Hillary Clinton, Real Marriage, and Politics

There was a time when, for Hillary Clinton, real marriage was essential to civilization.

Over at the Gospel Coalition, Kevin DeYoung reminds us of how vehemently Hillary Clinton once defended real marriage against the same sex imposter:

To be fair, the larger context was her speaking against the idea of a federal marriage amendment, but in the course of her speech she resolutely defended the notion that marriage is between a man and a woman.

I believe marriage is not just a bond but a sacred bond between a man and a woman. I have had occasion in my life to defend marriage, to stand up for marriage, to believe in the hard work and challenge of marriage. So I take umbrage at anyone who might suggest that those of us who worry about amending the Constitution are less committed to the sanctity of marriage, or to the fundamental bedrock principle that exists between a man and a woman, going back into the midst of history as one of the foundational institutions of history and humanity and civilization, and that its primary, principal role during those millennia has been the raising and socializing of children for the society into which they become adults.

She later sounded quite conservative in warning about the consequences of what we might call non-traditional family situations.

We could stand on this floor for hours talking about the importance of marriage, the significance of the role of marriage in not only bringing children into the world but enabling them to be successful citizens in the world. How many of us have struggled for years to deal with the consequences of illegitimacy, of out-of-wedlock births, of divorce, of the kinds of anomie and disassociation that too many children experienced because of that.

He also quotes Hillary defending the authority of the states to define marriage and Bill Clinton waxing eloquent about religious freedom.

[See also, “Hillary Clinton Plans to Change “Religious Beliefs” for Abortion.”]

It is chilling to see Bill and Hillary’s flop on marriage in such clear terms.

Two people, with a historically bad marriage, first pretend to support marriage (with substantive historical principle and argument), then totally turn and seek to back a complete redefinition.

I find this an incomparably more significant shift than that of a person who would one day take an oath to uphold and defend the United States Constitution, and then turn around and say it needs to be thrown out.

Why would I elect such a fickle (or deceptive) person to any important post? I’d be a fool to do so. Are you a fool?