Hillary Clinton Gives Major Historic Gay Rights Speech In Geneva

[Jingthing]

Absolutely fantastic!

Kudos for days to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton with due credit to President Barack Hussein Obama who she serves under.

Of course these days Hillary Clinton is the most popular political figure in the USA and taken very seriously globally as well. So the lady behind this amazing speech ain't chopped liver. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-16/clinton-popularity-prompts-some-remorse-poll.html

OK, it's just a speech and just words, but this speech has made history, making gay rights officially an INTERNATIONAL issue.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/clintons-geneva-accord-gay-rights-are-human-rights/2011/03/04/gIQAPUipcO_blog.html

Text of speech:

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/12/178368.htm

You should of course watch the speech. Also notable is the announcement that President Obama intends to make a stand against countries with more severe persecution of gays, such as Nigeria.

And then Clinton announced what the United States is doing to help protect the lives and respect the dignity of LGBT people around the world. A first-ever U.S. strategy to combat human rights abuses against LGBT around the world. President Obama “has directed all U.S. Government agencies engaged overseas to combat the criminalization of LGBT status and conduct, to enhance efforts to protect vulnerable LGBT refugees and asylum seekers, to ensure that our foreign assistance promotes the protection of LGBT rights, to enlist international organizations in the fight against discrimination, and to respond swiftly to abuses against LGBT persons.”

Edited December 7, 2011 by Jingthing

[tombkk]

Great speech! Worth watching the video, all 30 minutes of it.

[Ijustwannateach]

Woohoo! Will watch that when I have more time. Thanks for the topic, JT.

[Jingthing]

She's back!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/03/18/hillary-clinton-comes-out-in-support-of-gay-marriage

Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton has come out in support of gay
marriage, making her announcement in a video released by Human Rights
Campaign.

America's first woman president?

Edited March 18, 2013 by Jingthing

[Loptr]

America's first woman president?

Getting a little ahead of yourself, aren't you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR3XTOjZPfg

[Jingthing]

Getting a little ahead of yourself, aren't you?

Not at all. If you have something to add related to gay human rights, please bring it.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Jingthing

[endure]

We are not having general US political debate in this forum. Be warned.

[Jingthing]

Aside from it being the right thing to do, it has become politically important now to be on pro civil rights side of the American gay marriage debate. Also, yes, of course, this emphatic statement of her position on gay marriage is part of Hillary Clinton's preparation to run for president in 2016. It would be naive to think otherwise.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/18/gay-marriage-support-hits-new-high-in-post-abc-poll/

Former secretary of state Hillary Rodham Clinton’s announcement —

— this morning that she is personally and publicly supportive of allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry was a necessary political move as she continues to keep herself in the mix as a potential 2016 presidential candidate.

Now the poll numbers of Americans favoring legalized gay marriage, yes MARRIAGE, have now dramatically become overwhelming. It's almost breathtaking how quickly the support has snowballed in a small number of years. There are a number of factors. It didn't just happen. It's been decades in the making. But the fruits may soon be ripe to harvest in the supreme court.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/18/gay-marriage-support-hits-new-high-in-post-abc-poll

Gay marriage support hits new high in Post-ABC poll

Public support for gay marriage has hit a new high as Americans

increasingly see homosexuality not as a choice but as a way some people
are, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The poll shows that 58 percent of Americans now believe it should be
legal for gay and lesbian couples to get married; 36 percent say it
should be illegal. Public attitudes toward gay marriage are a mirror
image of what they were a decade ago: in 2003, 37 percent favored gay
nuptials, and 55 percent opposed them.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Jingthing

[Loptr]

We are not having general US political debate in this forum. Be warned.

No debate. Merely point out the JT has gotten ahead of himself by about 4 years. That's all.

As for the flip-flop on the part of Ms Clinton, why should anyone be surprised? She has been around politics long enough to know that the truth is subjective.

[Jingthing]

The sea change that has happened and it won't be undone is being for gay civil rights in America is a political advantage and being against it is a political liability. This is historic and most welcome.

BTW, the only people who would be fixated on so called "flip flopping" of Hillary Clinton on gay civil rights issues are the core of people that would never support her under any circumstances. She is massively popular, the most popular American politician actually, and of course it would be great to have yet another strong advocate for gay civil rights in the white house for the next TWELVE years (at least). That said, it would be fair to assume any democratic president from now on will be pro gay civil rights, the next step is for there to be assurance that any republican president would be equally pro gay civil rights. No, that has not yet been achieved. However, I do think the days of a virulently anti-gay politician like Santorum having any chance at all to be president are OVER. Their party will at the very least be less NOISY in their anti-gay rhetoric as it would be political suicide to do otherwise.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/08/us-usa-politics-clinton-idUSBRE9170NZ20130208

Edited March 18, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

Now the poll numbers of Americans favoring legalized gay marriage, yes MARRIAGE, have now dramatically become overwhelming. It's almost breathtaking how quickly the support has snowballed in a small number of years. There are a number of factors. It didn't just happen. It's been decades in the making. But the fruits may soon be ripe to harvest in the supreme court.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/18/gay-marriage-support-hits-new-high-in-post-abc-poll

No, the poll numbers are not "overwhelming" - that term referred to support among those aged 18-29 only, not the general population.

Its also only "breathtaking" to anyone who is completely unaware of what has happened elsewhere in the rest of the western world over the last two or three decades, with support growing at a similar rate but with considerably less confrontation and alienation.

[Jingthing]

Now the poll numbers of Americans favoring legalized gay marriage, yes MARRIAGE, have now dramatically become overwhelming. It's almost breathtaking how quickly the support has snowballed in a small number of years. There are a number of factors. It didn't just happen. It's been decades in the making. But the fruits may soon be ripe to harvest in the supreme court.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/03/18/gay-marriage-support-hits-new-high-in-post-abc-poll

No, the poll numbers are not "overwhelming" - that term referred to support among those aged 18-29 only, not the general population.

Its also only "breathtaking" to anyone who is completely unaware of what has happened elsewhere in the rest of the western world over the last two or three decades, with support growing at a similar rate but with considerably less confrontation and alienation.

It is a breathtakingly rapid change in the context of American politics and American civil rights struggles. I am not sure where you got the idea the intention here was a competition with any other country. Each country in the world has a uniquely different culture and political system, and thus their gay civil rights movements if they exist will ALSO be different and also move at their own pace, yes forwards and backwards, because the path has not been a straight line forward. Also in American POLITICS 58 percent majority support for the entire population is considered overwhelming. That means a massive LANDSLIDE in American political elections.

I'll give you a personal example. Back when my Mom was alive and the OVERWHELMING national opinion was on the other side of what it is now, my dear Mom told me and she believed, about gay marriage in America, it will NEVER happen, it just is NOT possible. EVER. She wasn't a bigot. She knew how OVERWHELMING the opposition to it was. I understood why she felt that way and a big part of me thought she might have been right. But the other part of me, the part that knew the inspiration of historic activists like Harvey Milk (his issue was COMING OUT not marriage equality, but really without the massive COMING OUT the public support would have never blossomed as it did), felt something else, that in America the LONG TERM path is always towards greater expansion of civil rights to minorities, even despised ones.

Now that has flipped. It's going to happen. Americans know that is inevitable, whether this year, or ten or twenty years, it absolutely WILL happen.

The vast majority of the American public also now feels it is indeed INEVITABLE.

I get the subtext of your post. I'm assuming your opinion is that American's progress would have been QUICKER if we didn't have the history that we did, with in your face gay activists like the martyr Harvey Milk, with ACTUP, with flamboyant gay pride day parade in the big cities, and such like. You are welcome to your opinion about that. Nobody except God if there was a God would know where the movement would be today if the culture of the movement had been different. It was what it was, and it is where it is now (mostly about LOBBYING groups and high influence mainstread personalities) but this I can assure you of: the rapidity of the progress is SURPRISING to Americans, gay and straight. Again, within the context of American culture and politics, this has been FAST. America is a SLOW country on social change in general.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Jingthing

[endure]

Let's hope it happens soon cos the sooner it happens the sooner all the activists can stop banging on about it. Mind you, knowing activists, they'll find something else to bang on about.

[Jingthing]

Let's hope it happens soon cos the sooner it happens the sooner all the activists can stop banging on about it. Mind you, knowing activists, they'll find something else to bang on about.

The truth is the opponents of gay marriage equality are wise about one thing. It isn't only about marriage. Winning marriage equality is seen as winning total equality on all fronts, symbolically and culturally. Right wing reactionaries call it the culture wars. Most gay people are probably HORRIFIED of being married. The idea IS to change the culture so that gay Americans are officially first class citizens, and based on surveys, it is working. Of course the legal battles are still happening and may indeed take several years to finalize, but the end result does indeed seem inevitable.

Picking marriage equality as the most important issue by far was a strategic decision by mainstream lobbying types that was indeed mostly supported by the gay public, but still it was more than anything, a deliberate TACTIC.

Another thing I find funny is the idea the American gay civil rights activists are still strident and confrontational. They aren't any more. That's history. A proud and colorful history, but still history. Like I said, it's mostly about LOBBYING. Fundraisers for Obama. Basically, we've come a long way baby, to achieve being BORING.

Soon some historic gay marriage related cases will be ruled on by the supreme court. I expect positive decisions during these cases but I do not expect a "total" win. Strategically, the smaller win may be better in the long run, setting the stage for a more permanent, fully accepted total win later. That seems to be the consensus among court watching gay rights advocates -- that weirdly we should be wishing for the smaller win rather than the total win right now. It's a little hard to feel that way though.

Will they be dancing in the streets in San Francisco if a SMALL (incremental) win is announced by the court?

Like I said, America IS slow on these kinds of things. That's the culture and that's the political system. But the end result is now pretty well known and obvious now.

Edited March 19, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

.......

I get the subtext of your post. I'm assuming your opinion is that American's progress would have been QUICKER if we didn't have the history that we did, with in your face gay activists like the martyr Harvey Milk, with ACTUP, with flamboyant gay pride day parade in the big cities, and such like. You are welcome to your opinion about that. Nobody except God if there was a God would know where the movement would be today if the culture of the movement had been different. It was what it was, and it is where it is now (mostly about LOBBYING groups and high influence mainstread personalities) but this I can assure you of: the rapidity of the progress is SURPRISING to Americans, gay and straight. Again, within the context of American culture and politics, this has been FAST. America is a SLOW country on social change in general.

You clearly DON'T "get the subtext of (my) post" at all, as there isn't any despite your constantly reading things into my post that aren't there.

You also seem to read things into the reports you link to that equally aren't there: "58 percent majority support for the entire population is considered overwhelming" - the poll was not of "the entire population" and as these polls have consistently shown far greater support for gay marriage than has been shown in subsequent elections it is very clear that while support is growing (and may even have reached a voting majority) it is anything but "overwhelming" and it certainly doesn't mean a "a massive LANDSLIDE in American political elections" - you seem to forget that US elections have only just been held between a pro-gay and an anti-gay candidate and the vote was marginal.

...... Basically, we've come a long way baby, to achieve being BORING.

I haven't noticed any change ....

[Jingthing]

I am sorry but my opinion about the interpretation of your subtext stands for obvious reasons.

A poll is NEVER an actual measure of an entire population but a sampling intended to REPRESENT the population. I would have thought that was widely understand and assumed general knowledge, without needing to spell it out every time a poll is mentioned.

You are wrong about the last election. It was not a marginal win. It was actually a CLEAR and decisive win popular vote, very big margin in the electoral college, and definitely a political MANDATE, by modern American standards. (But not a landslide.) The gay issue however, that was marginal in consequence to the election.

What I meant was that in American political elections which are generally between two people, if one candidate gets 58 percent it is considered an overwhelming win. It's a divided, largely 50-50 country, so 58 or more on anything is remarkable.

I have no idea what you mean by saying there is no change. Obviously, civil rights movements go through phases and stages over time. Harvey Milk's rhetoric said today would be comically dated. OBJECTIVELY, yes, we have come a very long way indeed. Back in Milk's day (yes my day as well) the idea that a sitting president AND the most likely to be next president and most popular politician in America would be making clear, bold, decisive pro gay civil rights speeches (much less about marriage equality which at that time was just a germ of an idea by a tiny fringe) would really have been hard to even imagine.

Do you mean no change in the nature of gay American activism or no change in the culture/public opinion or no change in the actual LAWS about gay rights? Any of those, there is major change on ALL of them. I suggest if you haven't "noticed" that, you haven't been ... LOOKING.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

Short animated comic about how much things HAVE changed:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/telnaes

It is time sensitive. The related one is up now but the same link will later show newer ones.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

...

You are wrong about the last election. It was not a marginal win. It was actually a CLEAR and decisive win popular vote, very big margin in the electoral college, and definitely a political MANDATE, by modern American standards. (But not a landslide.) The gay issue however, that was marginal in consequence to the election.

What I meant was that in American political elections which are generally between two people, if one candidate gets 58 percent it is considered an overwhelming win. It's a divided, largely 50-50 country, so 58 or more on anything is remarkable.

....

No need to apologise, JT - we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.

For the record, the 2012 US election was won by a margin of 3.8% of the popular vote - half that in 2008. More than that in 2000 when the winner lost by -0.5%, but "marginal" by any definition in comparison to those in 1996, 1984, 1972 and 1964 when the margins were 8.5, 18.2, 23.1 and 22.5% respectively.

If the gay issue was a vote winner (or loser) in any way its effect was minimal.

[LeCharivari]

....

Do you mean no change in the nature of gay American activism or no change in the culture/public opinion or no change in the actual LAWS about gay rights? Any of those, there is major change on ALL of them. I suggest if you haven't "noticed" that, you haven't been ... LOOKING.

I meant "no change" in the "BORING" quotient, but since you bring up the point about "no change in the actual LAWS about gay rights" I haven't noticed any changes at federal level there either, unless you work for the post office or the military.

Maybe you could enlighten me and highlight some federal laws about gay rights, or indeed any concerning sexual discriminstion at all?

Mrs Clinton seems very keen to advance the cause of LGBT rights overseas, even basing foreign aid on nothing more than whether a country has a Gay Pride march or not, but like you she seems oblivious to the actual state of LGBT rights in her own country, which are non-existent.

Given the choice between a Gay Pride march and some laws preventing discrimination on the grounds of gender or sexual preference I'd go for the latter but I suppose it all depends on your priorities.

Edited March 20, 2013 by LeCharivari

[Jingthing]

...

You are wrong about the last election. It was not a marginal win. It was actually a CLEAR and decisive win popular vote, very big margin in the electoral college, and definitely a political MANDATE, by modern American standards. (But not a landslide.) The gay issue however, that was marginal in consequence to the election.

What I meant was that in American political elections which are generally between two people, if one candidate gets 58 percent it is considered an overwhelming win. It's a divided, largely 50-50 country, so 58 or more on anything is remarkable.

....

No need to apologise, JT - we are all entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.

For the record, the 2012 US election was won by a margin of 3.8% of the popular vote - half that in 2008. More than that in 2000 when the winner lost by -0.5%, but "marginal" by any definition in comparison to those in 1996, 1984, 1972 and 1964 when the margins were 8.5, 18.2, 23.1 and 22.5% respectively.

If the gay issue was a vote winner (or loser) in any way its effect was minimal.

It sounds like you don't follow the press. The election was reported widely as a DECISIVE win for Obama. That is how the win is seen in America. It was not a particularly close election. It was not a long election night. It was called EARLY. Once the votes started coming in, there was very little drama about the winner (except for the meltdown of Karl Rove on Fox News). In the electoral college, it was almost a BLOW OUT.

We agree that they gay issue didn't turn that election. I hope you didn't think I was saying that it did, because I didn't.

That said, four years ago, the gay issue of Obama coming to support gay marriage would have probably turned a close election AGAINST Obama (right wing wedge hate politics). The fact that it didn't this time, again, a strong sign of a major sea change in the culture about gay civil rights. If you don't see it, fine. I can't really comprehend that, but OK. I sincerely think the vast majority of Americans who care about the issue (either way) see the changes clearly.

To emphasize, I am not making up my own facts:

President Obama wins four more years as America delivers decisive verdict

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/07/obama-four-more-years-america-verdict

Edited March 20, 2013 by Jingthing

[Jingthing]

....

Do you mean no change in the nature of gay American activism or no change in the culture/public opinion or no change in the actual LAWS about gay rights? Any of those, there is major change on ALL of them. I suggest if you haven't "noticed" that, you haven't been ... LOOKING.

I meant "no change" in the "BORING" quotient, but since you bring up the point about "no change in the actual LAWS about gay rights" I haven't noticed any changes at federal level there either, unless you work for the post office or the military.

Maybe you could enlighten me and highlight some federal laws about gay rights, or indeed any concerning sexual discriminstion at all?

Mrs Clinton seems very keen to advance the cause of LGBT rights overseas, even basing foreign aid on nothing more than whether a country has a Gay Pride march or not, but like you she seems oblivious to the actual state of LGBT rights in her own country, which are non-existent.

Given the choice between a Gay Pride march and some laws preventing discrimination on the grounds of gender or sexual preference I'd go for the latter but I suppose it all depends on your priorities.

Subtexts galore there.

Did you read about the results of the last elections and how gay marriage has started to win POPULAR vote in some states for this first time in history?

This weird focus on gay parades. I don't get it. These aren't controversial anymore in the USA! They are large corporate commercial events now.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Jingthing

[Loptr]

To make things clear JT, I have zero issue with gays being afforded the same rights as straight people. My only point of contention is that Hillary will be the next POTUS. She will be 69 years old in 2016 and has enough skeletons rattling around in the closet to make her chances next to nil. Just my opinion, but hey, that's why we're here.

[Jingthing]

To make things clear JT, I have zero issue with gays being afforded the same rights as straight people. My only point of contention is that Hillary will be the next POTUS. She will be 69 years old in 2016 and has enough skeletons rattling around in the closet to make her chances next to nil. Just my opinion, but hey, that's why we're here.

She is considered a shoe in for the democratic nomination if she wants it and most commentators think the republicans are going to have a hard time winning the presidency again in the forseeable future, period. Also she is the most popular (by polling) politician in America today. The relevance to THIS thread, a GAY issue topic, is that a person of her stature and popularity (and general consensus she has a strong chance of being a president) has come out so boldly, strongly, and clearly for gay civil rights. Obama did also. She's the second American of that high stature. I don't really count Bill Clinton so much because it is known for sure he won't be running for any new office. The 2016 horse race aspect or opinions that her star is going to fade away in future really are irrelevant to this thread. She made this move NOW and NOW she is the most popular politician in America. That's a big deal.

Edited March 20, 2013 by Jingthing

[LeCharivari]

....

Do you mean no change in the nature of gay American activism or no change in the culture/public opinion or no change in the actual LAWS about gay rights? Any of those, there is major change on ALL of them. I suggest if you haven't "noticed" that, you haven't been ... LOOKING.

I meant "no change" in the "BORING" quotient, but since you bring up the point about "no change in the actual LAWS about gay rights" I haven't noticed any changes at federal level there either, unless you work for the post office or the military.

Maybe you could enlighten me and highlight some federal laws about gay rights, or indeed any concerning sexual discriminstion at all?

Mrs Clinton seems very keen to advance the cause of LGBT rights overseas, even basing foreign aid on nothing more than whether a country has a Gay Pride march or not, but like you she seems oblivious to the actual state of LGBT rights in her own country, which are non-existent.

Given the choice between a Gay Pride march and some laws preventing discrimination on the grounds of gender or sexual preference I'd go for the latter but I suppose it all depends on your priorities.

Subtexts galore there.

Did you read about the results of the last elections and how gay marriage has started to win POPULAR vote in some states for this first time in history?

This weird focus on gay parades. I don't get it. These aren't controversial anymore in the USA! They are large corporate commercial eventnow.

So .... no "major changes" in the "actual LAW" after all, then?

Votes in some States? Yes, noticed those, commented on the progress at local level before - hardly relevant internationally.

I don't get the "wierd focus on gay parades" either - my point wasn't whether they are controversial or not in the States but that they are the yardstick by which Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama are judging progress on LGBT rights, rather than anti-discrimination laws.

I see such laws as a higher priority than gay parades - they (and you) apparently do not.

[Jingthing]

Post withdrawn.

Edited March 21, 2013 by Jingthing