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 Towle 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.
Is everybody happy now?! They dont believe its immoral you can get out of crazy phase! The candidacy is back on.
Posted by: Toto | Mar 15, 2007 9:31:55 PM
Haven't we learned by now? Hillary is the kind of back-stabbing liberal who will campaign for our votes on Monday, and wave to us as we get sent to the ovens on Tuesday. Miserable two-faced bitch, she'd suck off Karl Rove if she thought it would get her into the White House.
Posted by: Roscoe | Mar 15, 2007 9:41:16 PM
OMG..Well said Roscoe! There is no greater politician and oportunist than Hillary Clinton!
Posted by: RB | Mar 15, 2007 9:50:07 PM
Barack's official statement:
"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."
He is right about that last part.
Posted by: Sean | Mar 16, 2007 12:18:47 AM
Her comment and revision speak volumes. Did you ever think you'd find more unqualified support from Republicans John Warner and Alan Simpson than from Hillary Clinton? I'm glad most readers are clear that this woman is, and always has been, a political opportunist. Loved him (though the Monica thing was hard to swallow), hate her.
Did I just mention Monica and swallowing? Ooooops!
Posted by: richard | Mar 16, 2007 1:29:09 AM
Most likely barack obama has the same belief system as senator clinton, Mr. Obama is a devout christian and is apart of the UCC(united church of christ)under the leadership of Jeremiah Wright(his pastor)whose congregation is welcoming of gays and lesbians, so I really don't see him going against his denomination and their stance on gay and lesbian rights.
Posted by: geegee | Mar 16, 2007 3:48:18 AM
I'll be damned if I ever vote for her. I just do NOT trust her.
Posted by: Rad | Mar 16, 2007 5:55:59 AM
Right On Rad, whether we like it or not Canada has a direct investment in who get's into the great white house.
America is buying up our country left right and centre. They have their own control, small as it seems, time change is a small begining but they are buying our Heritage companies, Hudson Bay Company, etc, etc and we as a country don't have real control over our picks in politics. Lies lies are what controls the political systems every where. Why was Bush elected again??? Give that a serious thought...... I think collectivly we don't think outside the box. Don't want him (who to choose)stick with the same as they say better to choose the devil that you know than the one you don't.... Gore should have been the White house man but with all the screwing around (Florida) that I think he just figured screw this I have more positive things to do and look at the man now....Right On, Right On.
Just a thought.
Posted by: Dr. Pat | Mar 16, 2007 6:44:17 AM
briiiiiiiiing! briiiiiiiiing! "hilllary? I've got david geffen on the line....."
Posted by: resurrect | Mar 16, 2007 7:56:37 AM
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 recall who was running congress at the time? That's right - it was Republicans. As easy as it is to repeat Republican talking points of Clinton passing DADT, it was an incremental step forward at the time pushed for by a Republican congress.
I wish Edwards was doing better in the polling. Looks like Clinton/Obama are the only two viable choices on the Dem side, neither of which are the best. I'd still take Clinton over Obama though because she's done a lot more reaching out to us homos than Obama has.
Posted by: Anon | Mar 16, 2007 10:22:13 AM
How the hell would she know? Some of the things I've seen in the back rooms of gay clubs definitely qualify.
Posted by: johnson | Mar 16, 2007 12:52:47 PM
Our ex first lady has got balls! And it doens't matter when it was Bill who put on the original act - it's time for it to go and someone is trying to do just that.
Posted by: Alfred | Mar 16, 2007 5:56:23 PM
Have you guys noticed something funny??
ABC News' Jake Tapper caught with Hillary Clinton and asked her what her thoughts on Gen. Pace were.
Then Obama was asked to issue a statement.
But for the interest of fair journalism, where was the answers of:
-Rudy Giuliani?
-John McCain?
-Mitt Romney?
-Etc..
Where did their answers go??
Last time I heard, those men are also running to be president of all Americans; yet they are left with their hands clean whenever delicate questions about human rights are raised. And you/we all deserve answers from them as well; and now is the time before they get elected.
So my comment is be careful what you accept from the press. - Instead of just dissecting whatever is presented to you, you should write ABC and ask them "what happened to fair coverage?".
Posted by: Da | Mar 16, 2007 6:03:05 PM
Anon....learn to read history dude. The Republicans didn't have control of Congress when DADT was instituted. They didn't take over until 1994. And, they don't set military policy....the Clintons(remember, we got 2 for the price of one)came up with this policy when the military flat told him they wouldn't accept an openly gay policy in the military.
Gays have no candidate running in the primaries yet....except one....his name is Dennis Kucinich....100% pro-gay....always has been.
Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, Biden all just say what they need to say to get the money and the votes. Kucinich has been for gay marriage, full rights for gays who marry, federal and state.
Posted by: joshua | Mar 16, 2007 6:08:12 PM
DA....I know that McCain and Guiliani came out immediatly(before any Democrats did) and said they didn't agree with Pace(also on Ann Coulter)and that there was no place for personal views in his job. I don't know about Romney, and Senator Brownbeck came out in support of Pace.
Posted by: joshua | Mar 16, 2007 6:14:34 PM
I must have missed it Joshua, because it certainly wasn't in the news.
And I'm saying in general - the media and the gay community should DEMAND public accountability on matters of human rights from all candidates - not just those considered to be the guardians of certain topics; because any formed government will decide on these matters for the rest of us.
So if us the common bloggers and individuals have to do coverage on Hillary and Obama's reactions, we need to ask "hey, wait a minute here..where's the other half of the story?" - it's just part of reading the news with a bit of skepticism.
Now, here's what I found about the republican candidates' answers..and they are worth examining.
_____________________________
"Republican Candidates Dodge Homosexuality Question" (bloggernista)
http://tinyurl.com/2o9mgf
While each of the Democratic candidates for president has been hounded about whether or not they believe that homosexuality is immoral or not, the Republican candidates have been let off the hook. That is until now. Jonathan Martin, a blogger for The Politico asked each of the top Republican candidates if they agreed with General Pace’s statement that gayness is immoral and that LGBT people should not be allowed to serve in the military.
From Martin’s recent blog post:
I posed the question — is homosexuality immoral — to representatives of all three of the top Republican candidates. None answered it directly.
Sen. John McCain: “The senator thinks such questions are a matter of conscience and faith for people to decide for themselves. As a public official, Senator McCain supports don’t ask, don’t tell.” –McCain spokesman Danny Diaz. Per the AP, McCain was asked about the matter on the campaign trail in Iowa yesterday and declined to answer.
Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s campaign didn’t respond to the question, instead citing comments the candidate made on FOX News last month when asked about gay marriage. “We should be tolerant, fair, open, and we should understand the rights that all people have in our society.”
Former Gov. Mitt Romney’s campaign also declined to answer the question, rather pointing to the response their candidate gave earlier this week on the campaign trail in Arizona. “I think General Pace has said that he regrets having said that, and I think he was wise to have issued an apology, or a withdrawal of that comment. I think that we, as a society, welcome people of all differences, whether there are differences in ethnicity, faith or sexual preference, and I think he was wise to correct his comment and to suggest that that was an inappropriate point to have made.”
As you see, each dodged the question. Only Sam Brownback gave a firm answer by sending a letter supporting General Pace’s statement to President Bush.
_________________________
There you have it.
Posted by: Da | Mar 16, 2007 7:14:38 PM
If anyone doesn't know Hilary's game by now, it's this: She will say anything for votes. The problem here is that she's wagering she will gain more votes by saying homosexuality is not immoral. By many people's moral code it is immoral and those are the ones she'll alienate, i.e., lose votes. I think she loses here. And I continue to not trust whatever words fall from her lips. I suspect there is always someone off-camera, etc. wiping her propaganda from the floor when she speaks.
Posted by: Stephen | Mar 16, 2007 7:39:26 PM
I also wanted to add, we shouldn't forget the other backdrop story here:
Which is that General Pace used his badge and position in the army to make a judgement call on the lives of millions of Americans; which is a clear & unprecendent case of abuse of power by a top member of the armed forces.
That is the real outrage here, and it's something nobody should be ok with regardless of how they feel on topic of homosexuality.
But I also agree with HRC demanding that candidates clarify their positions in this issue (though I still think this should have been asked to all candidates, including the republicans.)
There are so many issues at stake here, and I encourage you to read the campaign put together by HRC to get General Pace to apologize; and participate in great numbers:
http://www.hrc.org
Posted by: Da | Mar 18, 2007 4:59:49 AM
It just dawned on me. That I don't think that it's gay-straight I think it is a male female issue.
Every notice that when you give a hug to a female that the feathers come up from the male partner, even when they know that you are gay. If we think outside the box of gay, straight thing bottom line is that we are male or female, cock or cockless as it were.
I was at a reception last night and noted this, when we were about to leave we all gave hugs to each other. The straight males didn't think anything of the guys hugging each other, but then when it came to the girlfriends they got tense. I gave a hug to a guy that is drop dead georgous and body to die for he tensed up. I looked over and one of the gay guys gave a hug to his wife there is the issue. The guy that gave his wife a hug is a huge man evey-body knows he is gay and the guy that I hugged knew that but if was a male touching his wife.
I also find that a lot of females call us everything in the book because it is an issue of (holy shit, he dosen't want me) and guys just yell it for something to do. Youngster use the word fag,gay and have no concept of what the words really mean.
A perfect example of this is have a nice day, most times it means (fuck off and get lost) the way it is said is the kicker.
I think that we as a society are so polictically correct that we have lost the way we speak to each other. If your mom didn't teach you, we have no concept. Drama is where we are at these days and boy or boy are we getting the curtain calls. We have this mind set that me first then you. Get in line at the bank for anywhere else. There is always some one that says I'm in a hurry can I go in front of you, or someone that is having a panic attack I note that and say you can go ahead of me, I also say with clairity I am Not IN A HURRY. Basic simple manners help out a lot when there is conflict with anything.
Just a thought.
Posted by: Dr. Pat | Apr 11, 2007 11:29:40 AM