Dan Savage slaps down 'f*cking moronic' whining over Hillary's past LGBT views

Columnist and LGBT advocate Dan Savage scolded those who thought Hillary Clinton's White House bid should be opposed because of her past comments about same-sex marriage.

In a column on The Stranger, Savage implored the LGBT community and progressives to take "mother*cking yes for a mother*cking answer" instead of griping about the past.

The Democratic presidential candidate said she opposed same-sex marriage while running for president in 2008, but expressed support for same-sex civil unions starting in 2000. Clinton finally “evolved” on the issue in 2013, when she announced her full support for legalizing same-sex marriage -- about a year after President Barack Obama made a similar announcement.

Savage said that he was “in the tank” for both Clinton and her Democratic rival Bernie Sanders. “You could say I'm bitankual: In both tanks at once.”

“I'm for Hillary -- or Bernie or both Hillary and Bernie (or Bernie and Hillary) -- and I disagreed with her on marriage equality then... but I am capable of taking yes for a mother*cking answer now,” he wrote.

Savage acknowledged Clinton made some “noxious” remarks about same-sex marriage in the past -- but he said things needed to be put in perspective. Her comments were “similar to the rather noxious comments made by most Dems at the time, including Barack Obama (who said the exact same sh*t, in fewer words),” he wrote.

He then explained why the LGBT community shouldn't attack candidates who support them.

“It's fucking moronic -- it's political malpractice -- to attack a politician for coming around on your issues," Savage wrote. "There are lots of other issues the queer community is going to be pressing politicians on, from passing equal rights bills and trans rights bills to defeating anti-trans bathroom legislation and RFRAs. If pols who are currently on the wrong side of any of those issues see no benefit to changing their positions—if they see no political benefit—they're going to be harder to persuade. Why should they come around on our issues, why should they switch sides or change their votes, if we're going to go after them hammer and tongs for the positions they used to hold?”