Bill Clinton's DOMA Whitewash

[Charles Kozierok]

Took him long enough:

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.

Slick Willie at his finest.

Sorry Bubba, but I'm not buying it. You went along with it because it was the politically smart thing to do. Just as Obama claimed to oppose gay marriage right up until the point where it became politically expedient to start supporting it.

Leaders are willing to head into the wind, not just let it take them where it will. The very fact that the bill had so much support meant that, if he wanted to, Clinton could have vetoed it to make a point and it still would have passed. That gesture would have meant a lot more in 1996 than this op-ed matters now.

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.

Nothing has changed in the constitution since 1996. Only public perception of gay rights has. So is he admitting that he knowingly violated his oath of office in 1996, or that he was too stupid to realize it until 17 years later?

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.

You knew it back then, too.

I'd say "better late than never", but in this case, there's not a lot of difference.

 

[EagleKeeper]

The political wind is changing and Bill is changing with it.

Setting up a more favorable climate for Hillary in '16?

 

[waggy]

The political wind is changing and Bill is changing with it.

Setting up a more favorable climate for Hillary in '16?

agreed.

i don't have a issue with this at all. I do think Bill was one of the better presidents we have had in a long time. to bad the fucker couldn't tell the truth under oath.

As for hillary in 16 i'm not sure. I would have voted for her if she won the nomination years ago though.

 

[Craig234]

The political wind is changing and Bill is changing with it.

Setting up a more favorable climate for Hillary in '16?

No, actually it's a combination of defending his actions that smell a bit in hindsight with some very fair reminders as well.

Clinton, like Obama, was accussed, and not without good reason, of being overly pro-corporate and excessively compromising with Republicans by progressives.

He appointed terrible corporatists to run things, and his 'third way' seemed to be little more than 'talk liberal and give the corporations what they want and keep power'.

Before we get to DOMA, let's remember a related issue. Clinton had, to his credit, expressed interest in ending discrimination against gays in the military. But his public vulnerability as a 'liberal, pot smoking draft avoiding kid' make him politically weak to take on the military, and he faced someone more politically popular, as I remember it, than he was with the JCS Chairman Colin Powell, a Republican. Powell strongly opposed the end to the discrimination - to his discredit - and carried enough weight to force the compromise.

And the compromise 'sounded good' - no more official discrimination if people 'don't go around talking about it' - while in practice was still highly discriminatory with high numbers, thousands, of explusions for people (and associated problems with blackmail and false reports at times, it seems). It was a bit of a mess until repealed.

Now, similarly, Clinton makes some fair points - it's always easy in hindsight to say 'they didn't do enough'. For example, the Supreme Court ruling to legalize mixed-race marriage seems pretty non-controversial now, but only 20% of the public at the time supported mixed-race marriage - so you weren't going to see many politicians out advocating it unless they had reasonably safe districts.

I don't have the number in front of me for polls at the time of DOMA, but a good sized majority of the public was against gay marriage, so much so that Republicans used it in dozens of states to get out the Republican vote. They'd get some 'we really really don't like gay marriage' ballot initiative to put a ban in the state constitution, and Republicans would swarm to the polls to vote for it, and happen to vote for the Republicans as long as they were there. These passed with a record of over 30 to zero losses.

So it was an issue to beat up the Democrats who might oppose it. The move for a federal constitutional amendment was real, Republicans later used that for federal elections.

Even years later by the 2004 election, Republicans introduced the amendment, one of four times they did, and Bush supported it. It was filibustered, and 48 Senators voted to end the filibuster (supporting the amendment), while Democratic presidential candidates Kerry and Edwards avoided the vote.

So in short, I'd say that there is a good case to be made for Clinton's reminding, correctly, how 'times were different' and there was great political pressure to not support gay marriage much - it would generally be a disaster for any national politician to have done so - while it is also an example of a leader who did not stand up all that strongly to fight for the rights of an unpopular minority.

To be fair, at the time, Clinton did not exactly totally sell out on the issue, while he took the 'compromise' position of making it a 'state choice'.

Below is his statement before signing DOMA - it's not very positive about it and does speak out in principle for non-discrimination. Not a lot more was realistic at the time.

On Friday, September 20, prior to signing the Defense of Marriage Act, President Clinton released the following statement:

Throughout my life I have strenuously opposed discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans. I am signing into law H.R. 3396, a bill relating to same-gender marriage, but it is important to note what this legislation does and does not do.

I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms "marriage" and "spouse".

This legislation does not reach beyond those two provisions. It has no effect on any current federal, state or local anti-discrimination law and does not constrain the right of Congress or any state or locality to enact anti-discrimination laws. I therefore would take this opportunity to urge Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, an act which would extend employment discrimination protections to gays and lesbians in the workplace. This year the Senate considered this legislation contemporaneously with the Act I sign today and failed to pass it by a single vote. I hope that in its next Session Congress will pass it expeditiously.

I also want to make clear to all that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation. Discrimination, violence and intimidation for that reason, as well as others, violate the principle of equal protection under the law and have no place in American society.

 

[Sonikku]

So in short, I'd say that there is a good case to be made for Clinton's reminding, correctly, how 'times were different' and there was great political pressure to not support gay marriage much - it would generally be a disaster for any national politician to have done so - while it is also an example of a leader who did not stand up all that strongly to fight for the rights of an unpopular minority.

If he opposed Doma and saw it as an affront to equal rights he should have vetoed it on principle. There is something to be said for seeing something you know is wrong in your heart and laying everything on the line, drawing the line in the sand, boldly declaring that this legislation is wrong and you aren't going to be complicit in it's passing. But that would be the act of a good leader. Clinton is just a good politician. We have enough of the latter already. America needs more of the former.