Should we disqualify politicians who had to "evolve" on marriage equality?

[RandySF]

It's only recently that I heard about Hillary's difficult interview with Terry Gross on Clinton's "evolution" on marriage eaqaulty and I think about my journey. I grew up in a Midwestern, fundamentalist Christian household where the only reaction to the 1989 San Francisco earthquake was that it was "God sending a message about those gays". And, as an impressionable kid, my opinion mirrored those of my parents. But I grew up, went to college, got a job, moved to California, got another job, met my life partner, had a kid and here I am today. Am I disqualified? Sometimes we forget, or some of us may not even old enough to realize, how far the country really has come. We gone from clubs being raided by police in the 70's to where the national Republicans are even conceding that marriage equality will no longer be an issue. I hope we are mature enough to cut our pro-LGBT politicians some slack.

[guillaumeb]

1. Agreed.

Or are these critics saying that no one should be allowed to ever change a position on anything?

[MannyGoldstein]

2. No. But touting a candidate as a leader in LGBT issues when

they embraced marriage equality only after most Americans did, is ridiculous.

[bluedigger]

20. You don't have to be a pioneer to be a leader.

I'm not saying she is a leader in LGBT issues, but your argument is flawed.

[Bluenorthwest]

25. Manny supports a candidate who MUST have evolved because she was a Republican for 30 years

When Hillary Clinton was a First Lady Republicans said was promoting the militant gay agenda, Elizabeth Warren was a Republican. So clearly, evolution is possible in politics. At times, Manny is extremely insistent that even those who were right wing Republicans can evolve into the very best progressives that exist. So his arguments are situational.

[obnoxiousdrunk]

38. +100.... N/t

[RKP5637]

3. Never ever ever ever did I ever think I would ever see the day of gay marriage in the US. It has

come so far in my lifetime from Stonewall to where we are today. Yes, a lot of ever's!

[Thinkingabout]

4. For many years my position was don't give me the details of your bedroom.

It really struck me in the height of the AIDS how families could exclude loved ones from entering hospital rooms, etc this is really so very cruel both to the patient and the loved one. I know we still have left over hate coming out and I don't know how to remove the hate. I am not sure where opinions started join public and maybe I was sheltered.

[pinto]

5. +1. Some get to the table later than others but I think we should welcome all who sincerely show up.

Thanks for your post.

[Agschmid]

8. Yup.

[JaneyVee]

6. Evolution is good.

[tularetom]

7. Nah, we all "evolved" at one time or another

Although I didn't evolve very far.

From "I don't give a shit if gays get married", to "why should anybody give a shit if gays get married".

[okaawhatever]

42. +1000 nt

[Warren DeMontague]

9. No, but I also think we shouldn't pretend craven political calculation and expedience

is a reasonable substitute for consistency, integrity, and brave moral leadership.


Someone once said "character is what you do when you think no one's looking"... I'd also say leadership is standing up for the right thing before it becomes (or regardless whether it ever does) politically tenable.

edited to add: I think some people have genuinely "evolved" on LGBT marriage equality (personally, I went from supporting it but maybe not full realizing why it was so important, in the 90s, to absolute commitment to it as a civil rights front burner) ... I also think some politicians who, personally, knew better adopted the "marriage is between a man and a woman" stances they did maybe, 10 or so years ago because that was where their polling told them to be.

[Ms. Toad]

14. And therein lies my main problem with Hillary Clinton - and not just on LGBT issues.

I don't think she as much evolved on LGBT issues as it became politically permitted to state her true position . . . or, conversely, no longer politically permitted to state her true position.

I honestly do not have a clue where her real moral compass is on much of anything, because so much of her public positions and actions are dictated by what polls well when and where she needs it to poll well.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. Yeah.

Exactly.

Edited to add: I strongly suspect HRC has personally supported marriage equality all along (same with Obama). Im not worried about them secretly being opposed to it, I just -as you allude to- dont like the political calculation and disingenuousness.

[dsc]

40. you have no evidence for that on gay issues

and in point of fact, the statistical evidence suggests otherwise. Support for marriage equality went from around 25% at most in the 1990's when it was first polled to the high 50's now. I will concede that some of this is generational (adults who opposed marriage equality have died off and were replaced by younger people who favored it) but a decent amount of the change is people who changed their minds just like Hillary has said she did. Barring evidence of her filling out a questionaire favoring it at one point it seems that she should be taken at her word. Incidentally, LGBT groups have encouraged gays to come out precisely because it leads to people changing their minds on issues such as this.

[Ms. Toad]

43. There is a difference between people evolving

and people saying what is politically popular. When one says what is politically popular 99% of the time, truly evolving on one issue does not impress me. Not to mention that I don't take people on their word when their word is inconsistent with my experience of how they operate generally.

I have considerable experience being out; experience which spans 3 decades, two countries, being the first in both religious and legal arenas, and being currently named in one of the amicus briefs to the Supreme Court in the current marriage cases. Explaining to me why gays should be out is a bit presumptuous.

You want to believe she has evolved on gays - be my guest. I happen to believe this is not the exception to the rule in how she formulates her political positions. I am not disqualifying her over her evolution on same gender marriage - it is over her positions on any number of issues, at any moment, being determined by which way the political winds are blowing.

[Jim Lane]

21. I agree with that and I'll add another "but"

If someone genuinely didn't know better, and evolved through the application of reason rather than craven political calculation, I wouldn't rule that person out on the basis of having been wrong -- but the previous error is a legitimate subject for inquiry.

Consider, for example, a politician who adamantly opposes marriage equality, until he discovers that one of his kids is gay or lesbian and wants to marry a same-sex partner. If he's now a vote for the progressive side, that's good to know. On the other hand, issues may come up in 2017 or whenever that require a vision of justice but that don't happen to affect a member of that politician's family. We're justified in being less than completely confident that the politician will do the right thing.

[Warren DeMontague]

22. I dont really think the leadership of our party genuinely "evolved" on this in their thinking

They're just comfortable supporting marriage equality now because there has been a sea change in public opinion.

I suspect most of the major players felt exactly the same way 10 years ago, when the media was on about the all powerful "values voter" and karl rove was using gay marriage as a gop wedge isssue.

[Jim Lane]

34. You may be right about the Democrats. I was thinking specifically of Rob Portman.

Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), once a staunch opponent of gay marriage, says that he now supports same-sex nuptials after his son told him he was gay.

“I’m announcing today a change of heart on an issue that a lot of people feel strongly about that has to do with gay couples’ opportunity to marry,” Portman said, according to CNN.

(from "Rob Portman backs gay marriage after son comes out", March 15, 2013)

I don't think Portman was awaiting that change in public opinion. I think he was genuinely and sincerely a bigot who really did evolve, but only when he found out that the issue reached into his own family.

As a result, I rank him ahead of those who are still opposed to marriage equality, but behind those who saw and espoused the fairness in the issue even when they had no personal connection to it.

You're referring to Democrats who saw the justice from the beginning, but who held back from a leadership role until it became politically safe. How to rank Portman vis-a-vis those Democrats is left as an exercise for the reader.

[Warren DeMontague]

46. No, on that, I think you're right.

A lot of people do have those sorts of transformative changes when confronted by the reality that, say, a loved one is Gay.

Good for Rob Portman. That's not to say it was great how he felt before, but at least he wasn't one of those parents who disowns their kid.

[Hekate]

10. KnR

[Fred Sanders]

11. History is a good teacher, too bad about all the sleepy, lazy, inattentive students.

[AtomicKitten]

12. TPM: In an interview with NPR last summer, she said marriage equality was a states issue.

link: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/hillary-clinton-shift-same-sex-marriage

Hillary Clinton's Big Shift On Same-Sex Marriage

WASHINGTON — Last summer, Hillary Clinton gave a tense interview to NPR where she was pressed on same-sex marriage. Her position then? Leave it up to the states.

"For me, marriage had always been a matter left to the states. And in many of the conversations that I and my colleagues and supporters had, I fully endorse the efforts by activists who work state-by-state and in fact that is what is working," Clinton told Terry Gross on June 12, 2014.

She added that soon after stepping down as secretary of state she announced in 2013 that she "was fully in support of gay marriage and that it is now continuing to proceed state-by-state." The interview didn't sit well with gay rights activists who strongly oppose the idea of letting states ban same-sex marriage.

Ten months later, Clinton is officially running for president, and appears to have shifted her view toward a full embrace of marriage equality. Her new position? Marriage should be a constitutional right for same-sex couples.

<<snip>>

[justiceischeap]

37. And because of our state by state battle on the issue

We're very soon going to have a Supreme Court ruling on the issue, that will hopefully, put the matter to rest.

I don't care about her stated support of marriage equality. The better question to ask is does she support ENDA. As a single lesbian I'm much more concerned about not being discriminated against in the workplace, than whether or not I can get married.

[Arkansas Granny]

13. Many people have had "evolving" positions on many social issues.

[OKNancy]

15. Of course people evolved. Many people right here on this site did

I've been here since 2001 and in the past many thought civil unions were just fine and an answer to the marriage question.
Now, most realize that is not the case.

As long ago as 2000, Hillary was in favor of domestic partnership benefits.

ETA: she also voted NO in 2006 on constitutional ban of same-sex marriage

[liberal_at_heart]

16. It's a question of timing and intention. I don't trust changes of heart at election time.

[procon]

18. Its what people are suppose to do as they

learn and grow, and adjust their views and opinions as they assimilate new information. Like any other species, some people are more adaptable to our changing world than others, and those are the ones who will endure and survive.

[PeaceNikki]

19. People who criticize Clinton and Obama for jumping on this when it was politically advantageous to

do so should research the history of Kucinich's position on abortion. He actively worked to restrict it and was rated very poorly by NARAL until he wanted to take a crack at POTUS.

[beam me up scottie]

23. But that was different...

I can hear it now...a matter of conscience, etc etc.

It's just womens' lives after all.

[PeaceNikki]

24. mmm hmm. It's a *moral* issue for some, yada yada bullshit

[dsc]

41. not only abortion

but much of gay rights too.

[salib]

26. I think a good example is our current President.

He was not fully on board until after elected. Still, here we are with a very strong advocate in the White House.

[AuntPatsy]

27. Thread worth reading in its entirety..

[WillowTree]

28. So you're saying that you've "gotten it right" on all topics from the very beginning, right?

Why is it so easy to be critical of the journey some people have to take on some subjects before they finally develop what their ultimate point of view is going to be? Personally, I've had to "work it through" on a number of different things in my life and have some very different perspectives now than I did at different points in my past.

I actually have more respect for people who have had to think things through and wrestle with a question and do some soul searching along the way. It seems to give real substance to their beliefs.

But that's just my opinion. YM, as they say, MV.

[beam me up scottie]

29. I don't think that's what he's saying.

Read his op again, especially the last sentence.

He's got my rec.

[WillowTree]

30. You're absolutely right. Obviously not a high reading comprehension day for me.

My opinion on this topic has.......evolved........thanks to your kind redirection, and I thank you.

Have a great weekend!!

[beam me up scottie]

31. You just made mine better.

Heh, we've all been there.

You're very welcome and hope your weekend is awesome.

[Doctor_J]

33. willow stopped reading at the end of the subject line

[Doctor_J]

32. disqualify? no. be highly skeptical of? absolutely.

The reliably liberal writers of "The good Wife" recently took a shot at Obama and Clinton on this issue. Both of them have a problem standing firm on any issue that's still being fought. Another reason the party is almost dead

[Fumesucker]

35. I've never understood why it makes any difference to someone whether someone else can marry or not

Just like I've never understood why it makes a difference to some people whether another person prefers one recreational substance over another.

My avatar is a somewhat bemused alien because I often feel like an alien, a stranger in a strange land among people it has taken me most of a lifetime to begin to understand.

[liberal_at_heart]

39. The older I get, the less I understand people.

[mythology]

36. It certainly beats not evolving on the position.

Yes, standing up for same sex marriage isn't exactly a stunning display of courage any longer, but there are plenty of people still resisting same sex marriage.

[okaawhatever]

44. Refusing to rethink old ideas, gain knowledge or change is the hallmark of a Republican. nt

[Behind the Aegis]

45. No.

Do politicians "evolve" like others or based on which way the polls are blowing? It could be one or the other or a combination therein. To be honest, I don't really care. They are politicians and some of this is to be expected. What is really irritating is people who are more concerned about how the politician reached his/her decision than the actual fact they are now supportive of GLBT rights. When Obama had yet to "evolve" on the topic, GLBT people were told to "shut up and stop wanting a pony" or worse, we were made out to be racist by falsely claiming we were wanting Obama to be "a magic Negro." Basically, trying to shut us up about our equality by painting us as racists. Now that GLBT issues are mostly no longer a cause célèbre, except on the right, our equality is boiled down to politicians "pandering" to us by actually talking about us and including us at the table, I have even seen our rights described as "the liberal G-spot." Seriously, our rights are boiled down to sex again?!

Too many forget our equality is not a "done deal". Many of us still can't marry, more of us don't have job security, have to worry about our homes, and even get served in restaurants; of course, not to mention the hate crimes committed against us. So, no, I don't want to 'disqualify' candidates for "evolving" on GLBT issues, but I do want to register my disgust with those who are so caviler with OUR rights as to consider them passé and not worthy of anything more than a big "meh" when we are finally invited to the table!

[1StrongBlackMan]

47. +1 ...

That's what I thought you'd say.