2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum"Some are trying to rewrite history" on Defense of Marriage Act
Last edited Sun Oct 25, 2015, 01:06 PM - Edit history (1)
At Key Iowa Dinner, Bernie Sanders Sharply Criticizes Hillary Clinton's RecordJennifer Epstein
Bloomberg
In 1996, Sanders said, he faced a “fork in the road” with DOMA and sided with the gay-rights movement, voting against the bill in the House. “It was not a politically easy vote,” he recalled, but he made it. The bill drew overwhelming bipartisan support in both chambers and was signed into law by then-President Bill Clinton.
Hillary Clinton said in an interview Friday with MSNBC that her husband signed DOMA into law as a “defensive action” to prevent a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, but Sanders said that answer didn’t satisfy him.
"Today, some are trying to rewrite history by saying they voted for one anti-gay law to stop something worse. That’s not the case,” he said. "There was a small minority opposed to discriminating against our gay brothers and sisters. Not everybody held that position in 1996.” (Clinton, as first lady at the time, was not in a position to vote on the bill.)
Sanders reminded the crowd of more than 6,000 Democratic activists that he voted against the Iraq War. "I came to that fork in the road I took the right road even though it was not the popular road at that time,” he said. Clinton famously voted to authorize the use of military force in Iraq along with 28 other Democratic senators and 48 Republicans.
He also highlighted his opposition to the North America Free Trade Agreement, which Bill Clinton signed into law, and to the Trans-Pacific Partnership. TPP "is not now nor has ever been the gold standard of trade agreements," Sanders said, invoking a term that Clinton used in 2012 while serving as secretary of state. Earlier this month, she announced that she could not support the final deal.
Mrs. Clinton has said in a previous NPR interview that her former positions on marriage equality were not for political expediency, but rather she was legitimately against marriage equality in the past. Good on her for coming around, it's not like she's the only one, but that narrative simply does not wash with the idea that she and her husband were protecting people with DOMA.
Frankly, it's insulting to everyone who's been working for marriage equality for so long. There's nothing wrong with legitimately changing your mind on this issue and there's nothing wrong with admitting past mistakes.
Much like on the Iraq issue, equivocating makes it seem as though Mrs. Clinton hasn't learned from her past.
Related:
BERNIE SANDERS | FULL INTERVIEW WITH JAKE TAPPER on 'CNN STATE OF THE UNION’ 10/25/15
The Advocate: President Hillary Clinton would compromise on civil rights if necessary
Clinton: ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ and DOMA Were ‘Defensive Actions’ To Stop Anti-LGBT Conservatives
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)I knew it was unconstitutional when it passed. how come they didn't?
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)CBGLuthier
(12,723 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)If Clinton has not signed the bill for DOMA, the GOP
would have come to power, the GOP would
have appointed more judges to the supreme court:
which would have voted down same sex marriage.
Politics is the art of the possible, Bill was smart
to realize the public needed more time to accept
same sex marriage.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)You did that on purpose, didn't you?
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Most states pass laws against same sex marriage in 2000,
some say Kerry lost because of it: Bush came to power
leaving it impossible for Dem's, to change any military liberalization.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)If she and Bill were really pro-same sex marriage what was the hold up? Why all those speeches about the sanctity of marriage?
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Given their difficulties with marriage, their not
ones to talk on this particular subject.
They are very smart not too: even though
they have long relationship.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Hillary is a little more conservative in her personal
life.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And "lecturing about her own marriage" was your straw man, you used it to deflect from the question why did it take so long for them to evolve if they supported marriage equality all along?
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)Hillary is running for President of the US: not President of Gay people
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)And it makes a difference if you're "trying to rewrite history".
Fairgo
(1,571 posts)trying to rewrite history with a crayon.
Rilgin
(787 posts)You made up a bad argument based on facts that were easily disproved to assert that the votes for DOMA were cover for the fact that the Clintons were actually for gay marriage. Then when he posted the video showing that Hillary was emphatically against gay marriage in 2013 when it had already changed, you say "what difference does it make".
This is the problem, Hillary is a problematic candidate and you will just dismiss any and all of these problems using the same mechanism. First you will ignore her problems, then you will reinvent the facts. Then when caught you will just go on with your support rather than reexamine that support.
okasha
(11,573 posts)The hangup was over the emotional and religious connotations of the word "marriage."
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)This issue is old news, and the Presidency is not a single
issue job.
Go Hillary
lewebley3
(3,412 posts)
Rose Siding
(32,623 posts)The threat of an anti-gay amendment to the Constitution was very real at the time. I remember. It was terrifying.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)I'm asking seriously.
I don't recall an amendment or a push for one. I can't find references to one. I can't imagine why there would have been considering DOMA had such wide support and was a much faster way of getting to that outcome. Nor was a Supreme Court at that time inclined to strike down DOMA.
The logic of an early amendment not making sense aside, I could be mistaken. I'm not able to find any reference to an amendment at that time and have found commentators asserting that it was no such amendment or threat.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Hillary is a top ally in the fight for LGBTQ rights today. As with women's issues her whole life, she speaks to these rights in an unapologetic manner in public. You have to understand how much the influential people who have evolved help the movement.
For decades and decades, one of the greatest grassroots movements ever seen, has been working to right the mentality of a majority of this country. Today we are seeing the success of the amazing movement. If members of their community have understood for decades that changing minds is what needs to happen, why do you then attack some of the greatest signs of success. I respect every single person in Hillarys age group who have evolved. It has been one of the hardest segments to get movement in.
Then again, I respected Robert Byrd in the end. I'm sure you are a real hoot talking about him.
I don't say Sanders is a racist because one of his greatest legislative victories was stopping a pathway to citizenship for over ten million people. I actually think he has a better understanding of how oppressive our current situation is and wouldn't let republicans use him like that again.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)That Mrs. Clinton is definitely where we need her to be now. I don't understand why she can't just say DOMA was a bad law and move on. I don't understand the defense of DOMA.
On Sanders and his stances on immigration laws, he was voting against gust worker programs, and I completely agree with that. Guest worker programs legalize abuses against immigrant workers.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)To me it points out the need for leaders. It also points out to me that Hillary is not a leader, she is a follower. Presidents need to be leaders.
If Hillary had been President and in a position to set policy starting in 2008 would the LGBT movement be as far along as it is now?
How far along would it be if President Obama was more than a reluctant supporter?
Presidents are leaders not followers, choose the direction you wish to be lead carefully.
Votes are valuable, use them wisely.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Personally, I'd have a lot more respect for her if she could just own her history and positions. It's not only about DOMA She has said since then that she honestly believed that marriage is between a man and a woman. Be honest about why she hung back until it became more politically acceptable.
But she has to put so many levels between herself and her actions, and backtracking and sidestepping and rewriting history, that it's difficult to know what she honestly believes -- or what she will do in the future. What will happen if some new very polarizing issue regarding LGBT rights comes along? Will she stand up for them, or triangulate or throw LGBT rights under the bus? I honestly don't know.
She does that on so many issues. Like telling bankers to "cut it out." Does that mean she would use the power of her office to enforce that? Or will she appoint more Wall Street Insiders to high positions and allow them to "regulate themselves"?
BooScout
(10,406 posts)...would not compromise his principles by being a Democrat.....until he needed to do just that....compromise his principles to run as a Democrat for political expediency.
Sorry but I am not impressed.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)and HE didn't vote for a war that killed hundreds of thousands for political expediency.
sorry, she has zero cred on that issue
pinebox
(5,761 posts)sans maybe Elizabeth Warren which would probably be a tie.
MADem
(135,425 posts)He wasn't championing federal law favoring equality--he said "Leave it to the states." His views on equality were the same as his views on guns--local control. When an elderly Jimmy Carter made the point that Texas was going to do what Texas was going to do (on the equality issue) prior to the Supreme Court decision, this board threw him under the bus for suggesting that the "states rights" POV on this matter was appropriate. I understood his point--that we were so close to the tipping point that it didn't matter, big picture, but I got some shade for understanding his nuance, too. Funny how Sanders doesn't get the same pushback that the elderly President Carter endured.
That comment he made (eons ago) in that little article about the federal government not making laws about sexuality that is often yanked out and waved as evidence of his longstanding support is not "proof" that he was "pro-equality of marriage." Going on that statement, one could argue (and I'm not saying he is FOR these things, I'm simply pointing out the vagueness of his comment) that he also favored multiple marriages or elimination of all ages of consent.
I'm not impressed on that issue either. I also am amused about the short memories re: DOMA.
DOMA was a bone thrown to a vigorous, snarling GOP dog on the Hill -- the Moral Majority assholes wanted a CONSTITUTIONAL amendment, but were satisfied with a law (that could be overturned/found unconstitutional down the road) that they could beat their chests and tout.
Bottom line--Sanders "evolved" on this issue, like pretty much EVERYONE--including some members of the gay community--did. He was in a better place than most Republicans, but frankly, so were most Democrats.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)here:
Why/how, in a representative democracy, is this a good thing?
I mean, it's great to have an elected official substitution his/her principles for the will of the electorate ... when I, personally, agree with the position taken (e.g., school desegregation, jim crow, etc.); but, not so much, when my representative wants to repeal the ACA or defund PP ... besides, it's not particularly democratic.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)The system has nunerous checks and balances to prevent a President abusing their power. With that in mind it ia considerably better to have someone willing to take the moral but perhaps unpopular path rather than looking at a poll or aome focus testing before making every decision. A country run by the tyranny of the majority would be a terrible thing.
okasha
(11,573 posts)I'll pass.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)But having a leader who always follows the current majority is a terribly dangerous thing, no matter how 'democratic' it might sound on the surface. With that approach we would have ended up with very little progress on the major social issues.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)It's true that representatives should represent the will of the people. That said, if we went just on the will of the people on civil rights we'd be in a bad spot. It's a tough one. Also on the Iraq vote, the media had whipped the public into a fear-frenzy. I'm sure t had popular support at the time as well.
I dunno what the right balance here is. You want someone who respects public will, but also some sense of judgement.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)But like I said ... I loved it when that sense of judgement matches my judgement, in opposition to the public will ... not so much, when that principles-based judgement wants defund PP or end SSM.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)Knowing how a candidate stood 10 years ago, a year ago, and yesterday tells me where they will stand tomorrow.
Would you rather a candidate that stands with you today, but didn't 10 years ago, a year ago, or yesterday? Doesn't it make you wonder where they may stand tomorrow?
If in the past we only voted for candidates that stood for the majority, where would Blacks and LGBT people be today or for that matter to a lesser extent the Irish, Italians, Chinese, Polish, Japanese, Catholics, etc.?
Votes are too valuable to waste, use them wisely.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)10 years ago ... or a year ago. I only care where they stand today ... and how they got there.
I agree ... But again, that is the gop's argument for repealing the ACA, defunding PP and ending SSM.
Agreed ... And I believe I do.
A Simple Game
(9,214 posts)So if the balance tips to a majority for reinstating discrimination laws, which it has already in many red states, you don't mind backing a candidate that will change their position to match the majority?
I much more prefer a candidate that will protect the minorities from any possibility of a discriminatory majority.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I am less concerned with a politician's (or anyone's) history, as I am where they stand today ... but more importantly, how they came to their position. There are plenty of examples of politicians (and "Pillars of DU) whose histories are suspect (see: Elizabeth Warren but the "Pillar" will go unnamed).
So would I.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)When the court rules the way we want, it's justice. When they don't, it's judicial activism.
Armstead
(47,803 posts)Then the voters can decide whether they agree with that candidate's principles, and place trust that the candidate will follow them when in office.
If a situation comes along when their principles have to be contrary with popular will, then it depends on whether the candidate has engendered larger trust in the motives. And be ready to put up with the heat.
And if, on balance the person as a leader still has the trust of people, despite some unpopular moves they get reelected. If not they get booted out.
merrily
(45,251 posts)The Supreme Court had already held that damaging the flag was protected speech. Of course, an act of Congress cannot overrule a Supreme Court decision on a Constitutional matter. Nonetheless, Hillary put forth flag desecration bills two years in a row. They were defended as necessary to stave off a Constitutional amendment from the left. Of course, the chances of any Constitutional amendment being ratified these days are nil. http://www.democraticunderground.com/12776799
Luckily, Hillary did not manage to get either bill passed (despite her claims of getting things done), even in a conservative Congress. And, lo and behold, no Constitutional amendment passed either.
So, yeah, the bit about a terrible bill--but only to stave off other, allegedly worse action--is as played out as the rest of the tricks.
dsc
(52,169 posts)and that was with giving people the ability to vote for the bill. I don't call failing by one vote nil.
It still failed to make it out of Congress. And would never have made it through the ratification process.
What if either of Hillary's bill had passed?
The state legislatures were GOP in many places and conserve DEM in many others. I could easily see such an amendment passing since many of our DEM majorities were in states such as Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi etc.
merrily
(45,251 posts)controversy has been ratified since the Eisenhower administration. Even equal rights for a majority of Americans, namely women, did not get ratified.
Again, it's 2015. Where's the Constitutional amendment?
Moreover, passing an unconstitutional law would not have helped a thing.
dsc
(52,169 posts)and I think there was some contraversy there. The ERA was never a 70-30 issue like flag burning was.
merrily
(45,251 posts)objection to allowing people old enough to die for their country to vote. I have no cluewhat your comment about the ERA means.
Once again, kindly explain how passing an unconstitutional law would have helped anything.
dsc
(52,169 posts)which is why it didn't make it.
merrily
(45,251 posts)The ERA had very strong support. I don't know where you are getting your info.
And for the 3rd time, kindly explain how passing an unconstitutional bill was a good idea.
dsc
(52,169 posts)If the bill hadn't been passed, there most assuredly would have been increased pressure for an Amendment. There was already some pressure about Citizen's United level. That amendment would have disadvataged gays for at least a generation or two if not five.
bowens43
(16,064 posts)She will do or say anything to get her hands on the power she believes that she is owed.
MissDeeds
(7,499 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)
GoneOffShore
(17,342 posts)She has been in and out of that office for so long that she is sure she should be sitting at that desk.
azmom
(5,208 posts)Her words don't mean a damn thing.
dsc
(52,169 posts)the votes were there to ban any service by gays and gay service personel were still being jailed for violating sodomy laws in the military. As to DOMA I don't think anyone would say that it was as likely to see a Constitutional amendment banning marriage equality as the certainty of a law banning service by gays. That said, the consequences of such an amendment would have been devastating. Had such an amendment passed there would be no marriage equality in the lifetime of anyone posting on this board and likely the children of any of us.
Here is a link to the state legislatures by party in 1996 the relevant year. http://www.ncsl.org/documents/statevote/legiscontrol_1990_2000.pdf
We would have needed 14 states to not ratify. I think we can safely say that any GOP controlled legislature would have ratified as would have the states of the old Confederacy plus the boarder states except possibly Maryland and any plains and mountain states. That leaves New England minus New Hampshire (5 states), New York and Maryland in the mid atlantic (2 states), Michigan, Illinois, Minnesota, and Wisconsin (4 states), New Mexico in the mountains (1 state) and Washington, California and Hawaii in the west (3 states) that is a total of 15 which he have to run the table in and continue to do so for the several years during which ratification would be permitted. Many of those states had split legislatures and all subsequent races in those states would have revolved around marriage equality hardly a great thing during an era when it was not popular at all. Could it have passed the House and Senate? The Senate had 53 GOP and 47 Dems. Lets say there were 3 GOP members who would vote against. That is 50, they need 17. We had 9 Senators in the old confederacy of which only Chuck Robb would have voted no. Another 10 came from West Virginia, Colorado. North and South Dakota, Kentucky, Montana and Nebraska.
Again I am not saying this was a done deal by any means, but it was hardly impossible.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)But I don't recall this being likely having lived through it. On DOMA, I believe the Congress had a veto-proof majority, so there was nothing Mr. Clinton could have done to prevent it, but he didn't have to sign it.
This was just a bad law, and I don't understand the need to protect its legacy.
dsc
(52,169 posts)and let me tell you, they would have passed such an amendment so fast your head would have spun. I admit it was no slam dunk but if there was even a 1 percent chance DOMA was worth it.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)My problem with this reasoning is if an amendment was so easily achievable, why would anyone stop at just the law? And there was a veto-proof majority for the law, so there was no stopping it. I don't understand the logic that DOMA was "defensive" and there's really no reason why Mr. Clinton had to sign it other than he agreed with it or it was politically expedient.
Mrs. Clinton is on the record (then and now) as being against marriage equality at the time the bill passed. I think it's great that she's changed on this over the years. I don't understand the revisionism on what we all agree was a very bad law.
dsc
(52,169 posts)to campaign saying they stopped gay marriage.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)The Dems in congress can still vote for it. I really don't understand the after-the-fact justifications.
dsc
(52,169 posts)It wasn't a good vote for any Democrat and making them do it twice for no good reason would have been a dick move.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)I don't see anything noble in President Clinton's signing of DOMA nor defending it now.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)Wellstone, who is nevertheless lauded as the Ultimate Progressive on DU regularly, he is a popular avatar for posters as well. Biden, yes. Harry Reid, yes, Levin, yes.
Bernie did the right thing, and that's a big part of why I support him still. He was early and righteous in his vote when most Democrats were on the wrong side of decency and history.
But the simple fact is that straight folks pretending DOMA matters to them is hard to swallow, because this never came up with Biden, nor are any of the other Yes voters held to account for it, in fact they are lauded, the DOMA vote discounted entirely. 'Those were the times' say the Wellstoners, 'he had no choice'. But he did, and they have a choice to not promote him as Super Progressive in spite of that regressive and bigoted vote.
People who speak of an issue only to exploit it for themselves are often more annoying that those who don't speak of that issue at all.
This thread will list all the DOMA votes and it contains Defense of DOMA voters such as Wellstone.
I hate double standards.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022574477
Response to Bluenorthwest (Reply #40)
oasis This message was self-deleted by its author.
yardwork
(61,712 posts)TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)There are merits to reasonable risk aversion but there is such a thing as weak willed cowering that spends more energy seeking excuses to do nothing or even the wrong things too. I think the one percent excuse is a lot closer to the latter than the former.
DADT, I will defend being there it was legitimate harm reduction from the status quo but DOMA was wrong and out of step with our basic principles, values, and straight up the constitution I'm not going to excuse it because things turned out OK at this point years later despite it.
When you can make the hand wringing one percent excuse then what is it you can't rationalize based on such elastic logic?
Sorry, but long term playing not to lose has little to no chance of consistent actual winning. You create too low a ceiling.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)Mrs. Clinton has freely admitted that she was against marriage equality and came around. I don't think anyone faults her for that. If she similarly came out and said DOMA was wrong, I don't think anyone would fault her for that, especially in light of the fact that it was her husband, not her who signed it into law.
Saying that DOMA was some plan to protect people just doesn't make any sense and doesn't do her any favors.
dsc
(52,169 posts)completely dead, for the lifetime of everyone posting on this board. And likely the lifetime of the children of everybody on this board. We would be in the position of waiting for one of the following states deciding to ratify an amendment LA, AL, AR, WV, GA, SC, OK, TX, TN, NE, KS, ND, SD, UT. Just when do you think any of those states would come around enough to see a legislature ratify such an amendment? If they were your rights would you make that bet?
portlander23
(2,078 posts)The Federal Marriage Amendment has been introduced in the United States Congress 10 different times: in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2013.
2002
The original proposed Federal Marriage Amendment was written by the Alliance for Marriage with the assistance of former Solicitor General and failed Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert Bork, Professor Robert P. George of Princeton University, and Professor Gerard V. Bradley of Notre Dame Law School. It was introduced in the 107th United States Congress in the House of Representatives on May 15, 2002, by Representative Ronnie Shows (D-Miss.) with 22 cosponsors, and read:
Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.
Was there even an amendment on the table when DOMA was under consideration? Why would there have been a need considering there was a veto proof majority for passing DOMA? This view of history does not add up.
yardwork
(61,712 posts)dsc
(52,169 posts)you can bet your life on it. I think the combo of DOMA and marriage equality not being realized in the states in question at that time (Hawaii and Alaska which both amended their constitutions it should be noted) is a big part why there was no amendment.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)There was no amendment because they didn't need one to get the outcome they wanted. There was no need to sign DOMA because there was already a veto-proof majority.
How does something inevitable prevent something that wasn't required? This line of logic makes no sense.
Any why are we even revising history? Everyone on the left agrees that DOMA was a bad bill. No one cares how Mrs. Clinton got to her current position on marriage equality, we care that she's there. She's has no problem admitting she was against marriage equality, and we're all fine with it.
I don't understand the political calculus in defending DOMA.
dsc
(52,169 posts)portlander23
(2,078 posts)There was regrettably wide support for DOMA. What vote did this protect them from?
dsc
(52,169 posts)for many DEMS on both sides with was a hard vote. An override vote would have been closer to the election and not a desired vote on the Democratic side of the aisle.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)If anything, overriding a democratic president would have provided more cover in conservative areas.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)In fact, my recollection was the response was way closer to livid than thank you for looking out.
Are you claiming gay people largely supported DOMA? It is their rights we are discussing, correct?
dsc
(52,169 posts)and yes we were losing then But that said, better a temporary loss (18 years) than a near permanent loss. Ideally would have been to have Democrats who would have voted to support us through thick and thin and prevented the amendment but we didn't have that in the voting ranks nor the political class. Virtually no one in the South, Midwest, or plains supported gay rights to any extent and that was a recipe for us going down in flames. Given the options we had DOMA was the better. Frankly we should have added ENDA to DOMA and made it a package deal.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)Michelangelo Signorile
Huffington Post
As I've pointed out before, this is false, as there was no talk of a constitutional amendment that early on. Certainly I don't expect Hillary Clinton to say, as I have, that DOMA was a stain on Bill Clinton's presidency. But surely she can be more forceful in being out front on LGBT rights now. And, again, that's doubly true if she wants to stand out from her opponents.
She's seriously spinning history on DOMA. This is a pattern.
She refused to admit the Iraq was vote was a mistake for years, and eventually spun it.
Why Hillary Clinton Didn't Apologize for Iraq Vote During 2008 Campaign
ABC News
Jun 30, 2014
"The political pressure was all on me … [to] say you made a mistake," Clinton added, noting she was reluctant to do so because "I knew some of these young men who were serving and I knew how important it was for them to feel supported."
She's opposing TPP for reasons that don't add up.
Hillary Clinton's flip-flop on the TPP makes no sense
Timothy B. Lee
Vox
Second, the final version of the TPP wound up being less friendly to big drug companies than the version US negotiators proposed. If Clinton was concerned about the TPP being too friendly to big drug companies, the final version should have made her more, not less, comfortable, than the "gold standard" version she once praised.
TPP critics, including the AFL-CIO, have been raising concerns about currency manipulation since the outset of TPP negotiations. Members of Congress from across the political spectrum have urged the White House to make currency manipulation an issue in the TPP negotiations.
The Obama administration has flatly refused these requests. And they've had a fairly persuasive argument, too: Foreign governments won't go for it. Countries around the world see control over currency as a core part of national sovereignty. If the US had taken a hard line on the issue, it likely would have simply derailed the negotiations.
That was the administration's position when Clinton served as secretary of state. And it was the administration's position in early 2015, when Clinton began expressing concern about the lack of currency manipulation language in the TPP.
None of these explanations square with history. Good on her for coming around to better positions, but for the life of me I can't understand her reluctance to admit she got anything wrong.
dsc
(52,169 posts)I lived it, I saw people with signs extolling it, I know it happened.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)dsc
(52,169 posts)portlander23
(2,078 posts)This is post DOMA. It mentions that DOMA, not an amendment, enjoyed wide support. Does it mention some sort of pre 2002 amendment?
What in this supports that assertion? Can you quote it?
dsc
(52,169 posts)DOMA is a reflection of the era of its enactment.
At the time, the world had no experience with gay
marriage, and the debate over its legal recognition
was still in its infancy. In that time of uncertainty,
DOMA enjoyed broad support, but for reasons that
varied widely. Some who supported it fervently
opposed discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation in other areas. They pushed for
protection against discrimination toward gays and
lesbians in employment, adoption, and the military.
They nonetheless supported DOMA’s stated purpose
of leaving the debate on gay marriage to develop in
the states. And they believed that passing DOMA
would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional
amendment banning gay marriage, which would have
ended the debate for a generation or more.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)Is there any evidence of this at the time? I'm open to evidence here, but I can't find it.
dsc
(52,169 posts)or are the Senators who wrote that brief just big ole liars.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)If there was anything from the time suggesting this. I can't find anything, and yes I view this as revising the history of a really ugly law.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)No poster said gay people supported DOMA, so what the fuck is that about? I support Bernie, if straight folks want to grasp how to talk about this, they should ask. We were living it.
Here, I'll tell you something I'm sure you don't know. How did Obama get his first big cash? A group of LGBT heavies who were cheesed off about a variety of Clinton compromises including DOMA gifted his campaign simply to oppose Clinton with a viable candidate. Without 'gay money' she might be President today.
Bernie and a handful of others did the very correct thing with DOMA. A handful. As a gay Bernie supporter I most certainly notice when straight people use these issues in a situational manner. DU is fine with DOMA yes voters and I have often been chided for pointing out that Paul Wellstone voted for DOMA and Joe Biden. Judging Hillary by a standard different from that which you use for the others is a double standard, double standards are not acceptable.
I support Bernie in part because of that vote. That's a great reason to support him. At the same time, others need to either adopt a hard line against DOMA voters or give all players leeway equal to that given to the other Yes voters. It can't be wrong only for Hillary who did not even have a vote. This Party has repeatedly asked me to support DOMA yes voters, so let's not pretend this Party is made up of people furious about DOMA.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)And I worked pretty hard for marriage equality. We passed it in Maine before the supreme court ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional and it was a lot of work.
My point with this post is not that I'm mad at Mrs. Clinton for her former positions. If you're going to be mad at everyone who was against marriage equality at some point, you're gonna be mad a lot of people.
I do take exception with the effort to rehabilitate its legacy.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)The point is not anger at Wellstone, it's anger at people who will both excuse a DOMA yes vote then carry on about DOMA regarding Hillary who had no vote. It's situational, and that makes it exploitative.
I was around back then. To be blunt with you most LGBT people talking about Bill back then were talking about how much better it was than the 12 years of unaddressed pandemic and massive death rates under Reagan/Bush. The full context of what was going on back then is that Bill was doing all sorts of positive things for the community that were pissing off the right wing which wanted us dead, actively. Pat Buchanan at the GOP convention when Bill was opposing George Bush railed at the Clintons for being friends of the "militant homosexuals". Gore too. Elizabeth Warren was a Republican at that time, people here excuse her for that. So obviously positions on LGBT issue back then only matter to some posters here when applied to some political figures, but not to others. And that is the problem. It's not that Liz changed her views, it's that her views were horrific and she gets a pass, Hillary was about as good as the times afforded us and she's treated like she was the Republican in 92. People here defend Reagan voters. Then they wail about Clinton on LGBT issues. It's insulting, and I'm a Bernie supporter.
I see lots of straight posters discussing marriage equality using timelines that are absurd. They claim they were fighting for marriage equality when we were busy trying to bury the dead. They should try to get their history ducks in a row prior to the sermon of the day.
Bernie has supporters who are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer, you name it. They will all be happy to do the DOMA preaching accurately and in ways that will communicate to the people who actually do give a damn about those issue, not the people who want to posture around the issues.
Usually in a Primary I have no real preference, this time I do and I do not enjoy having a political cohort tied to me one bit. Too many Bernie supporters piss me off, too many Hillary supporters piss me off. I like both candidates better than their more aggressive supporters, especially around LGBT and other minority issues.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)I'm not condemning anyone who voted for DOMA nor anyone who took some time coming around to marriage equality.
I'm condemning whitewashing the history of DOMA and passing it off as a favor.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)for it is in fact a whitewashing of history being done to suit your own interests. It's obvious that I am correct because you can't even manage to defend your position.
Straight folks talking of the 90's with no mention of AIDS show their hands to those of us who lived it. That's all I have to say about it.
A look at 1996:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00046531.htm
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)directed to me about gambling with rights on which I deferred to the people's rights that are at stake.
You have nothing to jump on me about that I'm aware of. I didn't defend or think the law was acceptable then since or now.
Now what standards are you accusing me of applying to one person and not another? I have a fair number of posts through the years to choose from, I believe my standards are quite consistent and it is fair to say hinge on more than one issue much less a vote but overall patterns, word view, and apparent inclinations and instincts cannot be ignored and need to be discussed so if that bothers you then I can only be sorry you feel that way because I don't see the path to feeling I have a thing to apologize about.
Not being gay in no way prohibits me from not buying the law was passed to save gay rights from a constitutional amendment and differentiated it from DADT which was the discussion for my part so I'm not sure what exactly is your bone to pick with me.
Bluenorthwest
(45,319 posts)not speaking the same language. As you say, you are not sure what I am saying, and that's sort of the point many are making here. It inherently bothers me, for example, to speak of those times without any mention of AIDS. DOMA was 1996. You know what 1996 means to many of us? It was the first year since the start of the crisis that the number of US deaths decreased, the first year of a hard sought turning of the red tide that was washing up our friends on the beach. Also DOMA, and Bill did not do it right, and people like me held that against him and helped fund this guy Obama very early on to prevent Hillary last time. Because of that.
So long threads about the 90's LGBT issues that never mention that tens of thousands were dying do in fact strike me as incomplete. Those days were not like now and those who were not in the thick of it probably will never really 'get it' and might find it useful to ask and to talk about it rather than to climb on a grandstand and make use of the issues, the deaths and the times for partisan political purposes.
In my life so far, this Party has asked me to vote for nominees who did not support my rights. This time all contenders do so. It was hard getting to that place, and I will not piss all over it to serve the agenda of others.
TheKentuckian
(25,029 posts)have any prerequisite discussion of the AIDS epidemic just as I don't feel the need to detail 400 years of slavery to discuss voter suppression today or to give a primer on the labor struggles of the early 20th century to discuss the minimum wage.
In this case there is even less of a connection than those two historical contexts because AIDS didn't change the validity or strength the rationale being asserted not one iota save that it could have made bad worse by legally discouraging generally safer monogamous relationships in the most at risk population but that wasn't my point and no I'm not required to make it.
What is it that you even disagree with in my statements?
Am I supposed to think DOMA was good law? Am I incorrect that DADT was an incremental improvement over what was the status quo of investigations to drum gay folks out or even to incarcerate them and so not the same as a clear effort to restrict rights? Am I supposed to pretend support of DOMA was good judgment? Did you want me to agree with DOMA being passed to protect your rights?
If so on any point then make your case but it better be strong for me to buy it.
I'm not indifferent to your feelings and opinions but I am very unclear of what your actual direct contention is other than pressing an AIDS discussion which you are free to add and connect in some comprehensible fashion that I am incapable of because to be honest I see it is peripheral at best to the point being made tied together only by the time, that gay men where the most at risk population, and that the legislation debated attacked gay rights.
Be that as it may, I strongly suspect that if there was no such thing as AIDS the issue would still exist just the same and DOMA would still be wrong-headed and counter constitutional.
Passage of the law did not turn the crisis around either nor do you contend such.
I don't speak with your voice or perspective but rather mine. I disagreed with a poster's point and stated why. So far, I've yet to gather that you have any disagreement with what I stated.
Laughing Mirror
(4,185 posts)I was livid when I heard Clinton had signed DOMA. So was my close friend who heard the news with me. So was everybody (we were all gay or lesbian) who talked about it with me. We were livid.
I have no recollection of anybody saying Clinton had to do it. We thought he was a backstabber, after all the promises and moves he had made in our direction.
I still think that.
yardwork
(61,712 posts)Even today, the decision in favor of marriage could be overturned by a constitutional amendment making gay marriage unconstitutional.
If Trump or Carson becomes president, and Republicans keep control of Congress, we will see efforts to institute "natural marriage" come up for a vote in Congress.
I think that people are forgetting this when they play brinksmanship like "Sanders or nobody!"
LWolf
(46,179 posts)
closeupready
(29,503 posts)K&R
Indepatriot
(1,253 posts)expedient, forgive me if I don't congratulate you on your "evolution"...
yardwork
(61,712 posts)The only reason this is coming up now is to bash one of our Democratic candidates.
I don't remember Bernie Sanders leading any charge for gay rights. Let it go. It's better now and we still have battles to win. I trust both Clinton and Sanders to do the right things now.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Damn right Bernie, she has more baggage than Samsonite produces!
We don't need that crap in the white house with someone who changes their mind on positions more than there are licks in a Tootsie Pop. We need integrity and foundation to make this country great once again!
azmom
(5,208 posts)Seriously is beyond me. She let's her political ambition guide her. She has no real convictions. We have seen it again and again. Enough of selfish leaders.
AzDar
(14,023 posts)
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)
Hydra
(14,459 posts)Whenever I see it, I take it as a silent admission that there was a problem in that area and it will not be addressed, just attempted to be covered over.
HRC has made lots of political calculations that have blown up in her face, mostly because she or her advisers feel like the safer course is to lean to the right...and the right has been wrong about absolutely everything for my entire life. That's got to be some sort of achievement.
emulatorloo
(44,192 posts)And here's something else to consider. Right wingers didn't consider DOMA adequate. They also thought it was a bad compromise. That's when they began passing amendments to state constitutions banning not only same-sex marriage but civil unions and domestic partnerships. No state in which such an amendment failed legalized gay marriage, either.The push for a cpnstitutional amendment merely trlocated to thr ststes, where it wss largely successful.
portlander23
(2,078 posts)RICHARD SOCARIDES
The New Yorker
MARCH 8, 2013
What Republicans had not counted on, though, was just how adverse the Administration had become, especially in an election year, to getting ahead of public opinion on gay rights after having had to backtrack on open military service.
On May 23, 1996, as DOMA began its rapid journey through Congress, the New York Times reported:
George Stephanopoulos, a senior Presidential adviser who has overseen the issue, said: “It’s wrong for people to use this issue to demonize gays and lesbians and it’s pretty clear that that was the intent in trying to create a buzz on this issue. But the fact remains that if the legislation is in accord with the President’s stated position, he would have no choice but to sign it.
Inside the White House, there was a genuine belief that if the President vetoed the Defense of Marriage Act, his reëlection 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.
During the campaign season, Clinton would sometimes complain publicly about how the Republicans were using the marriage issue against him. He said, derisively, that it was “hardly a problem that is sweeping the country” and his press secretary called it “gay baiting, pure and simple.” And that September, when the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, President Clinton signed it.
The Defense of Marriage Act became law, and President Clinton was reëlected, again with overwhelming support from gay Americans. He was enthusiastically endorsed by the nation’s leading gay political group, the Human Rights Campaign, which had urged him to veto the legislation. They had called DOMA “a Bob Dole for President publicity stunt.” (There was a small dustup during the later stages of the campaign when a Clinton-related committee ran a radio ad in the South, heralding the enactment of the legislation. The ad was quickly pulled.)
What are the lessons of the Defense of Marriage Act? Perhaps the clearest one is that if you compromise on principle, on the assumption that the world will never catch up with your ideals, you will likely come to regret it. Marriage equality was not some completely far-off vision; it was something that could be achieved. Clinton never believed that the federal government had the right to discriminate. The harder question is this: When is winning the most important thing? Would a veto, in retrospect, have been worth the risk?
DOMA was not a compromise. It was crafted by the GOP, introduced by Republican house members, and passed with overwhelming support of Democrats. It was signed without even a veto threat by Mr. Clinton. Both Mr. and Mrs. Clinton had been on record at the time and after DOMA as opposed to marriage equality.
This isn't to say that Mr. Clinton did nothing for LGBT people nor is it to demonize Mrs. Clinton for coming around on marriage equality. The point is that DOMA was not conceived as nor was it intended to stop something worse. And it didn't- there were ten attempts to amend the constitution after DOMA. DOMA did nothing to stop that.
This is simply revisionist history.
yardwork
(61,712 posts)Ken Mehlman admitted this, when he himself came out as gay. He said that he regretted using homophobia as a wedge issue to turn out the vote for Republicans. It was a deeply cynical, nihilistic strategy. And it worked. Fear of gay rights turned out the far-right fundamentalists to vote for w. Hell, they even got Amish people to vote for him, and they'd never voted before.
That's an example of what we're up against.
okasha
(11,573 posts)But they began in Bill Clinton's re-election year of 199,6.
yardwork
(61,712 posts)And I firmly believe that had a federal amendment been floated in 1996-which it would have been had Clinton not signed DOMA--it would have passed. We'd still be snarled for years to come in getting another amendment to repeal that amendment. SCOTUS couldn't have voided it.
yardwork
(61,712 posts)okasha
(11,573 posts)We were there. We lived through this.
The people who are trying to straights'plain our history to us are both arrogant and dishonest.
reddread
(6,896 posts)how many mistakes does it take to qualify for President?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)year old students who would know better than to try something like that.
She certainly has not been at the forefront of history each time she was faced with the opportunity to get out in front and LEAD.
Btw, how does she explain her 'sanctity of marriage' statements just 2 years ago? Was THAT just a way to help us achieve Marriage Equality?
My brain hurts. I don't know who in her campaign comes up this stuff. Kids?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Major Hogwash
(17,656 posts)Hillary thinks that the past can be rewritten if she says something different about it enough times.
But, there are many of us who won't believe in her new versions of history because we all know someone who was hurt by DOMA.
