Bill Clinton: It's time to overturn DOMA

[JackBeck]

Source: The Washington Post

In 1996, I signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Although that was only 17 years ago, it was a very different time. In no state in the union was same-sex marriage recognized, much less available as a legal right, but some were moving in that direction. Washington, as a result, was swirling with all manner of possible responses, some quite draconian. As a bipartisan group of former senators stated in their March 1 amicus brief to the Supreme Court, many supporters of the bill known as DOMA believed that its passage “would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or more.” It was under these circumstances that DOMA came to my desk, opposed by only 81 of the 535 members of Congress.

On March 27, DOMA will come before the Supreme Court, and the justices must decide whether it is consistent with the principles of a nation that honors freedom, equality and justice above all, and is therefore constitutional. As the president who signed the act into law, I have come to believe that DOMA is contrary to those principles and, in fact, incompatible with our Constitution.

Because Section 3 of the act defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, same-sex couples who are legally married in nine states and the District of Columbia are denied the benefits of more than a thousand federal statutes and programs available to other married couples. Among other things, these couples cannot file their taxes jointly, take unpaid leave to care for a sick or injured spouse or receive equal family health and pension benefits as federal civilian employees. Yet they pay taxes, contribute to their communities and, like all couples, aspire to live in committed, loving relationships, recognized and respected by our laws.

When I signed the bill, I included a statement with the admonition that “enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination.” Reading those words today, I know now that, even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, the law is itself discriminatory. It should be overturned.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bill-clinton-its-time-to-overturn-doma/2013/03/07/fc184408-8747-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html

---

It's about time, President Clinton. This is long overdue.

[dsc]

1. Good for him

He has provided two votes for its being overturned which will help. We just have to hope for the best with Kennedy.

[JackBeck]

2. I have a feeling this is going to help. A lot.

Last edited Fri Mar 8, 2013, 01:19 AM - Edit history (1)

And it will certainly help start the healing process over something I have resented him for these past 17 years.

Unlike a rather small minority around here, and I'm not referring to you, I think we will be pleasantly surprised by the SCOTUS outcome.

Yesterday, I finally scored a place to crash in DC during the hearing. I plan on lining up to get a seat to listen, although I'm sure it will be next to impossible to get in for this one.

[dsc]

4. I am cautiously optimistic

but I do fear what will happen if they go the middle way here. If they rule that states which have given civil unions have to give marriage but those that didn't don't. Then what state will give civil unions in the future? It will become an all or nothing deal which could cause a serious delay in gay relationships getting rights. I don't see a much likelihood of a total loss on our part.

[JackBeck]

5. The key is if they rule that LGBT people are subjected to discrimination

and therefore are a class the deserves heightened scrutiny. This, coupled with an unconstitutional denial of access to the 14th Amendment, would put any middle of the road decision on the fast track to the community getting full equality.

[dsc]

7. I don't know

this is the problem I see. We get the middle of the road decision so that we get full marriage in California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Nevada, Illinois, Iowa, New England, and Maryland. Now what if no other state decides to grant any rights for say 10 years. Or 15? Where is our next case going to come from?

[JackBeck]

9. If DOMA goes away

all you need to do is marry in a state with marriage equality and sue your home state (I'm sure Lambda Legal would represent pro bono) for violating your 14th Amendment rights.

[dsc]

10. my state offers no rights at all

and according to the middle ground decision as long as they stuck to that they would be OK.

[JackBeck]

12. Everything is pure speculation at this point.

But if DOMA is ruled unconstitutional and overturned, even though your state has no rights for LGBT folks, you could still marry in another state that recognizes same-sex marriage and sue your home state for recognition of your marriage under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

[RKP5637]

40. In my state being gay is a criminal offense and they just voted to keep it illegal. Kansas. n/t

[Ms. Toad]

13. Unfortunately, it is not that easy.

We had an excellent case for our adoption. We had been together 8 years at the time our daughter was born (and she was ~6 when the case started). She was conceived by donor insemination so there were no conflicting rights. We had the support of our faith community (which took our marriage under its care during our adoption case), the support of our families (my parents showed up at two of the hearings, some of my spouse's family members wrote letters supporting the adoption), the support of our community (our neighbor across the street who was mortified because she can't write above about a 5th grade level felt so strongly that she wrote a letter supporting us), and we are both attorneys with stable jobs (I was actually working for a Republican judge in the appellate court that should have decided the case...which caused all sorts of wild speculation when the case had to be heard in an adjacent district because no one who worked for me on a day to day basis could decide it without the appearance of impropriety).

Yet despite being an ideal case, Lambda Legal was unable to provide pro bono counsel at the trial level. They did at the appellate level, but the critical level to avoid mistakes which cannot be fixed is the trial level - and if there are significant mistakes at the trial level they won't touch it with a 10 ft pole.

There is too much work for Lambda to be able to get involved at the trial level - even for an impeccable case. And if you can manage to find the funding to reach the appellate level, chances are significant that too many mistakes will have been made, the political climate (or the composition of the bench) won't be right, etc.

I am not slamming Lambda - even though we were not successful, they did an outstanding job for us, and by now we are well on our way toward "repaying" their assistance through our annual contributions to them. I'm Just noting that finding pro bono support for such litigation is not as easy as it might seem.

[JackBeck]

15. For obvious reasons, since we are still in discovery, I won't go into too much detail.

But Lambda has been there for us since the beginning. Sorry you had to jump through so many hoops. Once more people realize how hard we fight to be a family hopefully they'll realize how ridiculous this whole nonsense has been for LGBT families.

Maybe I should also add SPLC to the mix. Ultimately, though, I find it hard not to believe that the floodgates would open once DOMA is overturned.

[Ms. Toad]

18. We tried to get them involved from the beginning -

As attorneys, we both knew all too well that it is critical to have the most knowledgeable counsel involved at the trial level. Mistakes made at the trial level often cannot be recovered from. We contacted them before we started the process and, ultimately, decided we planned to go ahead anyway - and gave them a second chance to jump in. Sometimes knowing that bad law could be made if you don't jump in and help out provides a different perspective than just contemplating the possibility that a couple you know nothing about might, or might not, come up with the funds to take the matter to go to court if you don't offer assistance.

Ultimately, we managed reasonably well at the trial level. I did a lot of work myself because I knew the law, the arguments, and our case, better than the very competent counsel we retained. But the courts in Ohio have changed since then, and not for the better. That was a key factor in Lambda's decision to provide assistance at the appellate level - our best assessment was that we had the best chance Ohio had had in years to be successful. Ultimately we jointly decided not to press the matter any farther with the Ohio Supreme Court because we did not want to create law that was binding on all the districts when it was clear they were uninterested in granting the adoption. Now, any decision in Ohio would almost certainly have to go to the US Supreme Court - if there are Federal grounds to support that.

I do agree with your overall assessment - but I don't think Ohio courts will be in the first wave. Although the voters will are likely to get a second chance next fall - and I am cautiously optimistic there.

[alcibiades_mystery]

3. Courageous of Clinton to call himself out for an error of judgment as well

Reading those words today, I know now that, even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, the law is itself discriminatory.

[blueclown]

6. Did he file an amicus brief with the court?

If not, why not?

[Ms. Toad]

8. This -

When I signed the bill, I included a statement with the admonition that “enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination.” Reading those words today, I know now that, even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, the law is itself discriminatory. It should be overturned.

I am grateful that he now realizes it. But 14 years into my now 31 year marriage that was not then and is still not legally recognized, a year after my faith community recognized our marriage, with a five year old child already struggling with what would become a devastating chronic illness; a child who needed access to all the resources available through both parents - and who was expressly denied a legal relationship with both parents because our marriage was not legally recognized, those words cut to the core.

The Ohio case denying our daughter a legal relationship with both of her parents is in at least one (and I would be astounded if it was not in more) of the amici briefs to the Supreme Court. (FN page 17: http://www.afer.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/Amicus-ISO-Plaintiffs_RED-STATES.pdf )

[Nye Bevan]

11. And to bring Ricky Ray Rector back to life (nt)

[Nika]

14. DOMA is an obscene thing that never should of been passed.

It was the child of extreme bigotry and hate, and good for Former President Clinton for championing it's demise.

[RKP5637]

41. +1, n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

16. I highly doubt they could have passed a constitutional amendment banning it in the 90's.

I consider this explanation unsatisfactory.

[Lordquinton]

20. Do you at least accept his apology?

and that he admitted that it was the wrong decision?

[AtheistCrusader]

22. I'm not the target audience of the apology.

I consider what he did deplorable based on my views, but I am a bystander, not a directly injured party.

I'm not the one that needs to weigh the apology against the injury.

[Lordquinton]

23. How about how he admitted his wrong doing?

he owned up to his mistake and is trying to fix it.

[AtheistCrusader]

34. I have to consider that

against the damage that cannot be undone. For instance, people denied death benefits. Denied shared property. Hell, denied access to their loved one's bedside as they passed away.

I have seen some damage that cannot be un-done.

Sure, it's a step in the right direction. Certainly I approve of the gesture, now. But I will always consider it among the examples of ways in which good people can do horribly bad things.

[Lordquinton]

46. The road to hell is paved with good intentions

It's easy to look back and say "There's no way they could have passed an amendment" but in the time it was made things were different, and people looked at things differently.

I think the best thing we can do is close ranks and move forward. A politician admitting he was wrong, and working to fix his mistake is huge, I can think of no other time this has happened in recent years.

I do accept that not all feel this way and can't just forget it, but any way we can get all our rights solidified is a good thing.

[Beacool]

30. Were you old enough to be around in the 90s?

One of the first things that Bill did was to try to get the armed forces to allow openly gay people into the military. I remember the uproar. Ditto for the attempt to pass universal healthcare.

I was young, but I remember well that it cost the Democrats both houses of Congress in 1994.

People were not so accepting of gay marriage as they are now.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. Sure, I remember them throwing out a Surgeon General for suggesting masturbation might

be healthy.

It was a weird time. But I don't recall a whole lot of support for a constitutional amendment to ban it. I don't think things have shifted that much in so short of a time. At least, not in my state. Maybe elsewhere.

[Beacool]

35. I remember the push to pass the amendment.

It was a weird time. After having Reagan for so many years, many in DC treated Bill as illegitimate. As if he hadn't won the WH in a legitimate election. They hated him and Hillary too.

[DURHAM D]

17. I am very glad to see this.

I am also glad that he signed f*cking DOMA at the time. Otherwise, we would now have a federal constitutional amendment firmly in place and it would be another 50 to 75 years from now before we would have a chance of getting rid of it.

[Agschmid]

21. Never looked at it like that...

Good viewpoint.

[JackBeck]

25. It was about reelection and his LGBT advisor at the time agrees.

"Inside the White House, there was a genuine belief that if the President vetoed the Defense of Marriage Act, his reelection could be in jeopardy. There was a heated debate about whether this was a realistic assessment, but it became clear that the President’s chief political advisers were not willing to take any chances. Some in the White House pointed out that DOMA, once enacted, would have no immediate practical effect on anyone—there were no state-sanctioned same-sex marriages then for the federal government to ignore. I remember a Presidential adviser saying that he was not about to risk a second term on a veto, however noble, that wouldn’t change a single thing nor make a single person’s life better.

What we didn’t fully comprehend was that, sooner than anyone imagined, there would be thousands of families who would be harmed by DOMA—denied federal benefits, recognition, and security, or kept apart by immigration laws."

Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/03/why-clinton-signed-the-defense-of-marriage-act.html#ixzz2MxQ8dSaN

I find it horrifying to hear a member of the LGBTQ community applaud the enactment of DOMA. It's extremely difficult to ratify an amendment to the Constitution, which the Clinton administration knew. It was about reelection, pure and simple. We're finally moving forward as a social justice movement, after cleaning up the mess left by Clinton. Apologists are a drag on the march toward full equality.

[DURHAM D]

29. I urge everyone to read the whole article.

It is interesting. I am 99% certain I know who the Clinton "adviser" is quoted in the article. That is all I will say about him.
A federal amendment would have easily passed in the 104th, 105th, and 106th congress (veto proof). It was not just about Clinton's reelection - it was all the Democrats at the federal and state levels as the Republicans already had a ratification schedule mapped out for the whole country that would impact the Democratic party forever. DOMA was designed to buy time until the rest of the country caught up. It worked. Now it needs to go.

[JackBeck]

42. You are engaging and aiding in Clinton revisionist history.

''That's complete nonsense," Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry told Metro Weekly in 2011. "There was no conversation about something 'worse' until eight years later. There was no talk of a constitutional amendment, and no one even thought it was possible -- and, of course, it turned out it wasn't really possible to happen... That was never an argument made in the '90s.''

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/bill-clinton-and-doma-the_b_2838666.html?utm_hp_ref=gay-voices

[Politicub]

19. +1 for President Clinton's support

DOMA and DADT were odious but the threat of a constitutional amendment was very real at the time. America has come a long way since then, and the Clintons have proven themselves to be strong allies for lgbt liberation.

I was in college when Clinton took office and I remember that DOMA was a heartbreaking slap in the face. I also remember that it was signed in the dead of night - a highly symbolic gesture that has stayed with me. It was cold comfort, but in hind site it may have headed off something much worse.

I'm grateful that President Obama has made gay rights a priority during his second term.

[Heidi]

24. Kick!

[Myrina]

26. Then why did he sign it in the first place?

"When I signed the bill, I included a statement with the admonition that “enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination.” Reading those words today, I know now that, even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, the law is itself discriminatory."

That law of his made progress nearly impossible, until recently. Bad move, bubba.

[Jamastiene]

28. The threat of a Constitutional amendment was huge back then.

DOMA made it so they didn't feel the need to press the amendment. An amendment would be a lot harder to overturn. Yes, it was odious and discriminatory, but because it is/was there, an amendment wasn't added. It was a messy way to stop a Constitutional amendment.

[DURHAM D]

31. Agree. DOMA was the lesser of two evils. nt

[JackBeck]

49. Evan Wolfson claims that no one was talking about a Constitutional amendment back in 1996.

If it was so huge back then, why does't he remember it?

''That's complete nonsense," Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry told Metro Weekly in 2011. "There was no conversation about something 'worse' until eight years later. There was no talk of a constitutional amendment, and no one even thought it was possible -- and, of course, it turned out it wasn't really possible to happen... That was never an argument made in the '90s.''

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/bill-clinton-and-doma-the_b_2838666.html

I'm curious where this on-line only Queer revisionist Clinton history comes from and why it is now accepted as the narrative which is the polar opposite to the reality all of us that were dealing with, pre-internet armchair quarterbacking.

[graham4anything]

27. +1 to President Bill and Hillary Clinton and President Obama

[Beacool]

32. Thank you for saying it, president Clinton.

I knew that his heart was in the right place, both Clintons had openly gay staffers since their days in AR (not exactly a bastion of liberalism). The 90s were an interesting time. After years of Reagan conservatives in DC, a young much more liberal couple entered the WH. They were both despised by the right from the moment they got there. Gays in the military? How dare he!!!! Affordable healthcare for everyone? How dare she!!! And so on and so forth ......

They even had to put up with 5 years of a special prosecutor dragging them and their staffers through the mud, just to find out what precisely? That he had a fling?

I know that they don't pass the purity test for some liberals, but they are both good people and I'm glad that Bill spoke out against DOMA.

[AtomicKitten]

36. Bill Clinton touted DOMA and encouraged Kerry to throw gays under the bus.

http://pamshouseblend.firedoglake.com/2007/06/07/bill-clinton-john-kerry-camps-at-odds-over-2004-statement-tossing-gays-under-the-bus/

He encouraged John Kerry in 2004 to throw gays under the bus telling him to back the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2004. --- Newsweek had reported that Clinton had said Kerry should support some of the state anti-gay ballot initiatives. Clinton believed it would be this grand master stroke to neutralize Bush’s base. Bill Clinton's denial - to the best of his knowledge ...

After Penn joined on the Re-elect Big Dog bid, the campaign ran gay-baiting ads on Christian radio to capitalize on Clinton’s signing of DOMA.

After angry complaints from gay rights advocates, the Clinton campaign on Wednesday replaced an ad running on religious radio stations that boasted of the president’s signature on a bill banning gay marriages.

…The Clinton spot also touted his signing of the Defense of Marriage Act, in spite of earlier White House complaints that the Republicans’ use of the issue amounted to “gay baiting.”

[closeupready]

37. Yup. Interesting that nobody in GLBT has yet started a thread

in the GLBT Group.

I'll K&R for what it's worth, but that's all I'm going to say about this particular news item.

[midnight]

38. Discrimination is wrong... Glad that this is being addressed that this law creates a barrier to

benefits that married couples recognized by more than a thousand federal statues... I'm wondering why we have over a thousand discriminatory statues. Shouldn't we remove those as well?

[RKP5637]

39. K&R !!! K&R !!! K&R !!! K&R !!! K&R !!! n/t

[blkmusclmachine]

43. Vy magnanimous of WJC, after destroying lives for 17 years, dontcha think???

[Laelth]

44. Better late than never, I suppose.

The tone of the President's letter is curious. It's apologetic, but he never really apologizes. It points the finger, instead. It leaves me with a bitter taste in my mouth.

But it's better than silence.

-Laelth

[Ken Burch]

45. An "I admit I was wrong to ever sign the damn thing" would help, too.

He did nothing of value with that second term, even if DOMA did get it for him(which it didn't, just as signing the Welfare Persecution Act and forcing NAFTA through didn't get him the second term, either-people who wanted wages driven down through corporate trade deals, wanted the relationships of same-sex couples to be denied legal recognition, AND wanted poor people, especially poor women of color, punished for accepting the assistance they were legally entitled to ARE GOING TO BE RIGHT WING ON EVERY OTHER FREAKING ISSUE...and nobody who wanted all three of those things ever voted for Bill Clinton...something he still doesn't realize).

[hughee99]

47. It is long past time to overturn this piece of election-year pandering.

It's good to know that almost two decades later, and now that there's no one he needs to pander to, he's on the right side of the issue.

[JackBeck]

48. Elizabeth Birch, former head of Human Rights Campaign:

President Clinton Says DOMA Is Unconstitutional (So Why Don't I Feel Grateful?)

I guess it is because DOMA was never constitutional. I guess it is because in the middle of my testimony before Congress on the constitutionality of this horrible law, the Clinton Justice Department, then headed by Janet Reno, had a letter delivered to the committee stating that, in the opinion of the Justice Department, DOMA was constitutional. (I was cut off mid-sentence as one of the more extreme house members read it aloud into the room with glee.)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-birch/president-clinton-says-do_b_2840112.html

For all of those giving Clinton some political breathing room for signing DOMA into law, please revisit what every LGBT organization and activist was begging the Clinton administration to do: veto DOMA.