Hillary's Lack of Gushing Support For Gay Marriage....Telling?

[Silhouette]

During a contentious interview on NPR’s Fresh Air, Clinton scolded host Terry Gross for persistently asking questions about the former Secretary of State’s “evolution” on the issue of gay marriage. In Clinton’s mind, the host had been attempting to twist her words to unfairly paint a picture about her views on the issue.


Clinton publicly endorsed same-sex marriage only last year, leading many to surmise that she either withheld her true feelings on the issue all along, or had simply come around to the voting public’s increasing support for the issue. On Thursday morning, Gross attempted to understand Clinton’s change of heart, provoking a testy response.

After repeated questioning and several defensive responses, Gross told her interviewee: “I’m just trying to clarify so I can understand.”

“No, I don’t think you are trying to clarify,” Clinton fired back. “I think you’re trying to say I used to be opposed and now I’m in favor and I did it for political reasons, and that’s just flat wrong.”
Hillary Clinton Snaps at NPR Host for Questions About Gay Marriage Evolution | Mediaite

So by now you've probably seen the clips of Hillary's interview. True it is strange that instead of just saying something succinct and polite like "my views on gay marriage have evolved to embrace it", instead she snaps, accusing her interviewer of trying to corner her.

In so doing, she is less than gushing about a democratic support for gay marriage. It could be her instincts are going all Chic-Fil-A on her; or Duck Dynasty. The democrats are worried about having foolishly embraced the cult of LGBT as a platform. The recent upset of Brat over Cantor in Virginia for Cantor's not being conservative enough on topics like LGBT marriage etc. has undoubtedly snapped a few candidates and potential candidate's heads around.

There is a perceptable shift in the middle moving right. And what has done it is the alarming fascist-style inroads the gay marriage and other cult values pushing fascism into American law and democracy itself: http://www.usmessageboard.com/curre...wins-gay-legal-challenges-simple-as-that.html

I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so stupid democratic leadership! And wow can you see it all over Hillary in that interview. It is a topic causing much consternation and dismay among democrats.

Deeply embracing the cult of LGBT is as foolish politically as the right deeply embracing fracking or complete stripping of a woman's right to choose. They cost immense votes in the middle for the respective political party.

Democrats have a way out and it's called "embracing Windsor". All they would have to do is assert that if a state approves of gay marriage then so do they. They could sidestep the LGBT pressure by agreeing that democracy on behaviors is dominant to gays being married. They could pledge to help LGBT's push their agenda in various states as they put initiatives on the ballot one by one. But pushing for a federal sweep on gay marriage that usurps the majority's rights to weigh in on the topic [as outlined and prescribed in Windsor] is going to KILL democratic hopefuls in the next two election cycles. In short, the enormous bloc of middle voters doesn't like being dictated to. And that goes for things like right to choose and fracking too.

 

[Plasmaball]

while gay marriage as an issue is going away because the Courts are doing the right thing. This wont matter in 2016 if she runs.

 

[Silhouette]

while gay marriage as an issue is going away because the Courts are doing the right thing. This wont matter in 2016 if she runs.

Man are you going to be in for a shock when the 10th weighs in on Utah & Oklahoma. [That's supposed to be any day now] Or, failing that, when it shunts up to the Supreme Court and they have to spell out Windsor for the general public.

Might want to read up on that before it happens to lessen the blow. The Court said that states' broadest swath of citizenry get to decide, not judges. Sorry to have to break the news to you:

United States v. Windsor

Carefully and thoroughly read pages 14-22 of the Opinion. Have a box of kleenex handy or a tall glass of whiskey when you do. Their Findings were also retroactive to the founding of the country. So when the dust settles, gay marriage will have only been legal in the 3 states who ratified it in the manner Windsor Prescribes.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

while gay marriage as an issue is going away because the Courts are doing the right thing. This wont matter in 2016 if she runs.

It will to a significant number of gay activists.

 

[bodecea]

while gay marriage as an issue is going away because the Courts are doing the right thing. This wont matter in 2016 if she runs.

Man are you going to be in for a shock when the 10th weighs in on Utah & Oklahoma. [That's supposed to be any day now] Or, failing that, when it shunts up to the Supreme Court and they have to spell out Windsor for the general public.

Might want to read up on that before it happens to lessen the blow. The Court said that states' broadest swath of citizenry get to decide, not judges. Sorry to have to break the news to you:

United States v. Windsor

Carefully and thoroughly read pages 14-22 of the Opinion. Have a box of kleenex handy or a tall glass of whiskey when you do. Their Findings were also retroactive to the founding of the country. So when the dust settles, gay marriage will have only been legal in the 3 states who ratified it in the manner Windsor Prescribes.

Don't think so, my friend.

 

[Silhouette]

while gay marriage as an issue is going away because the Courts are doing the right thing. This wont matter in 2016 if she runs.

Man are you going to be in for a shock when the 10th weighs in on Utah & Oklahoma. [That's supposed to be any day now] Or, failing that, when it shunts up to the Supreme Court and they have to spell out Windsor for the general public.

Might want to read up on that before it happens to lessen the blow. The Court said that states' broadest swath of citizenry get to decide, not judges. Sorry to have to break the news to you:

United States v. Windsor

Carefully and thoroughly read pages 14-22 of the Opinion. Have a box of kleenex handy or a tall glass of whiskey when you do. Their Findings were also retroactive to the founding of the country. So when the dust settles, gay marriage will have only been legal in the 3 states who ratified it in the manner Windsor Prescribes.

Don't think so, my friend.

Please elaborate on what legal grounds you would justify setting a precedent for just some behaviors in the minority telling the majority 'how it's going to be' vs other behaviors in the minority telling the majority 'how its going to be'?

You do understand that once the precedent is set, other behaviors objectionable to the majority can have their day in court?

Again, instead of just snowing readers here with emoticons, describe precisely what your "winning" position is that supposedly defeats what I said. If you can.

 

[bodecea]

Man are you going to be in for a shock when the 10th weighs in on Utah & Oklahoma. [That's supposed to be any day now] Or, failing that, when it shunts up to the Supreme Court and they have to spell out Windsor for the general public.

Might want to read up on that before it happens to lessen the blow. The Court said that states' broadest swath of citizenry get to decide, not judges. Sorry to have to break the news to you:

United States v. Windsor

Carefully and thoroughly read pages 14-22 of the Opinion. Have a box of kleenex handy or a tall glass of whiskey when you do. Their Findings were also retroactive to the founding of the country. So when the dust settles, gay marriage will have only been legal in the 3 states who ratified it in the manner Windsor Prescribes.

Don't think so, my friend.

Please elaborate on what legal grounds you would justify setting a precedent for just some behaviors in the minority telling the majority 'how it's going to be' vs other behaviors in the minority telling the majority 'how its going to be'?

You do understand that once the precedent is set, other behaviors objectionable to the majority can have their day in court?

Again, instead of just snowing readers here with emoticons, describe precisely what your "winning" position is that supposedly defeats what I said. If you can.

Don't think gay marriage is going to be overturned ever again. You seem to think it will be. I disagree. Care to lay a friendly wager on it?

 

[Silhouette]

Don't think so, my friend.

Please elaborate on what legal grounds you would justify setting a precedent for just some behaviors in the minority telling the majority 'how it's going to be' vs other behaviors in the minority telling the majority 'how its going to be'?

You do understand that once the precedent is set, other behaviors objectionable to the majority can have their day in court?

Again, instead of just snowing readers here with emoticons, describe precisely what your "winning" position is that supposedly defeats what I said. If you can.

Don't think gay marriage is going to be overturned ever again. You seem to think it will be. I disagree. Care to lay a friendly wager on it?

I would but that's not A. Fair to you since in all but 3 states according to Windsor ALREADY as of June 2013, gay marriage is not legal and B. That's not a substitute for answering my question.

Answer it.

Or I'll offer you another option if you are eager to escape the uncomfortable notion of answering my question. Speak to the topic here and tell me what you think about Hillary's odd reaction to the question of her support or lack of it for gay marriage?