Over the years, the liberal media has often insisted that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a centrist, even a conservative when it comes to traditional values. That's why it's important to know that when evidence unfolds quietly that instead, Senator Clinton is solidly and passionately on the left-wing vanguard promoting the widest possible berth in America for abortion and homosexuality, the media will stay silent.
New video of Hillary speaking and being passionately supported on Friday, March 2, at a board meeting of the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest radical gay-left group, is now on YouTube. In her speech, Hillary takes after social conservatives who fought for a Federal Marriage Amendment to prevent "gay marriage" from being the new and emerging law of the land: "This amendment was wedge politics at its worst. It was mean-spirited. It was against the entire forward movement of American history. It was the first time that anyone was proposing that we amend the Constitution to deny citizens rights, rather than widen the circle of rights and opportunities."
This is not only a passionately leftist talking point, it is transparently incorrect. It's mangling history. What about the 18th Amendment establishing the Prohibition of alcohol? That was not merely proposed, but enacted into the Constitution before being repealed. But like Bluto in "Animal House" claiming the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, forget the facts, she was on a roll against conservatives: "We stopped the Federal Marriage Amendment and we sent a strong message that we will not stand idly by when anyone tried to write discrimination into our Constitution...and I want you to know that this is exactly the kind of partnership we will have when I am President." The crowd whooped it up.
She then bizarrely claimed it was conservatives who were making the homosexual revolution a divisive political issue, while the ultraliberals are the ones who uniters, not dividers: "When we do that, it will be the end of the divisive leadership of the last six years. It will be the end of leadership that has politicized the most personal and intimate issues, and instead, we will be working once again to bring people to together to understand and respect one another."
Anyone who watches this video will see that Hillary speaks passionately with a royal "We" when discussing the ardent backers of a homosexual revolution that will overturn traditional family values in America. She lauds her friends at the HRC as the vanguard of the Founding Fathers, and their God:
"I want to thank you for how every single day, you stand up for the basic principle that our country is really anchored on, that we are all created equal and that we are each endowed with certain inalienable rights, and that we should all have the opportunity to live up to our God-given potential...Every day you stand up for who you are, you are helping us move toward that more perfect union, where equality is not just a goal but a reality."
In his introduction of Hillary, HRC leader Joe Solmonese vouched for her insistence that conservatives be defeated, once and for all time. She insisted to him on gay marriage, "How are we going to walk away from this fight and never fight this fight again?" He added: "To us, she’s a great leader, and an even better friend." Remember that the next time the media tell you she's a social "centrist."
Hat tip to Peter LaBarbera at Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, who has more on the gay-left legislation she's pledging to push.
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Why shouldn't they ignore thi
March 6, 2007 - 11:31 ET by mattmWhy shouldn't they ignore this? They ignore everything else that might reflect negatively on Ms. Rodham: cattle futures, Vince Foster, the phameceuticals scam, Billy Dale, the "F---ing J*w B--stard" comment...etc. etc. etc.
But like Bluto in "Anima
March 6, 2007 - 11:36 ET by Scout FinchBut like Bluto in "Animal House" claiming the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, forget the facts, she was on a roll against conservatives...... I love it. Guess we're going to be seeing lots of Bluto in the next year.
I was just surprised after th
March 6, 2007 - 11:49 ET by truth_missileI was just surprised after the southern accent used in Selma that she didn't adopt a swishy lilt to her tone in this speech. Ooops I forgot she's a dyke, so the man-hater tone is acceptible parlance.
Loved that moment in the Selm
March 6, 2007 - 12:38 ET by dahliatraversLoved that moment in the Selma speech. So transparent. Thought it was a Rush or SNL bit at first.
I can't believe I'm saying
March 6, 2007 - 11:50 ET by Rupert CadellI can't believe I'm saying this, but good for Hillary. The notion that gay marriage will somehow overturn morality and the sanctity of heterosexual marriage in this country is one of the oddest contrivances of our time.
And while the 18th amendment did indeed restrict rights, at least the restriction wasn't aimed at a particular marginalized group, although the plutocrats and industrialists of the time had little trouble getting real gin and scotch....
By that logic, we should gi
March 6, 2007 - 12:11 ET by Tim the EnchanterBy that logic, we should give special rights and privileges to people whose favorite color is red. Marriage is instituted for the preservation of society, to help ensure its future and its survival. To equate this with people who, by their own volition, give in to their unnatural lusts, and want this surrender to temptation recognized and approved- what can one say? If you can't see the difference, then you have a serious problem. Don't equate people choosing perverse behavior with things that people didn't get to choose for themselves- their skin color, their sex, their national origin. "Gays" can already marry- just not to someone of the same sex. I do hope that one day that all homosexuals wake up and realize that the human body is not a plaything, meant for amusement and self-gratification. Until then, they're dooming themselves.
Tim, how does one even repl
March 6, 2007 - 13:14 ET by Rupert CadellTim, how does one even reply to this sort of post? How to contend with the idea, which you and many other social conservatives seem to have pulled out of thin air, that homosexuality is a choice that gay people can be either talked out of or, if need be, conditioned out of, a la A Clockwork Orange?
So in your mind, the whole lot of gay people ought to just grow up already and stop being gay? WOW, what a marvelously simple idea. Why don't all the self-loathing homosexuals who can't bear to come out of the closet for fear of being ostracized my narrow-minded family members and friends think of that?
Here, read this. It's parody, but it's spot on.
See, the funny thing is, I always assumed that those who speak about gays in the way you do just hate the fact that they're (stereotypically) promiscuous. Yet now they want to be able to consecrate their monogamous relationships in the same way that we "normal" straight people do, and that's a problem? OK, that makes sense.
To set the record straight (so to speak) and show that I have no bias here, let me add that I am straight, married, and have one child. I don't even know any gay people who are planning to marry, though I live in a community with a fairly high gay population. So why do I feel so strongly about this? Because they're people, they're NOT sick or perverted, and it DOESN'T AFFECT ME!!!
"See, the funny thing is, I a
March 6, 2007 - 13:25 ET by contrary"See, the funny thing is, I always assumed that those who speak about gays in the way you do just hate the fact that they're (stereotypically) promiscuous. Yet now they want to be able to consecrate their monogamous relationships in the same way that we "normal" straight people do..."
Do you have numbers or statistics to show this is the intent of the "majority" of gay people?
While I'm not for the Federal Amendment approach, It is reasonable to assume some segments of the USA do not feel the same way about the intents of gay people that you do. What do you expect from people who believe what the bible tells them in regards to homosexual acts?
Do you have numbers or stat
March 6, 2007 - 13:32 ET by Rupert CadellDo you have numbers or statistics to show this is the intent of the "majority" of gay people?
I have no statistics on that, but I never said it was the majority.
What do you expect from people who believe what the bible tells them in regards to homosexual acts?
There's always that pesky "Separation of church and state."
And I'm sure all those people follow every single thing in the Bible to the letter themselves, right?
Even if they disagree with it, it still doesn't affect them. We're supposed to bar gay couples from marrying because some people find it icky? Please.
There's always that pesky &qu
March 6, 2007 - 13:40 ET by contrary"There's always that pesky Separation of church and state."
"And I'm sure all those people follow every single thing in the Bible to the letter themselves, right?"
I'm not sure what you're getting at... Are you saying people who believe in a certain morality that happens to be in line with the bible are precluded then from living that way and trying tp ensure that morality is upheld in their community?
As far as the second quote, What does the sin of one person have to do with the merits of committing other sins by other people?
I'm not sure if you're reading the "separation of Church and State" reference correctly as it applies to establishing a National Church. You also inferred from your previous post that you thought gay people's intent to get married is purely for the reason of consemating (sp) their relationship. There are other reasons why gays want to get "married," and that's what social conservatives are worried about.
I think it comes back to &q
March 6, 2007 - 13:54 ET by Rupert CadellI think it comes back to "Let he who is without sin....."
My point is that I think most people who point to the bible to justify their distaste for gays are generally just cherry-picking things to support the fact that homosexuality makes them uncomfortable. And if that's the case, if they think it really is "icky," fine, I can respect that. What I can't respect is hiding behind the bible and condemning the sinner, because I'm sure those very people are displeasing God in their own particular way. And if you can support this idea of "upholding morality in their own communities", what about those old-school types who think miscegination is a sin? Should they be allowed to tell an interracial couple "not in my neighborhood"?
And yes, there may be other reasons why gay people want to get married; financial and social manipulation perhaps? The same goes for straight folks.
Thanks for the comments and t
March 6, 2007 - 14:00 ET by contraryThanks for the comments and the conversation
Contrary, same to you, glad
March 6, 2007 - 14:23 ET by Rupert CadellContrary, same to you, glad we kept it civil.
How about finishing the sto
March 6, 2007 - 14:27 ET by Tim the EnchanterHow about finishing the story? I don't remember Our Lord telling the adulteress to carry on as before. He said for her to go and sin no more. If anyone is guilty of cherry-picking it is you- cherry-picking parables and taking meanings out of context. Perhaps you've also forgotten the parable about admonishing one's brother? I am not "condemning anyone- I have not the power to do so. What I am saying is for them to renounce this very sinful behavior, as I have no desire to see any of my fellow men (that includes women, as well) spend eternity in Hell. When I go before God, I don't want him to say, "Why didn't you warn these people of what could happen to them?"
Also, none of us live up to the standards in the Bible and Sacred Tradition. That doesn't make them false, and it doesn't give license to the hypocrite. They're the gold standard of behavior; what God expects from us. There's no excuse to not continue to strive to be what we are expected to be.
Ruperet, what is wrong with c
March 6, 2007 - 16:44 ET by florida_chadRuperet, what is wrong with civil unions for gays? Marrige is between a man and women. Always has been always will be.
I think the phrase "Se
March 6, 2007 - 16:48 ET by Rupert CadellI think the phrase "Separate but equal" is about on par with what
you're suggesting. Denying them the ability to fully marry, in name,
essentially relegates them to second-class citizenry.
My question is: why not? Why would anyone who's secure in their own sexuality and marriage find it threatening?
Marriage started as, and stil
March 6, 2007 - 17:01 ET by florida_chadMarriage started as, and still is a religious ceremony. The state can hand out a civil union license. I know that non-religious marriages take place, but the vast majority are done in church. How will the state force my catholic church to marry gays? You can't say that will not happen. Then what?
Separate but equal would seem sufficient because a gay marriage is different than the traditional marriage. Gays can marry the traditional way now. It is you and gays that want to make such a large chance to our society. Civil unions can accomplish that. But equal treatment isn't the goal, acceptance is. you cannot force others to accept homosexual behavior when our religious beliefs tell us otherwise.
gotta go for a couple of hours but I will look for your answer and will respond later. Thanks
Good post FC, I also have t
March 6, 2007 - 17:09 ET by Rupert CadellGood post FC, I also have to call it a day, but will surely respond soon. It's nice to read an opposition that is reasonable, rather than thinly-veiled assertions that gays are barely even human.
best,
RC
you can't respond, rupert
March 7, 2007 - 11:35 ET by tumbler_2007There's no rational response you can make; you've even told us a "thinly veiled" lie above. Nobody has EVER insinuated gays aren't human. You know that, and yet descend into this pose?
Is it possible you're related closely to a practicing homosexual? Or are you gay ? In which case a personal motive results, obliging you to justifiy all the gay's grievances?
Surely you're aware of the enormous strides gays and lesbians have taken in our society dating back barely half a century? In the 1920s being caught in a homosexual embrace of any kind was unpardonable. People were incarcerated. Today they abuse their liberty, flaunting an out-of-control immorality in gay pride parades!
Above I mentioned the best side of a gay personality; his love. But let's not underplay the self-destructive and repulsive side; which makes homosexuals outsiders. Vanity, effeminacy and moral turpitude; unwillingness to practice self-control; indifference even to health and self-preservation? Why then should you object to reasonable arguments? Why this insistence on RIGHTS? Don't act the offended party. Be honest with yourself.
What is the purpose of sex
March 6, 2007 - 14:12 ET by Tim the EnchanterWhat is the purpose of sex in the first place?
Why should society condone people who, of their own free will, choose to not control their lusts? Those in the so-called "gay" population have free will, do they not? Or do you believe that we're all soulless animals that can't control our baser urges? Sorry- we CHOOSE TO BE WHO WE ARE. If someone decides to define themselves by their lack of self-control, that's their choice, and they will be answerable for it- just as all of us will be ultimately answerable for our bad choices.
In the Church, the sin of Sodom has a "special" place: one of the four sins that cries to Heaven for vengeance (the other three are willful murder, oppression of the poor, and defrauding the working man of his wages).
Whether you choose to believe this or not, they do indulge in perverted behavior (look up and understand the definition of "perverted"), and it does affect the society in which we all live. Are all of our whims to be approved and state-supported?
Why has history condemned this kind of behavior for thousands of years? A sociologist whose name escapes me right now (easy enough to find it again if you must know who) once stated that in his researches that he had found that promiscuous homosexual behavior occurs in societies in an advaced state of decline.
You know, that's the one unfair thing about sin. The consequences are almost never immediate. There is a reason that certain things are not, and should not, be done. People like you are too proud to acknowlege that people that lived before us may have already figured this out. No- you have to find out for yourself, just like the kid that burned his hand on the pot, because he wouldn't believe his mother. Well, maybe sometimes the burned hand teaches the best. But, for you to learn this lesson, you and like-minded individuals are going to hurt a lot of innocent people in the process. Hope you can live with yourself.
Tim, we obviously have no c
March 6, 2007 - 14:48 ET by Rupert CadellTim, we obviously have no common ground, but I will take a stab at your comments:
What is the purpose of sex in the first place?
1. It is an outlet for the overwhelming sexual drive that human beings are born with. We are creatures-who-desire. Read some Freud.
2. Pro-creation, assuming there is no barrier to contraception in place. Are you against heterosexual intercourse that prevents conception? I mean, I know it's not as disturbing because it doesn't involve one man putting his penis into various orifices of another, but if we're approaching this from the "What is the purpose of sex?" angle, it's an important question.
Why should society condone people who, of their own free will, choose to not control their lusts?
I'm more concerned with a society that wants to deny sexuality to anyone whose particular definition of same doesn't conform to the society.
Sorry- we CHOOSE TO BE WHO WE ARE.
For many things, yes, I don't think so about homosexuality. The Onion article I linked is a great demonstration of what I think is wrong with your argument. Why would one choose to be gay when, outside of a few select metropolises, they will be ostracized for it to some degree?
In the Church, the sin of Sodom has a "special" place: one of the four
sins that cries to Heaven for vengeance (the other three are willful
murder, oppression of the poor, and defrauding the working man of his
wages).
So you're a Marxist?
Whether you choose to believe this or not, they do indulge in perverted
behavior (look up and understand the definition of "perverted"), and it
does affect the society in which we all live.
Perversion: "The pervert directly elevates the enjoying big Other into the agency of Law...the pervert's aim is to establish, not to undermine, the Law." At least, that's the definition I know.
Are all of our whims to be approved and state-supported?
That's a pretty loaded question, but first of all I don't think homosexuality is exactly a whim, and second, I think it should be approved and state-supported because, your doomsday scenario notwithstanding, I don't think it affects anyone else negatively. I certainly don't think it should be denied approval just because it makes some people uncomfortable or insecure about their own sexuality or marriage.
A sociologist whose name escapes me right now (easy enough to find it
again if you must know who) once stated that in his researches that he
had found that promiscuous homosexual behavior occurs in societies in
an advaced state of decline.
Well when you dig up this genius' work, be sure to send it to me so I can begin discrediting it.
Your burnt-hand metaphor is interesting, but I see no relevance. If gay people want to live their lives in the same open manner as straight people, rather than cloistering themselves into a few select gay-friendly venues, and be monogamous rather than promiscuous, well, I'm inclined to applaud that.
You're right- we have no co
March 6, 2007 - 15:28 ET by Tim the EnchanterYou're right- we have no common ground. And once again, you cherry-pick my points, answering some, ignoring others. Well, as a final post to this exercise in futility, I'll provide my answers to my hypothetical questions.
1. The purpose of sex is procreation. If you want to read Freud, be my guest. I am familiar with his body of work- he couldn't raise his level of thought beyond his genitals, especially when urinating in his parent's bedroom. I'll choose more elevated authors and subjects, thank you very much.
2. Society should not condone those who will not control harmful behavior.
3. We ARE who we choose to be. Homosexuals wish to have it both ways- give in to their wrongful, immoral behavior, but not want to have to suffer any consequences from it. That's one of the motivators, by the way, that keeps us all in line- knowing that bad behavior is met with ostracization. If you know that if you do something you will be ostracized for it, but do it anyway, that's your choice.
4. No, I'm not a Marxist. I'm a Catholic- I thought at least that much would be clear. BTW- Marxism is supposed to be an economic system. Catholicism is a spiritual system. Hope you know the difference.
5. Dictionary.com has a good definition of perversion. You may want to venture over there and read it.
6. No. Society does not exist to allow us to give license to all our whims, especially to whims that are ultimately harmful to others. BTW- sodomy statutes IIRC, were approved by state legislators and then struck down by the courts (the least democratic of our institutions).
7. If your goal is to debunk and not to learn, I don't think I'll bother.
8. I didn't think that you'd get the burned hand reference. One would have to read and comprehend what I wrote. You were only intrested in gleaning things that you disagreed with instead of trying to understand the whole. I tried my best- wasn't good enough. I'm done with you.
Who decides what is taboo and
March 6, 2007 - 18:12 ET by MrSnugglesWho decides what is taboo and what isnt? is it society at large, or a small self-involved and self interested minority? If people dont want to see open displays of homosexuality, then it should be shunned and considered shameful. theres no constitutional right to control what other people think or how they express distaste for anyone elses actions.
however, if gays want to have private ceremonies to pledge themselves to eachother, nobody is gonna stop that. but they have no right to demand that all of society recognize their pointless relationship.
gay marriage is a misnomer
March 6, 2007 - 15:47 ET by tumbler_2007Everybody knows there is no marriage in homosexual lovers' private behavior.
Whereas, between real spouses there is normality in the marital act. No amount of personal attraction or saliva is a marital act. For all intent and purposes, Rupert, there has to be Sperm plus Egg. All else is merely foreplay.
A valid marriage is contracted after normal consummation between spouses. If there's no consummation there's an invalid union between the spouses. (We call it anullment, in case you've forgotten.)
So-- You and Hillary and the Gay Pride Baggage are all mistaken. There is NO "Gay Marriage", much less a right to it.
Great post, but you've misu
March 6, 2007 - 16:18 ET by Tim the EnchanterGreat post, but you've misused the term "lovers". I doubt if any homosexual could give a philosophically-correct definition of "love". If they could, and understood the repercussions, they would cease to behave the way they do. Attraction, affection, and sex acts are not "love".
if only we knew
March 6, 2007 - 16:30 ET by tumbler_2007Dear Tim:
It's quite well-known there is a real love between SOME homosexuals. Unselfish, deep and committed.
In itself, there's no disgrace to loving that way. It's when that leads to pollution and idolatry that God is offended. It takes a great man who can deny himself; to rise above the temptation to sin. We've had a few. Michelangelo is one. Many saints may have lived chastely because nature wasn't kind to them. I posted lately about the death of Oscar Wilde. A flagrant sinner. Yet, he found peace in the end. A quote of Wilde's:
"Only Jesus Christ is able to see into a man's heart." --He was right. God loves us even in our sins. (But He demands love in return, Tim.)
It's quite well-known ther
March 6, 2007 - 16:35 ET by Rupert CadellIt's quite well-known there is a real love between SOME homosexuals. Unselfish, deep and committed. In itself, there's no disgrace to loving that way.
I'm sure that the segment of the gay community that meets your exacting criteria would be overjoyed to know that you begrudgingly consider them human enough to be capable of love.
a strange attitude, Rupert
March 6, 2007 - 16:46 ET by tumbler_2007Let me say first; MY criteria has no relevance at all. BIOLOGICAL standards make all the difference. Just as a male rooster cannot impregnate a squirrel -- no matter how they love one another,
A boy can't have marital relations with another boy. They merely indulge in useless buggering. It's good enough for what you said above; "releasing sexual energy"-- and if you only include that "criteria" in this relationship, SURE;
Nobody can deny you the "right"-- But it's a far cry from MARRIAGE. That's what your liberal pandering doesn't realize. You can't call buggering marriage. You can pretend it's respectable, as Elizabeth Taylor believes. That's fine.
But a man and a woman are truly spouses. Not pretenders. Marriage is a natural, biological and (sometimes) holy estate.
If Mr. Sheffield decides to
March 6, 2007 - 16:32 ET by Rupert CadellIf Mr. Sheffield decides to ban me for it, I'll just have to live with it, but your notion that gay people are incapable of love is the height of homophobia.
Not to mention that the term "philosophically-correct" is misleading and nonexistent, seeing how any given philosopher from Plato to Hegel to Derrida to Heidegger would have a different take on it.
By the way, your remark that you've read Freud but he can't see past genitalia is a lark as well. If you really read any Freud at all, you'd know that the pop culture Freudianisms about genitals and wanting to sleep with one's mother are few and far between amidst his exhaustive research on human drive, instinct, and yes, love (or Eros).
Love is the desire for the
March 6, 2007 - 17:34 ET by Tim the EnchanterLove is the desire for the greatest possible good for the object of that love. It's in the will. As far as your philosophers' definitions go, I much prefer the definition that God gave, and that is the one as stated above. When He said to love your enemies, I'm sure that you believe that He meant for you to go and have sex with them. Right? However, when using the correct definition of "love" the sentence makes perfect sense.
Is it love for two (or more) people to indulge in a behavior that will damn them to Hell for eternity? Is that a desire for the good of that individual? I would have to say "yes" to the first paragraph- they are incapable of true love if they put their sexual self-gratification ahead of their eternal salvation, and that of their partner. To spend eternity in torment beyond one's imagination for the sake of a moment's pleasure? Doesn't sound like a good bargain to me.
The human being is composed of body, mind, and soul. You don't seem to want to address #3 on that list. Why?
You're entitled to your beliefs, whatever they may be. You're also entitled to your consequences as a result of your beliefs, as I am. Good luck!
This amendment was wedge poli
March 6, 2007 - 14:31 ET by Darth DutchThis amendment was wedge politics at its worst. It was mean-spirited. It was against the entire forward movement of American history. It was the first time that anyone was proposing that we amend the Constitution to deny citizens rights, rather than widen the circle of rights and opportunities."
Anyone else find this statement ironic (and not a little bit hypocritical) considering it was Bill Clinton who signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996?
Dutch
Dutch, she's counting on the
March 6, 2007 - 14:39 ET by JABDutch, she's counting on the short term memory of the American people to not remember "that" portion of said statement/stance. Can we all say...Pandering.
"To bad Ignorance isn't painful..."