Did you support gay marriage before Hillary Clinton?

[TDAS04]

I honestly don't know.  I didn't fully accept that I was gay or firmly support gay marriage until I was about 20 (2007), and I'm guessing that Hillary privately supported gay marriage before she ran in 2008.

If the question is whether I supported it before Hillary Publicly endorsed it, then clearly yes.

[Sopranos Republican]

About a year before her or so. Surprisingly I never had any friends come out as gay in school at any point. (We had gay kids, I just didn't happen to hang out with any of them) It was more that I came to a realization that my family's evangelical thoughts and values had dominated my life, and that some God who may or may not exist wasn't going to make me hate other people. It took me a couple of years after that to realize I really don't believe in God.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Probably since the late 1990s, which means before something like 90% of Democrats who support it now.

shua, I understand what you're going for here, but I think I can speak for all gays who aren't parody troll accounts here by saying that we recognize that people have to evolve on this issue, just as Obama and our family members have. While Hillary Clinton was unusually risk-averse, she's come around and become a strong advocate, and that's what matters now.

I voted for Hillary over Obama in 2008 in part because of Obama's reluctance on this issue—at least with Hillary, I knew I would get caution and cynicism. Obama has surprised me by embracing gay rights in his second term.

That is the case for most gays that I know personally, but I keep hearing from some corners that all those who oppose gay marriage are bigots. And that if you don't believe that those who oppose gay marriage are bigots who deserve to be punished, then you are a closet bigot yourself too. That is not what I would expect from those who recognize that this is a complicated issue for people they need to evolve on before they can embrace it.

[Mr. Illini]

I did indeed, and always have

[Brittain33]

That is the case for most gays that I know personally, but I keep hearing from some corners that all those who oppose gay marriage are bigots.

Well, the Internet is dark and full of terrors, and you'll hear all kinds of generalizations from people age 18 to whatever which haven't been thought through. I think there's a full spectrum of people from the 90 year old who just doesn't get gay marriage but doesn't really care if it becomes legal to the very cynical political operative who thinks it's still 2004 and he can use opposing gay marriage to prop up a candidate, and obviously you can't paint everyone with the same brush.

Some people who oppose gay marriage are bigots, not because they oppose gay marriage, but because their opposing gay marriage is just one expression of their hatred of or disgust for gays which doesn't have a well-thought-out ethos behind it. I also think I don't have an obligation to be appreciative of people who oppose same-sex marriage to the point they try to deny us equal rights under the law, because it's their feelings vs. my rights, and they don't care what I think anyway.

We seem to have traveled in light speed from "gay marriage is unpopular, so gays who come out should bear the social consequences of flaunting their lifestyle" to "gay marriage is popular, so people who oppose it are special snowflakes deserving of everyone's respect and tolerance" and it makes my head spin. 

[Torie]

I have a rather relaxed attitude about it, because my team has so totally won, and now my party is wrestling among those who make a living off it, how to make a graceful exit, and get this issue out of the Pub agenda, before it takes them down. It's easier to be gracious and charitable in victory, than in defeat, no? Meanwhile, the latest contretemps out of Indiana saddens me, because it has made so much more difficult getting to an intelligent balance, and conversation, between expression of religious values, versus not discriminating against gays, including their tying the knot. I am really disappointed in Pence. I had no idea he was such a craven idiot. Sad.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

That is the case for most gays that I know personally, but I keep hearing from some corners that all those who oppose gay marriage are bigots.

Well, the Internet is dark and full of terrors, and you'll hear all kinds of generalizations from people age 18 to whatever which haven't been thought through. I think there's a full spectrum of people from the 90 year old who just doesn't get gay marriage but doesn't really care if it becomes legal to the very cynical political operative who thinks it's still 2004 and he can use opposing gay marriage to prop up a candidate, and obviously you can't paint everyone with the same brush.

Some people who oppose gay marriage are bigots, not because they oppose gay marriage, but because their opposing gay marriage is just one expression of their hatred of or disgust for gays which doesn't have a well-thought-out ethos behind it. I also think I don't have an obligation to be appreciative of people who oppose same-sex marriage to the point they try to deny us equal rights under the law, because it's their feelings vs. my rights, and they don't care what I think anyway.

We seem to have traveled in light speed from "gay marriage is unpopular, so gays who come out should bear the social consequences of flaunting their lifestyle" to "gay marriage is popular, so people who oppose it are special snowflakes deserving of everyone's respect and tolerance" and it makes my head spin. 

It makes my head spin as well how soon we've gone from "gay rights don't threaten anyone else" to "you must conform or suffer the consequences." Do you have to be a "special snowflake" to deserve respect and tolerance?

[Thomas D]

I supported Gay Marriage before some of you were even born. 

[Brittain33]

It makes my head spin as well how soon we've gone from "gay rights don't threaten anyone else" to "you must conform or suffer the consequences." Do you have to be a "special snowflake" to deserve respect and tolerance?

[RINO Tom]

Yes, but barely.  I probably started supporting in sometime around when President Obama did.

All that matters is if you support it now, and if you support it sincerely (and not because public opinion is now behind it).

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Way before.

[AndrewTX]

....yeah..

[TNF]

I've supported it since 2008.

I had a moderate hero 'civil unions for everyone' position in 2007, because I was a fedora-tipping atheist at that point.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Absolutely none of my beliefs were born out of anything to do with Hillary Clinton, but yes.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

Still oppose and will oppose it. I'm rather honked off that they now think they can play the "do what we want or we'll get big bad government to force you to violate your own religious conscience card"

[Bojack Horseman]

I've supported it since I quit hating myself over being gay.

[Bojack Horseman]

Still oppose and will oppose it. I'm rather honked off that they now think they can play the "do what we want or we'll get big bad government to force you to violate your own religious conscience card"

And that's the way it should be. Segregation never would have ended if we put a religious exemption into the Civil Srights Act of 1964, as the religious right can drive a Mack truck through any sized loophole. Discrimination should be illegal and screaming " Religious freedom!" doesn't get you a free pass.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I became aware of gay marriage as a concept in 2000, and never saw any reason not to support it.

[Thunderbird is the word]

I've supported it since 2003 when I joined the Gay Straight Alliance in ninth grade, equal rights always just struck me as a no-brainer.

[7,052,770]

Still oppose and will oppose it. I'm rather honked off that they now think they can play the "do what we want or we'll get big bad government to force you to violate your own religious conscience card"

Gay marriage is America. If that doesn't suit you, there are around 200 other countries you could live in.

I recommend Russia.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I started supporting civil unions around the same time.  I don't mind doma being gone, since we the people should decide to follow or go against god's commandments through our state legislatures and state constitutions, we shouldn't make our elected officials in Washington (or activist judges) make the decision for us.

I will never support same sex marriage unless I am convinced that scripture endorses it, and even then I may still have doubts about whether Children are truly raised equally well in same sex marriage homes as opposed to traditional marriage homes, though I will admit I have less doubts about that than I did years ago.

[Alcon]

I started supporting civil unions around the same time.  I don't mind doma being gone, since we the people should decide to follow or go against god's commandments through our state legislatures and state constitutions, we shouldn't make our elected officials in Washington (or activist judges) make the decision for us.

I will never support same sex marriage unless I am convinced that scripture endorses it, and even then I may still have doubts about whether Children are truly raised equally well in same sex marriage homes as opposed to traditional marriage homes, though I will admit I have less doubts about that than I did years ago.

How do you support civil unions but not gay marriage by this logic?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I started supporting civil unions around the same time.  I don't mind doma being gone, since we the people should decide to follow or go against god's commandments through our state legislatures and state constitutions, we shouldn't make our elected officials in Washington (or activist judges) make the decision for us.

I will never support same sex marriage unless I am convinced that scripture endorses it, and even then I may still have doubts about whether Children are truly raised equally well in same sex marriage homes as opposed to traditional marriage homes, though I will admit I have less doubts about that than I did years ago.

How do you support civil unions but not gay marriage by this logic?

I support civil unions because there are legitimate adoption needs and almost any home is better than the average orphanage. We show it has a lesser status under God by not calling it a marriage and denying a few marriage benefits. I don't support gay marriage primarily based on my Christian faith, but I'd be less bothered by it if it was we the people doing it and not we the activist judges doing it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Ever since it became a major issue in 2003.

Even her totally 3rd-way husband beat her.

[Alcon]

I started supporting civil unions around the same time.  I don't mind doma being gone, since we the people should decide to follow or go against god's commandments through our state legislatures and state constitutions, we shouldn't make our elected officials in Washington (or activist judges) make the decision for us.

I will never support same sex marriage unless I am convinced that scripture endorses it, and even then I may still have doubts about whether Children are truly raised equally well in same sex marriage homes as opposed to traditional marriage homes, though I will admit I have less doubts about that than I did years ago.

How do you support civil unions but not gay marriage by this logic?

I support civil unions because there are legitimate adoption needs and almost any home is better than the average orphanage. We show it has a lesser status under God by not calling it a marriage and denying a few marriage benefits. I don't support gay marriage primarily based on my Christian faith, but I'd be less bothered by it if it was we the people doing it and not we the activist judges doing it.

OK, this is in complete direct contradiction with the argument you made in our prior discussion, which is that you cannot incentivize anything you think is sinful, and in fact would even go as far as to ban the practice of religions you disagree with.  Now, you are indicating that you are fine with incentivizing something you think is sinful, because it has obvious positive benefits...despite the fact that, again, this is in direct contradiction to your previous argument.  You're apparently OK with incentivizing sin so long as its "lesser status under God" is signified through "denying a few marriage benefits" and lesser nominal recognition.  (?!?!)

In one case you support government prohibition of non-Christian behavior; in another you support incentivizing non-Christian behavior, so long as the government notes it's inferior.  It's hard to explain how logically baffling this is.  It's like if someone expressed a hardline pro-life position, and then was like, "eh, I'm willing to support publicly-funded abortions, as long as there's a $50 copay and we call them 'Satan's appendectomies.'"  That's not even a particularly hyperbolic analogy!  It's apt!  Your reasoning is that weird!

Be honest, dude: do you really think your argument on gay rights issues is coherent and cohesive?