Web Letters | The Nation

Web Letter

The time for change is now. Gays are not second-class citizens. We need leadership that believes in equality yesterday, today and tomorrow. Marriage represents a promise of forever, a promise of commitment. Matrimony represents the legal protection of the family unit and public declaration of love. Without this union, if our partner or child becomes ill, we maybe denied the right to visit or participate in their care, among many other rights. To give partnership rather than marriage is to simply wrap discrimination in a candy-coating sealed with a label to lessen the blow. When our children grow up we do not tell them to set their goals a little lower, that they deserve less than others.

Politicians steals voter support with their wavering uncontroversial stance. We need leaders that will lead. To believe in equality and objectivity is what we need.

Until we take a stance, there will continue to have teenagers killing teenagers because of their sexuality, as seen with Lawrence King just last year. We are teaching hate when we deny equity and allow discrimination.

Bill Clinton, your evolution should be more than a statement of just a moment. As we voted for you, you should lead.

Crystal Pritchard

Mentor, OH

Nov 24 2009 - 1:46am

Web Letter

I have to say that I believe that homosexuals should have their civil unions updated to having the same rights as heterosexual marriages, so they will be equal under the law but the word "marriage" will still be protected. That way everyone is happy. You know a "compromise" should satisfy everyone, because after all it is just a word that is dividing us, isn't it? I implore legislators to give homosexuals all the same legal rights for civil unions as there are in marriages.

About Bill Clinton, I would trust him as far as I could throw him, and I'm a liberal ! In fact there are only a very, very few that I do trust in our government. Dennis Kucinich is one, Barbara Boxer is another one-- after them, it gets very narrow.

When the USA wakes up and prosecutes Bush and Cheney and their associates for their crimes against humanity, we can then begin to heal this country's misguided undertakings and finally earn the respect of the world! Also, the CIA, if you remember, was going to be dissolved by President Kennedy back in 1963, and he was murderd by our CIA, and they have been getting more powerful ever since. They are "the greatest terror organization in the world! They are our terrorist orginization, and their job is to terrorize on behalf of the military-industrial complex and lie about it, which President Eisenhower warned us about. So wake up, America, and take back our country!

Tony L. Cogburn

Santa Clara, CA

Jul 15 2009 - 6:24am

Web Letter

Bill Clinton is simply riding the wave of tepid acceptance that's made it politically comfortable for high-profile Democrats to endorse gay marriage. Could Clinton really take a stand against it after Iowa opened its doors? Iowa! If Clinton really cared about gay rights, he'd take an actual stance and call for the full and immediate repeal of DADT and DOMA, two of his biggest domestic mistakes. But no, he really just wants to be back at the helm of the American progressive movement, so he, like most politicians, makes a lukewarm endorsement of gay marriage without actually coming out and saying what ought to be said--that gay couples should be afforded all of the same legal benefits that straight couples are, nationwide.

Jeff Watson

San Antonio, TX

Jul 14 2009 - 7:45pm

Web Letter

He probably changed his mind when it dawned on him that SSM was something he'd yet to try and because he's had enough trouble with the law already. Never mind what public posturing ensues, Hillary no doubt is beyond caring one way or the other. Whether it's a fence or something (someone?) else he's straddling, it just goes to show yet again that Bill Clinton's the closest thing to a Republican the Democrats could ever have nominated.

Chandler Thompson

Las Cruces, NM

Jul 14 2009 - 3:54pm

Web Letter

Bill Clinton's so-called evolution from signer of the Defense of Marriage Act to supporter of same-sex marriage may have some symbolic value, but when Clinton claims that same-sex marriage is not a federal matter he is being disingenuous. If the federal government were irrelevant, why was there a perceived need for DOMA in the first place? DOMA not only gave states permission to deny recognition of same-sex marriages performed in other states; it also and very significantly denied to married same-sex couples all the federal rights and responsibilties enjoyed by heterosexual married couples. Hence, if I am legally wed in, say, Connecticut, not only does my home state of Ohio have the right to consider my marriage invalid but I am denied access to my partner's Social Security benefits and over 1,ooo additional provisions of federal law that protect families headed by a married man and woman. So while it's nice that Clinton supports those states that now authorize same-sex marriage, he will need to go quite a bit further before his evolution makes any difference to my perception of him as a leader who largely betrayed the gay voters who were instrumental in his electoral success.

Meryl Soto-Schwartz

Cleveland, OH

Jul 14 2009 - 12:59pm