Bernie Sanders shouldn’t throw stones on LGBT rights

[RandySF]

Nothing could be further from the truth. First of all, it was Bill Clinton and not Hillary Clinton that signed DOMA. Bernie Sanders was in the House of Representatives and voted against the bill, but unlike his own revisionist history, he wasn’t for same-sex marriage at the time either. He should have read the rest of my tweets on the subject.

In the twenty years since DOMA, Hillary Clinton has not only evolved on the issue, she has become a global leader in the fight for LGBT equality. As senator from New York, she pushed to repeal the ban on gays in the military and secure employment protections for LGBT Americans. As secretary of state she extended her view of human and women’s rights with a groundbreaking speech at the United Nations in 2011 declaring that “gay rights are human rights” and made the protection of gays, lesbians and transgender people a priority in her dealings with repressive regimes around the world. Perhaps most importantly, she engaged with the community – closely – for the last 25 years. Listening, learning, sometimes disagreeing but always striving and evolving and always caring.

Bernie Sanders has done none of the above. Despite being from Vermont, a state with a progressive record on LGBT rights, Sanders was a follower. He supported civil unions as a solution for as long as many leading Democrats.

In short, Bernie Sanders may like the idea that I can prod my friends the Clintons to do better and more, but he can’t compete with how often they have listened and responded. He would do better to look for another issue with which to “ensnare” Hillary, because LGBT rights just isn’t his thing.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/10/27/bernie-sanders-is-revising-history-too/

[ibegurpard]

1. He's welcome to throw all the stones he wants

At someone who's actually trying to LIE about it.

[azmom]

2. [phone]

[bravenak]

3. I saw people claiming he had always been for gay marriage. It was not true.

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/27/rachel_maddow_confronts_bernie_sanders_over_past_opposition_to_marriage_equality_how_are_you_any_different_than_hillary_clinton/

[markpkessinger]

6. He opposed a SPECIFIC marriage equality measure in Vermont . . .

. . . because it was just a few years after Vermont had passed its civil unions legislation -- which he had fully supported -- a fight which had been severely divisive in his state. As is clear in the full Maddow interview on which the Salon article is based, Sanders felt it was too soon to press that issue further. He said that it was important to "let the dust settle." That is a reasonable explanation, and is nowhere close to a categorical opposition to gay marriage.

And as a gay man myself who fully supports gay marriage, I would have tended to agree with his reasoning at that time.

[bravenak]

8. I understand.

But look, whenever somebody tells me they are for equal rights and equality for blacks and women, but not right now, later, when things are settled, I do not see that as for my equality. This is not a subject I am an expert in so I cannot tell anyone what to think or how to see things. Perhaps things were very contentious. I remember prop 8. This is your subject of expertise.

[msongs]

4. one gets a feeling that many bernie fans no nothing of him before this year nt

[ibegurpard]

5. au contraire

I lived through DOMA. Clinton's attempts at revisionist history are pathetic, patronizing, and offensive

[SleeplessinSoCal]

7. Bernie will lose support with these attacks over gay rights and guns

He should differentiate on foreign policy, Social Security, big banks & too big to fail as well as income tax reform. This is what most Americans care about in the middle class in the middle of the country in the middle of the political spectrum.

[rhett o rick]

9. Only those that are gulible enough to believe the lies. Sanders represents the People. The

billionaire oligarchs have the resources to spread the lies. Some choose to side with the big bullies, the oligarch billionaires because they are afraid to stand up for the 50 million living in poverty because of those billionaires. It's a moral issue. Support the billionaires at the peril of those living in poverty. No Democrat would side with billionaires over helping those living in poverty.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

10. Well, Oligarchs are attacking Hillary

Are they going after Bernie?

http://huff.to/1H9wPxZ

And remember that she has been under attack for decades. She's smarter than they are and is going to fight for you despite your hatred of her.

[rhett o rick]

13. Now you are using the Wall Street Journal as a legitimate source?

I don't hate HRC and I find it a desperate move for people to say such. She clearly represents the billionaires. They are the ones supporting her campaign. She accepts money from billionaires for her foundation, her campaign and even her personal fortune. When she gives a speech to the banksters, she is sympathetic to their "plight" and never tells them they should help eliminate poverty. Even in her speeches to the public, when she wants to help the 99% she implies that others in the 99% will be doing the helping and not her friends in the 1%.

The bottom line is that it's naive to think that she won't repay those that are investing millions in her campaign. These billionairs are not supporting her because she wants to help the 99%.

I don't hate HRC but after she betrayed the 99% by joining Bush/Cheney in their War, she demonstrated that she has no integrity.

[Cha]

11. "In short, Bernie Sanders may like the idea that I can prod my friends the Clintons to do better

and more, but he can’t compete with how often they have listened and responded. He would do better to look for another issue with which to “ensnare” Hillary, because LGBT rights just isn’t his thing."

Mahalo RandySF

[jfern]

12. LOL at someone from San Francisco trying to sell someone who

was a SSM opponent after a 2013 poll showed it had 58% support nationwide as a leader on LGBT.