What Obama or Clinton felt personally meant little - what mattered in this case is policy. What happened is that enough of the "Greatest Generation" were dead for the overall public sentiment to tip the balance to being more accepting of gay relationships.
#1 Why does it matter what Democratic lawmakers believed in their heart of hearts? What matters is the policy that they pursue and pass, which has an impact on society. Enough younger voters had entered the voting system and enough older voters had died - and Obama made a decision to pursue policy to help homosexuals. The Republicans did not do it - indeed, it isn't as big an issue now, but there are still a number of Republican lawmakers against gay marriage, it just isn't as much a lightening rod now. LBJ didn't especially like black people, said he couldn't relate to them - yet he pursued and got passage of the most important bill in 100 years. Abraham Lincoln did not like hanging out with black people, he wanted to send them all away on boats and he said that black people were simple and stupid. Yet he played an enormous part in getting black people citizen rights.
This is an interesting situation. All the discussion is going to be about how Clanton said in a text message that she "HATES ALL BLACK PEOPLE" in a text message to a friend, 10 years ago when she was 20 years old. I can understand people, especially black people questioning if she still holds that opinion. Further I can understand someone saying that someone getting such a high honor should not even have made such comments, and they should be excused from the position she is getting. However - a couple of points. First, Clarence Thomas has held similar opinions in the past and still does to an extent. Thomas was against black and white people being able to marry until his relationship with his wife. He is often viewed by the left as groveling before the conservative white men in power and doing their bidding. It isn't that simple - Thomas does not really trust "white people" as an institution. He believes that there will always be conflict between the races, and that societies racism is SO engrained, any effort by the white establishment to make it better, only makes it worse. So - Clanton having said "I HATE BLACK PEOPLE" likely means little to him. The REAL story here is that Thomas and his political "group" have been grooming Clanton for this position for over a decade. This is not someone that has risen purely on merit as a student and achiever. Clanton has been a favorite of Thomas and his wife for a decade. Ginni Thomas is the mentor to Clanton and has helped get her a number of excellent appointments. This isn't entirely new - the same accusations have been made toward Kavanaugh and a few of the left leaning Judges (being groomed).
1. It matters because it pushes back on the notion that opposing same-sex marriage was some sort of bigoted position or evil thing as most frame it today. The large majority of politicians, on both sides of the isle of this and the last generation opposed same-sex marriage as recently as 12 years ago. 2. It matters because either they were lying when they opposed same sex marriage or they are lying now that they support same sex marriage. Don't piss on my back and tell me it's raining. You know as well as I do every major Democratic politician did not "stay up all night looking at the stars struggling with this issue" or something and all came up with exact same conclusion, in the exact same time frame. They essentially all spent their entire political life opposing same sex marriage and then all changed within 1-2 election cycles. People in their 40's-70's all, collectively decided, between 2010-2013 that the position they held their entire lives was "bigoted" and wrong and they had this natural change of heart? Give me a break.
Opposing gay marriage was a bigoted position. Owning slaves in the 1820's was morally wrong....... beating your wife was wrong in the 1920'-1950' as well..... People are complicated and make mistakes and learn from their mistakes. I was an adult during the time period you are discussing and plenty of people knew that it was wrong. Also - no, everyone didn't change their minds in 2 election cycles, there are still plenty of people that view gay marriage as wrong, they just no longer are the majority. A lot of changes in society happen this way - enough older people die, and enough younger people become adults in society - and it slightly tilts the position enough to cause change. I am not sure what you are really trying to get at here - but this is how society in many cases works.... and as more old people die, the new political change becomes solidified.
No - what happened is that people that were 70 years or older had a higher percentage of being against gay marriage and enough of them died in a two election cycle and were replaced by young people that were more approving of gay marriage. With that information in hand - Obama decided to make a political stand to support gay marriage, when before it would have been too politically dangerous to do so. If you want to call them hypocrites you can - but the reality is that a lot of the politicians high up in American politics support causes and bills that they do not personally believe in, but do so because they believe that their electorate support them. Look at Mitch McConnell - he is a master at it. He has supported politicians, bills and positions that he isn't in love with - because he believed it would help his party get elected.
I don't think so. I think pointing out every major Democratic politician of this generation opposed same sex marriage for the majority of their political life is a pretty powerful thing to rebut the notion that opposing same sex marriage is the crime many make it out to be today.
Listen, if all the major Democratic politicians were telling you in 2008 they opposed same sex marriage and supported traditional marriage and by 2012 they were all supporting same sex marriage and ideas of traditional marriage didn't matter. Either they were lying to you in 2008 or they were lying to you in 2012. They didn't all have some sort of organic change of heart in that 4 year time period after searching their souls or something. Let's not be naïve or obtuse.
You make zero sense on this issue HTM. First, your theory that politicians vote according to their own personal opinions are isn't accurate. Second, no one is claiming that Democratic politicians all suddenly searched their souls over a 4 year period. Third - what happened was that enough old people died, and young people entered the voting rolls - and there was enough support amongst voters for Barack Obama to come out and support gay marriage. Fourth, this has very little to do with their personal beliefs and has more to do with what is politically possible. The American people became more open to gay marriage over time, by the time that Obama came out and politically supported it, the amount of support amongst voters was strong enough for politicians to take a stand. None of this changes the fact that if you were against the right for two men or two women to get married - it was shitty. Does that alone make you a terrible person? No - but it is part of who you are for good or bad. People are complicated.... usually more gray than anything else. So no - I don't feel lied to or betrayed at all. Politicians at the highest level often times have to adopt the wishes and views of their electorate. LBJ is a perfect example.... so if JFK, Donald Trump doesn't really give a **** about abortion or Christianity, but it helps him win elections. It is how it has been forever.
What's the point of arguing this? The fact is one side supported a policy change and the other didn't. Politicians are just that, politicians. The majority are more worried about keeping their job for another cycle than rule based on their personal feelings. If everyone ruled on their personal feelings, we'd have even greater turnover in office. We don't have to beat a dead horse to arrive at the conclusion that the times changed, therefore, politicians shifted their feelings to win a certain portion of the electorate. Now, years after that, we have actual politicians that do believe LGBT have the right to get married and that's that. I don't understand why everything has to be a damn argument lol.
The point is there are a lot of folks going on about how people who subscribe to traditional notions of marriage are evil, bigoted, worthy of contempt, every nasty word under the sun. When, a mere 12 years ago, every major Democratic politician publicly supported traditional notions of marriage and had supported traditional notions of marriage for decades. Those things don't square up very well and the latter undermine the former.
"traditional notions of marriage"? You mean, like notions against interracial marriage? Such marriages were against the law in states as recent as the late sixties.
