The Human Rights Campaign, a historically trans-exclusionary gay rights organization, has endorsed candidate Hillary Clinton for president. An announcement on their Facebook page reads:
There’s so much at stake for the LGBT community this Super Tuesday. The progress we’ve fought for under President Obama is now on the line. We need another advocate in the White House. That’s why HRC is standing with Hillary Clinton. #StandwithHRC #ImwithHer #SuperTuesday http://www.HRC.org/HRC
I have to object to setting the bar for advocate so low. Clinton has a long history of choosing the more politically expedient choice when it comes to gay rights.
She characterizes her 1990s era support of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell and the Defense of Marriage Act as compromises to prevent worse conservative backlash, which she personally has endured more than her share of.
As recently as 2011, she was using this mentality as Secretary of State when she declined to change policy wording from “mother” and “father” to “parent”. This bureaucratic alteration would have eased life for LGB service members stationed with their families overseas. However Clinton wrote in emails that the change would create a conservative media firestorm.
Clinton did not reverse her opposition to same-sex marriage rights until the summer of 2013. She made this position public by making a video for HRC. You can watch that video here. During her 2008 campaign, she heartily expounded the virtues of civil unions for queers, marriage for straights.
She has evolved her position mostly in pace with other moderate straight Americans, which is to say slowly, while kicking and screaming about the sanctity of marriage. If she becomes the nominee and faces against Trump, Rubio, or Cruz, I can then understand gay and queer rights organizations endorsing her. I don’t understand endorsing her over a less reluctant ally.
Continue to part 2