2004 US Presidential Election
November 11, 2004
Kerry | Clinton Blames Gay Marriage For Kerry's Loss
The Utica Observer Dispatch reports that former president Clinton put much of the blame for Kerry’s loss on gay marriage:
From California Yankee.
Posted by Dan Spencer at November 11, 2004 08:51 AM | TrackBack
“Deny, deny, deny” - Bill Clinton to Jennifer Flowers
I guess this is the “healing” and “unity” we can expect from the Democrats, not to mention the quality of thought. On the one hand, he’s saying that gay marriage is a state issue, while on the other he is complaining that the voters in several states voted on gay marriage as a state issue.
I certainly hope the hardcore liberals keep listening to this pied piper of b.s.
Posted by: TL at November 11, 2004 12:04 PM
Damn, when I saw that headline I thought I was right about Theresa…
Posted by: the sad old goth... at November 11, 2004 01:11 PM
I hope the leftists do all think that they lost the election solely over homophobia.
Then maybe they will move to France, or join the Green Party. And then maybe Democrats will be the party of Truman again. It would be a lot healthier than one-party rule.
Posted by: Gabriel Hanna at November 11, 2004 03:30 PM
Later in the speech he assured the audience that ‘John Kerry did NOT lose because he was a lying liberal socialist/communist, troop undermining, Bush hating, illigitimate offspring of Ted Kennedy, with terrorist appeasing traitor tendencies’.
It was strictly because he thinks gay men/women should be able to marry equally sick people of the same sex.
Posted by: No Party at November 11, 2004 04:39 PM
What’s just amazing is that Clinton would say it. He would stand up there and say “I oppose gay marriage” if he though it would get him elected. What he actually beleived, or even what he did before or after wouldn’t matter to him.
What a weasel.
Posted by: skip at November 11, 2004 05:54 PM
Clinton opposes gay marriage, he made that pretty clear. He urged Kerry to get behind the initiative petitions, but Kerry did not take his advice.
I personally think that a simple Constitutional amendment that marriage is a holy union between a man and a woman would be a good thing for all concerned. This is a democracy and the polls on tbis issue are pretty striking. It is Constitutionally worthy because of the headaches which would be caused when married gays travelled or moved to states that do not recognize such marriages. Let the individual states work out the civil union thing. I don’t see much opposition to Bob and Joe being able to see each other in the hospital or Jenny being able to get Mary insured. If gays can’t live with this compromise then too damn bad, life isn’t perfect.
Posted by: rdelephant at November 11, 2004 08:00 PM
In the fifties, it was only “hardcore liberals” who thought black people were, well, people, deserving equal protection under the law. And those hardcore liberals were Republicans.
I’m not kidding, please, do this. It will take you ninety seconds, tops. Read all the comments here and substitute the word “negro” for “gay,” the phrase “inter-racial marriage” for “same-sex marriage,” and the word “race” for “sex.” Tell me if the deja vu doesn’t creep you out.
sanc·ti·ty (sngkt-t) n. pl. sanc·ti·ties
1. Holiness of life or disposition; saintliness.
2. The quality or condition of being considered sacred; inviolability.
3. Something considered sacred.
It is not the business of government to “protect” the “sanctity” of anything—not that of the Holy Host, not that of the Holy Word, not that of Holy Matrimony. Protecting sanctity is the job of the Church, the Temple, and the Mosque.
It is the government’s job to uphold the integrity of civil contracts between A and B, the Party of the First Part and the Party of the Second Part, not that between straights, gays, Negros or Chi-nee.
C’mon people, this is supposed to be the land of the free and the home of the brave. As the Vice President said, freedom is for everyone, you know, as in We The People. Get brave already.
Posted by: jackson zed at November 11, 2004 09:06 PM
Well said, jackson zed -
What happened to the ‘separation of church and state’? I thought marriage was a sacrament of the church, since when did the federal government get into the business of defining religious terms?
Let each state decide the way they want civil unions defined. Marriage is in your heart and between you and your loved one. One of my dear friends has spent $1500 on lawyers fees to get her partner the legal rights that my wife has for FREE. THAT’S the problem, not the definition of marriage.
Wake up people, you don’t want the government making rulings on religious terminology. The cure is always worse than the original problem and you will rue the day you invited the state to define marriage for you.
Having trouble getting your mind around this? Imagine a simple amendent to the Constitution to more clearly define ‘Communion’.
Posted by: torpedo_eight at November 11, 2004 09:50 PM
I’m a Christian. Eastern Orthodox, to put a denominational label on it.
And I’m with jackson zed. The government can nose out. And clergy shouldn’t have the legal authority to declare a marriage, any more than they can declare a divorce.
Posted by: gus3 at November 11, 2004 10:01 PM
“There was astonishing turnout among evangelical Christians who were voting on the basis of moral values,” he said. “I do not believe either party has a monopoly on morality or truth.”
Clinton said THAT? LOL. ROFLMAO.
Have a Cigar, Bill. Chill. I simply can’t freakin’ wait for Hillary to redistribute some wealth.
Posted by: Cap'n DOC at November 11, 2004 10:41 PM
This is where I play “loyal opposition” to Cap’n DOC.
Notice, he said “either party”. Strictly speaking, if those two sentences were consecutive, then it was a non-sequitur. However, removed from that context, I actually agree with the statement pro se. That statement said nothing about faith or religion. It said something about the two major political parties.
It doesn’t make him any less narcissistic. But hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Posted by: gus3 at November 11, 2004 11:42 PM
How many times did we hear how Kerry was an Altar Boy? How many ‘sermons’ did Kerry give to predominantly Black Churches? How many times did Kerry nuance the crap out of his Pro-Abortion stance?
You’re right, gus3. He referred to BOTH parties. Lots of Catholics oppose abortion, and not all Catholics are Democrats. Not all SwiftVets, POWs or Vets for Truth are Catholic. Not all Catholics are opposed to funding social programs that benefit the less fortunate among us, and not all Catholics are good Catholics. To use but one religion as an example.
Clinton may very well be tuning up his voice for 2008 (in support of his Socialist Spouse), but I’ll bet you he won’t be discussing what a lie is any time soon.
My laugh at Mr. Clinton’s ‘monopoly’ (or lack thereof) is a reminder of how fast and loose the game of Tiddlywinks is played. I wish I didn’t have to go back to making choices based on evil (or the lesser of two), but if Hillary throws her skirt in the ring (or her flowered hat for that matter) in 2008, she is in for another rude awakening like Senator Kerry received. As is the Democratic Party.
I definitely do not see that the Democratic Party is about to yield on the field of Morality, now or later.
Posted by: Cap'n DOC at November 12, 2004 04:38 PM
The people of New York do not seem to think that Hillary is a Socialist, or immoral for that matter. I can see that you are afraid of the Clinton mystique, so go ahead make your baseless charges. We will be ready for you in four years.
Posted by: rdelephant at November 12, 2004 05:48 PM
rdelephant - Like you were THIS time?
Posted by: torpedo_eight at November 13, 2004 01:49 PM
And as long as the government can’t tell a church that they will lose their tax-exempt status for preaching that homosexuality is a sin, under “hate speech” laws, or require that church to marry gay couples, under “equal access to public accomodations” laws, that idea of letting the states define civil unions will work. Unfortunately, we’ve learned through bitter experience in everything from gun control to environmental regs to etc. that liberals define compromise as “what’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is negotiable.” Demonstrate you’ve changed that mindset, over the next 20 years, and we’ll think about trusting your word again.
Posted by: SDN at November 14, 2004 09:21 AM