A one
minute, twenty one second clip (http://louderwithcrowder.com/hillary-clinton-called-gay-marriage-hypocrite/)
from a 17 minute, 30 second address (http://www.c-span.org/video/?c4542342/hillary-clinton-same-sex-marriage)
has been circulating as “proof” that Hillary Clinton is a hypocrite for not
supporting marriage equality until the recent Supreme Court decision that made
it the law of the land. Here’s the context that’s missing from the shortened
clip. The address she was giving was in response to the proposed Federal
Marriage Amendment, or Marriage Protection Amendment, back in 2004 that would
have, if passed, defined marriage as one man, one woman, thereby prohibiting
judicial extension of marriage rights to same-sex or other unmarried
heterosexual couples. The clip highlights then-Senator Clinton stating that
marriage is a “bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman,” which
is being taken to mean that Clinton herself defines marriage as a hetero-only
institution and was, at the time, anti-marriage equality. Clinton has acknowledged that her views on a variety of issues, including marriage equality, have evolved over time (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/hillary-clintons-gay-marriage-problem/372717/). To paraphrase her, I think we should all be thinking human beings, constantly reevaluating where we stand. What we believe today is not set in stone.
All of this points to a much more complex picture than what is shown in the shortened clip. If you listen to the rest of her argument, more of the picture is revealed. Clinton is not necessarily avowing her disbelief in same-sex marriage. Instead, she is calling out the hypocrites in Congress who used the sanctity of marriage as a reason why same-sex marriage should have been banned by constitutional amendment, yet did nothing to slow the increasing divorce rate by similar means. Her caution (“to consider altering this document [the Constitution], one of the greatest documents in the history of humanity, is a responsibility no member can or should enter into lightly”) is not meant as a deterrent to pursuing marriage equality, but is instead a yellow light to pursue such conversations through other governmental means, such as the Supreme Court (i.e., the Obergefell v. Hodges decision from this past Friday that ruled that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment).
All of this points to a much more complex picture than what is shown in the shortened clip. If you listen to the rest of her argument, more of the picture is revealed. Clinton is not necessarily avowing her disbelief in same-sex marriage. Instead, she is calling out the hypocrites in Congress who used the sanctity of marriage as a reason why same-sex marriage should have been banned by constitutional amendment, yet did nothing to slow the increasing divorce rate by similar means. Her caution (“to consider altering this document [the Constitution], one of the greatest documents in the history of humanity, is a responsibility no member can or should enter into lightly”) is not meant as a deterrent to pursuing marriage equality, but is instead a yellow light to pursue such conversations through other governmental means, such as the Supreme Court (i.e., the Obergefell v. Hodges decision from this past Friday that ruled that same-sex marriage is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment).
Two
other decisions that hinged on the Fourteenth Amendment include Loving v. Virginia (which invalidated
laws prohibiting interracial marriage) and Brown
v. Board of Education (which declared that separate public schools for
black and white children were unconstitutional). Now bear with me while I try to sort out some
constitutional jargon. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment reads, “All persons born or naturalized in the United
States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United
States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall
any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process
of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of
the laws.”
The underlined portion is related to the “Privileges and Immunities Clause”
(Article IV, Section 2, Clause 1 of the Constitution), which reads, “The
Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of
Citizens in the several States.” Now what this means to me (a legal layperson)
is that citizens (last I checked it wasn’t required that you be heterosexual to
be a citizen) cannot have privileges (I would categorize the ability to marry
the person you love as such) taken away by a state law. In 1823, Associate
Justice Bushrod Washington defined privileges and immunities as "protection by
the government, with the right to acquire and possess property of every kind,
and to pursue and obtain happiness and safety, subject, nevertheless, to such
restraints as the government may justly prescribe for the general good of the whole.”
Based on this definition, I would say that obtaining happiness, for some, may
entail marrying the person they love. What’s that I hear, my conservative
friends? Oh that last part about restraints for the general good of the whole?
I could buy that argument IF (and only if) there was some stipulation attached
to this SCOTUS decision that somehow delegitimized your heterosexual marriage
or your religious beliefs. However, as this lovely summary (http://www.cracked.com/quick-fixes/a-30-second-guide-to-how-gay-marriage-ruling-affects-you/)
points out, the Obergefell decision
does not affect you in any way unless you are homosexual, and want to be, or
are already, married. Suffice it to say, since this decision does not actually negatively affect anyone, the general good of the whole is
still intact! Crisis averted!
P.S. Can
we all agree not to use “lesbian” as a (somehow) derogatory way of calling out
a strong woman with short hair and a pant suit (i.e., “still no word on whether
she’s a lesbian” in the louderwithcrowder.com piece)? A lesbian is a woman who
is romantically involved with another woman and last I checked Hillary is
married to a man (not to say that she couldn’t fall in love with a woman if
that was something she was into… you do you, girl!). But until the woman comes
out as such, can we stop speculating on her sexual orientation as a way to
detract from her merits and politics? Appreciate it.
"Being LGBT does not make you less human. And that is why gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights." -Hillary Clinton
