If the article is accurate, the hearsay or second-hand source alleges, Hillary said she supported the state of New Yorkâs decision to allow same-sex marriage and believed states should make the decision. You are right, this is the same as Bernie in a 2006 televised debate expressing that same-sex marriage is a state issue, and he supports âstates rightsâ for same-sex marriage. That means that in 2006, in states that did not allow same-sex marriageâBernie supported those states right to do so.
The problem for Bernie and his supporters is Hillary Clinton is not claiming to be the always and never wavering liberal and progressive on every social issue. Hillary like President Obama admit they have evolved (like most of America has) to the correct social position on issues like same-sex marriage.
I have stated before, that Bernie Sanders is not the quintessential liberal and progressive he claims to be, he and his supporters have attempted to draw a contrast between Bernieâs history as a liberal and progressive versus Hillary.
When one vets Bernie Sanders past legislative votes and comments, it is clear he has evolved on social issues. Bernie just like Hillary and President Obama are now at the same place socially on many issues like same-sex marriage. This is a good thing.
The problem for Bernie and his supporters is Bernie opens himself up to being exposed for hypocrisy, when examples of his past legislative votes and comments reveal he has not always held positions that confirm his claim of always being a staunch and never wavering liberal and progressive.
Bernie has painted himself into a corner trying to portray himself as more of a liberal and progressive than Hillary. Bernie has no room to admit that he made a mistake or has evolved to the correct social position on a issue like same-sex marriage.
Says âBernie Sanders was there when it came to (same-sex) marriage 20 years ago. ⌠He was there when it wasnât popular.â. PolitiFact ruling: True.
Hilary Clinton supported her husbandâs Defense of Marriage Act; Bernie Sanders opposed it, and tried to amend it to allow States to make their own law about what constitutes a marriage.
Up until the relevant part of the DOMA got struck down, âStates should be able to set their own lawsâ was the progressive view on the subject - the opposing viewpoint was, âthe Feds get to say what marriage is, and the DOMA says itâs between a man and a woman.â
Only in hindsight, after States wrote explicit bans on SSM, does the perspective of âStates should set their own lawsâ look less progressive.
I still donât get how Bernie Sanders saying something in 2006 is ânot a good example of leadership,â but when Hillary Clinton said the same thing at the same time, suddenly itâs not about leadership, itâs about how progressive the candidate claims to be. Way to move the goalposts.
You can cite 20 years ago, but below are the expressed words of Bernie Sanders from the 2006 Vermont Senate Debate, where Bernie stated hiis âstates rightsâ position on same-sex marriage.
Excerpt from the 2006 Vermont Senate Debate~
âYea, I am not a great fan, part of the second part of Donât Ask Donât TellââŚâI was a strong supporter of civil unions, I believe that, I believe voted against the DOMA Billâ âI believe that the Federal Government should not be involved in overturning Massachusetts or any other state, because I think Stuart, the whole issue of marriage is a state issue, thatâs what it is, so that is my view on thatââBernie Sanders
Again, he was making that statement in favor of gay marriage though, as at the time, republicans were attempted to end a stateâs right to make it legal. The tables have turned on that issue since then.
Same-sex marriages has been legally recognized in Massachusetts since May 17, 2004, as a result of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (SJC) ruling in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health that it was unconstitutional under the Massachusetts constitution to allow only opposite-sex couples to marry. Massachusetts became the sixth jurisdiction in the world (after the Netherlands, Belgium, Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec) to legalize same-sex marriage. It was the first U.S. state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
In 2006, same-sex marriage had been legal in MA for two years. Why would Bernie Sanders take a position that the federal government should have the power to overturn that, especially with the Republicans in power federally?
ETA: And you still havenât told me why this would be a mark against Bernie Sandersâs leadership skills, but somehow not against Hillary Clintonâs. âBernieâs not the saint he makes himself out to be,â even if I accepted all of the implications in that argument, is not an acceptable rebuttal to that point. Your point seems to be that Sanders should have taken an even more progressive stance back then, and his failure to do so is a mark against him as a leader. Fair enough, but why doesnât that also apply to Clinton, who had the same stance back then?
Or am I misunderstanding your argument?
I do not think it is a mark against Bernie. I have said that Bernie, Hillary, President Obama and many in America have evolved to the correct position on same-sex marriage. How they got there is not important, they all support same-sex marriage in 2016âthat is great!.
However, Bernie has not been any more liberal and progressive on the issue of same-sex marriage than Hillary, or President Obama. Bernie Sanders and his supporters are the ones trying to portray Bernie as the always historically, staunch and quintessential supporter of same-sex marriage.
In 2006 Vermont did not allow same-sex marriage, I believe they allowed civil unions. The question was about allowing for same-sex marriage outside of Massachusetts.
Here is the question from the moderator:
Mr.Sanders, do you think that gay people ought to have the right to get married outside of Massachusetts, be able to file joint federal income taxesâand so forth if you do, would you sponsor legislation to that effect?
Besides the âstates rightsâ answer, Bernie also did not answer the question about gay people filing joint federal income taxes. Did Bernie sponsor any same-sex marriage legislation when he took office in 2007?
Here is the C-Span coverage of the 2006 Vermont Senate Debate. The question and answer exchange is from 26:55 to 27:52 C-Span Coverage of the 2006 Vermont Senate Debate
His answer is straight forward Mindysann33.
Here is the link to the C-Span coverage of the 2006 Vermont Senate Debate.
The question and answer exchange is from 26:55 to 27:52
Bernie has evolved on the issue of same-sex marriage, there is nothing wrong with that. Hillary, President Obama, many in the Democratic Party and the majority of America now support same-sex marriageâthat is great news!
Why vote for Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton?
Because despite what some are predicting, the race for the democratic presidential nomination is by no means secure for Hillary Clinton.
Bernie Sanders, his campaign staff, and Bernieâs loyal, staunch and steadfast supports are entering a portion of the democratic presidential nomination process, that as the election results show to date, is favorable to the Bernie Sanders campaign.
If Bernie Sanders is going to win the democratic presidential nomination, the next two weeks will be pivotal. Bernie trails Hillary Clinton by roughly 300 elected delegates. If Bernie is going to win the democratic presidential nomination, he must significantly close the elected delegate lead Hillary has amassed at this point in the democratic presidential nomination process.
The following upcoming democratic presidential caucuses and primary will go a long in determining who will be the democratic presidential nominee:
Saturday March 26th: Alaska (16 elected delegates and 4 super delegates), Hawaii (25 elected delegates and 9 super delegates), the state of Washington (101 elected delegates and 17 super delegates) and Saturday April 9th the Wyoming Caucus (14 elected delegates and 4 super delegates). In between the democratic presidential caucuses on March 26th and April 9th will be the April 5th Wisconsin Primary ( 86 delegates and 14 super delegates).
During the next two week period, supporters of Hillary Clinton will need to turn out and vote.
Why?
Because at this critical point in the democratic presidential nomination process, every vote is critical in the contest for elected delegates and super delegates.
âwhy vote for Hillary? Because she could lose the nomination, and Iâm assuming thatâs something everyone in here wouldnât like despite an entire thread to the contrary.â
Why vote for Hillary Diane Rodham Clinton?
The most important job of any president is keeping America safe and defending the American homeland from foreign forces who want to see the demise of America. The President of the United States is charged with being the commander in chief of the most powerful military in the world; and has at her or his discretion the use of most powerful nuclear weapons arsenal on earth.
One of the 1st (if not the very 1st) briefings any president-elect gets, is on the immediate and potential threats to the American homeland.
Upholding the U.S. Constitution is important, education is important, overseeing and improving the economy for all Americans is importantâŚequal pay and income equality is important, protecting womenâs civil rights and LGBTQ civil rights is importantâŚimmigration reform is important, protecting the gains in civil rights and voting rights among minorities is important, reforming policing standards and guidelines is important ⌠addressing climate change, protecting the planet from pollution, economic foreign policy etc etc etcâŚare all important.
However, without a safe and secure America no social, cultural or political initiative matters. The one major advantage Hillary Clinton has over any other candidate running for president is here history as a former UâŚS. Secretary of State.
Hillary Clinton and her campaign to date has not made the case that during Hillaryâs tenure as U.S. Secretary of State, there was no major 911 type terrorist attacks launched against America.
Hillary Clinton and her campaign should remind the American voting electorate that not only were there no major 911 type terrorist attacks during Hillaryâs tenure as U.S. Secretary of State, but Hillary traveled the world as much (and in many cases more) than any other former U.S. Secretary of State, repairing the damaged image and standing of America after the failed and disastrous âcowboy diplomacyâ of George W. Bush and his administration.
Hillary has formed positive relationships with many of the worldâs foreign leaders, that will allow her to enter the office of the presidency with an advantage over any other candidate seeking the office of the President of the United States in 2016.
Thatâs good because she goes wherever the polls go and has no values of her own from what I can see.
aka âread the poll data and changed to match itâ
Clinton, always a politician, not a leader
Because it will be her or Trump?
Canât think of any other reason.
The next president will probably appoint two or three U.S. Supreme Court Justices.
It is iimportant for the social and cultural soul of America that a democrat is elected to the White House. Voting for Hillary instead of Trump is one good reason to ensure a democratic president appoints the next several U.S. Supreme Court Justices.
All the more reason for it to be someone honest like Sanders, not a political shill like Clinton.
Hey @khepra! Can Hillary put a bird on it?
(Letâs say itâs relevant to how Iâll vote.)
Getting a little ahead of yourself, arenât you? Trumpâs not running in the Democratic primaries.
Garland shows the sort of Justices Clinton would appoint: pro-Citizens United, pro-prohibition, pro-unlimited executive authority, pro-war on terror shredding of individual rights.
Clinton is a pro-choice Republican.
More likely than not, Sanders (whom I support) canât win enough of the electoral votes left to take the Demsâ candidacy. Weâll see though.
Donât let us down, California dweller. 
