Clinton, Obama skirt queries on gays in the military
BY GLENN THRUSH glenn.thrush@newsday.com
| |
WASHINGTON -- If gays and lesbians were looking for a champion to dispute Gen. Peter Pace's claim that homosexuality is immoral, they might have expected Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Obama to leap forward.
Not quite. While both Clinton and Obama are courting gays and lesbians, and would allow them to serve openly in the military, the Democratic front-runners have been curiously reticent about challenging the statements of the chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff.
The highest-profile pol to say homosexuality is not immoral? It's former Navy secretary, ex-spouse of Liz Taylor and current Republican senator from Virginia John Warner, who told reporters Tuesday, "I respectfully but strongly disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral."
On Wednesday, Newsday repeatedly asked Obama if same-sex relationships were immoral.
"I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters," said Obama, leaving Capitol Hill. "That's probably a good tradition to follow."
He turned the conversation to opposition to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy: "I think the question here is whether somebody is willing to sacrifice for their country."
Later, an Obama spokesman said the senator, in fact, disagrees with Pace.
That sequence was remarkably similar to Clinton's responses Tuesday. When an ABC reporter asked her about the issue, she replied, "Well, I am going to leave that to others to conclude."
Later, a Clinton spokesman said the senator, in fact, also disagrees with Pace.
So why the dance? Clinton and Obama supporters, speaking on condition of anonymity, said both might have been trying to avoid offending socially conservative Democrats, particularly churchgoing African-Americans, who share Pace's views.
Steve Sanders, a gay Democrat who sat on the party's platform committee in 2000, said Clinton and Obama are engaged in a delicate balancing act. "Hillary and Barack have made very public overtures to religious Americans. They are trying to figure out how progressive Democrats can also make appeals to Americans of faith. It's a work in progress."
Personally, isn't it time we "progress" beyond this pandering to the religious "wrong"?
It is getting real old . . . .
Not quite. While both Clinton and Obama are courting gays and lesbians, and would allow them to serve openly in the military, the Democratic front-runners have been curiously reticent about challenging the statements of the chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff.
The highest-profile pol to say homosexuality is not immoral? It's former Navy secretary, ex-spouse of Liz Taylor and current Republican senator from Virginia John Warner, who told reporters Tuesday, "I respectfully but strongly disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral."
On Wednesday, Newsday repeatedly asked Obama if same-sex relationships were immoral.
"I think traditionally the Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman has restricted his public comments to military matters," said Obama, leaving Capitol Hill. "That's probably a good tradition to follow."
He turned the conversation to opposition to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy: "I think the question here is whether somebody is willing to sacrifice for their country."
Later, an Obama spokesman said the senator, in fact, disagrees with Pace.
That sequence was remarkably similar to Clinton's responses Tuesday. When an ABC reporter asked her about the issue, she replied, "Well, I am going to leave that to others to conclude."
Later, a Clinton spokesman said the senator, in fact, also disagrees with Pace.
So why the dance? Clinton and Obama supporters, speaking on condition of anonymity, said both might have been trying to avoid offending socially conservative Democrats, particularly churchgoing African-Americans, who share Pace's views.
Steve Sanders, a gay Democrat who sat on the party's platform committee in 2000, said Clinton and Obama are engaged in a delicate balancing act. "Hillary and Barack have made very public overtures to religious Americans. They are trying to figure out how progressive Democrats can also make appeals to Americans of faith. It's a work in progress."
Personally, isn't it time we "progress" beyond this pandering to the religious "wrong"?
It is getting real old . . . .
3 comments:
I find it interesting that loving another human being, regardless of similar body parts, is considered immoral but the killing and maiming of US and Iraqi people and the invasion of someone elses country is considered moral?
Hope you both escape soon.
This crap drives me crazy. When even our supposed "friends" won't stick up for us. The Clintons have a lot going for them, but they're weasels. My problem with Hillary is not that she's outspoken, it's that she's not outspoken enough. I hate the trying to have it all approach that politicians take. Someone said to me, "well, she can't do anything positive if she's not elected." But it was Bill Clinton who gave us "don't ask don't tell" and who signed DoMA. So what's the friggin' difference? I'm supposed to be happy "knowing" that in their hearts they love and accept me? F*ck that -- I want equal rights.
cc:
We are SO ready to "escape" as you call it . . .
daniel:
Yeah, I get so tired hearing platitudes during a campaign and even less when these people get into positions of power. It's all crap . . . .
Post a Comment