180 Degrees: The Clintons “Progress” on Same Sex Marriage

Bill and Hillary Clinton have endorsed gay marriage, completely reversing their support of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage as between one man and one woman, and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton.
Mrs. Clinton calls herself a “progressive.” It’s funny, I wrote an entire book on Hillary Clinton, and never once heard her call herself a “progressive.”
Well, that’s just as well. The progressive tag fits best. After all, that’s what she and other liberals are doing: they are ever evolving, changing, progressing along to something. Their positions are forever in flux, with the only commonality being that they favor more government centralization to handle perceived injustices. The evolution across issues is so vast, so unceasing, that no progressive can tell you where they will stand years from now. They merely know they’re progressing.
The marriage issue is an excellent case in point. No progressive 100 years ago could have conceived of gay marriage. In fact, merely a decade-and-a-half ago, the entirety of the Democratic Party supported traditional marriage, codified under law. And yet, Democrats turned on a dime in faithful obedience to Barack Obama’s mountaintop-message sanctifying gay marriage a year ago.
Obama promised “change” and “fundamental transformation.” His faithful supporters roared approval, projecting upon his blank screen whatever they had in mind. In Obama’s mind, this included bestowing unto himself the monumental ability to literally redefine marriage, granting himself and his government a power heretofore reserved for the laws of nature and nature’s God.
As for the Clintons, consider their change, their fundamental transformation, their progress on this bedrock issue:
As noted, in 1996, Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act. The Arkansas Baptist stood for marriage as always understood.
As for Hillary, the lifelong Methodist was firmly in the camp of not rendering under government the ability to redefine marriage. Her youth pastor and mentor, the Rev. Don Jones, once said: “She is for gay rights…. But I think both she and Bill still think of heterosexuality as normative.”
Yes, they did. Campaigning for the Senate in 2000, Hillary insisted: “Marriage has historic, religious and moral content that goes back to the beginning of time, and I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.” In 2003, she reaffirmed: “marriage … should be kept as it historically has been.” She continued that position throughout the 2008 Democratic primaries.
Alas, jump ahead to last week, where Hillary proudly proclaimed: “LGBT Americans are … full and equal citizens and deserve the rights of citizenship. That includes gay marriage.”
Gee, what happened?
Well, if you’re confused, you need to unravel the illogic of progressive ideology. By progressive thinking, the Hillary and Bill of, say, 5, 10, 15, or 50 years ago were not finished progressing. This should also mean that the Clintons were in fact wrong at each way-station in their journey to today’s progressive “truth” on marriage. Thus, too, it should mean that every Democrat who agreed with them was wrong. Current progressive ideology asserts that only current progressives are currently “right” on marriage.
Are you with me?
shutterstock_107412212But here’s the kicker: How can the Clintons—or any modern progressive—know they’re right now? How do they know they’ve progressed to the “correct” point on marriage? Progress, after all, never stops progressing.
And so, for progressives, where’s their next redefinition in the ongoing process of redefining marriage? Does the evolution end with one man and one woman, or one man and one man, or one woman and one woman? Why could it not next progress to one man and multiple women? Could it involve an adult and a minor? Could their evolving redefinition include first cousins or a parent and child? Could it include multiple heterosexuals or homosexuals in single or even joint or group spousal relationships?
The answer: progressives, by their very definition, cannot answer you.
We do know, however, that progressives are happy to do with marriage what they do with everything: hand it over to the federal governmentRender under government what is government’s. And what is government’s province? It’s anything progressives decide.
As for Bill Clinton, who once assured us “the era of big government is over,” he’s on board for the grand project.
Progressives might disagree with conservatives, but at least they know where conservatives stand: we look to tradition, to Biblical law, to Natural Law, to time-tested things worth conserving. We see marriage best as it has been since the Garden of Eden. We can tell you our end-goal, our ideal. Progressives cannot.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is a train-wreck of an ideology, with literally no end to its havoc. It is currently careening into the most fundamental building block of human civilization: the family.
Image credit: shutterstock.com

Dr. Paul Kengor


Dr. Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College and executive director of The Center for Vision & Values. His books include “The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism” and “Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century.”

Subscribe to CE
(It's free)

Go to Catholic Exchange homepage

  • Leila Miller

    Oh my gosh, bingo! That is exactly right. There is no natural “stop” for “progressives”. A train wreck for sure, and I wish we weren’t all along for the ride. I wrote about this very topic, asking progressives when their progression would be complete:


  • What’s even more disturbing is the number of people in America who are dumb enough to fall for the lies of the Clintons and Obamas. They will gladly vote for Hillary in 2016, even with the blood of the Benghazi victims on her hands.

  • Charlie500

    I don’t think “I am a progressive” will hold water when it comes time to face the seat of the judgment of God.

  • Wait a minute, we’re having one of those “it’s either one or the other”
    moments. Judicial Watch founder Larry Klayman wrote in “WHORES: Why and
    How I Came to Fight the Establishment” that it’s widely known in Washington
    that Mrs. Clinton leads an active homosexual lifestyle.

    Now, the neo-Stalinist media megalopoly is currently taking a tiny,
    tentative feint, dipping its toe in the water, by allowing “news” of
    Justice Elena Kagan’s active homosexual lifestyle–rigorously censored by our
    “free press” during her confirmation hearings–to just peep out from
    under the covers in the “news”, perhaps to gauge how really
    successful the “After the Ball” media campaign has been to normalize
    homosexuality among the great unwashed masses.

    After all, it has only been ten years since public reaction the Massachusetts
    Supreme Court “gay marriage” decision “Goodridge
    v. Department of Public Health” (2003) was widely credited for winning the
    2004 election for President George W. Bush (43). Now, public opinion surveys
    supposedly show Mrs. Clinton to be the most popular politician on the planet,
    and if she should decide to run for the presidency in 2016, smart money
    considers her a shoe-in.

    So it seems there’s an elephant in the bathroom here. There is a lot going
    on behind the scenes of the media-driven “marriage equity” agitations that’s
    not reported anywhere, not in the “conservative media”, not on Fox New’s Bill O’Reilly
    “The Factor/No-Spin Zone”. It seems the American Experiment isn’t quite ready for the truth about Mrs. Clinton–not that it may ever be deemed ready to see Mr. Obama’s college transcripts, even after 50 years.

  • JoannesD

    Unless there is a latent majority out there waiting to come out of the closet, this distraction of an issue is way beyond its 15 minute expiration date. The Clintons ought to be in the dusty corner of the garage with the other cabbage patch creatures.

  • Richard III

    Yeah, that’ll be where they can’t progress anymore, so if you really want to know how a progressive knows he’s right, wait until he’s gasping out his last breath to ask.

  • Richard Mackin,Jr.

    Doesn’t anyone realize that politicians are “chameleons”

  • Dust in the Wind

    As a lifelong Catholic who has stumbled from time to time I have to agree with Progressives on every single point. But they must concede that every single point they make is completely devoid of God. That is not to say I support anything they support, only that I can understand the ” illogical ” premise of their arguments.

    Fact is, a world devoid of God, and lets make it perfectly clear here, the Judea-Christian God and the teachings of Jesus Christ makes anything and everything permissible. Even Murder itself becomes an argument based on feelings and emotions as we witness everyday with Abortion. To live ” IN ” Christ is to be truely ” FREE ” the only other option is to live under a Law which by its very nature is oppressive. Then one must ask, who is the author of these laws, what makes them so grand and powerful, and who gives them the authority to judge me or anything I do.

    Reading up on the Nuremburg Trials will give you insight into exactly where this world is headed. Indifference and Relativism are the worlds pillars of truth. Their temple is built upon them and it will all come crashing down.

    God Bless

  • More Disturbing Yet, Is The Number of Catholics who will continue to support the progressive, liberal party!

  • lmaxwell53

    Terrific explanation of “progressives”! As a resident of Connecticut, where we are also being steamrollered by a “progressive” governor, I appreciate your description. It really offers a clear picture of why they seem able to change seemingly with the breeze. Like flavors of the month, so are their positions on issues.

  • Catherine

    Sorry to change the subject a bit, but I have been waiting for a chance like this for a long time. The whole country has missed the train where the Clinton’s are concerned! First, Mr.Clinton was the tool used to open trade with China, (a Communist country with a million plus army to support ) in what was supposed to be a touching plea to the foolish Americans for compassion in regard to the poor Chinese people and our responsibility to help them. Shortsighted as all politicos are, the last thing they expected was that the poor Chinese people(who were sick and tired of oppression) would take this as a sign that the FREE WEST was finally going to help them; So to the square they went.! Unfortunately for those freedom fighters; this was not the type of help Mr.Clinton along with Mr.Walton(both from Arkansas), and a multitude of large greedy corporations were referring to. Many innocent people were murdered or jailed for resisting the ironclad grip of that horrible ideology, (and the blood of those martyrs are on the hands of those responsible):personal opinion, but time reveals all, and where do we find ourselves today? Everything we touch is manufactured in China and those who benefit the most try to convince us that we too are benefiting by cheaper prices. Give us a break would ya ! Can you say “slave labor” you “fair,equal, and just to all people” hypocrites !!! As far as MRS.CLINTON is concerned “birds of a feather flock together!” I will not waste anytime on her, we could be here all day. Thanks for the opportunity

  • Ah, yes, Nuremburg. Ave Maria Law School, Professor Emeritus Charles Rice,
    wrote in “Beyond Abortion: The Theory and Practice of the Secular

    (1978), that one of the judges at Nuremburg was a disciple of Associate Justice
    of the Supreme Court of the United States, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. Holmes’
    very writings on “Legal Positivism”, (the practical theory that all that is
    necessary for a law’s legitimacy is that it be duly enacted), were used as a
    basis for various Nazi unjustly homicidal actions. But without the applications
    of the opposing NATURAL LAW, it wouldn’t have been possible to conduct any
    prosecutions at all at Nuremburg.

    We read in ” ‘Higher Law,’ 60 Years After Nuremberg”, (National
    Catholic Register, November 20, 2005, http://www.ncregister.com/site/article/higher_law_60_years_after_nuremberg/
    ), that “Lieutenant General Richard Hildebrandt, the SS (Schutzstaffel)
    Chief of the Race and Settlement Office in Berlin, stated that ‘Up to now
    nobody had the idea to see in this interruption of pregnancy a crime against humanity’”.

    Yet it was the killing of a child that opened the floodgates of death,
    ultimately to take more than 20 million lives. The father of “Baby Knauer,” an
    infant born blind and missing his leg and part of his arm, petitioned Hitler
    directly in 1938 to have his son put to death. This led directly to the killing
    of vulnerable people and swept in the larger program of “the Final Solution”.

    A former Sacramento Diocesan respect life coordinator, C.C. has frequently
    pointed out that when the culture of death will have finally killed itself off,
    our posterity will point proudly as their ancestors at those few of us who stood
    up for life. May you and I be so counted among today’s heroes.


  • cwcranford@lpssonline.com

    We have allowed our country to decline by giving all the power to the minority and then assuming we have to tolerate everyone’s craziness. We must love all people, but tolerate?? I think not Now, even people who call themselves Christian tolerate sinful behavior. Come Lord Jesus! We don’t even know what sin is anymore…Satan is smiling big time.

  • bidget

    Time to go pray.. again.

  • Richard III

    That’s too kind, I would have said weasels or sharks or snakes or eels or vultures or hyenas or pigs or mules or donkeys or leeches or mosquitos or…………

  • TJ

    Weak political people are much like flags: whichever way the wind blows, they follow

  • Marie

    I read “dust in the wind’s article several times and then decided that it is a bunch of double talk. Is he for Christianity or not? How can he agree with the progressives and say that he is a Christian? Am I missing something here?


    These two along with Obama and the Democratic party will sell their souls for a vote!!

  • Richard III

    So all those flags in front of the UN building not only represent countries, but also represent the representatives?

  • NewAge Catholic

    Shame on you! As a young catholic, I hope and pray my generation can make a difference in the views of the Catholic Church. I’m disappointed and disgusted by your narrow minded views. One love, right? Lets not forget the REAL message from God…he loves all of his children.

  • Richard III

    God does indeed love all his children, and for that very reason he hates all sin, including sodomy. He will willingly forgive any and all repentant sodomites, but they have to repent and give up their unnatural, adulterous ways first.

  • Leo.

    “progressive” = more votes. Tha’s all.