BREAKING: Gay Former Staffer for Bobby Jindal: He Is Defined By The Anti-Gay Company He Keeps
by Steve PepJuly 31, 2010 | 11:37pm
Paul R says
July 31, 2010 at 11:54 pm
I thought it was more like $4-5 million. Security alone would have cost a fortune, and even though the Secret Service would ostensibly be responsible for much of it, I’m sure the Clintons were wise enough to foot most of that bill to avoid the expected BS from Fox and other conservative commenters.
Alex Parrish says
July 31, 2010 at 11:59 pm
One gets the impression from this coverage that the groom doesn’t have a family name. Is he now to be known as Marc Clinton? Will Chelsea keep her own name? So little has been said about him, it would be nice to at least know his name…
August 1, 2010 at 12:03 am
They all look so good. The pics look great…the Clintons always have such good taste..Hillary looks amazing.
August 1, 2010 at 12:30 am
I’m not quite sure I like Chelsea’s dress. C’mon Vera…I’ve seen better of your dresses.
Hillary did look really good.
I wish them luck.
JAMES in Toronto says
August 1, 2010 at 12:32 am
JOE32 got it right… great pics, very good taste, a nice wedding.
Even more though, everybody looks happy, and Marc looks like a nice young man. (In other words, he looks refreshingly “normal” for this crowd. lol)
I hope they’re happy.
August 1, 2010 at 12:45 am
He is so hot. Right on, Chelsea!
August 1, 2010 at 12:58 am
Why does it always have to be so religious, don’t people trust their secular intuition?
August 1, 2010 at 1:06 am
verafuckinwang again!!!!!!!how original,give some young designer a break and give this cliche a break,i mean for a designer that gets literally ALL these famous weddings ya would think her stuff wouldnt look like some generic stuff,hell its her choice but all i see is a safe cliche that people go to to be in the in club,dullllll folks
August 1, 2010 at 1:28 am
Alex, apparently you only get your news from towleroad. Every other major news (and even more non-news) sites have mentioned Marc’s name.
As for everyone else, criticize on…god forbid the girl get the dress SHE wants or the wedding SHE wants or the groom SHE wants.
It all looks amazing. Rock on Chelsea.
August 1, 2010 at 1:29 am
This warms my heart – what a beautiful couple and a fantastic occasion. Many happy returns, Chelsea & Marc ! Congratulations !!
August 1, 2010 at 1:30 am
I wish them the best. She has always carried herself very well, particularly given her extraordinarily unique situation.
August 1, 2010 at 1:47 am
Imagine the egg on his face if Chelsea had fallen in love with and married a woman. “Hey Dad, will you walk me down the aisle even though you approved legislation that makes my marriage invalid?” Fuck him. But I do hope Chelsea does well. I’m married, too. But I’ll always have this: no one at my wedding was a bigot.
August 1, 2010 at 1:57 am
That shot of him walking her down the aisle… so extravagant & yet relatable at the same time. An instant classic.
August 1, 2010 at 2:02 am
Ariel Sharon momentalily awoke when told of the wedding, smiled & promptly lapsed back in to his coma. This must rival the Iraq war as the greatest accomplishment of the Neo-Conservatives. Hillary has finally crossed over.
August 1, 2010 at 2:03 am
I’d wish the Clintons happiness if it weren’t for the fact that Bill gave us the Defense of Marriage Act. Then again, I guess he just wants to defend marriage, right?
August 1, 2010 at 2:21 am
Lovely gown, and she looks radiant. Hate to bring politicis into it, but God I wish Hillary had won.
August 1, 2010 at 3:07 am
Bill Clinton was the presidential architect of DADT and the Defense of Marriage Act and numerous other anti-progressive, anti-poor, anti-good-economy and anti-gay problems.
So why are some fawning over him?
Who cares if his daughter can get married when gays cannot enjoy the same legal benefits and protections?
August 1, 2010 at 3:28 am
Whoever did Chelsea’s make up should be smacked and never hired by anyone again. Chelsea is such a pretty girl when she doesn’t have a ton of stuff on her face (like when she was campaigning for her mom) so to do that to her on such a big day is a shame.
Hilary looks AMAZING.
LG Wilson says
August 1, 2010 at 3:40 am
Is the groom Jewish?
RED DEVIL says
August 1, 2010 at 4:09 am
Lovely gown, and she looks radiant. Hate to bring politicis into it, but God I wish Hillary had won.
POSTED BY: TYLER | AUG 1, 2010 2:21:40 AM
Why Tyler, Your ass still would NOT be able to get married because she doesn’t support it and he signed D.O.M.A. The economy would have still dropped, Jobs would have still been lost and we would be at war with Iran right now.
Gurl please let it go Miss One. You will have the opportunity come 2012.
Sans her. Chelsea and Mark looks wonderful congrats to them!
August 1, 2010 at 4:28 am
Yes, obviously the groom is Jewish.
August 1, 2010 at 4:35 am
Very beautiful and planned with taste.
August 1, 2010 at 5:30 am
Not again with the DADT and DOMA crap..the Clintons are friends to the gay community..both bill and hillary have shown their support in many ways..the picture if Hillary walking down 5th ave in the gay pride parade as first lady was history..she rocks and is an awesome SOS..glad to see them so happy
August 1, 2010 at 5:33 am
thanks to her dad, millions of us cannot have the same event in our lives
August 1, 2010 at 5:35 am
With friends like them who needs enemie?. Her walking in the NYC gay Pride Parade was POLITICAL….PLAIN AND SIMPLE!
Once again GET OVER IT…She has!
August 1, 2010 at 8:41 am
I think people are forgetting the history of DOMA and the atmosphere of 1996. If DOMA hadn’t been signed into law, I think the chances would have been almost certain the Republican dominated congress in that year would have passed a “marriage definition” constitutional amendment, bypassing the president, and, at that time, 38 states would have ratified it.
Of course in 2010 if there is a GOP-Tea Party blowout in congress and in state legislatures and Mitt Romney in 2012 …
August 1, 2010 at 9:14 am
Am I the only one who thinks Chelsea looks a lot like Gaga in those photos?
August 1, 2010 at 9:21 am
$2 Million!!! I heard Kerry sailed up there in his $7 Million yacht. Show off.
August 1, 2010 at 9:31 am
He is Cute but I am surprised that she married a JEW.
Is Chelsea going to convert ?
When they have childen, I am pretty sure that the groom wants his kid(s) to grow up in the Jewish faith.
August 1, 2010 at 9:39 am
Everytime I hear about this “marriage” I cringe. Wasn’t Clinton an adulterer? Didn’t Clinton sign into law DOMA? Clintons/Bushes, may they all rot in hell.
August 1, 2010 at 10:01 am
Beautiful dress….But still a horsey looking girl….oh, btw, ballroom gown to hide table legs…a gift from Ma clinton
August 1, 2010 at 10:14 am
I like the gown. I like that she chose a simple gown from a famous designer, not a flamboyant dress that designers do to show off, and I like the fabulous detail in the belt.
August 1, 2010 at 10:41 am
Got teary-eyed when I saw the pics. Just remembered her as an awkward girl who got made fun of a lot when she was younger (sad to see the same comments by bitter queens here too). Of course, there was that public humiliation involving her father’s infedilities. Apparently, the groom’s parents have some heavy baggage as well. Guess they have some things in common & finally found some happiness. I wish them well.
Chitown Kev says
August 1, 2010 at 10:42 am
What’s with the anti-Semitic undertones on this thread…
Just congratulate Mark and Chelsea (the dress is OK) and be done with it.
Max F. Grump says
August 1, 2010 at 11:06 am
…Oh sure…I was invited to the wedding.. However about a year ago I decided that I would STOP attending anyone’s wedding that was held in a state where the possibility of my getting married was nil.
How about we all stop attending straight weddings until we can ALL get married in every state. In the immortal words (sung by) Barbra Streisand and Donna Summer – “Enough is Enough”. How dare we be treated any less that any other American. Obviously, we are still treated like second class citizens. Wake Up People!
August 1, 2010 at 12:29 pm
She looks lovely and all, and he’s a’ight. but 2 mill? Ridic. Let’s put that towards the deficit, the homeless, THE GULF, AIDS research, equality rights, et. al. Shame on them. And I liked them before now.
August 1, 2010 at 12:43 pm
If you’re going to make Chelsea’s wedding all about DOMA, at least don’t be an ignorant asshat about it. It did NOTHING to restrict individual states from passing marriage equality, and instead clarified that such marriages did not have to receive interstate recognition under the Full Faith & Credit Clause of the U.S. Constitution (states MAY still voluntarily do so however, as does New York). Anyone who would suggest that he cannot get married in State X because of anything Bill Clinton did is an idiot who needs to direct his anger towards his state legislature where it belongs.
I think DOMA is as terrible as the next chap and look forward to its repeal, but for goodness’ sake know the damn law if you’re going to criticize it – you’re embarassing yourself.
August 1, 2010 at 1:15 pm
As for the Clintons now being our friends, I would have preferred to see the daughter of the president who signed DOMA and DADT into law, getting married in a north eastern state that actually recognizes marriage equality.
August 1, 2010 at 1:47 pm
Rick you don’t know that. Where was it legal for gays to get married before DOMA? In fact many would argue DOMA allowed MA to pass gay marriage without having the FMA become something “important” more than it already was to many conservatives. Promising Arkansas they would not have to recognize Massachusetts wedding staved off a federal ban on gay marriage that would have overturned the marriages taking place in six states as we speak.
Get over yourself. You are talking out of your ass.
August 1, 2010 at 1:52 pm
Ron, yes obviously Chelsea should have been thinking of you when she planned her wedding. I mean why would she get married in the state where she lives, where her husband and parents live, where her mother was a Senator? When she can get married in Massachusetts?
God. You people should hear yourselves.
And to the guy criticizing her legs, you’ve clearly never ever seen her in person. She was a dancer for years and actually has a pretty fantastic body. Luckily she isn’t built like her mother…then again, she isn’t 62 years old.
August 1, 2010 at 2:49 pm
Ryan, you’re the one who is ignorant.
Here is your statement: “Anyone who would suggest that he cannot get married in State X because of anything Bill Clinton did is an idiot…”.
Here are the facts. While a gay couple where one partner is a foreigner can get married in a particular state that offers it, they cannot reside in the USA. 1) The foreigner has no immigration rights, and can’t come to the USA. 2) If they do get married in the USA, and the foreign partner tries to return to visit, their marriage will be viewed as immigration intent, and he/she runs the very real risk of being barred from the country. This is not a minor or unserious risk by the way.
Bill Clinton’s DOMA stands in the way of many gay couples getting married, regardless of federal benefits eligibility. I know because I’m one of the people who suffer because of this.
So STFU and go eat your Cheerios.
August 1, 2010 at 2:56 pm
Fred and Tyler are correct Clinton gave America DADT and the DOMA.
The DADT is a disgrace to America in the eyes of the world. When countries like Uruguay and Argentina allow gays to serve openly it speaks volumes for the current state of America
August 1, 2010 at 2:58 pm
Hillary did look amazing! Especially in that green dress she wore!
After seeing her in pictures thru the years, that one really stood out.
August 1, 2010 at 3:17 pm
He’s a nice, safe boring choice. What a yawn. Not particularly attractive, either…but not unattractive–just boring, plain looking and a bit pasty. As to the simmering antisemitism, that’s one of the reasons I don’t trust christians… Though I’m an atheist, it really doesn’t matter. Arendt was right: a jew first, and everything else second.
Fuck this wedding shit. I don’t believe in apologism for the clintons. We have DOMA and DADT because of clinton (who, only in contrast to his successor, is considered a “good” prez). I’m not interested in “explanations,” etc, and considering that “intent” or “private belief” means absolutely nothing to fact of the matter…
Michael @ LeonardMatlovich.com says
August 1, 2010 at 3:41 pm
Pitiful how the Obama Nostra managed to rewrite history during their fight with his wife for the nomination, such that the mere mention of her husband’s name causes some easily fooled queens now to have the equivalent of an epileptic grand mal seizure. But, then, some people don’t mind being played, as exhibited by the queens who STILL think Barry’s their Messiah.
REALITY CHECK: Yes Clinton was wrong to sign the DADT and DOMA bills but he did not “give them” to us. Sam Nunn gave us DADT and Bob Barr gave us DOMA because both of them hated gays AND Bill Clinton. Though I agree he should have on principle, his vetoes would have erased the moment Congress overrode him BOTH times.
DADT [within the ’94 DEFAUTH bill] passed in the Senate by NINETY-TWO to 7. In the House, it passed THREE HUNDRED & ONE to 134. DOMA passed by a vote of EIGHTY-FIVE to 14 in the Senate and a vote of THREE HUNDRED & FORTY-TWO to 67 in the House of Representatives.
The bills themselves, far from their legend as the legislative equivalent of AIDS actually changed NOTHING of substance. Go ahead, find us ONE gay soldier who was allowed to serve with impunity before 1993. Find me ONE gay couple that was allowed to claim each other on federal tax forms, or, if one was a foreign national, “marry” his/her American partner and automatically get US citizenship. The laws are just further codification of what already existed.
Before the Obama Mafia’s smear campaign, Clinton was remembered for the good he did for gays ….which Obama has STILL not surpassed [merely signing the hate crimes bill? Come on!]…as well as his role in DADT and DOMA:
He issued an Executive Order reversing one from Eisenhower over 50 years before that had banned gay federal employees. He was the first President to fill his admin with open gays [many of which Obama simply rehired], and the first to appoint a gay person to a position that had to be approved by the US Senate. He issued an Executive Order increasing penalties for gay hate crimes in the military and banned discharges of anyone whose gay identity was discovered in a security clearance investigation. In addition, his administration totally revamped the security clearance process for civilians, too, ending the “special procedures” under which gays were frequently delayed for or denied on security clearances, previously a serious problem in technology occupations with government contractors. For the first time, gays were included in the category of “distinct social group” for purposes of analyzing eligibility for political asylum in the US for people from oppressive countries. Clinton appointed the first gay federal judges and the first gay US Ambassador & US Envoy. He was the first President to meet with gays in the White House, address a gay political group’s event, and the first to declare June “Gay Pride Month.”
And, oh yeah: still waiting for Michelle to show up in a gay pride parade!
August 1, 2010 at 4:01 pm
@VEG Yes, DADT came about under Clinton, but only after Mr. Clinton had the audacity to submit a bill to Congress to repeal anti-gay discrimination without checking with the JCS and Senator Sam Nunn (D-GA) who was chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. After the republicons and some Democrats went ballistic, the DADT “compromise” was worked out. The problem with DADT is that its principle tenent–you don’t mention you’re gay; we don’t ask if your gay; you continue to serve–has been largely ignored. DADT also did not give individual commanders the flexibility to ignore any accusation that a servicemember might be gay or lesbian. DADT made it an automatic discharge.
As for DOMA, that law was a republicon attempt to ambush Clinton and the Democrats in the 1996 mid-term Congressional elections. Even though “gay marriage” had yet to become the major issue it is now, the Hawaiian Supreme Court had ruled in 1996 that denying gay people the right to marry was unconstitutional and violated the equal protection clauses of the Hawaii State Constitution. Again, the republicons went ballistic, riled up their famous “base” and then introduced DOMA in Congress. Although there was spirited debate, it passed easily (unfortunately). Clinton signed it into law but protested that it was unnecessary and a political hack-job.
Now, none of this should excuse Mr. Clinton or the Democrats for caving in to republicons or the reich-wing. Political courage–REAL courage–is always hard to come by. But, I feel it’s important to put things in proper, historical context. It doesn’t ease the sting or the anger but it helps to understand why such things were implemented in the first place.
As for the other charges–“anti-poor” “anti-good economy”, “anti-progressive” and “anti-gay”–those, too, are debatable.
Welfare reform (anti-poor?) was necessary. It was a program that had become bloated, did nothing to help the poor get job-training or better education, and it did create a “culture of dependency”. What made it work was that under Mr. Clinton, the economy took off and unprecedented job creation and prosperity was the result. One remembers that in those years, even McDonalds had to raise their starting wages because it was so difficult to find workers, not because no one wanted to work, but because everyone was finding better employement elsewhere.
The economy soared. When Mr. Clinton left office, we had an incredible budget surplus so I don’t think Mr. Clinton was “anti-good economy”. To the contrary. In my adult life, the Clinton years were the only time I had ever felt even remotely “prosperous” (a relative term here). But, I was working overtime, I was saving a little, I was paying my rent and my bills on time. I couldn’t ask for more.
As for “anti-progressive” or “anti-gay”? Well, Bill Clinton was a centrist Democrat. But, he was not “anti-progressive”. If “progressive” means progress-whether it is social, economic or political-then, I’d say Mr. Clinton was as progressive as they came (debatable, of course).
As for “anti-gay”? No, Bill Clinton wasn’t. He was very “gay-friendly”. But, then as now, the republicons and their vaunted “base” keep the anti-gay atmosphere churning, especially now that the Internet and Faux Noise are so influential and prominent.
Bill Clinton had many flaws and many failings as a President and as a man. But, I don’t seek perfection when I vote for a President. I only want results. I think that Mr. Clinton delivered the goods for the most part.
And, judging from the smiles on the faces of Mr. Clinton, the Sec’y of State and Chelsea and her new husband, I would also say he was a fine father. Chelsea has done her parents proud. I hope her marriage is a long and happy one.
Kyle Sullivan says
August 1, 2010 at 4:38 pm
No sniping or tackiness here. It looked like a wonderful wedding. I wish the new couple well and hope they have a long and happy life together.
BJ Murphy says
August 1, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Yeah, now disappear into obscurity you yuppies
August 1, 2010 at 4:48 pm
No LG Wilson, he had a touch of the flu so he wore a winter cap and a scarf to fight off the chills. Fuck.
August 1, 2010 at 7:05 pm
Reading on other sites, there were a LOT more negative comments than on this site.
One person had the audacity to state:
“Harry Truman said it best when declining various offers and notoriety to connect with his name after his presidency ended and he drove back to Independence…THE OFF ICE OF PRESIDENT BELONGS TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND IS NOT FOR SALE……The Clintons have no class.”
I don’t care to bother with “logging in” in order to respond, but I was sure the commentor felt the same about Ronald Reagan, being the first President to accept $1,000,000 for a speaking engagement. Funny how he failed to mention that little tidbit.
The other odd thing I found were the comments criticizing the amount of money spent by the Clintons.
First, where does the media get this information? They had access to the Clinton credit card statement?
Secondly, these same critics are the ones that talk about “trickle theory economics” so I’d have thought they would have been pleased with the amount of cash injected into the economy.
But, unfortunately, haters will always be haters.
Tofer david says
August 1, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Typical bunch of haters have to post negative comments. Good for Chelsea and Marc and their happy parents.
Several members of my family and friends also had weddings this summer, they were gay.
If you’re unhappy about the state of gay marriage, then do something about it that goes beyond hitching on a web-posting comment thread.
Beautiful weekend here in NY.
August 2, 2010 at 12:23 am
It’s HER wedding, not a statement on our rights. She has wealthy parents who likely wanted to help compensate for her horrible childhood. Not everything is political or about us.
Though I was surprised to read that both his parents have been members of the House. Politics breeds unexpected bedfellows, in this case literally.
August 2, 2010 at 12:30 am
OH MISS MICHAEL…BITCH PLEASE HE SIGNED IT AND WE ALL SUFFER AS A RESULT OF IT…FUCK YOU AND YOUR OBAMA HATING ASS.
HILLARY COULD GIVE YOU TEA WITH RIACIN IN IT AND YOU’D STILL SAY SHE DID NO WRONG.
DUMB ASS FAGGOT. IT’S OBVIOUS YOU GIVE THE CLINTON ON PASS ON ANYTHING!
GURL YOU AND DICKI-LEAKS BIO’S NEED TO GO TO HELL PERMANENTLY!
August 2, 2010 at 11:16 am
Surely much of this wedding, as with every wedding, was planned, styled, decorated, and catered by gay individuals, and surely at some point in the process these gay individuals were actually looked in the eye by the happy couple and members of their happy families. But hey, forget about that – it doesn’t affect your life, so let’s just ignore it. Love the dress. Enjoy your life.
August 2, 2010 at 11:28 am
What’s with the queen who is content with CRUMBS and happy with politicians in our parades just waving 4 our votes and money and doing NOTHING for equality? Dismissing DADT and DOMA show how we still have pathetic, stupid and low self-worth GLBT individuals in our midst.
August 2, 2010 at 12:55 pm
They made $110 million in one single year, and it’s unreasonable to expect them to pay all the costs of the wedding, including security? If you think only Fox News thinks that and it’s “BS”, Paul, you’re dead wrong,
August 2, 2010 at 1:00 pm
The Clintons are no longer with the common folk and now exist solely in the aristocratic bubble that many successful types fall into, so if you defend them you are defending the whole lot. Considering poor Chelsea’s looks, I guess there is hope for anyone to get married. For those not familiar with Jewish tradition: the mother must be Jewish for the kids to be accepted into the faith fully, though it varies from very strict to encouraged in the various branches.
August 2, 2010 at 1:16 pm
I think Chelsea looks radiant and happy and beautiful, and her guy is handsome. The pics brought me a warm feeling. Whatever you think about the Clintons, it can’t be denied that they raised a remarkable young woman.
For the record, Chelsea came through Portland a couple years ago stumping for her mom, but then heard about the drag-tastic Red Dress party for charity that night, and decided that she wanted to go. Her handlers probably had a herd of cows, but she did indeed show up at the party, and danced herself silly and had a great time. That’s a sign of a classy, forthright gal.
August 2, 2010 at 1:41 pm
Hello Bill Clinton,
You signed the Defense of Marriage Act, codifying “marriage” as between one man and one woman, into Federal law September 21, 1996.
I wonder if you would explain exactly how Chelsea’s marriage to Mezvinsky was under threat and attack from The Gays?
Because…if “marriage” between one man and one woman has been under raging attack for (at least) the 15 years since DOMA became Federal law seems to me The Gays could have easily sabotaged a wedding in a least two important ways:
1. Who did Chelsea hire as the wedding planner? Brian Rafanelli. A Gay.
2. Who did Chelsea hire as the wedding florist? Jeff Leatham. A Gay.
Seems to me at least two Gays had ample opportunity to ruin these nuptials.
I’m waiting Bill. Your response?
August 2, 2010 at 6:40 pm
God forbid they hired any gay people. With your logic you’re advocating that straights discriminate and not hire any gays. Great. Do you think for a moment that the gay men involved were proud and happy to earn an income as a result. Self-hating douche. God bless the clintons.
If Obama had any cajones he could draft several executive orders making legalese possible for gays in the military and with regard to marriage he could cause attention to be focused, but his win are is in a bind and he will be lucky to get a second term so he won’t venture out on the limb for us. Let’s blame Clinton for his acts in 1996 and ignore those who have the power to bring change today.
Gay Texas says
August 20, 2010 at 6:16 pm
How is this gay news? OH – Vera Wang. Nevermind.
You must be logged in to post a comment.