Clinton: ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ and DOMA Were ‘Defensive Actions’ To Stop Anti-LGBT Conservatives

[Segami]

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton argued on Friday that policies like the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and the “don’t ask don’t tell” rule regarding LGBT military service were meant to stop Republicans from carrying out even more extreme measures.

“I think what [then-President Bill Clinton] believed — and there was certainly evidence to support it — is that there was enough political momentum to amend the Constitution of the United States of America, and that there had to be some way to stop that,” Clinton told MSNBC host Rachel Maddow regarding the law, which defined marriage as being between a man and a woman. “There wasn’t any rational argument. Because I was in on some of those discussions, on both ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ and on DOMA, where both the president, his advisers and occasionally I would – you know, chime in and talk about, ‘you can’t be serious. You can’t be serious.'”

[boston bean]

1. Where would we be if a constitutional amendment had been passed outlawing gay marriage.

DADT was in response to calls to ban gays in the military. After Bill was pushing to have them serve openly.

All this revisionist history is a bunch of hogwash.

[Armstead]

7. I agree its revisionist regarding Don't Ask Don't Tell..... Clinton gets a bum rap on that

Bill Clinton did try to do something more to allow open service, but he made the mistake of trying it as one of the first things at the outset of his presidency, before establishing himself in the office. Which gave the GOP some "family values" red meat to whoop him with at the outset, and forced that as a compromise.

[DURHAM D]

8. GOP opposition was to be expected.

It was the powerful Senate Democrats opposition that really pissed me off.

[Armstead]

17. yeh well, true but thats a whole 'nother kettle of fish

I'm just pointing out that the Clintons do get a bum rap on this one sometimes.

[Bluenorthwest]

15. Democrat Sam Nunn was leader of those wanting to retaining the full ban, and he was not alone

nt

[Armstead]

18. As above

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=718637

[hollowdweller]

35. Really. Times were different then.

Bill Clinton wanted to do something very far ahead of public opinion, and opinion in his own party, and got slapped down.

Between then and now gay people and society in general worked to shift public opinion and made our current situation possible.

I don't blame Hillary for that.

Bill Clinton was too conservative, but he DID pass some populist things, and certainly prevented the GOP congress from passing worse, although I'll say he helped them pave the way for the financial collapse. Once again he had Greenspan holding a knife to his throat on it too.

But if he would have stood on principal on the gay issue back then he would have lost and we would have had the whole Bush debacle and fiscal collapse much earlier than what we did.

[R B Garr]

30. No, as I remember, the GOP were trying to

Damage him politically right out of the gate by pushing the issue of gays and making him respond in defense on some level. Then they could tout their Family Values. They were punishing him for winning the election and trying to push him into the radical liberal, anti-family values, pot smoking draft dodger characterizations and used his response as proof to damage him.

I'm glad people are remembering the realities of what the Clinton's were up against at the time.

[Armstead]

31. That's what I was saying

[R B Garr]

32. Okay. I just remember it as the GOP initiating

It purely to damage him. I see what youre saying.

[treestar]

33. I agree, they did the best they could at the time

With the political situation as it existed then.

It's not as if the Rs have no power whatsoever or could be convinced by someone wonderful (like Bernie, it is now) to change their ways.

[JaneyVee]

2. She's right.

[Skidmore]

5. Yes, she is.

Anything else is an attempt to rewrite of history. The struggle to gain rights is always on a bumpy road as many groups have learned over time.

[Cali_Democrat]

3. She's right......

another DUer explains it well:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=715933

[NCTraveler]

4. Some of our best duers have talked about....

This in a very educated manner. What a battle it was. Thanks for promoting the truth. Lots of ignorance out there.

[DURHAM D]

6. This is correct.

If you were gay and paying attention at the time you know this.

[sufrommich]

9. Yeah,she's right. nt

[sufrommich]

9. Yeah,she's right. nt

[dsc]

11. She is dead right on DADT

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.

Again I am not saying this was a done deal by any means, but it was hardly impossible.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. If you were there and cared, that is known and established fact. Straights who try to claim Bill

sought anti gay legislation in those two laws are doing nothing but making a spectacle of their own isolation from the events of the time.

Only 14 Senate Democrats voted no. DU's favorite avatar Paul Wellstone a strong yes vote. Harry Reid, yes. Joe Biden, yes, Patty Murray, yes and so on and so on and so on.

Many straight people on DU need to take care and learn history, because many seem to have forgotten how things were and many seem to be very generous toward their own straight community, even toward Reagan and Reagan voters, in the way they attempt to revise what was and replace it with that which serves their agenda of the moment.

[boston bean]

26. thanks for this.. also see this wiki entry regarding DOMA..

Though his official political position was against same-sex marriage, Clinton criticized DOMA as "unnecessary and divisive",[24] while his press-secretary called it "gay baiting, plain and simple".[25][26] However, after Congress had passed the bill with enough votes to override a presidential veto,[26] Clinton signed DOMA. He claims that he did so reluctantly in view of the veto-proof majority, both to avoid associating himself politically with the then-unpopular cause of same-sex marriage, and to defuse momentum for a proposed Federal Amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage.[26][27] Clinton, who was traveling when Congress acted, signed it into law promptly upon returning to Washington, D.C., on September 21, 1996; he refused to hold a signing ceremony for DOMA and did not allow photographs to be taken of him signing it into law.[28] The White House released a statement in which Clinton said "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".[28]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

[NCTraveler]

27. "Many straight people on DU need to take care and learn history"

I have been here for a while now and your posts on this topic over the years have been a big part of my education. Your posts in this area go unchallenged for the most part. When talking about a Clinton around these parts that means the posts are factually correct. It is something I have greatly appreciated from you. I have found there are a handful of duers here who are ten times more educated in this area of history than I am and are willing to share their knowledge. It is truly appreciated. Not just yours but the others willing to take the time as well. I don't fool myself and think either Clinton are perfect in this area. I also don't like for bullshit to be promoted. I also think some of the bullshit spread about this time in history is extremely disrespectful to the amazing work the grassroots movement has done over the decades. It takes away from how truly hard this fight has been and will continue to be moving forward. The tide is no longer changing. It has changed. That doesn't mean the fight will be any easier moving forward.

[Robbins]

13. Oh jesus christ

defending not being a leader or having backbone.easy to say after Obama and courts did all the work.

The clintons in 2004 advised Kerry to come out for state initutives banning gay marriage the same time she said marriage was
between one man and one woman.

In 2004 I was one of 25% In Missouri who voted against banning gay marriage.under clinton arguement those who voted against it
should have voted for it

My candiate when DOMA came up had guts to vote against it.

[emulatorloo]

16. See Bluenorthwest's post above.

[dsc]

19. an unsourced quote from Tim Russert

who hated the Clintons

[emulatorloo]

14. She's right. Closely observed DADT process at the time.

Also knew that republicans had a very good chance to get the constitution ammendment.

[TheKentuckian]

20. Don't ask don't tell was as sad as it is to say harm reduction. DOMA I don't and never bought

as such. It didn't move the ball down field it was taking a safety at best.

[BlueMTexpat]

21. I remember the era well.

She is right.

There was a lot of opposition from powerful Dems in Congress and you can forget about any help from the Republican side. The whole social environment has changed substantially since then, thank heavens for so many of my friends and family members. The change was in part due to these incremental steps. Sometimes that is literally all that can be done.

Petit à petit, l‘oiseau fait son nid. Although some things may look simple in retrospect, it is just not the case with regard to this issue.

[dsc]

22. gee what a shock you can't be bothered to answer any posts in this thread

goes to show exactly and precisely how little you actually care about the issues you raised.

[Skid Rogue]

23. Definitely not revisionist thinking.

I have been saying this for years. I clearly recall reading/discussing this at the time, wondering if President C. was making a wise move. Eventually, those stopgap measures became the laws that had to be removed, but at the time of their conception they were not intended to harm the LGBT community, quite the opposite.

[Bluenorthwest]

24. Straight DU'ers who drag LGBT issues out then refuse to discuss them demonstrate a lack of

actual interest in the topic. This means they seek to exploit the topic. I would like it if they would at least stop claiming to want to discuss things. I would love it if I ever saw any of these posters bring up an LGBT or any other minority issue purely out of support for the issue and the people involved and not as part of their own personal pursuit of agenda.

To the OP: Many of us were there, involved and the story is ours to tell.

[restorefreedom]

25. maybe on DADT

no effing way on DOMA

[boston bean]

28. not so, you are wrong or ignorant of history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Though his official political position was against same-sex marriage, Clinton criticized DOMA as "unnecessary and divisive",[24] while his press-secretary called it "gay baiting, plain and simple".[25][26] However, after Congress had passed the bill with enough votes to override a presidential veto,[26] Clinton signed DOMA. He claims that he did so reluctantly in view of the veto-proof majority, both to avoid associating himself politically with the then-unpopular cause of same-sex marriage, and to defuse momentum for a proposed Federal Amendment to the U.S. Constitution banning same-sex marriage.[26][27] Clinton, who was traveling when Congress acted, signed it into law promptly upon returning to Washington, D.C., on September 21, 1996; he refused to hold a signing ceremony for DOMA and did not allow photographs to be taken of him signing it into law.[28] The White House released a statement in which Clinton said "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".[28]

[restorefreedom]

36. not buying..the proof is in the pudding

but thx for the article clip

please see nxt post for alternate clip from portlander

[portlander23]

29. Maybe DADT, but I call bullshit on DOMA

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-gay-rights_561133d8e4b0af3706e11be0

Clinton backed her husband's Defense of Marriage Act in 1996, and said in a Senate speech in 2004 that marriage between a man and a woman was a "fundamental bedrock principle." In 2007, she dodged when asked whether she agreed with a statement from the then-Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman that homosexuality was immoral.

[EndElectoral]

38. Shhh..people don't want to be reminded of those things.

[dsc]

40. I notice the article provided no citation for any of this

she concedes the 96 (though of course no mention of the reason is given here) I concede the 04 but a citation would be nice for the 07. For example my answer to that question would be the government and its officials have no business at all discussing what is and isn't moral. I presume that would be considered a dodge by the author of this piece.

[portlander23]

41. Sen. Clinton dodges question on gays, immorality

Sen. Clinton dodges question on gays, immorality

Sen. Hillary Clinton sidestepped a question about whether she thinks homosexuality is immoral Wednesday, less than two weeks after telling gay-rights activists she was "proud" to stand by their side.

Clinton was asked the question by ABC News, in the wake of Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Peter Pace's controversial comment that he believed homosexual acts were immoral.

"Well, I'm going to leave that to others to conclude," she said.

Pace told the Chicago Tribune on Monday he supports the "don't ask, don't tell" policy banning openly gay people from serving in the U.S. armed forces.

Clinton's spokesman, Philippe Reins, said the New York senator "obviously" disagrees with Pace and that everyone, including the general, "has the right to be wrong, but should not inject their personal beliefs into public policy."

Then Wednesday night, the campaign released a statement from the senator herself, saying, "I disagree with what he said and do not share his view, plain and simple."

Other public figures have been more forceful in taking issue with Pace's comments, making Clinton's non-answer even more problematic.

Sen. John Warner, a conservative Republican from Virginia, said, "I respectfully, but strongly, disagree with the chairman's view that homosexuality is immoral."

John Edwards, one of Clinton's rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, said, "I don't share that view," when asked about Pace's comments.

Given those remarks, Clinton's decision not to directly answer the question put by ABC News was seen by some analysts as a sign her campaign is so controlled and scripted that it's difficult for her to be spontaneous.

[dsc]

42. that is pretty much what I would have said

Government officials have no business at all discussing what is and what isn't moral. Pace's opinion of the morality of homosexuality is completely irrelevant what matters is his opinion on their fitness to serve, which was on the wrong side of the issue.

[portlander23]

43. We're going to disagree on this one

[Starry Messenger]

34. It's quite true.

It's to the credit of the grassroots LGBT community that we've made so much progress in this era in our lifetimes. The Clinton administration knew they were just applying a band-aid to prevent further RW infection.

[silenttigersong]

37. Isnt DADT

saying stay in the closet ,but you may bleed for your country?What about hate crimes from Bigots in the military that would make it their pastime to try to out Gays?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

39. But..but..she is a strong willed politician who makes "Hard Choices"!!