03/15/2007
Hillary Clinton: Homosexuality is Not Immoral
Hillary Clinton today clarified her remarks regarding whether or not homosexuality is immoral:
"Well I've heard from a number of my friends and I've certainly clarified with them any misunderstanding that anyone had, because I disagree with General Pace completely. I do not think homosexuality is immoral. But the point I was trying to make is that this policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is not working. I have been against it for many years because I think it does a grave injustice to patriotic Americans who want to serve their country. And so I have called for its repeal and I'd like to follow the lead of our allies like, Great Britain and Israel and let people who wish to serve their country be able to join and do so. And then let the uniform code of military justice determine if conduct is inappropriate or unbecoming. That's fine. That's what we do with everybody. But let's not be eliminating people because of who they are or who they love."
AmericaBlog reports that Human Rights Campaign gave the Clinton and Obama camps a stern talking to over their evasive maneuvering: "HRC reportedly told both campaigns that they were not happy, and that the campaigns' various and ever-changing answers to the question were evasive and unacceptable, and that both needed to issue forceful and unequivocal statements saying that they don't think homosexuality is immoral."
Obama's camp has reportedly issued a statement as well: "As the New York Times reported today, I do not agree with General Pace that homosexuality is immoral. Attempts to divide people like this have consumed too much of our politics over the past six years."
You may have missed...
Is Homosexuality Immoral? Clinton, Obama Won't Say [tr]
Posted 4:00 PM EST by Andy in Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Election 2008, Hillary Clinton, Military, News, Peter Pace | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Now, was that so hard?
Posted by: Jonathon | Mar 15, 2007 4:40:18 PM
How can Hillary be against "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" when it was put into place by her husband? What the fuck?
Posted by: huh? | Mar 15, 2007 4:57:00 PM
Better late... I don't care if they come kicking and screaming - as long as they come. Your turn Barack.
Posted by: Giovanni | Mar 15, 2007 4:57:12 PM
Well, Don't ask Don't tell was a beleaguered compromise if my memory serves, but it sucked anyway.
She's making it hard for me to support her when she wusses out 1st when it really counts, but I am heartened by the turnaround. Sigh, only a year and a half more of campaign bullshit.
Posted by: Marco | Mar 15, 2007 5:04:42 PM
"How can Hillary be against 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' when it was put into place by her husband? What the fuck?"
Do you wear the same clothes you used to wear in 1992-3?
What they thought was political fashion then does not fit now. Personally, I never thought it did. But you cant criticize her for no longer believing something she might have 14+ years ago. In that case, you would do better in criticizing her Iraq vote.
Posted by: Gregoire | Mar 15, 2007 5:05:53 PM
I can't believe y'all are railing on Clinton for doing the right thing. She's a politician for cryin' out loud. I don't see any statement from Obama - - whatever.
I don't care one bit about this faux-scandel of membership numbers... HRC's been rockin' my world lately. Battle on HRC!!!
Posted by: BeeDee | Mar 15, 2007 5:14:27 PM
Americablog is now showing Obama's ,ahem, clarification too:
http://americablog.blogspot.com/
Posted by: aidanc | Mar 15, 2007 5:23:51 PM
How many hairs can a politician split in one news cycle? The answer, my friend, is spinning in the web, the answer is spinning in the web.
Posted by: rudy | Mar 15, 2007 5:34:32 PM
What Hillary needs to explain next
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/03/14/clinton-would-maintain-s_n_43460.html
Ny Times reports (March 14th) that Hillary will MAINTAIN a scaled back USA force in iraq if elected.
lest anyone forgets...Bush Jr has sworn up and down for years that he would scale back as the Iraqis step up.....In other words Hillary is just repeating the same clap trap as Bush. She will keep us in Iraq
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Mar 15, 2007 5:46:23 PM
Thanks for the crumbs, Clinton and Obama.
Posted by: Jack! | Mar 15, 2007 5:51:05 PM
Obama: please don't ask me to lose more vote!
Posted by: anon | Mar 15, 2007 6:01:53 PM
You know it is great that Clinton has decided to take a stand on this issue.
the only thing that is nagging in my mind is whether or not she is sincere.
I mean, if she gets elected will she act on her words?
I hope so.
Posted by: Nick | Mar 15, 2007 6:15:46 PM
I still ain't voting for Hillary.
next!
Posted by: FunMe | Mar 15, 2007 6:17:01 PM
"Ny Times reports (March 14th) that Hillary will MAINTAIN a scaled back USA force in iraq if elected."
And rightly so! There is no question that this war never should have happened and Hillary's vote for it will be a stain she will wear for the rest of her life but the fact is she did vote for it - we did go - and now we are responsible for the well being of millions of Iraqis.
We created this mess and now we have to help solve it - to just abruptly leave a crippled Iraq to fend for itself would be even more immoral than the actual war.
A (not too) gradual withdrawl beginning this year with a small but long term force left behind (eventually to be replaced by EFFECTIVE! U.N. peace keepers) seems not only logical but just.
It's beyond horrible to see all of this (mostly poor)American kids dying everyday but this is the hand the devil dealt us - we are forced to play it to a reasonable end.
Posted by: Giovanni | Mar 15, 2007 6:26:00 PM
All of THESE American (mostly poor) American kids... not to mention the tens of thousands of Iraqis.
Posted by: Giovanni | Mar 15, 2007 6:29:38 PM
Well put, Giovanni. Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice/Kristol/Perl et al.—how do I hate thee. Let me count the ways. We're going to be paying, figuratively AND literally, for your ignominious horror for years. Has everyone applied for their George Bush Presidential Libray card? Get it line. It will only have one book.
Posted by: Leland | Mar 15, 2007 6:54:51 PM
Actually, there's every reason to believe there'll be a bloody civil war no matter when we leave. It's not a single governable society, and we can't turn it into one. If most of the world wants us out, and if the majority there wants us out, then we should leave. At present, it looks like the "failure" will get placed on the next president's watch no matter which party it is.
Posted by: adamblast | Mar 15, 2007 7:13:21 PM
I'm having a real problem with Hillary. It seems that every time she eventually says the "right" thing, it is after she has been pressured into it. When asked about her reaction to General Pace's statement about homosexuality being immoral, she said someone else will have to decide that (I paraphrase.) When HRC and other groups jumped on her she finally said she disagreed with the general. She continues to stand by her vote to go to war in Iraq, and now she comes out and says her answer to Iraq is to keep several thousand troops there indefinitely. The woman is having a lot of trouble trying to be a liberal and a conservative simultaneously, while claiming to be somewhere in the center. Sorry lady. If this keeps up, you ain't gonna see the general election.
Posted by: Michael D | Mar 15, 2007 7:26:49 PM
Sen. Clinton is running as a democrat, but so much of her agenda and policy is Republicanesque. Its odd, since I think most Republicans or right-leaning independents can not be swayed to support her. There's a strong anyone-but-Hilary faction in the general electorate.
Personally, I don't trust her or Mr. Obama. Once elected, they will not issue clarifications under pressure.
I think John Edwards is more trustworthy. I think John Edwards is an excellent person, and unless he disappoints me, which I don't think he will, he has my vote until and unless he is no longer running.
I'm sorry some of the so-called leading gay organizations are so supportive of Ms. Clinton. I guess their leaders are borderline Republican in many ways themselves.
Let's hope Iowa gives John Edwards the frontrunner status he deserves. I think Edwards is the least likely of the viable democratic candidates to sell out the gay community once elected, and he has a genuine chance to win. I support John Edwards for president.
Posted by: John | Mar 15, 2007 7:39:43 PM
Hillary is a hater and shouldn't even be given the time of day. She of all people should not have her mouth open to comment. Maybe if she had her mouth open when she was in the White house she wouldn't have been able to pull off the longest running scandle and made herself a shit load of money. Monica you lost the bet. Hillary is even going to use her husband (poor bastard) to get to the House.
Just a thought.
Posted by: Dr. Pat | Mar 15, 2007 7:42:25 PM
Once again Obama trails Hillary in courting the GLBT vote. What is it going to take before people realize Obama is not as great a friend to the gays as his silence suggests?
Posted by: SethAPartner | Mar 15, 2007 7:56:39 PM
Giovanni
What you and many fail to realize is that the US presence is and will only exasberate the problem.
Sometimes you have to just rip the bandaid off. Rip it off quick and let what is going to happen happen as quickly as possible. Otherwise, like I said, we are only exasberating and will exasberate the problem.
The majority of middle east experts agree that the chaos and resultant catastrophe of Iraq will settle down more quickly, easily, and more humanely if the USA does simply get the hell out. More humanely in thousands of deaths as verses hundreds of thousands of more deaths.
Posted by: Jimmyboyo | Mar 15, 2007 8:06:18 PM
Agian...Hillary flip/flops! She always has the "right" words to say to those that are STANDING IN FRONT OF HER AS HER LIPS ARE MOVING! Why is this not obvious to everyone? She IS the master politician...tell me what I want to hear while I am in your face!
L-O-S-E-R!!!!
Posted by: RB | Mar 15, 2007 8:11:43 PM
Her intial comments: total pink triangulation. Frankly, I'm getting a little tired of it.
Posted by: Scott | Mar 15, 2007 9:02:52 PM
RB
I agree with you
She assumes she is the heir apperant. Well, outside of some fabulous drag queens....america has no royalty.
Posted by: jimmyboyo | Mar 15, 2007 9:10:37 PM