I'm Trying to Like Hillary

Sen. Hillary Clinton sidestepped a question about whether she thinks homosexuality is immoral Wednesday, less than two weeks after telling gay-rights activists she was “proud” to stand by their side.

Clinton was asked the question by ABC News, in the wake of Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace’s controversial comment that he believed homosexual acts were immoral.

“Well, I’m going to leave that to others to conclude,” she said. (source)

I don’t know... with friends like this... I’m trying to like Hillary. Really, I am. I’m trying to shed the baggage I have with her (her shrillness, her hair, her wardrobe... yes, I know, I’m very superficial), and really give her a chance. It’s just that every time she opens her mouth, I want to change stations. I don’t feel like she’s genuine in what she’s saying.

If Hillary Clinton can’t come to a quick conclusion about whether our community is “moral” or “immoral”, how will she do as President when an even bigger decision is asked of her? Yet, she side stepped this issue by leaving it for “others to conclude”.

And it’s rather strange, because she has stated that if she is elected President, that gays “would always have an open door to the White House”, and that she “supports gay adoption and wants gays to be able to serve openly in the military”. She concluded, “I want you to know this is exactly the kind of partnership we will have when I am president.” It’s a partnership, by the way, that does not support marriage equality for gay couples. I suppose I’m asking too much of any Presidential candidate in this day and age to come out as be open about equality. I suppose it’s the sense of fairness in me that I’d like others to have. But, I know that’s not reality.

Hillary, how are you going to have this close wonderful relationship with gays if you have to pause and think about if we are immoral or not, then finally let others conclude if we are immoral or not? Hell, if I want that kind of indecisiveness, I suppose I could vote for the next George W. Bush, whoever that turns out to be.

To be fair, Barack Obama did the same thing. It’s not as if these issues are new. You would think that they would have an answer ready. The question was asked in light of General Pace stating that he feels gay people are immoral. I’m not a single issue voter. This doesn’t make or break it for me for these two candidates. But it does cause me concern. If they can’t make up their minds about the morality of our community without having to stop and think about it, how much of an “an open door to the White House” can we honestly expect?

She, and Barack Obama want our votes, but are they just courting us like George W. Bush did with the gay marriage issue with conservative voters? I believe that they are. We have to look beyond our own selfish interests though (a new concept in Washington), and try to look at what is good for the country (also a new concept in Washington).

All of this moral stuff aside (Gen. Pace, Hillary, Obama, et. al.), I believe morality is a game played by religious people who put themselves in a position to judge others, and that judgment is based in religion. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if a candidate actually did believe in the separation of religion from the state and simply stated, “The statement or decision of the morality of a group of law abiding, tax paying citizens is not relevant to public discourse or decisions. All citizens should be treated with equality under the law.”?

Think that will ever happen?