Clinton’s claim that DOMA had to be enacted to stop an anti-gay marriage amendment
Hillary Clinton’s claim that DOMA had to be enacted to stop an anti-gay marriage amendment to the U.S. ConstitutionMichelle Ye Hee Lee
Washington Post
We always place the burden of proof on the speaker. However, the Clinton campaign declined to comment in response to our inquiries. So we examined whether there really is evidence to support her explanation that there was enough political momentum to amend the U.S. Constitution, and that “there had to be some way to stop that.” What we found was a lot murkier than she made it seem. The evidence, if any, is pretty slim.
Our review of congressional record and news coverage from 1996 found little public evidence that Democratic lawmakers decided to vote for DOMA because of a threat of a constitutional amendment. Among Democrats who defended their “yes” votes on the floor, many said they supported gay rights but they supported the bill to preserve states’ rights.
Elizabeth Birch, former head of the Human Rights Campaign who fought against DOMA, said the actual threat of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage came after President George W. Bush took office and vowed to reserve marriage for heterosexual unions. (Birch challenged Bill Clinton’s argument in 2013, and also wrote about Hillary Clinton’s comment on “The Rachel Maddow Show.”) This proposal, the Federal Marriage Amendment, was first introduced in Congress in 2002, then for several years after that.
“Regardless of what lessons were learned, Hillary Clinton today is one of the most important global voices on LGBT rights,” Birch said. But in 1996, “there was not, at the time, a kind of concentrated threat of a constitutional amendment. That came four years later.”
This is a difficult claim to fact-check, because Clinton essentially explained what she believed her husband was thinking when he supported DOMA. Clearly, The Fact Checker has no insight into what was in his mind in 1996, nor are we privy to the private conversations he may have had then. We are limited to publicly available information and the recollections of those who were involved in the 1996 DOMA debate. And even then, we did not find clear evidence to support her explanation.
We wavered between Three and Four Pinocchios. Clinton’s answer leans toward Three Pinocchios on the facts surrounding the DOMA debate, because at least two lawmakers we spoke to said such a concern of a constitutional amendment did exist at the time, despite the lack of evidence in congressional records and news coverage.
Where Clinton’s statement becomes problematic is when she says “there was certainly evidence to support” 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.” This broader characterization of events frames the political momentum toward a constitutional amendment as so prevalent that DOMA had to be enacted as a defensive measure to stop the bubbling movement. That’s absolutely wrong — and thus tipped us to Four Pinocchios.
Related:
Thom Hartmann: Clinton lied to Rachel Maddow on DOMA and played "poor me victim" on "shouting"
Steve Kornacki: Why Bill Clinton really signed DOMA
The Advocate: Bernie Sanders Doesn't Share Hillary Clinton's Memory of How DOMA Passed
The Advocate: President Hillary Clinton would compromise on civil rights if necessary
"Some are trying to rewrite history" on Defense of Marriage Act
Clinton: ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ and DOMA Were ‘Defensive Actions’ To Stop Anti-LGBT Conservatives
= new reply since forum marked as read
even get passed, thank goodness.
If neither of her unconstitutional flag desecration bills could make it to Dummya's desk, how serious was the threat of a Constitutional amendment, which has to meet a much higher standard than a bill.
And, would someone explain to me why an unconstitutional bill forbidding flag desecration would have been better than a Constitutional amendment forbidding flag desecration?
Throwing red meat to the nation's neocons in hopes of getting elected or re-elected is the drill here.
DOMA passed July 1996, signed into law--instead of being vetoed, as it should have been--September 21, 1996, less than two months away from Presidential re-election.
Two flag desecration bills, put forward by Senator Hillary Clinton, in contemplation of running for President in 2008 as a, um, moderate.
Same bs excuse for both--preventing a Constitutional amendment.
The CIC and Congress have overlapping powers regarding the military. By custom and tradition, once one has acted regarding a specific military matter, the other keeps its hands off that specific matter.
As far as DADT, even worse bs. Reagan had signed an Executive Order excluding gays from the military. Bubba had every power simply to revoke Reagan's vile executive order via another executive order. However, Bubba did not want to take responsibility for cutting back on Reagan's vileness by an Executive Order of his (Bubba's) own, so he got Congress to pass DADT. That made it dicey for the Executive to give military members of the GLBTQ community greater and better rights than DADT gave them.
Another Clinton M.O. was to lobby hard as hell for something like repeal of Glass Steagall and the Commodities Futures Financial Services Act then point to an allegedly "veto proof majority" as the reason for signing it.
Don't trust the Clintons? Gee, I cannot imagine why. 
Let me count the ways.
That's her position?
