Bill Clinton Options

[kimmytree]

What are your views on the former President?

What about his effect on the economy?

And what about the attacks on our country? Is he to blame?

Discuss.

(Wikipedia has some good info on him).

[*Statues/Shadows*]

Um, I disapprove of the Defense of Marriage Act profusely. The implications of the name alone are bad- in what way does marriage need to be defended? He was a very confused Democrat.

[kimmytree]

Um, I disapprove of the Defense of Marriage Act profusely. The implications of the name alone are bad- in what way does marriage need to be defended? He was a very confused Democrat.

How was that being a very confused Democrat? He was against gay marriage. 10 years ago gays werent quite as accepted as they are now.

In what way does marriage need to be defended? Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, silly. Gays deserve their rights, but marriage?

[*Statues/Shadows*]

How was that being a very confused Democrat? He was against gay marriage. 10 years ago gays werent quite as accepted as they are now.

In what way does marriage need to be defended? Marriage has always been between a man and a woman, silly. Gays deserve their rights, but marriage?

I think you're making a fairly illogical generalization, but really I didn't think it was going to have to actually spell out my reasoning as to how he was confused as a Democrat.

As for your second comment, you have got to be kidding me. Good lord. Marriage DOES NOT have to be defended, that's my point. Marriages are actually personal so who is allowed to marry should be entirely irrelevant. Just because something had always certain way does in no way make it right. Tradition alone is not a valid way to guage much of anything. Marriage doesn't have to be defended not because of how marriage "should be" is implied, but because it shouldn't be ignorantly restricted. You cannot say that homosexuals deserve their rights but that they don't deserve marriage. It's completely contradictory. Plus, to suggest that heterosexual couples actually deserve marriage implies thet they've done something to deserve it, which is not the case. Have you looked at the divorce rate lately? Not so good, so to suggest that a man and a woman should actually get the benefits that others don't just for that is absurd.

Anyway, back to how Clinton applies to this. Same-sex couples, regardless of where they live or what state they were married in, have been federally refused social security benefits after death of a partner, because he passed the Act. (It shouldn't be in effect. The Full Faith and Credit Clause should apply to all such matters, not just which ones the homophobic idiots of the world happen to approve of.)
Besides how acceptance has changed over the past decade (which I still consider to be pretty stupid reasoning), liberals are still much more associated with a stronger federal government, which he did the opposite of with that. (Of course, Bush's support of a federal gay marriage ban is also reversed and generally worse, but we're all perfectly well aware of how unpopular he is already.) That's how he's confused: he gave more power to the states and took a needlyessly conservative and homorphobic stance on that issue that was generally counterproductive to the equality that liberals favor.

Also, I have yet to hear a single valid reason as to why homosexual couples should not have the same rights as heterosexuals, so I do hope you're prepared to defend your opinion after that last comment.

[kimmytree]

I think you're making a fairly illogical generalization, but really I didn't think it was going to have to actually spell out my reasoning as to how he was confused as a Democrat.

As for your second comment, you have got to be kidding me. Good lord. Marriage DOES NOT have to be defended, that's my point. Marriages are actually personal so who is allowed to marry should be entirely irrelevant. Just because something had always certain way does in no way make it right. Tradition alone is not a valid way to guage much of anything. Marriage doesn't have to be defended not because of how marriage "should be" is implied, but because it shouldn't be ignorantly restricted. You cannot say that homosexuals deserve their rights but that they don't deserve marriage. It's completely contradictory. Plus, to suggest that heterosexual couples actually deserve marriage implies thet they've done something to deserve it, which is not the case. Have you looked at the divorce rate lately? Not so good, so to suggest that a man and a woman should actually get the benefits that others don't just for that is absurd.

Anyway, back to how Clinton applies to this. Same-sex couples, regardless of where they live or what state they were married in, have been federally refused social security benefits after death of a partner, because he passed the Act. (It shouldn't be in effect. The Full Faith and Credit Clause should apply to all such matters, not just which ones the homophobic idiots of the world happen to approve of.)
Besides how acceptance has changed over the past decade (which I still consider to be pretty stupid reasoning), liberals are still much more associated with a stronger federal government, which he did the opposite of with that. (Of course, Bush's support of a federal gay marriage ban is also reversed and generally worse, but we're all perfectly well aware of how unpopular he is already.) That's how he's confused: he gave more power to the states and took a needlyessly conservative and homorphobic stance on that issue that was generally counterproductive to the equality that liberals favor.

Also, I have yet to hear a single valid reason as to why homosexual couples should not have the same rights as heterosexuals, so I do hope you're prepared to defend your opinion after that last comment.

You're right, I cannot defend myself on that one. When you first mentioned it, I had to look it up. Gays deserve equal rights. Its not like they "choose" to be gay, like many religous conservatives think.

I go to a Christian private school, so I'm confused enough as it is.

But what do you mean by confused? I thought giving more power to the states is something most libs are for. I think states should have more power.