How early did some major D pols privately support SSM? Who privately opposes it?

[Nichlemn]

Obama signed a statement claiming he was in favour of SSM in 1996. I wonder the same about lots of other Democratic politicians, like the Clintons, Gore, Kerry, etc, who all opposed SSM years ago but are all in support now. How many sincerely changed their minds in the past few years? For those that didn't, how many supported it much earlier, and how many are still privately opposed but are publicly in support for political expediency and image purposes?

[Oswald Acted Alone, You Kook]

Pretty much all Southern Democrats that support SSM are only doing it because it's part of the party platform.

[Meursault]

Same-sex marriage emerged as the right-wing alternative to gay liberation during the early days of the AIDS crisis (ref. And The Band Played On), so probably ~1983-85, when the Party shifted right.

[Mordecai]

Obama signed a statement claiming he was in favour of SSM in 1996. I wonder the same about lots of other Democratic politicians, like the Clintons, Gore, Kerry, etc, who all opposed SSM years ago but are all in support now. How many sincerely changed their minds in the past few years? For those that didn't, how many supported it much earlier, and how many are still privately opposed but are publicly in support for political expediency and image purposes?

I'm pretty sure that all of the ones you mentioned (the Clintons, Gore, Kerry) were either privately in support of it or didn't feel strongly opposed to it. All four of them are not opposed to abortion rights for women even though they are all religious, so I don't really see how they'd feel strongly opposed to same-sex marriage.

I was pretty surprised that some people here were surprised at Obama endorsing same-sex marriage, I was always under the impression he had privately supported it (because of that statement he signed) but didn't support it publicly for political reasons.

As for the Clintons, Bill Clinton made gay rights a plank of his 1992 presidential campaign when he promised to allow gays to serve in the military so it follows that he and Hillary would support same-sex marriage. He was a lot more political about it though, he signed DOMA to try to take away the issue from the Religious Right which was pretty underhanded. That was a big mistake in my opinion, but one that Obama rectified.

As for Kerry, he voted against DOMA in 1996 so reading between the lines I see that as being supportive of same-sex marriage.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

You could probably say that the biggest early "gut check" for Democrats was the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. IIRC, only 14 senators voted against. But that's a tricky measure -- even Barbara Boxer didn't come around on gay marriage until years later.

I recall hearing once that Ted Kennedy was an especially early backer of gay marriage (circa 1996), but I'm having trouble finding supporting evidence on the Internet. Dude had a stellar record on gay rights, even when it was unfashionable during the AIDS scare of the 1980s.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

As for the Clintons, Bill Clinton made gay rights a plank of his 1992 presidential campaign when he promised to allow gays to serve in the military so it follows that he and Hillary would support same-sex marriage. He was a lot more political about it though, he signed DOMA to try to take away the issue from the Religious Right which was pretty underhanded. That was a big mistake in my opinion, but one that Obama rectified.

Had Clinton vetoed DOMA and managed to get his veto sustained, then there likely would have been added pressure for a 28th Amendment.  Besides the possibility that Congress itself would have set a Defense of Marriage Amendment to the States, it's entirely possible that enough States would have called for a Convention to propose it.  (More likely, it would have gotten close to their being a Convention and Congress would send the Amendment to the States itself to keep a Convention from happening as was the case with the 17th Amendment.)

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

You could probably say that the biggest early "gut check" for Democrats was the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. IIRC, only 14 senators voted against. But that's a tricky measure -- even Barbara Boxer didn't come around on gay marriage until years later.

I recall hearing once that Ted Kennedy was an especially early backer of gay marriage (circa 1996), but I'm having trouble finding supporting evidence on the Internet. Dude had a stellar record on gay rights, even when it was unfashionable during the AIDS scare of the 1980s.

Sometime around 2004, Ted Kennedy was one of 4 Senators who supported SSM. Chaffee was one of the others.

[Miles]

Well, needles to say, in the south, there are still quite a few Dems that genuinely don't support it.

[Mr. Morden]

Before that Hawaii Supreme Court decision in 1993, how many politicians would have even given SSM a moment's thought, let alone formulated an opinion on it?  It was just such a fringe issue that virtually no one was talking about, that I presume the bulk of Congress didn't really have an opinion on it.

And afterwards….I think some of you underestimate the tendency people have to talk themselves into believing what's in their own self-interests.  I presume most politicians read the political tea leaves, and then convince themselves that they believe what it is they have to say, in order to advance their political careers.  The phenomenon of outright lying about one's political beliefs is probably more rare than you would think, because it gets short-circuited by people lying to themselves.

[Meursault]

Or, alternatively, that a thing becomes true for someone that wasn't true before. Would the anti-Communist Fair Dealer Ronald Reagan of the 1940s have recognized himself as President? Surely not; and yet he insisted that the Democratic Party left him. So too may it be with this issue. What would Governor Clinton have known of gay rights in 1982? That they were espoused by weirdos in the Tenderloin and the Silk Stocking District who fisted each other in places with names like The Ramrod and who were now mysteriously dying. But perhaps there is still a continuity between his views.

[Brittain33]

Before that Hawaii Supreme Court decision in 1993, how many politicians would have even given SSM a moment's thought, let alone formulated an opinion on it?  It was just such a fringe issue that virtually no one was talking about, that I presume the bulk of Congress didn't really have an opinion on it.

Exactly. Even among gays and lesbians and our supportive family members, same-sex marriage was a fringe issue in the early '90s and a dream imagined for the future in the rest of the decade. Andrew Sullivan was far out in front and alone on this for a while.

People could consider it a hypothetical they could ignore through the Vermont decision and subsequent compromise... it really took until the SF marriages in February 2004 and the more durable Massachusetts marriages in May 2004 that politicians had to deal with it as a live issue, and the 2004 campaign to make it a wedge issue for Republicans and a draw for Democratic fundraising and campaign staff.

[NerdyBohemian]

Not a Democrat, but Lincoln Chafee had supported SSM and gay rights since at least 2000.

[Simfan34]

Same-sex marriage emerged as the right-wing alternative to gay liberation during the early days of the AIDS crisis (ref. And The Band Played On), so probably ~1983-85, when the Party shifted right.

What? Explain more.

[Mordecai]

As for the Clintons, Bill Clinton made gay rights a plank of his 1992 presidential campaign when he promised to allow gays to serve in the military so it follows that he and Hillary would support same-sex marriage. He was a lot more political about it though, he signed DOMA to try to take away the issue from the Religious Right which was pretty underhanded. That was a big mistake in my opinion, but one that Obama rectified.

Had Clinton vetoed DOMA and managed to get his veto sustained, then there likely would have been added pressure for a 28th Amendment.  Besides the possibility that Congress itself would have set a Defense of Marriage Amendment to the States, it's entirely possible that enough States would have called for a Convention to propose it.  (More likely, it would have gotten close to their being a Convention and Congress would send the Amendment to the States itself to keep a Convention from happening as was the case with the 17th Amendment.)

Ok, I see that. Do you think Clinton was considering that when he signed it into law? I'm not too sure.

Or, alternatively, that a thing becomes true for someone that wasn't true before. Would the anti-Communist Fair Dealer Ronald Reagan of the 1940s have recognized himself as President? Surely not; and yet he insisted that the Democratic Party left him. So too may it be with this issue. What would Governor Clinton have known of gay rights in 1982? That they were espoused by weirdos in the Tenderloin and the Silk Stocking District who fisted each other in places with names like The Ramrod and who were now mysteriously dying. But perhaps there is still a continuity between his views.

Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar and graduated from Yale, so it's not like he was some bumpkin.

[Napoleon]

You could probably say that the biggest early "gut check" for Democrats was the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act. IIRC, only 14 senators voted against. But that's a tricky measure -- even Barbara Boxer didn't come around on gay marriage until years later.

I recall hearing once that Ted Kennedy was an especially early backer of gay marriage (circa 1996), but I'm having trouble finding supporting evidence on the Internet. Dude had a stellar record on gay rights, even when it was unfashionable during the AIDS scare of the 1980s.

That whole time period is such a nasty stain on our history. We have disease spreading and peolle dying and the response is to resort to vile scare tactics rather than finding solutions? Embarrassing

[memphis]

It's amazing to me that the AIDS crisis didn't encourage support for marriage equality. Monogamy vs promiscuity being at the root of the whole situation, especially before safe sex was considered such a mainstrram alternative. Go figure out people and their batsh!t crazy religion.

[Brittain33]

It's amazing to me that the AIDS crisis didn't encourage support for marriage equality. Monogamy vs promiscuity being at the root of the whole situation, especially before safe sex was considered such a mainstrram alternative. Go figure out people and their batsh!t crazy religion.

It was just way way too early for people to even think about marriage for gays in the 1980s. The idea was beyond the fringe. I'm a little too young (37) to have any awareness of gay life before AIDS, but it certainly encouraged longterm pairing up, usually monogamously, both to reduce risk of HIV but also because of the hazards of living alone. That was the world I came out into.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

It's amazing to me that the AIDS crisis didn't encourage support for marriage equality. Monogamy vs promiscuity being at the root of the whole situation, especially before safe sex was considered such a mainstrram alternative. Go figure out people and their batsh!t crazy religion.

It was just way way too early for people to even think about marriage for gays in the 1980s. The idea was beyond the fringe. I'm a little too young (37) to have any awareness of gay life before AIDS, but it certainly encouraged longterm pairing up, usually monogamously, both to reduce risk of HIV but also because of the hazards of living alone. That was the world I came out into.

As both the book And the Band Played On and the film made from it document, even after it became clear that promiscuous unsafe sex was a primary means by which the disease was transmitted, there were those in the gay community who were opposed to measures that would curb that.  It wasn't just heterosexuality that many of them associated with straights, it was monogamy as well.  I suspect that were it not for AIDS, support for same-sex marriage would be far lower than it is today and not just among heterosexuals.  Between lower levels of support among homosexuals and a large fraction openly espousing promiscuity, getting support for SSM from us straights would have been a much tougher sell.

[badgate]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

-

oh

[NerdyBohemian]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

-

oh

I meant at the time Lincoln Chafee was not a Democrat.

[badgate]

oh ok

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think the Blue State Dems who held out against endorsing SSM for aaaages, probably oppose it. Or at least, were uncomfortable with it (Carper).

If you want to see an embarrassing case of people who probably support SSM privately, but publically oppose it for Realpolitik, observe Julia Gillard's tenure as PM.

[Mordecai]

I think the Blue State Dems who held out against endorsing SSM for aaaages, probably oppose it. Or at least, were uncomfortable with it (Carper).

If you want to see an embarrassing case of people who probably support SSM privately, but publically oppose it for Realpolitik, observe Julia Gillard's tenure as PM.

Yeah that was cringeworthy but I think forgivable, she was PM by an extremely thin margin and didn't want to rock the boat on social issues. It was all well and good for Rudd to come out for it, he knew he was going to lose and was only there to save furniture.

[Brittain33]

I can't even conceive of a counterfactual history for same-sex marriage, or gay rights/culture in the U.S. at all, without the AIDS epidemic.

[bedstuy]

I suppose some black democrats could support SSM publicly, but oppose it privately.  Actually, recently the former most liberal NYC city council member was black and anti-SSM (and was endorsed by David Duke in his run for Congress in 2012).  Black democrats are one of the few groups that tends to be liberal and anti-SSM.