, was Clinton a true supporter of LGBT rights for the last 40 years?

I mean she supported DOMA and DADT during the 1990's and well into the 21st century. She only recently 'evolved' on marriage rights.

Did she author any legislation to overturn DOMA, DADT, and demanded equal rights for LGBT citizens during her time in the Senate?

[boston bean]

12. Here is your answer:

HILLARY CLINTON: EXPANDING LGBT RIGHTS AT STATE

Secretary Clinton transformed the State Dept. by expanding LGBT rights and promoting equality for employees. WhileSec. Clinton was telling the world that gay rights were human rights, her message of LGBT equality started at home at the State Department. She strived to ensure the State Department was an LGBT-friendly place to work, extending several benefits to Foreign Service employees which served as a model for other agencies. Building on Sec. Clinton’s efforts, President Obama expanded federal benefits to “same-sex partners of Foreign Service and executive branch government employees.”


“Now, leaders of all kinds will stand in front of audiences like this and tell you that our most important asset is our people…But what our success truly depends on is our ability to forge strong relationships and relate to people of all backgrounds. And what that means for me, as your Secretary, is that creating an LGBT-welcoming workplace is not just the right thing to do, it’s also the smart thing to do.” -Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, 11/28/12

Implemented Policies to Make the State Department an LGBT-Friendly Workforce

Sec. Clinton directed the State Department’s equal employment opportunity policy to “explicitly protect against discriminatory treatment of employees and job applicants based on gender identity.” In her book Hard Choices, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton wrote, “In 2010, I directed that the State Department’s equal employment opportunity policy explicitly protect against discriminatory treatment of employees and job applicants based on gender identity. We also made it easier for Americans to change the sex listed on their passport and made it possible for same-sex couples to obtain passports under the names recognized by their state through their marriage or civil union.” [Hard Choices, pg. 578, 2014]

Sec. Clinton updated State Department policy to offer equal benefits and protections to same-sex partners of American diplomats. According to the New York Times, “The State Department will offer equal benefits and protections to same-sex partners of American diplomats, according to an internal memorandum Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton sent last week to an association of gay and lesbian Foreign Service officers. Mrs. Clinton said the policy change addressed an inequity in the treatment of domestic partners and would help the State Department recruit diplomats, since many international employers already offered such benefits. ‘Like all families, our Foreign Service families come in different configurations; all are part of the common fabric of our post communities abroad,’ Mrs. Clinton said in the memorandum, a copy of which was provided to The New York Times by a member of the gay and lesbian association. ‘At bottom,’ she said, ‘the department will provide these benefits for both opposite-sex and same-sex partners because it is the right thing to do.’” [The New York Times, 5/23/09]

Sec. Clinton extended to the “partners of gay U.S. diplomats” many benefits, including visas and diplomatic passports. According to the Washington Post, “Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will soon announce that the partners of gay U.S. diplomats are eligible for many benefits currently denied them and allowed to spouses of heterosexual diplomats, according to lawmakers and others advocating the change. […] Thus those partners were denied a wide array of benefits, such as paid travel to and from overseas posts, shipments of household effects, visas and diplomatic passports, emergency travel to visit ill or injured partners, and evacuation in case of a security emergency or medical necessity. Those benefits will be extended to all unmarried domestic partners — both same-sex and heterosexual — under the policy shift to be announced by Clinton in the coming days, according to a draft memo prepared for Clinton’s signature.” [Washington Post, 5/25/09]

Sec. Clinton ended regulations denying same-sex couples and families “the same rights and privileges” of straight diplomats, including use of U.S. medical facilities abroad. According to the Associated Press, “In a notice to be sent soon to State Department employees, Clinton says regulations that denied same-sex couples and their families the same rights and privileges that straight diplomats enjoyed are ‘unfair and must end,’ as they harm U.S. diplomacy. ‘Providing training, medical care and other benefits to domestic partners promote the cohesiveness, safety and effectiveness of our posts abroad,’ she says in the message, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press. […] Among the benefits that will now be granted gay diplomats: the right of domestic partners to hold diplomatic passports, government-paid travel for their partners and families to and from foreign posts, and the use of U.S. medical facilities abroad.” [Associated Press, 5/24/09]

With Sec. Clinton’s “strong encouragement,” USAID became the first federal agency to publish a recruitment brochure targeting LGBT applicants. In a presentation at the 20th anniversary celebration for GLIFAA, USAID Deputy Administrator Donald Steinberg said, “With the strong encouragement of the President and Secretary Clinton, we were the first federal agency to publish a recruitment brochure targeting LGBT applicants. Along with the State Department, we’ve adopted new regulations to provide full benefits for same-sex domestic partners for our various classes of employees. We’ve proudly sworn-in openly gay mission directors to lead key missions abroad, and we’re providing awards to those within our ranks who are leading the LGBT space. Our internal list-serve, LGBT Champions, provides a forum for 200 officials to address these issues. And we meet regularly with GLIFFA to seek your guidance and counsel.” [Donald Steinberg Presentation at the 20th Anniversary Celebration for GLIFAA, usaid.gov, 11/28/12]

Worked with LGBT Organizations to Strengthen Policies

Sec. Clinton recommended Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA) for an award, applauding its “17 years of promoting equality in the federal workplace.” According to a USAID press release, “GLIFAA membership consists of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT), and straight employees of U.S. federal agencies including USAID and the Department of State. As part of this award process, GLIFAA received letters of recommendation from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Representative Tammy Baldwin, and the Human Rights Campaign. Secretary Clinton applauded GLIFAA for 17 years of promoting equality in the federal workplace and acknowledged its influence in changing Department of State policy regarding same-sex partners of Foreign Service Officers. ‘This change in policy will increase morale and help us to retain our talented employees,’ said Clinton.” [“Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies Named Employee Resource Group of the Year,” usaid.gov, 10/9/09]

GLIFAA was the first federal employee organization to be named “Employee Resource Group (ERG) of the year by Out and Equal Workplace Advocates.” According to a USAID press release, “Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies (GLIFAA) was named Employee Resource Group (ERG) of the year by Out and Equal Workplace Advocates. GILFAA is the first federal employee organization to receive an award from Out and Equal. Ajit Joshi, Program Director for United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Bureau of Democracy, Conflict and Humanitarian Assistance and Policy Director for GLIFAA, will accept the award on behalf of GLIFAA.” [“Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies Named Employee Resource Group of the Year,” usaid.gov, 10/9/09]

Recognized for Efforts to Advance LGBT Rights within the State Department

USAID Deputy Administrator Donald Steinberg: Sec. Clinton made it “easy to be an LGBT advocate within the State Department and USAID.” According to USAID Deputy Administrator Donald Steinberg at the 20th anniversary celebration for GLIFAA, “It’s a great privilege to add my welcome to you at this celebration of Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies’ (GLIFFA) first two decades. I wanted to begin by thanking you, the activists and advocates who have stepped forward, often at great personal risk, to claim your rights and those of the LGBT community around the world. I also wanted to thank President Obama, Secretary Clinton, and Counselor Mills for making it easy to be an LGBT advocate within the State Department and USAID.” [Donald Steinberg Presentation at the 20th Anniversary Celebration for GLIFAA, usaid.gov, 11/28/12]

Amb. Rice: Sec. Clinton’s extension of benefits for LGBT State Department employees overseas “served as a model for similar changes on behalf of American LGBT staff of the UN Secretariat.” According to the United States’ UN Ambassador Susan Rice’s statement on LGBT pride month, “The Obama Administration has taken active steps to honor this commitment, starting in the federal workforce. Last summer, the President extended benefits to same-sex domestic partners of U.S. Government federal employees. I am pleased that Secretary Clinton’s extension of benefits for overseas State Department employees has served as a model for similar changes on behalf of American LGBT staff of the UN Secretariat. Thanks to this work, the partners and families of many hard-working Americans serving abroad may now receive the benefits, training, and allowances that are increasingly the standard for world-class international civil servants. I am very proud of the contributions of LGBT employees in the foreign affairs agencies of the U.S. Government, and am pleased to see that these actions will support them as they continue their good work.” [Susan Rice Statement on Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender (LGBT) Pride Month, usun.state.gov, 6/30/10]

GLIFAA Policy Director Ajit Joshi predicted that Sec. Clinton’s actions to extend benefits for LGBT Foreign Service staff “may have serious ‘domino-effect’ benefits for LGBT diplomats of other nations.” According to a USAID press release, “GLIFAA’s successful influence on this policy came from its grass roots coalition of 2,200 people, 92% of whom were married to an opposite-sex spouse or single, and efforts on the Hill, the Administration, and LGBT organizations. [GLIFAA Policy Director Ajit] Joshi predicts that Secretary Clinton’s actions ‘may have serious “domino-effect” benefits for LGBT diplomats of other nations serving in the United States, LGBT immigrants, and LGBT government employees outside the State Department.’” [“Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies Named Employee Resource Group of the Year,” usaid.gov, 10/9/09]

That is pretty remarkable... anything Bernie has done besides make a couple of votes, while representing a very liberal state?

http://correctrecord.org/hillary-clinton-expanding-lgbt-rights-at-state/

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

15. So her advocacy GLBT issues began with her appointment at State, eh?

On the bandwagon at last!

[boston bean]

17. No, it began long before that....

She has ALWAYS supported LGBT rights.

She has always been against a constitutional amendment against same sex marriage.

DOMA was a fix to ensure a constitutional amendment was not attempted and passed.

DADT was to allow gay and lesbians to continue to serve.

You wish to live in a tiny little bubble pointing to issues without context or the history therein.

The country was a very different place two decades ago.

[TM99]

19. Don't patronize us Boston Bean.

Many of us were there in the 1990's.

DOMA was not a good thing. DADT was not a good thing. I was in the military at the time.

She has not ALWAYS supported LGBT rights.

That is a re-writing of history of the worst kind.

I am very glad she finally came around, but this bullshit revisionism that she was always this supportive is not going to fly.

[boston bean]

21. Of course they weren't good things.

But, they were better than what could have happened.

But would could have happened had those things not been done is

1) a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage
2) NO gays or lesbians in the military

That is exactly what the choices were. I'm glad the choices were made to ensure that the supreme court ruling we had on Friday was able to happen. Because if there was a constitutional amendment.... gay marriage would be banned.

It's still possible even today, that a constitutional amendment could pass banning gay marriage... Think about it's chances 20 years ago it would have been a slam dunk.

[TM99]

25. Keep wiggling, you might convince yourself.

Your tortured logic is so sad. So because there may have been and still could be a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, it was the best thing to instead pass the Defense of Marriage Act which defined marriage exclusively between a man and a woman?

You know, you love to speak for others that you don't represent. I saw it in the thread about POC. Now about LGBT.

Here are some links from actual LGBT sources on Sanders.

http://www.hrc.org/elected-officials/profile/senate/92

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/05/15/sanders-touts-lgbt-record-in-white-house-bid/

http://www.advocate.com/politics/election/2015/04/30/bernie-sanders-most-lgbt-friendly-candidate

You will also note if you would have done the research that Sanders did co-sponsor numerous pieces of legislation supporting LBGT civil rights and is about to do another here shortly concerning economic positions.

In 2008, Clinton ran as an opponent to gay marriage.

You can twist and turn all you want. You can support her all you want. But please for the love of decency, stop making shit up about Sanders just to rationalize your choices.

[arcane1]

128. The only thing missing from your post is a dropped microphone at the end

[okasha]

131. She's right, TM.

DOMA was bad. It wasn't nearly as bad as a fexeral Constitunional amendment, though. Appeals courts could not have struck it down. It would have required a yet another Amendment to repeal it, which would have required ratification by 2/3s of the states.

Which would leave us now no nearer equal marriage than we were 20 years before.

[TM99]

140. No she is not right.

The last constitutional amendment to be ratified was in 1992. It was a 202 year old one about congressional salaries. The previous one was 1971 to amend the voting age to 18.

Constitutional amendments are difficult to propose, difficult to get ratified, and in the history of our Republic, have occurred only 27 times. Ten of those amendments were ratified between 1789 and 1791 alone.

There is still a chance even with this supreme court ruling that a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage could be put forth.

Several of y'all are rationalizing DOMA and DADT as not that bad in order to support Clinton. It is a very common psychological phenomena. But when the history and facts are laid to bare, it is apparent that is what is occuring.

I was in the army in the 1990's. I saw what was happening before DADT and after. You are going to disagree with me. I don't care. History is history and facts are facts.

If you are so supportive of your candidate, go start some threads on Clinton's wonderful history of LGBT support. Give us votes, public statements, etc. It will be difficult given her lack of support but at least it would be more honest than this fucking thread. Sanders has supported LGBT civil rights publicly and openly as a LEADER since the 1970's.

[okasha]

142. It's true that DADT did not work well,

largely because the military brass found every possible way to circumvent it. I respect your experience as a soldier at the time.

I am not, however, going to be "diagnosed"online by a professional who certainly knows better, nor am I going to disavow the validity of my experience as a member of the LGBT community. It is a different perspective than yours. My choice of candidate is shaped by that perspective, not the other way around.

[TM99]

143. DADT caused the discharge

of more LGBT service members than it was purported to protect. It was atrocious. I was very proud of a sibling of mine whose historical research work on DADT led in part to its final overturning.

I was not diagnosing. We all deny things and rationalize things. Even I do it.

[hifiguy]

137. Boom.

[virtualobserver]

29. The country WAS a very different place two decades ago.....

and it was really different way back in 1972 when Bernie Sanders Was for Full Gay Equality when he ran for Governor.

I challenge you to find me another person running for Governor in 1972 with that in their platform.

[boston bean]

32. As pointed out prior it was not regarding gay marriage.

It was in regard to laws against sexual acts.

I think Bernie called it "sexual behavior".

Can you point me to the record where he RAN on "full gay equality" when running for governor?

I would like to see the "platform" you reference.

[virtualobserver]

39. you are grasping at straws

There were no laws banning same sex marriage in the US until 1973.

So you couldn't be more "full" than Bernie was.

[boston bean]

41. huh? makes no sense...

[virtualobserver]

44. it is your attack on Bernie that makes no sense.....

Hillary supporters are embarrassing themselves with this stuff.

[boston bean]

46. There was no attack any where in my posts...

[virtualobserver]

62. He has one of the best records I have ever seen on this issue

the point of your thread is diminish his record.

Depressing.

[boston bean]

65. No it is not a diminishment of his record.. All we have is a voting record.

The point being, he was not a leader in this arena, there was nothing he did that was politically difficult for him to do.

He wasn't running for president of the United States in the 70's, 80's, or the 90's, or the early 2000's.

This country was not where it is today a mere 5 years ago.

So, brava Bernie for making a vote that didn't change damned thing.

Where as you have another candidate that actually made the lives of lgbt better through specific action.

[virtualobserver]

73. trying to make Hillary look better on this issue is a monumental task

you should be commended for your herculean effort.

[Divernan]

74. Trying to make soup out of stones, aren't they?

They start out in a hole but they just keep on digging.

[boston bean]

76. I don't have to try to do anything. The record of both is fine.

I am responding to the fact that some think he is some great leader in this area. He was not.

[virtualobserver]

85. what a noble cause.....

we have a politician who was on the side of gay people every step of the way, and your mission is set the record "straight", by helping us to understand that he was not a "great leader" in this area.

[boston bean]

87. Hillary Clinton has been on the side of gay persons the entire way.

[frylock]

125. She explicitally stated her support of traditional marriage ffs!

How on earth can that be interpreted as having "been on the side of gay persons the entire way"?!

[AgingAmerican]

147. Cognitive dissonance

[Bluenorthwest]

88. Good God no wonder you are so confused. In 1973 gay sex was illegal in the whole of the US

Bernie was talking about laws that were literally against homosexuality. The straight majority put us in jail, raided our gathering places, arrested us.
The first State to make all sexual behavior between consenting adults legal was CA, in 1975. Same year CA also repealed their laws against homosexuality. 1975. Repealing those laws did not, as we know, create a right to marriage. Repealing the laws against homosexuality is not the same as extending civil rights to homosexual people.
After CA, other States repealed their own sodomy laws, but some kept those anti gay laws until SCOTUS made them stop it in 2003. 2003. Laws such as those Bernie was speaking of existed until 2003.
The problem with the framing you are wishing to use is that it claims for the straight community a high road ethical position that it simply did not have back then.
In the early 70's a few politicians such as Bernie and in the Congress Bela Abzug and Ed Koch started advancing equal employment and housing protections for gay people which still have not been made law. Today we can get married but can still be fired for doing so in 29 States. The repeals in CA were of course Democratic efforts, credit to Willy Brown, a hero of mine.

Your statement is so profoundly ignorant of the realities.

[virtualobserver]

95. not confused- my point was that Bernie was against every law in existence...

at that time.

He wasn't calling for the repeal of laws against gay marriage because they didn't exist yet.

[dsc]

133. that is just nuts

Some states have always had laws defining marriage as between a man and a woman and certainly none were, nor were any contemplating permitting marriage between people of the same gender. But in point of fact there were numerous laws against sodomy, applied almost exclusively against gays and lesbians, in 1972. It was those laws that Bernie was referencing in this letter. He most assuredly wasn't referencing marriage laws.

[virtualobserver]

134. the only thing that is "nuts"

is that we are debating nothing here.

Bernie has ALWAYS stood up for gay people.



Always standing up for gay people for his entire career is enough.

There are no quotes where he defines marriage as being exclusively between a man and a woman, unlike some candidates that I know.

I realize that it must be no picnic justifying Hillary's record, but come on.....

Somehow you imagine that even though he advocates the removal of ANY law that penalizes gay people, that somehow that would not include gay marriage. Show me one statement that he has made in his entire life that indicates that he would not have supported it. Show me the slightest hint of that.

[hifiguy]

138. Facts bounce off of some people like

bullets off of Superman.

And the slippery insinuations and pseudo-implications are tiresome beyond words.

[dsc]

144. It wouldn't include gay marriage

because literally no one on the face of earth was thinking of gay marriage back in 72. It would be like wondering if Truman thought of cell phones.

[virtualobserver]

145. then apparently Truman thought of cell phones

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_same-sex_marriage#1970s

Michael McConnell (l) and Jack Baker apply at the Hennepin County courthouse for a license to marry.
October 15 1971: The Supreme Court of the U.S. state of Minnesota upholds the decision of a lower court that denying a marriage license to a same-sex couple did not violate the U.S. Constitution."[19] This was in reference to a marriage application filed by activist Jack Baker and Michael McConnell in 1970, which garnered extensive media attention. An appeal of that decision ended when the U.S. Supreme Court accepted the case as required by a law in effect but then dismissed it "for want of a substantial federal question".[19] (see Baker v. Nelson). Until 1973, there was no restriction on gender in any marriage statute in any state within the U.S.

1. two years before Bernie ran for Governor
2. extensive media attention

Bernie is an activist. He would have been aware.

[CanadaexPat]

68. Nope. Read the letter. 'Any laws that impose morality' was what he was against.

[boston bean]

70. regarding "sexual behavior" nt

Gay marriage wasn't even a blip on the radar back then.

[CanadaexPat]

79. You may choose to focus on that sentence, but that is your choice not his position:

"The Liberty Union believe that there are entirely too many laws that regulate human behavior. Let us abolish all laws which attempt to impose a particular brand of morality or "right" on people. Let's abolish all laws dealing with abortion, drugs, sexual behavior (adultery, homosexuality, etc.)."

[boston bean]

80. I've read it an know exactly what he is referencing..

Why? Because gay marriage was not a blip on the radar.. He was not speaking to that.

He was speaking to laws that prohibited "sexual behavior".

[CanadaexPat]

81. He was speaking to all laws that seek to impose morality.

[boston bean]

82. What law regarding gay marriage was he speaking to? nt

[NorthCarolina]

63. "She has ALWAYS supported LGBT rights". WRONG

That is a patently false statement. Would probably be a good idea to delete it from you post if you expect to be taken seriously.

[boston bean]

66. It is not false, it is a fact. nt

[Divernan]

75. Yeah, right - like the emperor's new clothes

[Rosa Luxemburg]

89. She didn't like same sex marriage

[boston bean]

90. She has been for gay rights here entire career.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

91. Why did she say no to same sex marriage for her own state NY?

[boston bean]

93. She was for at that time civil unions with full rights under the law.

Even though gay persons can marry today in every state, there are still many laws on the books that allow discrimination against LGBT.

When she was speaking in 2002 (what you are referencing) she was with the majority of Democrats who supported civil unions with full rights, and against Republicans who didn't even want civil unions. And if people didn't try to make it seem like 2002 was 2015, they would realize that the country in even 2002 was very divided even about civil unions.

[Bjorn Against]

96. So she believed in seperate but equal

She also delivered a blatantly homophobic speech in which she spoke of "defending the sanctity of marriage".

Sorry but when I hear that speech I do not hear the words of someone who has been supportive of gay rights her entire career, I hear someone repeating blatantly homophobic talking points.

Now I can accept that she evolved on the issue and I don't think she is homophobic anymore, but let's not pretend that she was a supporter of gay rights throughout her career because she most clearly was not.

[boston bean]

97. That speech was in her opposition to a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

I know..... Hard to believe, but how do you explain it?

[Bjorn Against]

98. That does not justify her words

Not everyone who opposed the Constitutional amendment felt the need to give a speech about "defending the sanctity of marriage". I am sorry but her vote does not make her homophobic words acceptable, she could have chosen to give a speech supporting equal rights but instead she chose to give a speech clarifying that even though she was voting against the Constitutional amendment she still opposed equal rights.

[boston bean]

99. Have you read the entire speech, or are you relying on a 20 second blurb. nt

[Bjorn Against]

101. I admit I have not heard the whole speech...

But unless the person who edited the video cut off something like "only a homophobic bigot would say" right before she launched into these homophobic remarks I don't know what would make these words acceptable.

If you think there is another part of her speech that makes her words from the video acceptable however then go ahead and cite the part of the speech that you think excuses her talk about "defending the sanctity of marriage".

[boston bean]

106. transcript:

Mrs. CLINTON. 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.

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.

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

[Bjorn Against]

115. Well I read the whole transcript and it only reinforces my opinion

Read the transcript you just posted, not once in her speech does she speak in defense of equal rights for gay couples instead it is focused entirely on her legal reasoning for why the Constitution should not be changed. To make things worse she ends her speech by talking about how she believes DOMA "protects states", I am sorry but I can not possibly see how you think this full transcript makes her words any more acceptable.

[boston bean]

116. Of course for you it does.

This was 2004. We can't go back in time and argue things the way we would today. Where was Bernies speech? Did he make one?

Second, DOMA was enacted in the face of a constitutional amendment against gay marriage.

It was a compromise at the time. If it wasn't made law, we would likely have had a constitutional amendment. At the time DOMA was proposed, that was a real threat.

She is arguing against it. She is stating that the gov't hasn't involved itself with the decline of marriage as it existed then, and she is questioning their real motives.

But whatever... you go ahead and think she is some kind of homophobe...

[Bjorn Against]

117. Well you can read what Bernie had to say in 1996

Years before Hillary gave her speech in which she claimed DOMA "protects states" Bernie was speaking out against DOMA and in favor of equal rights. You can read his words from two decades ago in his book "Outsider in the House", just click the link below. The relevant section begins on page 134.

https://books.google.com/books?id=_2YjBm2_JGUC&pg=PA127&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=3#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Rosa Luxemburg]

84. In 2002 she said no

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251416298#post28

[boston bean]

92. I suggest you watch the entire video.

[TM99]

20. So everything began at State?

And look, brownie points for using Correct the Record!

[Duckhunter935]

31. Not surprised

In an OP attacking Bernie. BB posts Clinton talking points.

[Thinkingabout]

83. Very good explanation, not a slip and slide to divert the conversation to other subjects at hand.

Before DADT if a military member was suspected of a same sex relationship it was immediate dismissal from the military. DADT stopped this dismissal of many good military members.

[TM99]

94. No DADT did not.

I was there. I saw it. I know.

[Thinkingabout]

103. Explain it.

[tazkcmo]

107. BS

Tell that to the folks I saw kicked out for not being "straight" after DADT.

[Thinkingabout]

135. What was the circumstances, was the rules of DADT violated?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell

"Don't ask, don't tell" (DADT) was the official United States policy on service by gays and lesbians in the military instituted by the Clinton Administration on February 28, 1994, when Department of Defense Directive 1304.26 issued on December 21, 1993, took effect,[1] lasting until September 20, 2011. The policy prohibited military personnel from discriminating against or harassing closeted homosexual or bisexual service members or applicants, while barring openly gay, lesbian, or bisexual persons from military service.

[neverforget]

118. 13,425 discharged in 17 years due to DADT

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2010/04/22/176758/dadt-13425/

“This brings the official 17-year total, according to the Department of Defense and the Department of Homeland Security, to 13,425 discharges,” the group says, noting that the number may be an underestimate:

Although only 443 total discharges are included in the official statistic for fiscal year 2009, the true number of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” discharges is very likely higher. When pressed by Servicemembers United, the Office of the Secretary of Defense’s Freedom of Information Office confirmed on three separate occasions in late 2009 and early 2010 that the internal source of their annual “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” discharge numbers is the Defense Manpower Data Center, and that Defense Manpower Data Center statistics do not include discharges from the Reserves or the National Guard. […]
The Department of Defense in general – and the Defense Manpower Data Center specifically – has consistently failed to disclose full information and data related to “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” discharges in blatant violation of the Freedom of Information Act. In response to one request for information by Servicemembers United in mid-2009, the Department of Defense took more than twice the amount of time allowable by law to produce less than one-tenth of one percent of the requested data – data that was not classified and not protected by the Privacy Act. Information requests from members of Congress, including House Armed Services Committee members, have also been only partially filled.
Studies have indicated that the cost of discharging and replacing service members fired because of their sexual orientation during the policy’s first 10 years varied from $190.5 million to $363.8 million. It’s estimated that there are at least 65,000 gay and lesbian servicemembers on active military duty today and another 1 million gay and lesbian veterans.

[boston bean]

119. They wouldn't have been serving at all...

That is what was on the docket...

It was a compromise, one that was distasteful, but not as bad as the one on the other side, at that time in the USofA.

[tazkcmo]

105. so the answer is no.

She did not support marriage for LGBT community for the past 40 years.

[INdemo]

11. Is this the best you can do to "trash" Bernie Sanders

Last edited Sun Jun 28, 2015, 09:31 AM - Edit history (1)

How long has Hillary stood up for Working Class America?

How long has Bernie fought for equal pay for Women?

How long has Bernie strived for a higher tax for Millionaires and Billionaires

How many campaigns has Bernie ran that he was financed by corporate America and Wall St.

How long has Hillary been against Trade Agreements that shifts American jobs overseas?

And the list goes on................................

[djean111]

16. Are you just road-testing memes for HRC's campaign? Because you must be aware that Bernie's

supporters don't buy your bullshit about Bernie. Not for a second. It is almost like this stuff is your job or something . I guess this was inevitable, now that polls have been declared as useless by the HRC camp.

[boston bean]

18. What bullshit about Bernie?

Asking what he has actually done is bullshit in your eyes?

Well..... if that is your answer, I'll live with it I suppose.

[Duckhunter935]

33. How much has Clinton done

Before she was forced to do by executive order at state. She did nothing but follow President Obama's orders 😀

[madokie]

22. Around here

it seems a few are hell bent in taking him down. Not from real issues but rather from bullshit like this
sorry but this is how I see your Question about Bernie
If its not outrage over omission its outrage over admission.
Give it a break and try to convince me why I would rather vote for Hillary. You'd make more inroads that way. IMO

Bernie is the same guy he was in '89 fighting the same battles now as then

[DURHAM D]

24. No.

Not on our radar screen.

In the heated conversation about marriage equality seems the majority of straight folks don't realize we are still at square one on the main issues that started the whole movement to begin with. We can get married today but tomorrow lose our job, our apartment or office space, be denied a room at a hotel/motel or service at a restaurant.

Immediately after the decision was handed down this week Hillary sent out an email in which she reminded us that the work is not yet done. She gets it.

[TM99]

26. Oh for fuck's sake, pay attention then

to your own community.

Read this link from May 2015 from the Blade:

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/05/15/sanders-touts-lgbt-record-in-white-house-bid/

Six weeks before this decision was handed down he was talking about the next steps which you do correctly identify as economic protections and non-discrimination legislation.

Asked about the continued lack of nondiscrimination protections for LGBT people in the federal code, Sanders said he supports amending the Civil Rights Act and Fair Housing Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity.
Asked to elaborate, Sanders replied, “Keep going. What I just told you. I spent 25 years fighting for equal rights.”

“What makes it a good idea that black people can drink water at a fountain?” Sanders continued. “We are trying to create a non-discriminatory society where we judge people based on their character, on their abilities, not on the color of their skin, their sexual orientation, their gender. Clearly, as a nation we’ve made good progress, we have a lot further to go.”

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) is expected to introduce legislation along those lines this spring that would institute comprehensive LGBT non-discrimination protections in the areas of employment, public accommodations, housing, credit, education and federal programs. When the Blade asked Sanders whether he’d support the bill, he replied, “Jeff and I work closely on these issues and I suspect that I will.”

Once again, Sanders 'got' it before Clinton apparently did. You can stop making shit up just to support your candidate.

[DURHAM D]

30. As usual

in your excitement your response is off point.

[boston bean]

34. Hillary has always been for gay rights...

They seem to miss that point over and over and over.

[DURHAM D]

38. Yep.

When I was a freshmen in college in the early 60s a student in my dorm who was thought to be a lesbian was forcibly removed from her dorm room, taken to a nearby mental institution, and kicked out of school and prohibited from enrolling in any other public institution by the Dean of Women. To my knowledge she had not done anything wrong but the Dean thought she might be a bad influence.

Meanwhile, a couple of years later Hillary was a freshman in college and one of her best friends (perhaps a roommate but I don't recall) was an out lesbian. Hillary was supportive of her and they are still good friends to this day. In the 60s Hillary stepped up.

The point is to that Hillary has always been with us and apparently Bernie, a decade later, was still writing salacious sexist stories or something. I haven't really paid attention to that issue.

[Divernan]

43. Really? Who is this old friend? Got a link?

[DURHAM D]

45. No, but her friend was interviewed in 2008.

ETA: LOL. I just google it and found this at Free Republic.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/1122858/posts

Her name was Eldie Acheson. Apparently over there they think it is a bad thing. Well, to be honest some people here will think it is as well.

[Divernan]

49. In other words, you got nothin'? Claim w/out any backup?

If you want to effectively support your candidate, you need to do WAY better than that, at least in the DU community.

[DURHAM D]

51. Updated the above post. Enjoy nt

[TM99]

55. A Globe Tabloid piece from 2004?

Linked to on FreeRepublic? As proof of her stellar support?

OMFG!

Whew! OK, getting a control of myself, even if true, that was one friend in college and decades later she would be on public record saying that friend did not have the right to marry a love of her choosing.

And less than a decade later, Sanders, running for Mayor, was supporting an end to sexual discrimination especially LGBT citizens.

What a stellar argument you have built. Congratulations on your hutzpah!

[DURHAM D]

59. Perhaps you will like this better -

http://glifaaintern.blogspot.com/2009/06/eldie-acheson.html

She is Dean Acheson's granddaughter. Perhaps that will be yet another problem for you as your style of posting suggests to me that you are not really a democrat.

[TM99]

61. Even if true,

my points still stand.

I am not a Democrat. I am an independent. Style eh?

[Divernan]

71. HRC insulted the whole group with a last minute, unexplained no-show.

Mrs. Clinton "could not make it". Interesting that no face-saving excuse was offered. The group was GLIFAA - Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies. HRC's alleged friend was the Keynote Speaker.

I suggest HRC boogied out because she saw an advance copy of the Keynote Speech of her "friend", which stated in pertinent part that President Bill Clinton's signature "accomplishments" which were ardently supported at the time by his co-president, Hillary, were "primitive purges" which should be the target of reform. What a big ouchhie!

Toward the end of her speech, Ms. Acheson came to the present to laud President Obama's support of LGBT causes as well as his many appointments of LGBT people and his Executive Memorandum which extends many rights formerly denied to gay federal employees and their partners. She reminded the audience, nevertheless, the LGBTs are still second-class citizens in many ways, "boxed out" from American society. Specifically, legislation such as Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the Defense of Marriage Act and the lack of protection against discrimination in housing and employment are primitive purges that should be the target of reform. The event closed with several comments and a song by the Lesbian and Gay chorus of Washington.

[boston bean]

86. Ignore the posters who disparage in the way they are doing.

It is indicative of not being able to address the point made.

[boston bean]

111. Sometimes you are just ignoring BS. :)

[boston bean]

114. in some peoples dreams...

I like Bernie Sanders. I like Hillary Clinton. I'll be voting for Hillary Clinton like millions of others who will send her into the General Election on a high note.

[Divernan]

57. OMG! HRC supporter relying on Free Republic!

What a hoot! I was wrong to say you had nothing - I amend that to say you have less than nothing!

[DURHAM D]

60. It was the first thing that came up and I linked

to it because I thought it was funny.

Perhaps you will like this better but I doubt it - http://glifaaintern.blogspot.com/2009/06/eldie-acheson.html

[Divernan]

67. HRC:welched on promise 2 attend gay meeting & introduce lesbian friend.

Mrs. Clinton "could not make it". Interesting that no face-saving excuse was offered. The group was GLIFAA - Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies. HRC's alleged friend was the Keynote Speaker.

I suggest HRC boogied out because she saw an advance copy of the Keynote Speech of her "friend", which stated in pertinent part that President Bill Clinton's signature "accomplishments" which were ardently supported at the time by his co-president, Hillary, were "primitive purges" which should be the target of reform. What a big ouchhie!

Toward the end of her speech, Ms. Acheson came to the present to laud President Obama's support of LGBT causes as well as his many appointments of LGBT people and his Executive Memorandum which extends many rights formerly denied to gay federal employees and their partners. She reminded the audience, nevertheless, the LGBTs are still second-class citizens in many ways, "boxed out" from American society. Specifically, legislation such as Don't Ask, Don't Tell, the Defense of Marriage Act and the lack of protection against discrimination in housing and employment are primitive purges that should be the target of reform. The event closed with several comments and a song by the Lesbian and Gay chorus of Washington.

[DURHAM D]

69. LOL

I feel sorry for some of the Bernie supporters. All that stretching can't be good for you.

[TM99]

48. Link please as proof of your

anecdotal assertions.

And stop with the fucking bullshit lie about salacious sex stories. That was not what it was and this has been debunked over and over!

Y'all can't get one lie to stick, so throw out another casually to see if it will. Jesus!

[DURHAM D]

54. What is it with the giving orders thing you do?

You are not my boss and you are not the owners of this website.

[TM99]

56. I am free to express an opinion

and request strongly.

You will obviously ignore it so why are you bothered by it?

[okasha]

122. I am goddam sick and tired of being lectured

about LGBT history by straights who didn't live through events that shaped our community. That goes double for those who did live through them and were oblivious those events.

I'm talking about Anita Bryant and the witch hunts to root out LGBT teachers. Chief Davis and the search-and-destroy policies at the LAPD. I don't doubt that Bernie Sanders, being a good man, opposed theswe things. But he managed to oppose them without raising a blip on the public radar or making any impression whatsoever on the LGBT community. He wrote a letter to an obscure newspaper in Vermont.

The plague years followed. Thousands of young men dying of "the gay disease." The Reagan administration studiously looked the other way. Perhaps my memory is faulty, but I do not recall any mention of Sanders speaking out during the horror of those years.

Someone posted that he was sure Bernie Sanders had "marched in many pride parades. I would be glad to know that if it's true. Some photographs would be nice.

I could go on, but won't. I think it's sad that a straightforward, simple inquiry about the Senator's history of supporting LGBT rights is immediately perceived as an attack on him, and the .majority of replies not only don't attempt to answer the question, but are devoted to attacks on his opponent. Surely the advocates of a true champion of LGBT rights should be able to do better than this.

[TM99]

35. Actually, it was dead on point.

Marriage equality is but one step. You believe that Clinton gets that where others like Sanders do not. I just showed you that he and others do.

Social justice and economic justice go hand in hand. A major social victory has occurred, and now the economic realities need to be fully dealt with -- no more discrimination in the workplace, no more discrimination with regards to adoptions, etc., etc.

In your apparent excitement to dismiss Sanders and bolster Clinton, you missed the mark.

[m-lekktor]

27. she is correct. and of course you know they aren't gonna let up on any of this.

there will be backlash and it will never end.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

36. She also immediately put out a twitter link to guide gay people to her campaign store

to buy Hillary paraphernalia with rainbow logos to celebrate. She certainly intends to get it.

[DURHAM D]

42. Cool. I missed that. Thanks. nt

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

47. Well, here you go then, if you need some glasses to drink from.

https://twitter.com/hillaryclinton/status/614541904722665472

[TM99]

58. Wow, those responses are pretty scathing.

Planning a wedding? We've got the perfect party favors: http://hrc.io/prideshop

That's the corporatist we all know and love. Socially liberal as long as it pays the bills!

[Divernan]

78. Yes! & HRC's crack campaign team has left them up for days!

A lot of them would have been banned at DU as too, shall we say, blunt. Fun reads, I must say. The fact is that all her unpaid interns just aren't that motivated or skilled to work hard - probably out trying to find affordable housing in Brooklyn. Or is it that all the kids wealthy enough to work for nothing consider IT skills as working class?

[Autumn]

127. Not a very friendly Twitter link

Wow

[-none]

77. Did you hear a whoosh too? I sure heard one.

Right over her head.

[rurallib]

28. You have been a one person Bernie Sanders attack dog

I have seen so many of these threads that have little substance posted only to imply that Sanders is somehow deficient without any substantiation. Posts like this truly subtract from the purpose of Democraticunderground, IMHO.

Any punch these posts ever had is long since gone because it is like a broken record. Just wanted to let you know that you are starting to sound like the guy screeching about the end of the world on the soapbox on the corner.

This may get me my first alert and slap on the wrist, but honestly this is ridiculous.

And now I put you on ignore.

PS you are doing Hillary no favors with these posts

[Divernan]

40. The more of these faux concern posts, the better for Bernie

A reliable indicator of anxiety in the Clinton camp. Plus presenting platforms to
respond with substantive support of Bernie's reliable, untriangulated, unfocus-grouped stands on issues.

[PowerToThePeople]

50. Advocate vs Spokesman

Disparage him for only being an advocate? I do not see him being sold as a leader of these movements but as a long term advocate of civil rights in general, all causes.

[boston bean]

52. What are his achievements in these areas?

Something he is specifically responsible for?

[PowerToThePeople]

53. some Sanders actions in this area.

http://www.advocate.com/politics/election/2015/04/30/bernie-sanders-most-lgbt-friendly-candidate


...

But Sanders has also been a steadfast and reliable supporter of LGBT equality, supporting the Employment Non-Discrimination Act when it passed the Senate in 2013 and even calling on President Obama to evolve already and support marriage equality in 2011. He's a cosponsor of the federal LGBT-inclusive Student Non-Discrimination Act and has consistently voted against bills seeking to amend the Constitution to ban same-sex marriage, while cosponsoring a bill that would repeal the remaining portions of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act. Sanders has a perfect score of 100 percent on the Human Rights Campaign's latest Congressional Equality Index.

...

[CanadaexPat]

64. Short answer: Yes.

[CTBlueboy]

100. Do you smell it

The smell of desperation and the Debates haven't started yet


One candidate was always supported gay right

The other candidate goes where ever the wind blows

[virtualobserver]

102. Imagine what it is going to be like when Bernie takes the lead in Iowa....

and New Hampshire.

It is a relief to support a candidate with such a wonderful record.

I believe in evolution, but it can be stressful to support a candidate who has a long record of evolving.

They have to work SO HARD.

[CTBlueboy]

120. Panic mode

Code red

They try to say he doesn't have African Americans supports - yet the majority of the African Americans I know (including myself) support Sen. Sanders.

They try to use scare tactics he's too left, a radical or socialist yet his values align with Dem. Party ( what has infected the Dem. party that's right $$$)

now they trying to say what he has done for the LGBT community really hahaha lol

Maybe we should counter ask the what did HRC do during the 60s to 70s

They said HRC is going to win this easy yet they thought the same thing in 08'


The Political Revolution is coming

[840high]

141. ...^ that

[AgingAmerican]

123. Straw man OP number 63

Note they have zero expectations out of their own candidate Hillary, but if Bernie isn't the father of all civil rights and didn't personally invent the wheel they freak out.

It's getting really ridiculous and they are having to dig deeper and deeper to find made up 'issues' to attack him with.

[arcane1]

130. in fairness, it's not as though facts can be used against him

[AgingAmerican]

139. Well, true...

There is that!

[Motown_Johnny]

124. Did Hillary? (No) Double standards suck ya know.

He is a leader, she is a follower. On this issue and many others.

[orpupilofnature57]

126. Once again his voting record, he wasn't schmoozing Republicans in 2004, defining Man & Woman .

[Raine1967]

132. I think questioning of authoring legislation regarding these issues are important.

I am not sure he has.

I am also not sure Senator Clinton did either.

[morningfog]

146. His record is far better than Hillary's. And he isn't exploiting their gains now as Hillary is.

As if she had something to do with the recent civil rights advancements of the past decade. She didn't. It was work to undo policies she supported.

And now she has co-opted the rainbow and "HISTORY" by sullying it with her band logo.