Clinton Would Extend Same-Sex Benefits

Democrat Says She'd Also Eliminate Husband's "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" Policy

(AP)  Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said she would defend gay rights as president and eliminate disparities for same-sex couples in federal law, including immigration and tax policy.

Clinton said states such as New Jersey and Massachusetts are extending rights to gay couples "and the federal government should recognize that and should extend the same access to federal benefits across the board. I will very much work to achieve that."

Clinton's comments came in an interview with the Philadelphia Gay News that was posted on its Web site Thursday.

Clinton said she and her husband have many gay friends that they socialize with when they get the chance. "I've got friends, literally, around the country that I'm close to. It's part of my life," she said.

She said that when they ask her why they can't get married, she tells them marriage is a state law. She said that fact helped defeat a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex weddings that she said would "enshrine discrimination in the Constitution."

"States are really beginning seriously to deal with the whole range of options, including marriage, both under their own state constitutions and under the legislative approach," she said. "I anticipate that there will be a very concerted amount of effort in the next couple of years that will move this important issue forward and different states will take different approaches as they did with marriage over many years and you will see an evolution over time."

Clinton said she opposes a measure that would ban gay marriage in Pennsylvania.

"I would be very distressed if Pennsylvania were to adopt that kind of mean-spirited referendum and I hope it won't happen," she said.

Clinton's Democratic rival Barack Obama and Republican John McCain declined the newspaper's invitation for an interview. The paper criticized Obama and highlighted his refusal to talk by leaving a blank space on the front page where his interview would have appeared.

Clinton also said she would:

Eliminate her husband's policy of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" that prevents gays from serving openly in the military. Asked if she could do so by a signing order connected to a military appropriations bill, Clinton said she didn't think that is possible but she would look into it and do it if it were legal.

Be "very strongly outspoken" against foreign governments that execute gays and use financial assistance and other leverage to prevent the killings.

Support federal domestic partner legislation to extend rights to all same-sex couples.

Support services for gay youth, including guidance for schools about the discrimination they face.

Continue to support gay pride celebrations, to the extent that security would allow. "I don't think the Secret Service let Bill walk in a parade when he became president," she said.


©MMVIII, The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Candidate Profiles & RSS Feeds

• John McCain
• Sarah Palin

• Barack Obama
• Joe Biden

Share:

Digg

Facebook

Yahoo! Buzz

Twitter

Mixx

More From Politics

• Calif. Democrats Mull Jerry Brown for Gov.
• Poll: Public Unhappy, but Sticks by Obama
• Taliban Surpasses Al Qaeda in Afghanistan
• NY Senate Fails to Vote on Gay Marriage
• GM Boss Vows to Repay Bailout Loans
• Rajiv Shah Nominated to be USAID Chief
• Dan Pfeiffer Replaces Anita Dunn at W.H.

• 

  VideoLawmaker's Non-profit Probed

• 

  VideoHasan's Electronic Trail

Add a Comment

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
...
• 6
• next

See all 115 Comments

by dinkydog1 April 7, 2008 11:57 AM EDT

These "gay" issues neaver cease. If it weren''t for the media I would barley even know gay people exist and really could care less what they do. But Repubs are terrorize by the thought these people going un persucted by any Democrat so I guess these stories will be around for a long time. I wonder if She will support the foot tapping page molesting type?

Reply to this comment

by lorinkundert April 6, 2008 7:53 PM EDT

Hillary couldn''t do any such thing as President, only Congress can initiate and pass laws. She just can''t avoid fantasy.

Reply to this comment

by andrewtnyc April 6, 2008 6:52 PM EDT

To answer the following comment....

If same gender marriage is legally permitted, it will establish a legal precedent that permits brother to marry sister as long as they agree to adopt. The legal logic would be the same......

....This "logic" of slippery slope is tantamount to saying that "if Negroes are allowed to be free, then we have to free barnyard animals too"(after all slaves and animals were property) or if we give women the right to vote then it follows that children will want it next( after all women and children were both subservient to men)
---------------------------------

Reply to this comment

by sgtrds April 6, 2008 4:21 AM EDT

-I can count three fantasies here: which one did you point out at? LOL! Camels, sis-bro, or same-gender?

Posted by trishab4 at 11:03 PM : Apr 05, 2008

Same gender marriage is not a fantasy. It''s a reality, coming soon to your state.

Reply to this comment

by trishab4 April 6, 2008 2:03 AM EDT

I am completely in the dark on this one. It makes no sense. There are a number of countries that recognize same-s ex unions, and I haven''''''''t noticed brothers marrying sisters, or their pet camel, in those countries.

Posted by kansas1946 at 06:08 PM : Apr 04, 2008

I think TracyMorg just accidentally verbalized a kinky fantasy here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by SgtRDS at 06:36 PM : Apr 04, 2008
I hope this is just another step toward fully recognized same se*x marriage. Then I could have the pleasure of watching my step-son get married to his partner at last. (Though the truth is he could do better, but you didn''''t hear that from me)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by SgtRDS at 06:38 PM : Apr 04, 2008

-I can count three fantasies here: which one did you point out at? LOL! Camels, sis-bro, or same-gender?

Reply to this comment

by kansas1946 April 5, 2008 12:37 AM EDT

Who knows,maybe they should call it partners for life instead of marriage. Posted by croft777 ***************************************


Croft, I think we can come to an understanding. I think you are just put off by the word marriage. Well, the only reason that g ays are petitioning for the right to "marry" is because in the federal tax codes, social security rules, and other federal rules, such as end of life decisions, property codes, etc., the word "marriage" is attached to all of those protections. Now one of two things need to happen to make everybody happy. The federal government needs to recognize same-s ex marriage, or they need to change the language in the codes to "marriate and/or domestic partership." Then g ays would be protected, and the word "marriage" would not be affected.

Reply to this comment

by croft777 April 4, 2008 11:33 PM EDT

croft777: I think God is more loving and tolerant then the religious zealots give Him credit for. Yes, in my opinion, He would approve.GrammaWhamma

I don''t think God would approve of that considering he destroyed two cities partly because of the sexual acts conducted there, I''m talking about the gay men outside of the door where Lot and the three angels were at. They didn''t want Lots daughters, they wanted the male angels instead.

Reply to this comment

by croft777 April 4, 2008 11:27 PM EDT

A lot of people get married at the courthouse, and or, in civil ceremonies. As far as the state is concerned, marriage has nothing to do with religion, it is a contract. There is no rule that "the name of God" is used in the wedding vows.
And by the way, Catholics ARE Christians.kansas1946

I know Catholics are Christians, they were the first Christians, but many protestants believe that Catholics are not Christians, I find them everywhere. I was raised Catholic, I know. If the name of God is not used when they are married, better for their souls. Regardless,the bible consideres it a sin, or I should say God. Who knows,maybe they should call it partners for life instead of marriage. *** only make up about 1% of this country. Why make such a big deal about it? Its not the norm.

Reply to this comment

by kansas1946 April 4, 2008 11:02 PM EDT

They would have to get married in front of a judge probally. Makes my skin craw, Especially using in the "Name of God"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by croft777 at 07:52 PM : Apr 04, 2008
**********************************

Who would marry the ***? I don''''t think a christian church or a catholic church would ever do that.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by croft777 at 07:51 PM : Apr 04, 2008
+ report abuse
*********************************************

A lot of people get married at the courthouse, and or, in civil ceremonies. As far as the state is concerned, marriage has nothing to do with religion, it is a contract. There is no rule that "the name of God" is used in the wedding vows.
And by the way, Catholics ARE Christians.

Reply to this comment

by grammawhamma April 4, 2008 10:59 PM EDT

croft777: I think God is more loving and tolerant then the religious zealots give Him credit for. Yes, in my opinion, He would approve.

Reply to this comment

by kansas1946 April 4, 2008 10:58 PM EDT

I am completely in the dark on this one. It makes no sense. There are a number of countries that recognize same-s ex unions, and I haven''''''''t noticed brothers marrying sisters, or their pet camel, in those countries.

Posted by kansas1946 at 06:08 PM : Apr 04, 2008

I think TracyMorg just accidentally verbalized a kinky fantasy here.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by SgtRDS at 06:36 PM : Apr 04, 2008
+ report abuse
***********************************

LOL. Thanks,Sarge. That clears things up a bit. ;o)

Reply to this comment

by croft777 April 4, 2008 10:53 PM EDT

They would have to get married in front of a judge probally. Makes my skin crawl, Especially using in the "Name of God"part. Did God approve of this?

Reply to this comment

by croft777 April 4, 2008 10:52 PM EDT

They would have to get married in front of a judge probally. Makes my skin craw, Especially using in the "Name of God"

Reply to this comment

by croft777 April 4, 2008 10:51 PM EDT

Who would marry the ***? I don''t think a christian church or a catholic church would ever do that.

Reply to this comment

by dclynette April 4, 2008 10:37 PM EDT

Everyone is asking "How could Obama sit in the pew of Trintiy United Church of Christ for twenty years and listen to the rants of Rev. Wright?" Answer: He had to believe or come to believe what Rev. Wright said. How can I be so sure? Cognitive dissonance refers to the psychological discomfort that occurs when how you behave is psychologically incompatable to what you believe. To reduce cognitive dissonce Obama would have to have either "left the church" or "changed his beliefs" to match what the Rev. Wright was saying. Since he did not leave the church he most likely believed Rev. Wright''s teachings when he joined the church or changed his belief system to match Rev. Wright''s beliefs. If he did neither the internal psychological conflict would have been too great to bear and Obama would not have exposed his daughter''s to something that caused him so much psychological discomfort.


Another question which seems just as important but I have never heard asked is "How did sitting in a pew at Trinity United Church of Christ impact Obama''s views on America and being Black in America?" After twenty-years of hearing his mentor rant about discrimination in America, how many of these views about "typical white people" did Obama internalize?

Reply to this comment

by grammawhamma April 4, 2008 10:29 PM EDT

"The paper criticized Obama and highlighted his refusal to talk by leaving a blank space on the front page where his interview would have appeared."

LOL! Obama is probably busy writing a speech in response. He doesn''t seem to do so well with interviews.

The more I see of Hillary...the more I like her.
The more I see of Obama....the less I like him.

Reply to this comment

by sgtrds April 4, 2008 9:38 PM EDT

I hope this is just another step toward fully recognized same se*x marriage. Then I could have the pleasure of watching my step-son get married to his partner at last. (Though the truth is he could do better, but you didn''t hear that from me)

Reply to this comment

by sgtrds April 4, 2008 9:36 PM EDT

I am completely in the dark on this one. It makes no sense. There are a number of countries that recognize same-s ex unions, and I haven''''t noticed brothers marrying sisters, or their pet camel, in those countries.

Posted by kansas1946 at 06:08 PM : Apr 04, 2008

I think TracyMorg just accidentally verbalized a kinky fantasy here.

Reply to this comment

by kansas1946 April 4, 2008 9:08 PM EDT

If same gender marriage is legally permitted, it will establish a legal precedent that permits brother to marry sister as long as they agree to adopt.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by TracyMorg_an at 04:33 PM : Apr 04, 2008
***********************************

I am completely in the dark on this one. It makes no sense. There are a number of countries that recognize same-s ex unions, and I haven''t noticed brothers marrying sisters, or their pet camel, in those countries.

Reply to this comment

by taddles-2009 April 4, 2008 8:45 PM EDT

"So, each person is likely to view marriage differently and consequently each person could rightly expect to hold a different view of whether g ays (not falling for that again) should be allowed to marry. So the really big question is whose view should set policy?

Posted by rational_1 at 05:33 PM : Apr 04, 2008"


I agree, marriage laws have changed dramatically over our history. I don''t expect that everyones view of marriage will ever be the same.

It was the supreme court that overthrew Virginia''s antimiscegenation law that outlawed inter-racial marriage. 16 states enforced that law until the courts decision in 1967.

Reply to this comment

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
...
• 6
• next

See all 115 Comments

Add a comment

Comment SUBMIT

Click here to add another comment.

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Comment reply

Submit Cancel

The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. By using this Web site you agree to accept our Terms of Service. Click here to read the Rules of Engagement.

Report offensive content:

If you believe this comment is offensive or violates the CBSNews.com Terms of Use, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the comment). Once reported, our staff will be notified and the comment will be reviewed.

Select type of offense:

Offensive: Sexually explicit or offensive language

Spam: Advertisements, commercial links, or repetitive posts

Disruptive posting: Flaming or offending other users

Illegal activities: Promote cracked software, or other illegal content

Off-topic: Commentary unrelated to the storyline

Comments (optional):

Report Cancel

E-mail this comment to a friend.

E-mail this to: (Separate multiple e-mail addresses with commas. Limited to 10 addresses.)

Your e-mail address:

Send me a copy of this message

Note: Your e-mail address is used only to let the recipient know who sent the e-mail and in case of transmission error. Neither your address nor the recipients's address will be used for any other purpose.

Add your own personal message: (Optional)

Hi, I found this user's comment on CBSNews.com and thought you might be interested in reading it. Send e-mail Cancel

[dinkydog1]

These "gay" issues neaver cease. If it weren''t for the media I would barley even know gay people exist and really could care less what they do. But Repubs are terrorize by the thought these people going un persucted by any Democrat so I guess these stories will be around for a long time. I wonder if She will support the foot tapping page molesting type?

[lorinkundert]

Hillary couldn''t do any such thing as President, only Congress can initiate and pass laws. She just can''t avoid fantasy.

[andrewtnyc]

To answer the following comment....

If same gender marriage is legally permitted, it will establish a legal precedent that permits brother to marry sister as long as they agree to adopt. The legal logic would be the same......

....This "logic" of slippery slope is tantamount to saying that "if Negroes are allowed to be free, then we have to free barnyard animals too"(after all slaves and animals were property) or if we give women the right to vote then it follows that children will want it next( after all women and children were both subservient to men)
---------------------------------

[sgtrds]

-I can count three fantasies here: which one did you point out at? LOL! Camels, sis-bro, or same-gender?

Posted by trishab4 at 11:03 PM : Apr 05, 2008

Same gender marriage is not a fantasy. It''s a reality, coming soon to your state.

[trishab4]

I am completely in the dark on this one. It makes no sense. There are a number of countries that recognize same-s ex unions, and I haven''''''''t noticed brothers marrying sisters, or their pet camel, in those countries.

Posted by kansas1946 at 06:08 PM : Apr 04, 2008

I think TracyMorg just accidentally verbalized a kinky fantasy here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by SgtRDS at 06:36 PM : Apr 04, 2008
I hope this is just another step toward fully recognized same se*x marriage. Then I could have the pleasure of watching my step-son get married to his partner at last. (Though the truth is he could do better, but you didn''''t hear that from me)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by SgtRDS at 06:38 PM : Apr 04, 2008

-I can count three fantasies here: which one did you point out at? LOL! Camels, sis-bro, or same-gender?

[kansas1946]

Who knows,maybe they should call it partners for life instead of marriage. Posted by croft777 ***************************************


Croft, I think we can come to an understanding. I think you are just put off by the word marriage. Well, the only reason that g ays are petitioning for the right to "marry" is because in the federal tax codes, social security rules, and other federal rules, such as end of life decisions, property codes, etc., the word "marriage" is attached to all of those protections. Now one of two things need to happen to make everybody happy. The federal government needs to recognize same-s ex marriage, or they need to change the language in the codes to "marriate and/or domestic partership." Then g ays would be protected, and the word "marriage" would not be affected.

[croft777]

croft777: I think God is more loving and tolerant then the religious zealots give Him credit for. Yes, in my opinion, He would approve.GrammaWhamma

I don''t think God would approve of that considering he destroyed two cities partly because of the sexual acts conducted there, I''m talking about the gay men outside of the door where Lot and the three angels were at. They didn''t want Lots daughters, they wanted the male angels instead.

[croft777]

A lot of people get married at the courthouse, and or, in civil ceremonies. As far as the state is concerned, marriage has nothing to do with religion, it is a contract. There is no rule that "the name of God" is used in the wedding vows.
And by the way, Catholics ARE Christians.kansas1946

I know Catholics are Christians, they were the first Christians, but many protestants believe that Catholics are not Christians, I find them everywhere. I was raised Catholic, I know. If the name of God is not used when they are married, better for their souls. Regardless,the bible consideres it a sin, or I should say God. Who knows,maybe they should call it partners for life instead of marriage. *** only make up about 1% of this country. Why make such a big deal about it? Its not the norm.

[kansas1946]

They would have to get married in front of a judge probally. Makes my skin craw, Especially using in the "Name of God"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by croft777 at 07:52 PM : Apr 04, 2008
**********************************

Who would marry the ***? I don''''t think a christian church or a catholic church would ever do that.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by croft777 at 07:51 PM : Apr 04, 2008
+ report abuse
*********************************************

A lot of people get married at the courthouse, and or, in civil ceremonies. As far as the state is concerned, marriage has nothing to do with religion, it is a contract. There is no rule that "the name of God" is used in the wedding vows.
And by the way, Catholics ARE Christians.

[grammawhamma]

croft777: I think God is more loving and tolerant then the religious zealots give Him credit for. Yes, in my opinion, He would approve.

[kansas1946]

I am completely in the dark on this one. It makes no sense. There are a number of countries that recognize same-s ex unions, and I haven''''''''t noticed brothers marrying sisters, or their pet camel, in those countries.

Posted by kansas1946 at 06:08 PM : Apr 04, 2008

I think TracyMorg just accidentally verbalized a kinky fantasy here.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by SgtRDS at 06:36 PM : Apr 04, 2008
+ report abuse
***********************************

LOL. Thanks,Sarge. That clears things up a bit. ;o)

[croft777]

They would have to get married in front of a judge probally. Makes my skin crawl, Especially using in the "Name of God"part. Did God approve of this?

[croft777]

They would have to get married in front of a judge probally. Makes my skin craw, Especially using in the "Name of God"

[croft777]

Who would marry the ***? I don''t think a christian church or a catholic church would ever do that.

[dclynette]

Everyone is asking "How could Obama sit in the pew of Trintiy United Church of Christ for twenty years and listen to the rants of Rev. Wright?" Answer: He had to believe or come to believe what Rev. Wright said. How can I be so sure? Cognitive dissonance refers to the psychological discomfort that occurs when how you behave is psychologically incompatable to what you believe. To reduce cognitive dissonce Obama would have to have either "left the church" or "changed his beliefs" to match what the Rev. Wright was saying. Since he did not leave the church he most likely believed Rev. Wright''s teachings when he joined the church or changed his belief system to match Rev. Wright''s beliefs. If he did neither the internal psychological conflict would have been too great to bear and Obama would not have exposed his daughter''s to something that caused him so much psychological discomfort.


Another question which seems just as important but I have never heard asked is "How did sitting in a pew at Trinity United Church of Christ impact Obama''s views on America and being Black in America?" After twenty-years of hearing his mentor rant about discrimination in America, how many of these views about "typical white people" did Obama internalize?

[grammawhamma]

"The paper criticized Obama and highlighted his refusal to talk by leaving a blank space on the front page where his interview would have appeared."

LOL! Obama is probably busy writing a speech in response. He doesn''t seem to do so well with interviews.

The more I see of Hillary...the more I like her.
The more I see of Obama....the less I like him.

[sgtrds]

I hope this is just another step toward fully recognized same se*x marriage. Then I could have the pleasure of watching my step-son get married to his partner at last. (Though the truth is he could do better, but you didn''t hear that from me)

[sgtrds]

I am completely in the dark on this one. It makes no sense. There are a number of countries that recognize same-s ex unions, and I haven''''t noticed brothers marrying sisters, or their pet camel, in those countries.

Posted by kansas1946 at 06:08 PM : Apr 04, 2008

I think TracyMorg just accidentally verbalized a kinky fantasy here.

[kansas1946]

If same gender marriage is legally permitted, it will establish a legal precedent that permits brother to marry sister as long as they agree to adopt.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by TracyMorg_an at 04:33 PM : Apr 04, 2008
***********************************

I am completely in the dark on this one. It makes no sense. There are a number of countries that recognize same-s ex unions, and I haven''t noticed brothers marrying sisters, or their pet camel, in those countries.

[taddles-2009]

"So, each person is likely to view marriage differently and consequently each person could rightly expect to hold a different view of whether g ays (not falling for that again) should be allowed to marry. So the really big question is whose view should set policy?

Posted by rational_1 at 05:33 PM : Apr 04, 2008"


I agree, marriage laws have changed dramatically over our history. I don''t expect that everyones view of marriage will ever be the same.

It was the supreme court that overthrew Virginia''s antimiscegenation law that outlawed inter-racial marriage. 16 states enforced that law until the courts decision in 1967.