Because the Clintons (and Obama) hid their blatent support of gay rights behind weasel words, they would get elected and be able to nominate Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor. Perhaps you'd have preferred if they weren't elected at all on by endorsing a policy rejected wholesale by the majority of Americans at the time; with the result that there would probably be a Federal Marriage Amendment, Section 28 style legislation and a judicary overwhelmingly against gay rights?
No, man. That's not how it works in America. The Clintons and Obama were certainly NOT supporters of gay marriage and no American who was alive and conscious in the 90s would say otherwise. I can't think of a single person I knew back then who supported gay marriage.
The idea that a governor of Arkansas back in the 90s was for gay marriage is ludicrous.
Having said that there is nothing wrong with changing your mind. If supporting gay marriage in the early 90s is the litmus test 95+% of Dem politicians would have to resign on the spot.
In other words this is a complete nonissue.
I do take your meaning though on getting elected and the appointments. But there is simply no way I can believe the Clintons nor Obama were thinking about gay marriage in the 90s. No way.
