Video: Hillary stops pretending that she’s against gay marriage; Update: 58% support gay marriage in new poll

posted at 2:01 pm on March 18, 2013 by Allahpundit

Alternate headline: “Wait, Hillary wasn’t already on record in favor of gay marriage?” Evidently not. Five years ago, top-tier Democratic candidates concluded that they couldn’t safely support SSM publicly; five years and a double-digit swing in public opinion later, they’ve concluded that they can’t safely oppose it. The GOP will wrestle with this issue for awhile but, as of now, I think supporting gay marriage has reached the same stature among Democrats as supporting abortion rights. Namely, while occasional disagreement from backbenchers will be grudgingly tolerated in the name of winning purple states, no party nominee will ever, ever again end up on the other side of this issue. If you want to win a national Democratic primary, you’re pro-gay marriage, period. Hillary’s just checking the box.

In fact, it’s revealing that this is the first move she’s made politically since retiring from diplomacy. So orthodox has the party become on this subject that it might have been a liability for her if she had waited any longer before issuing her inevitable endorsement. (Bill “evolved” on the issue more than three years ago and published an op-ed just last week denouncing the Defense of Marriage Act, which of course he signed into law.) And don’t think she and her camp don’t know it. This announcement has been in the works for months, per this Politico report from November.

But according to two sources, Clinton’s aides have privately indicated to people that she will end up where her husband and daughter, Chelsea, have emerged on the issue – in favor of same-sex nuptials.

Her circle has “indicated privately that she feels like … because of her role as the country’s chief diplomat that it was appropriate for her to stay out of this” over the last two years, said one source, who added that the message was also that as soon as she’s left Foggy Bottom “and she’s given the right opportunity, that she will end up with the rest of her clan.”

Watch and you’ll see her explain that her perspective changed in part because of her friendships with gays. That’s basically the same rationale Rob Portman gave to support his own switch on this issue, and the left spent the entire weekend sneering at him for it. They won’t sneer at Hillary, but there’s some consistency in that: After happily tolerating Obama lying to their faces about his stance on gay marriage in the interest of getting elected, they’re not about to hassle Hillary. As long as you get to the right outcome, you’ve got carte blanche on how you get there. If you’re a Democrat.

Exit question via DrewM: Which position on this subject will the next GOP nominee take? Under normal circumstances, I’d bet the farm that he/she would punt by backing a federalist approach. But that’s not on the menu if, as expected, the Supreme Court strikes down gay-marriage bans as a violation of equal protection. Social cons will want the nominee to back a Federal Marriage Amendment overturning the decision even though it has zero change of passing. The party leadership will want the nominee to stay far, far away from that for fear of alienating young voters. What’s the solution?

Update: WaPo/ABC is out with a new poll finding record support for gay marriage at 58 percent. Here are the numbers among religious groups. The first column is the number in favor today, the second is the number in favor in 2004.

ssm

Another interesting result: “This poll suggests that the high court is the right place for it: Americans by nearly 2-1, 64-33 percent, say the legality of gay marriage ‘should be decided for all states on the basis of the U.S. Constitution’ rather than by each state making its own law on the issue.” I’m skeptical of that, but if it’s true then there’ll be less of a popular backlash after the Supreme Court rules than I thought.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

northdallasthirty on March 18, 2013 at 8:58 PM

Let’s take a look at these, shall we?

The first example you cite is from New York. The speaker of the city council quoted in the link launched a campaign that, according to the sources you provided, did two things: sent a letter to the president of the university where New York’s one Chick-Fil-A is housed and asked him to do throw Chick-Fil-A out of the dining hall, and she started an on-line petition. She doesn’t have the power to do anything about it herself so all she could do is plead and start that petition. If you’re saying writing a letter to someone who doesn’t have to take you seriously or listen to what you say (much like us when we call our Congresscritters and complain) and then starting an on-line petition is some great overreach and affront to religious liberty then I think you’re blowing it out of proportion.

The Chicago alderman is a different story though.

But the thing is by the time Volokh had published the post you linked the Chicago zoning commission had already stepped in and told the alderman in question that he couldn’t do that. They even basically admit they would lose in court if it ever came to that. Less than a month later the guy had done an about-face and supported the restaurant. So when you say stuff like

They are overwhelmingly endorsed by the Obama Party

when in truth that even the Chicago political machine was squashing it in less than 24 hours it makes you sound really uninformed. And maybe a little paranoid. Or maybe both.

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 9:48 PM

If you’re saying writing a letter to someone who doesn’t have to take you seriously or listen to what you say (much like us when we call our Congresscritters and complain) and then starting an on-line petition is some great overreach and affront to religious liberty then I think you’re blowing it out of proportion.

I’m not an elected official who controls funds to these locations, who has the power to change local law unfavorably, and who has the power to order city agencies to treat me in an unfavorable fashion, nor am I sending these on my elected-official stationery explicitly listing my title.

Short answer: Lesbian bigot abuses her position and all you do is spin and make excuses.

Also, this is harassment of a business by an elected official with no legal grounding whatsoever, which you CLAIMED to oppose. Isn’t it funny how gay-sex marriage supporters like you say one thing and do the opposite?

Less than a month later the guy had done an about-face and supported the restaurant. So when you say stuff like

They are overwhelmingly endorsed by the Obama Party

when in truth that even the Chicago political machine was squashing it in less than 24 hours it makes you sound really uninformed. And maybe a little paranoid. Or maybe both.

Actually, you are the uninformed one.

Especially considering the endorsement by Barack Obama’s former chief of staff and head of the Obama Party for Chicago, Rahm Emanuel.

Again, it seems odd that you would spin and make excuses for such behavior by Barack Obama and the Obama Party. But of course, gay-sex marriage and bashing social conservatives is all that matters to you.

northdallasthirty on March 18, 2013 at 10:12 PM

Also, alchemist19, I asked you a very specific question: why do you support the Obama Party and the Obama administration EEOC, led by lesbian bigot Chai Feldblum, using taxpayer dollars and resources to file lawsuits and force churches to go through expensive litigation to prove what is an obvious Constitutional right?

You seem desperate to avoid at any cost the fact that gay-sex marriage supporters have demonstrated time and again that they are antireligious bigots who will deliberately file lawsuits with an attempt to destroy churches financially. You seem quite unwilling to acknowledge that gay-sex marriage supporters are using their elected and appointed governmental positions to carry out their antireligious bigotry and use their governmental power to harass and attack businesses and people, which you allegedly oppose.

These are things that are happening today. You yourself cited a case in which the Barack Obama administration and the Solicitor General of the United States explicitly said that a church has no right to choose its own ministers and that Federal laws always trump religious liberty — forcing the church to go through YEARS of expensive litigation to prove what is an explicit and obvious Constitutional right.

Do you truly hate religion? Is that why you support gay-sex marriage and those gay-sex marriage supporters like the bigots Quinn and Feldblum who use their positions to harass believers?

northdallasthirty on March 18, 2013 at 10:23 PM

“LGBT Americans are our colleagues, our teachers, our soldiers, our friends, our loved ones and they are full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship, that includes marriage”—-Hillary Clinton

Really? Transsexuals and transgendered are my colleagues, teachers, soldiers and friends? Wow, I had no idea.

“To deny the opportunity to any of our daughters or sons solely on the basis of who they are and who they love is to deny them the chance to live up to their own God given potential”—Hillary Clinton

I guess this means that any 3 or more people who want to form marriage licenses together will be permitted to do so. After all, it’s certainly possible to love more than one person at a time, it is who they are and about who they love isn’t it? Denying them a marriage license is to deny them the chance to live up to their own God given potential isn’t it?

Dollayo on March 18, 2013 at 10:50 PM

I’m not an elected official who controls funds to these locations, who has the power to change local law unfavorably, and who has the power to order city agencies to treat me in an unfavorable fashion, nor am I sending these on my elected-official stationery explicitly listing my title.

Short answer: Lesbian bigot abuses her position and all you do is spin and make excuses.

Also, this is harassment of a business by an elected official with no legal grounding whatsoever, which you CLAIMED to oppose. Isn’t it funny how gay-sex marriage supporters like you say one thing and do the opposite?

NYU where New York City’s one Chick-Fil-A is housed is a private school. The city council member can’t do anything to them, and if she does then she will run into the same problem the idiot in Chicago did. And I do oppose what said Chicago idiot did. What would you like me to do about it? Write him a letter? On-line petition?

Actually, you are the uninformed one.

Especially considering the endorsement by Barack Obama’s former chief of staff and head of the Obama Party for Chicago, Rahm Emanuel.

Again, it seems odd that you would spin and make excuses for such behavior by Barack Obama and the Obama Party. But of course, gay-sex marriage and bashing social conservatives is all that matters to you.

northdallasthirty on March 18, 2013 at 10:12 PM

You’re not going to guilt-by-association me, and Rahm Emanuel’s personal opinion also doesn’t change what the zoning board said 24 hours after that idiot opened his mouth. It’s been a non-story since then and no matter how many times he reserves himself he still doesn’t have the power to do what he’s saying he will. The last link looks to me like the action of a man who’s been smacked down, found out he can’t do what he thought he could and now is just making noise to try to save face.

Also, alchemist19, I asked you a very specific question: why do you support the Obama Party and the Obama administration EEOC, led by lesbian bigot Chai Feldblum, using taxpayer dollars and resources to file lawsuits and force churches to go through expensive litigation to prove what is an obvious Constitutional right?

I don’t support that. Why must you try to put words in my mouth? The last election I voted against Obama and his stupid EEOC people wasting taxpayer money can be another of the mountain of reasons I did it.

You seem desperate to avoid at any cost the fact that gay-sex marriage supporters have demonstrated time and again that they are antireligious bigots who will deliberately file lawsuits with an attempt to destroy churches financially. You seem quite unwilling to acknowledge that gay-sex marriage supporters are using their elected and appointed governmental positions to carry out their antireligious bigotry and use their governmental power to harass and attack businesses and people, which you allegedly oppose.

Unlike you I’m not going to try to put words in people’s mouths or make assumptions about people’s motivations because it’s dishonest to do so. I don’t know that they’re all anti-religious bigots out to bankrupt churches. Sure some of them might be but someone wiser than myself (and you) once said to never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. For all I know the guy in Chicago is just freaking dumb.

These are things that are happening today. You yourself cited a case in which the Barack Obama administration and the Solicitor General of the United States explicitly said that a church has no right to choose its own ministers and that Federal laws always trump religious liberty — forcing the church to go through YEARS of expensive litigation to prove what is an explicit and obvious Constitutional right.

Okay. So? Where are you going with this? You think I’m happy a church had to waste a second on that case?

Do you truly hate religion?

No.

Is that why you support gay-sex marriage and those gay-sex marriage supporters like the bigots Quinn and Feldblum who use their positions to harass believers?

northdallasthirty on March 18, 2013 at 10:23 PM

Now here’s where you get in trouble when you start pretending to know other people’s minds when you don’t. I’ve never said one positive word about Feldblum. I said Quinn didn’t attempt to abuse her office like the idiot in Chicago did but I don’t think that’s really a statement of support. Feldblum’s a complete moron. But you went off half-cocked and made it sound like because I agree with them on a single political issue, and even then it’s only on the ends and not the means, that I’m a supporter of their entire agenda. Are you trying to intentionally mislead people about my position or did you mislead yourself?

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 10:50 PM

She’s Catholic. We were discussing venues, her mother said we couldn’t get married in a Catholic church because I’m not Catholic and that was the last thing that was said about it. That’s all I know.

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 6:55 PM

I see…well then you were given erroneous information, so you probably shouldn’t use that in your arguments pushing for same sex ‘marriage’ anymore.

pannw on March 18, 2013 at 11:16 PM

How does Hot Air like being on the same side of this divisive issue as Hillary, Obama and Dan Savage?

PaddyORyan on March 18, 2013 at 11:22 PM

Hmmmmm….

“Hacker Begins Distributing Confidential Memos Sent To Hillary Clinton On Libya, Benghazi Attack…

Armed with confidential memos to Hillary Clinton that were stolen from the e-mail account of a former White House aide, a hacker has distributed some of the documents to a wide array of congressional aides, political figures, and journalists worldwide.

In a series of weekend e-mail blasts, the hacker known as “Guccifer” disseminated four recent memos to Clinton from Sidney Blumenthal, a longtime confidant of the former Secretary of State.

The 64-year-old Blumenthal, who worked as a senior White House adviser to President Bill Clinton, had his AOL e-mail account hacked last week by “Guccifer,” who has conducted similar illegal assaults against a growing list of public figures, including Colin Powell, relatives and friends of the Bush family, and a top United Nations official.

The hacker’s e-mails went to hundreds of recipients, though the distribution lists were dotted with addresses for aides to Senate and House members who are no longer in office. But many of the addresses to which the Blumenthal memos were sent are good (though it is unclear whether karl@rove.com is a solid address for the Republican mastermind).

Most of the e-mail recipients were sent four separate memos that were e-mailed to Clinton by Blumenthal during the past five months. Each memo dealt with assorted developments in Libya, including the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi. One memo marked “Confidential” was sent to Clinton on September 12…”

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/buster/sidney-blumenthal/hacker-distributes-memos-784091

workingclass artist on March 18, 2013 at 11:41 PM

Do some indpendent research into what qualifies as a charity hospital and how much tax exemption they get for it.

We’re all being gamed by two competing sides. The govt wants the authority church has in society to reside with them, and religious affiliated orgs want the benefits of being associated with religions, but not actually hold to the spirit of the idea behind it.

Church. State. Total. Separation.

budfox on March 18, 2013 at 8:21 PM

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

The government gives individuals a tax break for charitable donations. Does that make charity just a government function?

Churches teach. It’s one of the most fundamental ministries that churches do.

Churches give to the poor. That’s a practice and tradition established by Jesus Christ himself, and pushed by all the apostles. The Council at Jerusalem that gave their blessing to Paul the Apostle and his ministry to the Gentiles, by Paul’s own testimony, “… only they would that we should remember the poor, the same which I also was forward to do.”

“Pure religion before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.”

Don’t be like the liberals — hypocrites who lecture about the separation of church and state while allowing the state to circumscribe what exactly the churches have freedom to do.

There Goes The Neighborhood on March 18, 2013 at 11:46 PM

alchemist19 on March 18, 2013 at 10:50 PM
Too many hrs. ago I asked why you couldn’t
get married in a Catholic Church .
Finally , I get caught up only to find that her
mom said you couldn’t .
Unless there is an impediment you can marry
in the church . By impediment I mean a divorce .
If you’re divorced it’s not gonna’ happen .

Lucano on March 19, 2013 at 12:42 AM

How does Hot Air like being on the same side of this divisive issue as Hillary, Obama and Dan Savage?

PaddyORyan on March 18, 2013 at 11:22 PM

I’ve often wondered why that very fact doesn’t give people pause to say well, maybe I better review and evaluate my thinking.

There’s a reason why totalitarians and statists don’t like marriage and don’t like families and work to undermine them.

INC on March 19, 2013 at 3:58 AM

IF gay marriage is so popular why does it usually get defeated when placed on the ballot?

I’m calling shenanigans!

DannoJyd on March 19, 2013 at 4:53 AM

How do you change your mind on morality? It’s possible to legitimize anything or make it socially acceptable, but only God has the authority make something moral. Personally, I don’t care who you sleep with, just don’t hang it out there and expect me to OK it! I don’t believe the polls either. They’re being taken in the inner city amongst the “gimme” crowd. They’ll tell you anything you want to hear for a fee.

Boats48 on March 19, 2013 at 5:10 AM

IF gay marriage is so popular why does it usually get defeated when placed on the ballot?

You mean like in Maine? Whoops, never mind.

TMOverbeck on March 19, 2013 at 7:50 AM

I’ve got a feevah, and the ONLY cure is one more article about gay marriage from Jazzshaw or AP!!!

Hot Air’s new motto: ALL gay marriage, all the time!

kpguru on March 19, 2013 at 9:43 AM

Who cares, she’s a weasel.

potvin on March 19, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Regarding that poll ‘update’.

EVERY poll regarding gay marraige has proven to be false for decades!

In Cal, the pollsters were claiming defining the word marraige as between a man and a woman would fail by a 66 to 33 margin the day before the election. And yet, just one day later, it passed.

I wonder what gay supporting group funded this poll?

Freddy on March 19, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Her courageous announcement is meant to soften, I think, reaction to her correspondence with Sid Blumenthal, should it ever appear.

SarahW on March 19, 2013 at 12:07 PM

Traditional marriage has been kneecapped already. Same sex marriage destroys it, reduces it to a living arrangement, and divorces it from biology and the contraints of that ordered society and liberty require.

We’re all brides of the state now.

SarahW on March 19, 2013 at 12:10 PM

Traditional marriage has been kneecapped already. Same sex marriage destroys it, reduces it to a living arrangement, and divorces it from biology and the contraints of that ordered society and liberty require.

We’re all brides of the state now.

SarahW on March 19, 2013 at 12:10 PM

Care to back up any of these assertions with evidence?

This is the kind of reality-free nonsense the American public (including more and more Conservatives) is rejecting in increasing numbers, day by day.

Dire predictions of societal destruction from SSM are wishful thinking by opponents. Their greatest fear is that nothing at all will happen and married gay couples will fit seamlessly into society, as they already are in states where they can marry.

Maybe you’re a bride of the state, SarahW, but I’m still married to my wife.

chumpThreads on March 19, 2013 at 5:35 PM

All these polls and Hillary Clinton prove, is just how morally bankrupt a people can get under the nanny state mentality.

savage24 on March 19, 2013 at 9:56 PM

So does this mean that she will finally come out?

maryo on March 19, 2013 at 11:04 PM

Sodom and Gomorrah.
Crimes against nature.
The short future of the once greatest country on earth, destroyed by the likes of this fat opportunist.

maryo on March 19, 2013 at 11:12 PM

pannw on March 18, 2013 at 11:16 PM

Lucano on March 19, 2013 at 12:42 AM

Mother-in-law is not to be trusted. Got it. Lol :)

alchemist19 on March 20, 2013 at 1:05 AM

Sodom and Gomorrah.
Crimes against nature.
The short future of the once greatest country on earth, destroyed by the likes of this fat opportunist.

maryo on March 19, 2013 at 11:12 PM

Is that why the Netherlands, Massachusetts and Iowa have been reduced to a pile of smoldering ash?

alchemist19 on March 20, 2013 at 1:13 AM

The Poll is bull shit. Every chance we get an actual chance to vote on this, IT LOSES BIG.

dogsoldier on March 20, 2013 at 5:26 AM

a double-digit swing in public opinion

In five years? No. Push-polling designed to influence opinion. Why, it’s how we got Romney as the nominee. Polls showed that he was the choice of 97.8% or something of Republicans and 107% of Democrats.

ddrintn on March 20, 2013 at 8:28 AM

Is that why the Netherlands, Massachusetts and Iowa have been reduced to a pile of smoldering ash? alchemist19 on March 20, 2013 at 1:13 AM

If evil were punished every time with such obvious consequences, there would be no need for faith.

One example should be enough for all time.

Akzed on March 20, 2013 at 5:21 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4