Yes, it matters when and why Hillary Clinton changed her mind on gay marriage

posted at 8:31 am on June 14, 2014 by Jazz Shaw

As you’ve already heard, Hillary Clinton got in a bit of a spat with an NPR (!) host this week regarding her shifting opinion on gay marriage and the authenticity of her stated positions. I say you’ve already heard because Noah dug into the subject previously, but he arrived at a somewhat different conclusion than I did, particularly given the woman’s history. (I’ll come back to Noah’s piece in a bit.)

One of the more common refrains coming from the hard core, Hillary loving left – as well as some less expected sources – is not an argument that her shifting values are completely understandable and completely valid as you might expect. The more common answer I’m seeing is, to borrow a phrase from the subject herself, what difference, at this point, does it make?

This is the case being put forth this week by Doug Mataconis – no fan of Hillary himself – in his article, It Doesn’t Matter When, or Why, Hillary Clinton Changed Her Mind on Marriage Equality. That lede should nicely explain why I chose the title for this essay. It has a few components to it, one of which is the choice of how to describe the issue. These days, you’re apparently not supposed to say “gay marriage” in polite conversation. Doing so immediately brands you as some sort of mouth breathing troglodyte who just wants to keep down Teh Ghays. I guess you’re not supposed to even say “same sex marriage” either. Now it’s only acceptable to say Marriage Equality.

Excuuuuuuuuse me.

But that’s not the point at issue here today. We’re exploring motives and calculations. So why, in Doug’s opinion, doesn’t it matter? Two reasons, it seems. The first is fairly short and simple.

In fact, I think it’s fair to say that support for marriage equality is a required position for any Democratic politician at any level. On some level, then, it’s fair to wonder whether a politician like Clinton who now says they support marriage equality is doing so because they actually believe in it in some abstract philosophical sense, or because they need to take that position to be politically viable. This would seem to be especially true given the fact that just six years ago politicians such as Clinton, Obama, and Biden were all saying that while they supported civil unions and equal rights for gay couples, they believed that marriage was an institution that should be limited to one man and one woman.

Oh, I’ll grant that completely. It’s entirely toxic to be a Democrat and not support gay marriage. But not only does this not address the question of whether it “matters” or not, it essentially gives up the high ground immediately. That’s just using a lot more words to say, hey. She’s a politician. They’ll all blow sunshine up your skirt if it gets them another vote.

But there’s more, and this second part requires a bit longer quote to gather the flavor of it.

On some level ,though, I think the question of when or why a politician, or any person for that matter, changed their mind on same-sex marriage is really quite irrelevant. This is an issue on which we have seen public opinion change dramatically over the course of a very short period of time. Less than twenty years ago, when a court case in Hawaii set this issue in motion and led, at first, to the passage of the Defense of Marriage Act, public opinion polls showed that the vast majority of the American people opposed the idea of extending marriage rights to gays and lesbians. In 1996, for example, a Gallup poll found that 68% of Americans opposed same-sex marriage and only 27% supported it. Now, we are at the point where same-sex marriage is legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia, an area occupied by more than 50% of the American population and polling shows that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage. When the public debate on this issue began, it seemed inconceivable that we would be at such a point in such a short period of time and, now, the day when gays and lesbians will be able to live together as married couples is not only in sight, but is likely far closer than people thought it would be just a few years ago.

None of that would have happened if people had not changed their mind on the issue of marriage equality. At some point, nearly everyone who now supports marriage equality was opposed to it in some sense or the other. Do we demonize them for being wrong in the past, or do we congratulate them for coming around to accepting the idea of equality now?

This argument just doesn’t hold any water when I read it. Yes, there has been a shift in American public opinion over time, but it’s been over a very measurable period of time. Not a vast span in geologic terms, of course, but the period between the study Doug cites and today is nearly twenty years. That’s pretty much an entire generation in both biblical and scientific terms. And that’s what we’re talking about here… a generational change. With Hillary we’re talking about six years at most, and coincidentally enough (I’m sure), it’s the six years since the last presidential election. That’s a little too convenient of a coincidence for me, thank you very much.

And that convenient bit of timing brings us back to both the original question of whether or not this matters and the conclusion which Noah reached in his article. In the latter piece, Noah concludes that some liberals may have just cause to wonder whether or not Hillary has actually come around to supporting gay marriage or if she’s secretly still opposed to it.

Clinton’s current position on gay marriage, while right-thinking, was simply not adopted fast enough, and her enthusiasm in support of the cause is very much in doubt. While fringe progressives have been freely critical of Clinton for some time, this issue may provide moderate Democrats with a vehicle for airing their concerns about the likely Democratic standard-bearer.

I disagree. I don’t think this is an issue of Hillary Clinton secretly harboring some deep affection for traditional, one man one woman marriage but claiming a more progressive banner for political purposes. I find it far more likely that she’s either always been a fan of gay marriage and was lying about it in 2008, or – far more likely – that she really doesn’t give a good fig about it either way but is willing to say whatever the current national poll numbers tell her is the popular answer.

Does that matter? Well… that depends. Do you want to support a candidate who actually has no values but will tell you what you want to hear as long as it gets her into office? If not, then no. I suppose it doesn’t matter. But if you think our elected leaders ought to have both the character and the spine to open the books and display the courage of their true convictions it might say one heck of a lot.

In closing, particularly for those of you who wandered in here following a link, you probably think you’re reading yet another article from some Right Wing Nutjob who reflexively opposes gay marriage. The truth is that you might be surprised. One of these days I should really do a lengthy post covering my own views on the subject (which would no doubt bring a host of cat calls from the readers as well) and how I arrived at them, but to do it here would turn this piece into a novel. And that’s not the point of this discussion today. The question is whether or not Hillary Clinton is authentic on this subject or others, and the way I read the cards on the table, this one doesn’t pass the smell test.


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

But it doesn’t matter to me what she thinks about anything.

crankyoldlady on June 14, 2014 at 8:38 AM

Shrillary’s track record-
*When confronted about her rapist husband having an affair with an intern in the Oval Office she blamed a “vast right wing conspiracy”. Blatant lie design for political purposes.
*When questioned about her lack of foreign policy experience she weaved a bizarre tale of being shot at by snipers while she and her daughter ran for safety. Of course the video of the incident (she’s too stupid to realize these things are recorded) showed her getting flowers from a little girl instead. Again, blatant lie for political gain.
*When gay marriage didn’t have popular support, she was against it. Now that it’s gained popularity and can be used as a political weapon she’s for it. Again, blatant lies for political gain.

Flange on June 14, 2014 at 8:40 AM

Who cares?

Amjean on June 14, 2014 at 8:44 AM

How can you tell if a Clinton is lying? Their lips are moving. They will say whatever, whenever and to whoever to get elected.

Tinker on June 14, 2014 at 8:46 AM

Shouldn’t people be more interested in somebody who actually stands a chance at being a major party’s Presidential nominee?

Gingotts on June 14, 2014 at 8:48 AM

She went with the winds of change. Right after she bought Chelsea black skin tight leather pants.

RAGIN CAJUN on June 14, 2014 at 8:54 AM

I’ll tell you why the numbers have changed so drastically in such a short period of time. It’s not because people opposed died off and a new generation took over, although obviously some did. That wouldn’t have changed the numbers drastically enough. It’s because traditionalists are just so tired of resisting the relentless warlike demands of the homosexual lobby, and because that same relentless lobby took over the purse strings and pockets of the Democrat Party.

The problem is that failure to resist emboldens them to demand that you bow the knee, bend the neck, and actually ACTIVELY APPROVE of their conduct, through laws that now discriminate against people of conscience (hate crime laws? What crime isn’t a crime of hate? Why is a white person less valuable if a victim than another person?).

Morally, we are circling the toilet. There is still a remnant, but more and more Americans are simply hedonistic narcissists willing to break up families, destroy children, and the consequences be damned for their own pursuit of ‘happiness.’

xNavigator on June 14, 2014 at 8:58 AM

Hillary’s ‘evolution’ on gay marriage came nine months after Obama’s. But to the left that really doesn’t trust Hillary to govern to the left if she’s elected, nine months might as well be a lifetime, because they feel as if they’ve found a new, more effective cudgel to beat her with in order to push their preferred candidacy of Liz Warren or some other progressive they don’t think will sell them out like Bill did, with his post-’94 triangulation strategy.

Obama only ‘evolved’ when he did because Sheriff Joe forced him to out himself in the town square. Hillary, being the calculating person she is, didn’t rush head-first into me-tooism, because she wanted to see how the 2012 election results came out and if the change hurt Obama. So if the left wants to attack Hillary on the fact she takes political positions based on what she thinks is best for her and not for the country, they can do that, even though for everyone else, that’s Breaking News From 1992.

But they’re being just as disingenuous as she is by pretending to be outrageously outraged over the difference in changing your position in May of 2012 and January of 2013. They know the Democrats’ voting block is all into feelings and trendy causes, and a pol like Fauxahontas probably can’t stir up the masses enough on income inequality to separate herself from Hillary, but bashing her like she’s Pat Robertson on same-sex marriage might fire up the progressive base for the non-Hillary choice in 2016 (though if Team Clinton were to survive the primary, those same people would go back to not giving a damn on what month she ‘evolved’ for the 2016 general election).

jon1979 on June 14, 2014 at 9:02 AM

But if you think our elected leaders ought to have both the character and the spine to open the books and display the courage of their true convictions it might say one heck of a lot.

You’re kidding, right?

No far lefty pol can EVAH say out loud what they really believe in; it’d get them strung up in a trice.

For the majority of politicians, right, left or whatever- they have no convictions to speak of that are not intimately related to their personal welfare.

And character? Pfffttt. What an old-fashioned notion. Character is not necessary or even permissible in the hive mind.

Dolce Far Niente on June 14, 2014 at 9:03 AM

Can we cease with the Hildebeast pictures? I’m running out of antacids. I went to a bookstore Thursday to get Allen West’s latest book and there were at least 10 large displays of that horrid woman’s face book. (Didn’t seem to be anyone buying them, though. Huh.) And, did they have Guardian of the Republic on a shelf? Nope. Had to go through Amazon.

Fallon on June 14, 2014 at 9:05 AM

She’s an authentic liar. That’s about as authentic as she gets on any subject. I’m sorry we’ve had this generational change since the bible hasn’t changed it’s mind on the subject and God hasn’t either. Too bad teaching the bible isn’t done in depth at a lot of churches anymore. It’s to be used for reproof which isn’t the same as judging someone else’s actions. We need a lot of reproofing going on these days.

Kissmygrits on June 14, 2014 at 9:08 AM

To sum up Hillary and most of the left:

And I am, whatever you say I am
If I wasn’t then why would I say I am?
In the paper, the news everyday I am
Radio won’t even play my jam

Will the real Hillary Shady, please stand up?

Fallon on June 14, 2014 at 9:13 AM

One of the more common refrains coming from the hard core, Hillary loving left . . .

The hard core left despises both Clintons. That is why Obama ended up with the nomination in 2008.

myiq2xu on June 14, 2014 at 9:16 AM

She’s an authentic liar.

Once you learn to fake sincerity the rest is easy.

myiq2xu on June 14, 2014 at 9:17 AM

Killary’s for Gay marriage now because she’s so happy Bill can’t get it up anymore.

vnvet on June 14, 2014 at 9:19 AM

I think the current occupant is going to leave the US in such a chaotic worldwide predicament by 2016 that the nation is not going to turn over the reigns to a dingbat.

Marcus on June 14, 2014 at 9:33 AM

I think Hillary is showing real signs of senile dementia. Age may indeed be her enemy in a presidential run. She is quite confused by all of her web of machinations and lies to be sure. Hard to avoid, even for her. But I think this (dementia) is something more.

Sherman1864 on June 14, 2014 at 9:34 AM

Herd mentality. And Hillary the old cow is only trying to keep up with all the other unprincipled cattle spooked by the media and whatever attitudes their cooked polls say they should have.

otlset on June 14, 2014 at 9:34 AM

Nothing matters.

tomas on June 14, 2014 at 9:36 AM

Who cares?

Amjean on June 14, 2014 at 8:44 AM

Not only are we supposed to care about gay marriage, we’re supposed to care about when and why Hillary “changed her mind” about it. Oh, and of all that Eric Holder has to do and say, now he must bring to the public’s attention that since gays now serve openly in the military, they certainly should be able to serve openly in the Boy Scouts. Also, we’re supposed to make bakers bake gay cakes, and otherwise give all kinds of special protections to gays.

I’m all f*gged out, if you’ll excuse the term.

LashRambo on June 14, 2014 at 9:42 AM

This article nails it as far as I’m concerned. Bill Clinton was the master of triangulating his positions according to polling numbers. Obama is the master of hiding his positions behind high sounding talking points. And Hillary is attempting to become the mistress of revising her history to conform with what she thinks people want to hear. Her task is actually the most difficult as she has the longest track record. Once you’ve adopted every conceivable position on a subject how can attack a position you’ve previously held. This is in addition to your own series of mistakes and missteps in various roles that you’ve had.

EA_MAN on June 14, 2014 at 9:43 AM

Does that matter? Well… that depends. Do you want to support a candidate who actually has no values but will tell you what you want to hear as long as it gets her into office?

There’s always John Edwards.

Buck Farky on June 14, 2014 at 9:44 AM

Hillary’s catch-phrase to deflect from this subject will be given in a speech in front of the LGBT national convention, and it’ll be something like this:

“And now I’m able, just like many of you did, to come out of the closet and reveal my true beliefs concerning gay marriage!”

BobMbx on June 14, 2014 at 9:45 AM

These days, you’re apparently not supposed to say “gay marriage” in polite conversation. Doing so immediately brands you as some sort of mouth breathing troglodyte who just wants to keep down Teh Ghays. I guess you’re not supposed to even say “same sex marriage” either. Now it’s only acceptable to say Marriage Equality.

Count me as one who’ll never go with the expression Marriage Equality. Gay marriage seems to miss the mark too. Generally, the term gay has traditionally been used to denote homosexual men only; the term lesbian, of course, has always applied only to homosexual women. Perhaps gay is occasionally being used to refer to both groups, but I don’t think it’s use in that manner is prevalent.

I may be engaging in euphemisms, but I like using the expression same-sex marriage. It unquestionably covers both gays and lesbians, it’s indisputably accurate, and it doesn’t engage in the gaymafia fantasy that these unions even come close to the level of importance that marriage of a man and a woman holds in the development and advancement of society.

BuckeyeSam on June 14, 2014 at 9:48 AM

“And now I’m able, just like many of you did, to come out of the closet and reveal my true beliefs concerning gay marriage!”

BobMbx on June 14, 2014 at 9:45 AM

Huma?

Fallon on June 14, 2014 at 9:53 AM

Maybe, she can find some gays from India and hold a press conference at a 7-11 and get this Straightened out.

tomas on June 14, 2014 at 9:54 AM

She’s an authentic liar. That’s about as authentic as she gets on any subject. I’m sorry we’ve had this generational change since the bible hasn’t changed it’s mind on the subject and God hasn’t either. Too bad teaching the bible isn’t done in depth at a lot of churches anymore. It’s to be used for reproof which isn’t the same as judging someone else’s actions. We need a lot of reproofing going on these days.

Kissmygrits on June 14, 2014 at 9:08 AM

So true!

Common sense teaches that living by the rules made by God makes life so much more simpler. Otherwise, every action, every action would have to be debated internally prior to action. What a crazy, disorganized, and tumultuous way to live a life.

I told this to a psychologist friend years ago when he was questioning me about “rules” and why I thought there were “rules” to live by. He was asking me for a logical reason for having “rules”. He couldn’t think of a comeback.

avagreen on June 14, 2014 at 9:54 AM

Border Agents: We’re Letting In Gang Members…

Obama Admin Forbids Lawmakers From Taking Photos Of Illegal Immigrant Facility…

Border Patrol Threatened With Criminal Charges for Speaking to Reporters…

Agents changing diapers, heating baby formula for surge of children…

OBAMA: ‘Our Future Rests’ on DREAMers…

Honduran President: ‘Misinformation’…

More than 35,000 illegals entering TX each month…

PAPER: Orchestrated campaign to create chaos…

Embassies still not warning against sending children…

bazil9 on June 14, 2014 at 9:56 AM

I may be engaging in euphemisms, but I like using the expression same-sex marriage. It unquestionably covers both gays and lesbians, it’s indisputably accurate, and it doesn’t engage in the gaymafia fantasy that these unions even come close to the level of importance that marriage of a man and a woman holds in the development and advancement of society.

BuckeyeSam on June 14, 2014 at 9:48 AM

There’s a whole theory of good use of adjectives and nouns, and I think it’s important. :) Correct use. Not as in politically correct, but in what best conveys the meaning. Most accurately.

For example, African American. Are all Africans black? No, not the Afrikaners of South Africa, who are indisputably African. But if they become naturalized Americans, I seriously doubt anyone would call them “African American”. Are all blacks African? Well, yes in the sense we’re all out of Africa. But maybe some Caribbean blacks have a more separate culture? I think they mean “black”, leading to some American newsreader comically identifying rioting black French youths as “African American”.

Or the use of the phrase “the elderly” in medicine. It has a specific meaning, about a specific patient class. So some suggested it be changed to “older patients”, as it has a softer cast to it, than “elderly”. But then the patient class isn’t so clearly defined any more. Older than what? And, will medical mistakes result from the vagueness of this new designation, which was intended to make old people not feel so bad about being old? Now you’re not “elderly”, you’re “older”, but you die sooner for being given the wrong medicine?

As you suggest, names should convey meaning, not advance political causes.

LashRambo on June 14, 2014 at 10:05 AM

MeanWhile:

Wisconsin same-sex marriage

Wisconsin, US
15h

Federal judge who struck down Wisconsin’s gay marriage ban orders temporary halt to marriages – @AP, @news3jessica
End of alert

https://twitter.com/news3jessica

canopfor on June 14, 2014 at 10:06 AM

Jun 14, 2014 at 9:08 am Kissmygrits

Agreed.

Sherman1864 on June 14, 2014 at 10:12 AM

Jun 14, 2014 at 9:08 am Kissmygrits
Agreed.

Sherman1864 on June 14, 2014 at 10:13 AM

Can we please stop referring to it as ‘gay marriage’….?
It’s ‘same-sex’ marriage.
Couples weren’t prevented from marrying because they were gay.
They were prevented from marrying because they were of the ‘same-sex’….straight or gay didn’t matter.
There are no laws preventing a gay man from marrying a woman.
And there are no laws preventing a gay woman from marrying a man.

If you support ‘same-sex’ marriage then you also have to support polygamy and sibling marriage.

Keep in mind that the argument for same-sex marriage is:
2 legal age adults who love each other and want to marry each other.

That about covers everybody……….

mjs28c on June 14, 2014 at 10:17 AM

Loves those Saudi riyals.

So do the Ivies.

So no, it has nothing to do with conviction.

Ben Hur on June 14, 2014 at 10:18 AM

By definition, there is no “same sex” marriage, cause there is no intended recepticle for the joining. On a female, there is and intended part for the male to join with. Try to get two male ended electrical cords to work properly. You can only fool yourself if you try to make the abnormal normal. I am only speaking biologically, but there is no natural purpose of homosexuality.

Zelsdorf Ragshaft on June 14, 2014 at 10:24 AM

Who cares?

Amjean on June 14, 2014 at 8:44 AM

Not only are we supposed to care about gay marriage, we’re supposed to care about when and why Hillary “changed her mind” about it. Oh, and of all that Eric Holder has to do and say, now he must bring to the public’s attention that since gays now serve openly in the military, they certainly should be able to serve openly in the Boy Scouts. Also, we’re supposed to make bakers bake gay cakes, and otherwise give all kinds of special protections to gays.

I’m all f*gged out, if you’ll excuse the term.

LashRambo on June 14, 2014 at 9:42 AM

What tickles me are my grandchildren. Grandchildren have actual
conversations with their grandparents, not so much with their parents. It
is one of the perks of being a grandparent. They don’t particularly
care if anyone is “gay” (and, yes, they use the term). They
make fun of them behind their backs sometimes; mostly, if the gay
guy acts all feminine and girly, girly. If the gay “friends” aren’t too obnoxious,
they will include them in their pack of playmates; otherwise,
they will not include them. They won’t be mean; they just don’t
text or ring their doorbell. One kid they did cut out
was when they found out the kid had two moms. “That is just too
weird”, they said; “We are not in to two moms kissing and hugging”.

If I complain about Obama; they tell me “Grammy, everyone hates
Obama”. They are 8, 10, 11 and 12. There is hope!

Although I must admit the 14 year old girl going in to high school
this fall is showing the usual liberal tendencies; “I can’t look
at meat”!

Amjean on June 14, 2014 at 10:27 AM

I’m all f*gged out, if you’ll excuse the term.

LashRambo on June 14, 2014 at 9:42 AM

++

GaltBlvnAtty on June 14, 2014 at 10:28 AM

Yes, there has been a shift in American public opinion over time, but it’s been over a very measurable period of time. Not a vast span in geologic terms, of course, but the period between the study Doug cites and today is nearly twenty years.

It demonstrates that push polling can generate, or at least accentuate, whatever results you are looking for. It also shows the effect of many years of both overt and subliminal messaging, as delivered by the media, education, and entertainment industries, leading to abdication and submission from sheer weariness.

bofh on June 14, 2014 at 10:45 AM

A word about HRC from HCJ… http://bit.ly/abouthrc Halli Casser-Jayne is the host of The Halli Casser-Jayne Show, Talk Radio for Fine Minds.

The CJ Political Report on June 14, 2014 at 11:00 AM

I’m disappointed, Jazz.

blink on June 14, 2014 at 9:07 AM

Mom? I thought we banned your account here…

Jazz Shaw on June 14, 2014 at 11:18 AM

Yes, there has been a shift in American public opinion over time, but it’s been over a very measurable period of time. Not a vast span in geologic terms, of course, but the period between the study Doug cites and today is nearly twenty years.

I think a lot of Americans are likely to tell a pollster they support gay marriage or say publicly they support it, and then privately vote against it. The numbers seem to support that. People are frightened of our rising fascist state, and don’t want to be hassled or have their lives ruined over some issue like gay marriage.

TarheelBen on June 14, 2014 at 11:31 AM

She’s a politician. They’ll all blow sunshine up your skirt if it gets them another vote.

…sure!…broad butt’s problem?…she isn’t familiar…with skirts!
.
.
.

Can we cease with the Hildebeast pictures? I’m running out of antacids. I went to a bookstore Thursday to get Allen West’s latest book and there were at least 10 large displays of that horrid woman’s face book. (Didn’t seem to be anyone buying them, though. Huh.) And, did they have Guardian of the Republic on a shelf? Nope. Had to go through Amazon.

Fallon on June 14, 2014 at 9:05 AM

…I have an in-law that works part-time checking and stacking the book sections for several stores for a major retail store here in blue state Michigan. The shelves for it have been prominent AND full…and not selling at all!…she has confirmed it is the same everywhere else in the chain. Hope the publisher didn’t give her a huge advance.

KOOLAID2 on June 14, 2014 at 11:45 AM

Now, we are at the point where same-sex marriage is legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia, an area occupied by more than 50% of the American population and polling shows that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage.

A majority of a majority is still only a quarter of the populace

ss396 on June 14, 2014 at 11:47 AM

Like Willie, she’s only for their votes.

formwiz on June 14, 2014 at 12:05 PM

In closing, particularly for those of you who wandered in here following a link, you probably think you’re reading yet another article from some Right Wing Nutjob who reflexively opposes gay marriage.

Nah. You use all of the gay terms for these things, so it’s clear that your are pro-gay or at best neutral on the subject.

Count to 10 on June 14, 2014 at 12:05 PM

Now, we are at the point where same-sex marriage is legal in 19 states and the District of Columbia, an area occupied by more than 50% of the American population and polling shows that a majority of Americans support same-sex marriage

Most of those states had it imposed by dictatorial fiat; as for the polls, 5 – 10 points to the Left.

formwiz on June 14, 2014 at 12:06 PM

I think a lot of Americans are likely to tell a pollster they support gay marriage or say publicly they support it, and then privately vote against it. The numbers seem to support that. People are frightened of our rising fascist state, and don’t want to be hassled or have their lives ruined over some issue like gay marriage.

TarheelBen on June 14, 2014 at 11:31 AM

A lot will vote for it too, because they have been told that it will hurt their enemies, even if they themselves don’t like it.

Count to 10 on June 14, 2014 at 12:07 PM

Border Agents: We’re Letting In Gang Members…

Obama Admin Forbids Lawmakers From Taking Photos Of Illegal Immigrant Facility…

Border Patrol Threatened With Criminal Charges for Speaking to Reporters…

Agents changing diapers, heating baby formula for surge of children…

OBAMA: ‘Our Future Rests’ on DREAMers…

Honduran President: ‘Misinformation’…

More than 35,000 illegals entering TX each month…

PAPER: Orchestrated campaign to create chaos…

Embassies still not warning against sending children…

bazil9 on June 14, 2014 at 9:56 AM

…why aren’t the governors in the respective states…calling up their state National Guards to protect their citizens?…they are in charge of those units supposedly.

KOOLAID2 on June 14, 2014 at 12:09 PM

Making something legal does not make it right. Abortion comes to mind. As does this. But hey.. I’m just a gun clinging, Bible thumping, Texas Redneck…Not hip, slick & cool like my ‘betters’… Pffffft.

bimmcorp on June 14, 2014 at 12:24 PM

The homosexual, illegal immigration, Islamization of our national security community and all levels of local and federal government, and drug legalization agendas have all won during Obama’s time as president. H. Clinton will further all of them if she wins no matter what she said, says, or will say. She is as evil as Obama.

rlwo2008 on June 14, 2014 at 12:34 PM

Who cares?

Amjean on June 14, 2014 at 8:44 AM

Gay marriage is stupid, but it’s politically toxic to say that.

At this point, the entire US world, economic and immigration policy has been sacrificed to the gay marriage gods. It’s time to abandon the issue and move on.

There is a very good biological reason there has never been gay marriage before in the history of the earth. At some point biology will trump political correctness. Til then, ignore it.

Every single politician lies. Every single one tells the voters what they want to hear. Clinton is no different. Any statements she makes on this issue are of no value.

talkingpoints on June 14, 2014 at 12:56 PM

I’m disappointed, Jazz.

blink on June 14, 2014 at 9:07 AM

Mom? I thought we banned your account here…

Jazz Shaw on June 14, 2014 at 11:18 AM

I love blink’s posts, but that was a classic reply, Jazz. Kudos.

Fallon on June 14, 2014 at 1:18 PM

When?

Hillary changed her mind on gay marriage exactly when polling indicated it was advantageous.

Why?

Hillary changed her mind on gay marriage exactly when polling indicated it was advantageous.

This is how Clinton Presidency 1 was conducted, Clinton Presidency 2 will be much the same except with a lot more death because Hillary is a sociopath and she would wag the dog to draw attention from the least of domestic scandals.

Mark my words.

M240H on June 14, 2014 at 1:22 PM

She’s a politician… her change in policy was political.

Karmashock on June 14, 2014 at 1:56 PM

As someone on Twitter said this week, if opposing SSM in 2008 is enough to keep you from being the CEO of Mozilla in 2014, it sure as hell should be enough to keep you from being President of the United States in 2016!

Hillary Rodham was well known as a progressive feminist lawyer before she married Bill Clinton. It’s not really speculation to believe she has privately supported same-sex marriage since the concept was first discussed. If she had not become a politician, it’s plausible that she would have been one of the lead attorneys arguing the SSM cases in the courts along with David Boies and Ted Olson. Or would have been one of the judges that ruled in favor of it. This is entirely consistent with her known views on legal and civil rights issues over her career.

Of course she was lying in 2008, and was lying right up until Obama changed his position in 2012. And she of ALL people should not get a pass on this.

rockmom on June 14, 2014 at 2:12 PM

I could care less about the LGBT lifestyle. If it’s on TV (seems like just about all the time now), I don’t watch it and switch to another channel when it comes on. Leviticus 20:13 When judgement day comes, I’ll have to answer for the sin’s I’ve committed, homosexuality won’t be one of them. My current issue with the LGBT’s is they won’t tolerate those of us who disagree with their lifestyle. What happened to “Dissent is patriotic”?

TulsAmerican on June 14, 2014 at 2:36 PM

I cut her slack on this one. Obviously she was saying what her base wanted to hear, both times. Her base changed. Her party turned.

If she had been secretly working against her public position, that’s a different problem. Ask the tea party about their leadership

I don’t look at HilCLin as someone with strong moral fiber. I look at her as someone who takes orders from the number crunchers. Her party dropped the Humbert Humphrey wing a long time ago so I doubt her base cares.

Except the ones who’s feelings were hurt.

The new theocrats demand theological purity. Like ISIS

You couldnt sqeeeze purity out of HilClin if you used a juicer

“What difference does it make?”

entagor on June 14, 2014 at 3:37 PM

Remember, it’s not a lie if YOU believe it.

G. Costanza

teacherman on June 14, 2014 at 4:08 PM

I find it far more likely that she’s either always been a fan of gay marriage and was lying about it in 2008, or – far more likely – that she really doesn’t give a good fig about it either way but is willing to say whatever the current national poll numbers tell her is the popular answer.

I totally agree with this. I’d say the same about Obama and Biden. Great post Jazz.

cat_owner on June 14, 2014 at 4:16 PM

HeIIfire, I can’t blame Hillary for being gay after all she has been through.

Bmore on June 14, 2014 at 5:29 PM

I will never use the term “marriage equality” any more than I will call the left-wing fascists, “liberal” or “progressive”.

Hasn’t everyone gotten it yet? They are ALL about re-definition. To make themselves and their immoral, degenerate behavior seem more bright and shiny to the populace.

Sterling Holobyte on June 14, 2014 at 5:34 PM

The primary reason why GOP cannot blast Hillary for her (very real) hypocrisy on this issue is because GOP itself is on the wrong side of the issue. When you are covered in feces, you sound kinda stupid saying “look at her, she didn’t always wanted to shower, and only did so half-voluntarily” even if it’s true.

PBH on June 14, 2014 at 5:41 PM

The Associated Press @AP · 28m

Hundreds of gay couples married before Wis. stopped issuing marriage licenses wonder if the weddings count: http://apne.ws/1ixyp0i

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/uncertainty-gay-couples-married-wisconsin

canopfor on June 14, 2014 at 8:31 PM

Yes, there has been a shift in American public opinion over time, but it’s been over a very measurable period of time. Not a vast span in geologic terms, of course, but the period between the study Doug cites and today is nearly twenty years.

It demonstrates that push polling can generate, or at least accentuate, whatever results you are looking for. It also shows the effect of many years of both overt and subliminal messaging, as delivered by the media, education, and entertainment industries, leading to abdication and submission from sheer weariness.

bofh on June 14, 2014 at 10:45 AM

This article illustrates your point.

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2014/06/13269/

This guy, Doug, is an idiot.

blink on June 14, 2014 at 8:58 AM

Truer words have never been spoken.

DagoTwit on June 14, 2014 at 11:50 PM