There seems to be some revisionist history when it comes to Clinton and gay rights

[Very_Boring_Name]

Let me clear some things up.

#1- When Clinton was president he issued an executive order allowing gays to serve openly. This was during a time when congress and the general population were both OVERWHELMINGLY opposed to letting gays serve, yet he did it anyways. DADT came because both congressional republicans and democrats wanted to completely ban all gays from serving, openly or not (and they had a veto-proof majority to do this). Clinton fought for us 100% until he had no room left and congress forced DADT down his throat. What was his alternative?

#2- DOMA also came into existence due to veto-proof majorities in congress. Congress wanted a constitutional ban on gay marriage (which would have been MUCH MUCH MUCH harder, if not impossible, to overturn later). Clinton knew this, and was able to get DOMA signed instead.

There's a reason Clinton is extremely popular within the gay community. If you put everything into context, Clinton was the most GLBT friendly president in history. He didn't have the luxury that President Obama has had with both overwhelming public support on gay issues, as well as (formerly) democratic majorities in both houses, so Clinton didn't have the option of moving forward (despite, as his executive order on DADT proved, his desire to). His only option was to minimize the damage, and he did a damned good job of it.


So the next time you think of typing "Clinton brought us DADT! Clinton brought us DOMA!" ask yourself "what was the alternative?"

[craigmatic]

1. Wow that was big stretch.

Obama has been better on both than Clinton. Clinton also ignored his own base alot so those two policies were a complete cop out.

[Very_Boring_Name]

2. Like I said, Obama has the luxury of popular support and congressional support

and he STILL has to be prodded to act. Clinton had neither, and still did everything he could. In my book, that makes Clinton better.

[johnaries]

4. Congressional support? when?

He may have had a Democratic majority, but some of those were Conservative homophobes. Having a Dem majority didn't do him much good with the Public Option, did it?

[Very_Boring_Name]

6. The public option wasn't supported by the dem majority

DADT repeal and DOMA repeal was/is.

[Alenne]

8. So why didn't the Dem majority repeal DOMA?

They didn't need Obama in order to bring up a vote on repealing DOMA. There IS a lot of revisionist history going on.

[DURHAM D]

10. For one thing - the WH (Justice Dept.) was busy defending it.

The Dems in the House would have been flying in the face of the Obama re-election strategy.

[pnwmom]

15. It's the job of the Justice Dept. to defend passed laws.

That is the default position. It's an extraordinary event when the Justice Department decides not to.

[DURHAM D]

18. Is that all you got?

[BklnDem75]

102. You don't like facts?

Do you prefer the way Alberto Gonzalez handled things?

[dionysus]

104. you mean facts? that post has a fact in it, yes.

[justiceischeap]

130. Bush, Reagan & Clinton all filed briefs against current fed laws at the time

So you can't claim that one.

[phleshdef]

19. The JD did what it had to until it crafted an argument with the right legal footing to stop.

Which it has now done. The Justice Department has declared that it views DOMA as unconstitutional. I'm sorry, but your black and white reasoning on this has no place in this colorful world.

[DURHAM D]

21. Speaking of black and white...

you have provided a perfect example.

through playing now

:hi:

[phleshdef]

26. Just admit you are wrong. Its not hard.

[mkultra]

111. the WH has said they will NOT defend DOMA

After careful consideration, including a review of my recommendation, the President has concluded that given a number of factors, including a documented history of discrimination, classifications based on sexual orientation should be subject to a more heightened standard of scrutiny. The President has also concluded that Section 3 of DOMA, as applied to legally married same-sex couples, fails to meet that standard and is therefore unconstitutional. Given that conclusion, the President has instructed the Department not to defend the statute in such cases. I fully concur with the President’s determination.

[SkyDaddy7]

98. Because they would have to include Pelosi...

I love Pelosi but she gets a HUGE pass on EVERYTHING she had the power to stop or pass that Obama catches hell for here on DU! Funny how that works!

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pnwmom]

16. Right. Both Clinton and Obama are heads and shoulders above

any Republican President or wannabe President.

[pnwmom]

13. I applaud what Clinton did, but I disagree that Obama

had to be prodded to act. What Clinton accomplished by a stroke of the pen in an executive order could be undone just as easily. Obama decided to take the more time-consuming approach of building up support for the repeal of DADT, and training the troops in what would be required under the repeal -- rather than just immediately signing another executive order, as many wanted him to do. So Obama's approach took longer; but when the repeal goes through in September, its effects are much more likely to be successful and permanent.

[Very_Boring_Name]

23. Oh give me a break, that is such a straw man argument

He could have signed an executive order to stop immediate discharges until DADT could be repealed through congress. The two are not mutually exclusive. Many people's lives were destroyed during those 2 years while waiting for him to act.

[pnwmom]

64. And if there had been turmoil as a result of a backlash to what was perceived

as a sudden action, getting Congress to act permanently on repealing DADT would have been less likely.

[Very_Boring_Name]

72. The only backlash would be from republicans

And they didn't control either house, so it wouldn't have mattered. They were voting against EVERY SINGLE ONE of our bills anyways, we didn't need them to repeal DADT.

[pnwmom]

82. The military is full of Republicans, and we needed the help

of the leaders there.

And there's no way DADT could have been passed over a Senate filibuster, as I'm sure you know.

[ruggerson]

80. You do know that Obama capitulated on the anti discrimination language

which was stripped out of the final, compromise bill.

Hence, the next GOP President can simply write an EXEC order and reinstate DADT. Hopefully that is unlikely, but there is nothing permanent about this repeal.

[pnwmom]

83. That possibility is a lot less likely since Obama brought the military leaders onboard with this.

The Republicans would have to reinstate DADT against significant opposition in the military. Do you really think they will want to see this policy flip-flop with every change of administration?

[ruggerson]

84. I agree

but the fact is that there is nothing in the repeal that protects gay and lesbian servicemembers from future homophobic Presidents or military brass.

[vaberella]

90. "prodded to act" You've got to be kidding me.

He acted and put the DADT vote during the lame duck sessions. Everyone hated him and said he would fail. He succeeded and the bill was passed---I don't think that was prodded to act. He knows when and how he can get what he wants...and he works for it. It's hardly needing to be prodded to act.

[Tx4obama]

92. Yes! (Also, see comment #24 for more) n/t

[karynnj]

99. While I agree that opinion has shifted on these issues, there is a reason

that "triangulation" is a word used with Clinton. Clinton and his supporters were the people who first made that claim - using it as a positive.

On DADT, the problem was that Clinton sought to address this in his first weeks in office. His intent was to immediately honor a campaign promise. He was not then all that savvy on the way things worked in DC. He did not do anything to reach out to leaders in the military or Congress before he tried to take action. This led to DADT as a face saving move. It is NOT clear that he could have done better, but it is always impossible to know the path not taken. You can read the testimony of Strom Thurmond's Armed Services Committee. There were very strong voices in favor of gays serving openly - notably John Kerry, who spoke before that committee, whose service gave him credibility. However, most of the committee were far more openly homophobic than the current Senate. In addition, many of the same high military officials, who spoke in favor of gays serving openly last year - were against it in 1993. This includes Colin Powell.

I think that Clinton wanted to honor his promise and reward the incredible support he was given, but it was a misstep to do it as he did. In addition, from Clinton's "the meaning of "is" perspective, DADT was preferable to the then status quo. In reality, it is hard to see the gain - both require the same thing, not being able to let people know you enough to know something as basic as your "spouse". Though I have never served, I can't imagine how you edit your life enough to diminish the role of your life partner to a point where no one is suspicious. In addition, Congress passing Clinton's compromise led to the situation where it had to be repealed, rather than the President changing it with an executive order.

Here is something that Bill Clinton did NOT say:

But against that you have to measure what those problems really represent once you have acknowledged them: Why is there a problem? There is a problem because many people view gays with scorn or derision or fear. There is a problem because when people look at gays or lesbians, they find a lifestyle which they may abhor, cannot understand, do not want to understand, and believe they should not have to understand, and so do not.

The result is that we find ourselves put in the position of either embracing or rejecting what is a fundamental form of discrimination--a dislike of someone or something else because it does not conform to our sense of how we want to be or how we think everybody ought to be.

That is not what this country is supposed to be about. Whether it is a matter of skin color or religion, that is not who we are. And it is also not who we are with respect to matters of sexual preference.

Now, I am not going to spend a lot of time going into or discussing why someone is or is not gay . I am no expert on that. I can only suggest that the vast majority of people to whom I have talked who are gay do not view it as a matter of choice. They are born with that choice already part of their constitution. And for many, there is a lifetime of agony in trying to face up to the realities of who they are as a human being, as a person. And those agonies can drive some to suicide. They drive some to live a life of lies and running away. Others embrace it more readily and more capably.

We are supposed to be a society that does not drive people to run away from themselves or from their history or who they are. We are supposed to be a society which allows human beings to live to the fullest capacity of who they may want to be or who they are, defined by themselves, as long as they do not break the law, break the rules, intrude on other people.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=433&topic_id=302226&mesg_id=303236

This is in many ways a speech that Clinton could not or would not have given in 1993. Had he done so, even if either nothing changed or Congress legislated something like Clinton's DADT solution, it would have been leadership. It would have been speaking of this in terms of morality and American values - and might have helped move some people who were in disagreement.

As to DOMA, the Congressional Amendment is an excuse that really had no merit. It is extraordinarily difficult to pass a Constitutional amendment and many who voted for DOMA would not have voted for this. This was another of the Republican votes taken months before an election that were designed to make Democrats - including the President - vulnerable. This was 1996. The fact is that Clinton, speaking to the Advocate in July 1996 (between DOMA introduction in May 1996 and the vote in September 1996) said:

In a June 1996 interview in the gay and lesbian magazine The Advocate, Clinton said: "I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered.

His statement when he signed it, shows a defensiveness that is unusual - especially as he spends more time speaking on OTHER gay issues where he was on the right side - after minimizing the significance of this bill. Had it NOT been passed, people married in the states where it is legal would be getting full federal rights.

His statement:

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.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scotts/ftp/wpaf2mc/clinton.html

While on DADT, Clinton started out with very good intentions to end a travesty - and found he could not do it, on DOMA, there is no evidence that he ever spoke against it. In fairness, only one Senator up for re-election voted for it - and, in fairness to Clinton, John Kerry represented Massachusetts and even though he faced his toughest re-election, voting against it would not have been the killer it was thought to be elsewhere.

I think your statements, 1 and 2, are as much revisionist history as those you angrily disagree with. Clinton really did support gays, but Clinton, though his entire career, was never one to take political risks to support something because he thought it right.

[okasha]

29. Some of us were there.

We remember, and we know the truth.

Bill Clinton put himself at political risk for the LGBT community. Obama, on the other hand, has cozied up to homophobe after homophobe--Kirbyjohn Michael, Donnie McClurkin, Rick Warren--and says flatly he's against equal marriage because "God isn't in the mix." What he has done has come late and reluctantly.

[Drunken Irishman]

33. What political risk?

[karynnj]

100. Yes we were - and some of see that Clinton, who had many political gifts, was not someone who took

political risks because it was the right thing to do. Consider that after Kerry lost, it was Clinton who told people in the media that Kerry refused to take his advice and endorse all the anti-gay civil unions bills.

Now, as it was Clinton who leaked this - not Kerry, whose staff did admit it happened, saying Kerry said that he would never do that, he obviously saw it as the politically right thing to do - unless you want to believe that he was attempting to undermine the Democratic nominee. With CLINTON as the nominee, it might have been a marginally good political tactic.

[BklnDem75]

105. Hilarious to give Clinton a pass...

while taking Obama to task for Clinton's policies.

[mkultra]

112. then you should remember Clinton saying he did NOT support same-sex marriage

At the exact same time that DOMA was put through congress.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

127. Bill Clinton was against marriage equality, too.

Why does he get a pass?

And Obama's legislative accomplishments vis-a-vis LGBTs is certainly far superior to Clinton's. Can you name one instance in which Obama (unlike Clinton) actively proposed, endorsed or signed legislation that specifically took away rights from LGBT citizens?

Bill Clinton took out radio spots on religious stations *bragging* about how he signed DOMA. Care to explain that?

[phleshdef]

3. I think we need to lay off both Clinton and Obama. Neither are even close to being the enemy here.

The enemies are the people that are so full of hatred for gays and lesbians, that they are doing everything they can to prevent them from getting a break on anything. The enemies are the ones pushing to constitutionally define marriage so that not even individual states can recognize gay marriage if they choose to. The enemies are the ones who oppose recognizing hate crimes for what they are whenever they are committed specifically to target a person over their sexual orientation. And while everyone is running around, flailing their arms about with grossly absurd hyperbole aimed at Bill Clinton, Barack Obama and other Democrats that actually do care about gay people and actually do want them to be treated as human beings should be, the right wing bigotry machine is gearing up to collect as many culture war casualties as it possible can.

[DURHAM D]

5. Sadly I think some of the people most vocal and

misinformed on this issue are members of my own community. It was necessary during the primary to totally trash Bill (in order to trash Hillary) on this issue and therefore necessary to simplify it, spin it hard, and lie. I understood the political strategy by the Obama campaign - it was successful.

While Bill spent a ton of political capital in the face of hate (and a "we will show that hayseed" attitude from powerful Democratic Senators) Obama has spent little.

I have always assumed that it will not be until Obama has served 8 years and more time has passed before the facts can fix themselves. I hope I am still around. I am now in my 5th decade of gay activism. I am not tired but I am sick of the history rewrite.

On edit - Isn't it time for THE LIST to appear?

[great white snark]

9. You want the list?

Bill Clinton's accomplishments that helped the LGBT community:





















Can a list be -2?

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[phleshdef]

14. Theres no doubt that bigotry against gay people has softened significantly.

Thats no excuse to shit all over Obama's accomplishments. I think you care less about what Obama has done or might still do for gay rights than you do about discouraging anyone for giving him any credit for any of it.

[DURHAM D]

17. Huh?

Obama may be your hero but not mine. I like him well enough but he is not a leader on this issue - he is a mild-mannered broker.

[phleshdef]

20. He led the repeal of DADT. That is factually undeniable in every single way.

[DURHAM D]

22. right

WRONG

[phleshdef]

24. He ran on it. He ORDERED his people to pursue it. He asked Congress to repeal it at a joint session.

He ORDERED the study that destroyed the myths that people in the military couldn't deal with it.

He SENT his people to testify before Congress that repeal should happen.

Congress passed the repeal.

He SIGNED the repeal.

You can not refute one single item I've listed. NOT ONE.

[Tx4obama]

28. You are 100% correct! n/t

[DURHAM D]

31. You mean the study where they asked the straight spouse (and parents) what they thought about it?

He delayed and delayed until he finally understood that he was losing support (money, votes, ground running) from our community and putting his re-election in jeopardy.

Damn those pesky queers. (Which I assume you are not one.) They actually want their rights.

[phleshdef]

37. Yes indeed, I mean that study. It was a good study and it served a good purpose.

I understand that the questions were controversial. But they were the very questions opponents were using as red herrings to oppose repeal. They NEEDED to be asked in order to defeat the argument. And thats actually exactly what happened.

There is nothing wrong with asking the military and the military families how they feel about it. The result cemented the credibility of the notion that military people who were not gay were going to be able to behave just fine after repeal. That was the purpose of it and it served it.

It just makes you so mad that Obama did it his way instead of your way. It makes you so mad because his way worked. It was successful. Obama pushed the repeal. He repealed it. He gets to take credit as being the President that did it and theres not a damn thing you can do to change that fact. That just gets under your skin so badly, doesn't it?

He didn't delay shit. Thats an utter lie. Like I said, you seem to care more about discrediting Obama than you care about the cause of gay rights. Its obvious where your priorities are and they have no interest in the truth.

[DURHAM D]

41. Did Truman ask the parents and spouses of white people if their kids could serve with blacks?

[phleshdef]

49. No. He also didn't have to repeal any existing laws. And it still took SIX YEARS

...after his initial executive order to actually desegregate the military.

Obama was faced with having to get Congress to agree on this in order for the repeal to truly be a repeal and that was because of an existing law Congress had already passed. In order to build more political capital, he decided to collect HARD DATA that refuted the bigoted notions that some in Congress were pushing and still are pushing like "social experiment with the military" talking points, etc. He gambled that "hey, I bet if we ask military people what THEY think, most of them will report that these concerns are overall, invalid". And he was dead damn right. It was no time after the study came out that repeal happened.

[SpartanDem]

119. Actually he did

Military Surveyed Troops In 1940s, Prior To Racially Integrating The Forces

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2010/07/20/177014/old-surveys/

[Drunken Irishman]

40. Do you have any proof to support your claim?

Because I'd like to see any evidence Obama sat idly by and did nothing on this matter for shits and giggles, as you're implying.

It's funny - you act as if Pres. Obama has been in office for years and years. He waited and waited and waited and waited...not even two years after taking office to make it an issue.

:rofl:

[phleshdef]

43. I know! He took 2 whole years to repeal over 200 years of oppression against gay soldiers.

God damn homophobe!

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[boppers]

54. You think everybody surveyed was straight?

Lots of people were asked lots of questions, and you didn't have to be straight to be surveyed.

[karynnj]

103. Any First Lady running would change the dynamics of how her husband is treated

I know that Hillary Clinton had merits of her own, but it undeniable that a major part of what she ran on was the accomplishments of the Clinton Presidency. This is fair as she contributed to many of the things that were successes. You can say that Hillary was different, but Hillary first ran for office in 2000. If in the future, Michelle Obama opted to run for office, I can assure you that her and her husband's actions in the White House would be questioned.

When the former first spouse is NOT in the running, it would be extremely rare to ever speak of any of the things that went wrong in a Presidency. It does nothing to help the candidate criticizing the President. When they are advocating something very different, they simply don't mention the President. (In Gore's case, he ran on that Presidency even as he ran away from Clinton. But, in 2004, Kerry spoke only of Clinton successes - comparing them to Bush failures - as any Democrat would have done. The same was true in speeches by Ted Kennedy in Kerry's support.

There was no way that anyone could have run successfully against Hillary, if they allowed her complete credit for anything she wanted to claim (ie "initiating SCHIP" - when the effort began in the Senate, copying a MA state bill) and not saying anything about anything - NAFTA, DOMA, DADT, the welfare bill etc that a given candidate was against. Especially while the Clinton's attacked Obama as inexperienced and tried to dig up anything negative in his past - including a kindergarten essay!)

Which "powerful Democratic Senators" are you speaking of when you say - "While Bill spent a ton of political capital in the face of hate (and a "we will show that hayseed" attitude from powerful Democratic Senators)" ? On DADT, Senator Nunn of Georgia was very against it, but I never ever heard that Nunn acted as if Clinton were a "hayseed". It is true that Bush 1 and some Republicans thought so. It was also true that many in the party disagreed with Clinton and the DLC shifting the party to the right.

[xchrom]

11. Recommend

[Drunken Irishman]

25. It's funny some of you are okaying Clinton's compromising...

Considering Obama has gotten shit on constantly for some of his compromises.

[Very_Boring_Name]

30. Clinton compromised. Obama capitulates.

[Drunken Irishman]

32. Uh huh...

Clinton compromised on DOMA because there was going to be an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage? I don't buy it. I don't believe Republicans would have been successful in ratifying an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriage.

So I think the entire premise of this post is ridiculous.

Face it, there are many, many individuals on this forum who are hypocrites.

[DURHAM D]

34. What were you doing in the 90s? nt

[Drunken Irishman]

36. Not signing into laws taking away rights of gay Americans.

[DURHAM D]

38. In other words - nothing.

Are you gay now? Were you gay then?

[Drunken Irishman]

42. I was in elementary in the 90s...

Why does it matter if I'm gay or not? Why do you care? Would it make you feel better if I said yes that I was gay?

[DURHAM D]

45. Its clear you are not.

[Drunken Irishman]

46. Why?

Because I don't buy your line of thought?

I'd hate to live in your judgmental bubble.

I don't see how it adds any value to this debate to tell you what my sexuality is. It's not like you're going to accept my opinion if I said I was gay...right? So why does it matter?

[Name removed]

48. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ruggerson]

78. Uh, DI

I was working on marriage rights in the 90's - a case from Hawaii, in fact, called Baehr v Miike. The entire Congress was filled with homophobes, both Dems and Repubs (Sam Nunn was one of the worst). They indeed would have been able to pass a constitutional amendment and it most likely would have been ratified. They were freaking out over the Hawaii case, as it looked like Hawaii was going to legalize same sex marriage. DOMA forestalled a constitutional mendment. It was a Hobson's choice, but DOMA was not generated by Clinton. Bob Barr wrote it and it was birthed in Congress.

Was Clinton overall a great President for the LGBT community? Absolutely not. He capitulated numerous times. DADT was a defeat for him, as he didn't have the votes to stop a ban, he can be at least credited for trying. Not so on DOMA. He could have vetoed DOMA as a symbolic, courageous gesture (it would have been overridden, but at least he would have gone down in glory.) Instead he signed it in tihe middle of the night, a cowardly move at best.

[Drunken Irishman]

94. I do not think 38 states would have ratified it...

38 states is a lot. That's what, 76% of the Union?

Hard to imagine that would happen. Similar to the ERA, it would have been a hotly contested moment that, IMO, would have come up short.

[ruggerson]

131. I do

and the numbers in the Senate and the House on DOMA give us some idea of how powerful the forces of ignorance were. In any case, I'm glad we'll never know, because repealing a constitutional amendment is a much tougher job than overturning a statute.

[Drunken Irishman]

145. I'm glad we'll never know too...

But I fear we sold ourselves up the creek on the fear here with DOMA.

38 states is a lot. I just don't believe it would have been able to pass that many state legislatures.

[karynnj]

106. Not to mention - even to the Advocate, in July months before the vote in September,

he made the point that he believed the basic element of the bill - that marriage was between a man and a woman.

I would argue that where he was for gay rights on many other issues, in 1996, he was NOT for anything that could be seen as gay marriage. This is not really that unusual - if you look at polling, it is only recently that the issue polls near 50%. Clinton was not in the small vanguard in 1996.

Looking just at the Senate, because both Houses would have to override it, the question is whether he could get 24 Senators to stand with him. Imagine that in July, when he actually was agreeing with the basis of the amendment in a GAY media source, he argued about the fact that it was usurping a state right that was never before questioned - except to prevent states from discriminating in ways prohibited by other federal amendments. There were 14 Senators who voted for it. He would have needed another 10.

Here is the list of yeses:
Abraham (R-MI)
Ashcroft (R-MO)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Bradley (D-NJ)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brown (R-CO)
Bryan (D-NV)
Bumpers (D-AR)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (R-CO)
Chafee (R-RI)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Cohen (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coverdell (R-GA)
Craig (R-ID)
D'Amato (R-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Exon (D-NE)
Faircloth (R-NC)
Ford (D-KY)
Frahm (R-KS)
Frist (R-TN)
Glenn (D-OH)
Gorton (R-WA)
Graham (D-FL)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grams (R-MN)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hatfield (R-OR)
Heflin (D-AL)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Jeffords (R-VT)
Johnston (D-LA)
Kassebaum (R-KS)
Kempthorne (R-ID)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
Lugar (R-IN)
Mack (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nickles (R-OK)
Nunn (D-GA)
Pressler (R-SD)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Roth (R-DE)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Shelby (R-AL)
Simpson (R-WY)
Smith (R-NH)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Warner (R-VA)
Wellstone (D-MN)

Remembering that some of the good liberals who were yeses were up for re-election (Lautenberg and Wellstone) and might have not wanted to cast a vote the would not put it over the top, but would hurt. The question is whether the President, through arm twisting and putting together a group with at least 10 Senators (in addition to the 14). With the power of the President firmly behind a veto - I suspect that he could have done it - but quite possibly at the cost of re-election. (Then the bill would be reintroduced in the new Congress and signed by the President - if the Republican had won.)

[stevenleser]

117. Very well said.

I understand lingering hard feelings toward Obama, but he has come a long way. But to compare Clinton's record on LGBT rights as preferable to Obama's? Completely unbelievable.

[Tx4obama]

35. Clinton failed. Obama is getting the job done. n/t

[Very_Boring_Name]

39. Clinton didn't fail at all. He set up the groundwork for change. There's a reason the gay community

prefers Clinton to Obama, despite people like you trying to tell me who was better for my rights.

[Tx4obama]

47. People like me?

I find that hilarious since you don't have the slightest clue regarding my sexuality, partner, or my standing in my local LGBT community.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[CakeGrrl]

62. Having DADT/DOMA implemented on his watch was the groundwork to repealing it.

What. The FUCK?

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

That's one whacked-out way to make sure Clinton gets credit for the work that President Obama is actually DOING.

[Very_Boring_Name]

70. Having DOMA/DADT instead of constitutional amendments was groundwork

Obama never would have had the guts to spend the political capital.

[ProSense]

74. So Clinton

signed DOMA and DADT to make Obama look good?

You're claiming Clinton made life better by implementing DADT and DOMA, which is ridiculous

Are you serious with this ridiculous argument? Don't answer. Evidently, you are.

So how did Clinton help Obama push the UN to back gay rights?

Did Clinton help Obama appoint the first openly transgender person?

[CakeGrrl]

75. A totally unprovable hypothetical: "Never would have had the guts"

At the end of the day, no matter what "woulda, shoulda, coulda" you want to imagine in an alternate reality, this President will have repeal done on HIS watch. And most people will credit him for that, as it should be.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

134. Was it gutsy when Clinton *bragged* about signing DOMA in radio spots for religious networks?

People here always attack Obama for making appearances with people like Warren, McClurkin, etc., yet when Clinton *bragged* about anti-gay legislation he signed to the very same anti-gay political demographic Warren and McClurkin belong to, they suddenly fall silent.

Why is that?

[Number23]

140. Damn. You just killed this thread.

I would give a $5 Aussie note to anyone with anything resembling a coherent answer to his question.

[AtomicKitten]

97. That's some funny stuff alright.

[Number23]

73. how very interesting

There's a reason the gay community

prefers Clinton to Obama

you speak for all gays? What do you think the numbers would be if you counted black gays, Hispanic gays, Muslim gays? You speak with such authority -- does your authority also include gays with melanin?

[vaberella]

91. LULZ---you're posts keep on making me laugh.

:rofl:

[CakeGrrl]

56. Rich, isn't it?

Clinton: He was forced to do it.

Obama: He's a weak Republican appeaser.

What crap.

[ProSense]

57. It's amazing

how many Clinton loyalists are slamming Obama. It's like Lanny Davis pretending to be a socialist after the election.

Socialists for Clinton.

:rofl:

[xchrom]

27. a little more fleshed out, if you will:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don%27t_ask,_don%27t_tell

The policy was introduced as a compromise measure in 1993 by President Bill Clinton who campaigned on the promise to allow all citizens to serve in the military regardless of sexual orientation.<10> At the time, per the December 21, 1993 Department of Defense Directive 1332.14,<11> it was legal policy (10 U.S.C. § 654)<12> that homosexuality is incompatible with military service and that persons who engaged in homosexual acts or stated that they are homosexual or bisexual were to be discharged.<10><13> The Uniform Code of Military Justice, passed by Congress in 1950 and signed by President Harry S Truman, established the policies and procedures for discharging homosexual servicemembers.<14>

Congress overrode Clinton by including text in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1994 (passed in 1993) requiring the military to abide by regulations essentially identical to the 1982 absolute ban policy.<13> The Clinton Administration on December 21, 1993,<15> issued Defense Directive 1304.26, which directed that military applicants were not to be asked about their sexual orientation.<13> This is the policy now known as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". The phrase was coined by Charles Moskos, a military sociologist.

The full name of the policy at the time was "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue." The "Don’t Ask" provision mandates that military or appointed officials will not ask about or require members to reveal their sexual orientation. The "Don’t Tell" states that a member may be discharged for claiming to be a homosexual or bisexual or making a statement indicating a tendency towards or intent to engage in homosexual activities. The "Don’t Pursue" establishes what is minimally required for an investigation to be initiated. A "Don’t Harass" provision was added to the policy later. It ensures that the military will not allow harassment or violence against service members for any reason.<5>

At times beatings of gay personnel were severe and occasionally even fatal, as in the case of Allen R. Schindler, Jr.. In defense of his DADT policy, President Clinton cited U.S. Navy Radioman Third Class Schindler, brutally murdered by shipmate Terry M. Helvey (with the aid of an accomplice), leaving a "nearly-unrecognizable corpse".<16> DADT has officially prohibited such behavior, but harassment continues.<17>

In the midst of the 1993 controversy, the National Defense Research Institute prepared a study for the Office of the Secretary of Defense published as Sexual Orientation and U.S. Military Personnel Policy: Options and Assessment.<18> It concluded, in measured language, that "circumstances could exist under which the ban on homosexuals could be lifted with little or no adverse consequences for recruitment and retention"<19> if the policy were implemented with care, principally because many factors contribute to individual enlistment and re-enlistment decisions.

In Congress, Democratic Senator Sam Nunn of Georgia led the contingent that favored maintaining the absolute ban on gays. Reformers were led by Democratic Congressman Barney Frank of Massachusetts, who favored modification (but ultimately voted for the defense authorization bill with the gay ban language), and retired Republican Senator Barry Goldwater, who argued on behalf of full repeal. After Congressional phone lines were flooded by organized anti-gay opposition, President Clinton backed off on his campaign promise to repeal the ban in favor of the DADT "compromise."

[CakeGrrl]

51. Unrec.

Selective apologism.

[Very_Boring_Name]

52. What a surprise!

:rofl::rofl:

[CakeGrrl]

53. Back atcha.

I've got your screed in the memory banks, trust.

:hi:

[ProSense]

55. What absolute

"Clinton fought for us 100% until he had no room left and congress forced DADT down his throat. "

... BS

This was Clinton introducing the compromise that would lead to Don't Ask Don't Tell

Press Conference on "Gays in the Military" (January 29, 1993) Bill Clinton

President Bill Clinton addresses the press regarding his decision to lift the ban excluding homosexual individuals from military service. He argues that in the absence of any other disqualifying conduct, American citizens who wish to serve their country should be able to do so.

This transcript contains the published text of the speech, not the actual words spoken. There may be some differences between the transcript and the audio/video content.

<...>

Transcript

The President. Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. I'm sorry, we had a last-minute delay occasioned by another issue, not this one.

The debate over whether to lift the ban on homosexuals in the military has, to put it mildly, sparked a great deal of interest over the last few days. Today, as you know, I have reached an agreement, at least with Senator Nunn and Senator Mitchell, about how we will proceed in the next few days. But first I would like to explain what I believe about this issue and why, and what I have decided to do after a long conversation, and a very good one, with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and discussions with several Members of Congress.

The issue is not whether there should be homosexuals in the military. Everyone concedes that there are. The issue is whether men and women who can and have served with real distinction should be excluded from military service solely on the basis of their status. And I believe they should not.

The principle on which I base this position is this: I believe that American citizens who want to serve their country should be able to do so unless their conduct disqualifies them from doing so. Military life is fundamentally different from civilian society; it necessarily has a different and stricter code of conduct, even a different code of justice. Nonetheless, individuals who are prepared to accept all necessary restrictions on their behavior, many of which would be intolerable in civilian society, should be able to serve their country honorably and well.

I have asked the Secretary of Defense to submit by July the 15th a draft Executive order, after full consultation with military and congressional leaders and concerned individuals outside of the Government, which would end the present policy of the exclusion from military service solely on the basis of sexual orientation and at the same time establish rigorous standards regarding sexual conduct to be applied to all military personnel.

This draft order will be accompanied by a study conducted during the next 6 months on the real, practical problems that would be involved in this revision of policy, so that we will have a practical, realistic approach consistent with the high standards of combat effectiveness and unit cohesion that our armed services must maintain. I agree with the Joint Chiefs that the highest standards of conduct must be required.

The change cannot and should not be accomplished overnight. It does require extensive consultation with the Joint Chiefs, experts in the Congress and in the legal community, joined by my administration and others. We've consulted closely to date and will do so in the future. During that process, interim measures will be placed into effect which, I hope, again, sharpen the focus of this debate. The Joint Chiefs of Staff have agreed to remove the question regarding one's sexual orientation from future versions of the enlistment application, and it will not be asked in the interim.

We also all agree that a very high standard of conduct can and must be applied. So the single area of disagreement is this: Should someone be able to serve their country in uniform if they say they are homosexuals, but they do nothing which violates the code of conduct or undermines unit cohesion or morale, apart from that statement? That is what all the furor of the last few days has been about. And the practical and not insignificant issues raised by that issue are what will be studied in the next 6 months.

Through this period ending July 15th, the Department of Justice will seek continuances in pending court cases involving reinstatement. And administrative separation under current Department of Defense policies based on status alone will be stayed pending completion of this review. The final discharge in cases based only on status will be suspended until the President has an opportunity to review and act upon the final recommendations of the Secretary of Defense with respect to the current policy. In the meantime, a member whose discharge has been suspended by the Attorney General will be separated from active duty and placed in standby reserve until the final report of the Secretary of Defense and the final action of the President. This is the agreement that I have reached with Senator Nunn and Senator Mitchell.

During this review process, I will work with the Congress. And I believe the compromise announced today by the Senators and by me shows that we can work together to end the gridlock that has plagued our city for too long.

This compromise is not everything I would have hoped for or everything that I have stood for, but it is plainly a substantial step in the right direction. And it will allow us to move forward on other terribly important issues affecting far more Americans.

My administration came to this city with a mission to bring critical issues of reform and renewal and economic revitalization to the public debate, issues that are central to the lives of all Americans. We are working on an economic reform agenda that will begin with an address to the joint session of Congress on February 17th. In the coming months the White House Task Force on Health Care, chaired by the First Lady, will complete work on a comprehensive health care reform proposal to be submitted to Congress within 100 days of the commencement of this administration. We will be designing a system of national service to begin a season of service in which our Nation's unmet needs are addressed and we provide more young people the opportunity to go to college. We will be proposing comprehensive welfare reform legislation and other important initiatives.

I applaud the work that has been done in the last 2 or 3 days by Senator Nunn, Senator Mitchell, and others to enable us to move forward on a principle that is important to me without shutting the Government down and running the risk of not even addressing the family and medical leave issue, which is so important to America's families, before Congress goes into its recess. I am looking forward to getting on with this issue over the next 6 months and with these other issues which were so central to the campaign and, far more importantly, are so important to the lives of all the American people.

Q. Mr. President, yesterday a Federal court in California said that the military ban on homosexuals was unconstitutional. Will you direct the Navy and the Justice Department not to appeal that decision? And how does that ruling strengthen your hand in this case?

The President. Well, it makes one point. I think it strengthens my hand, if you will, in two ways. One, I agree with the principle embodied in the case. I have not read the opinion, but as I understand it, the opinion draws the distinction that I seek to draw between conduct and status. And secondly, it makes the practical point I have been making all along, which is that there is not insignificant chance that this matter would ultimately be resolved in the courts in a way that would open admission into the military without the opportunity to deal with this whole range of practical issues, which everyone who has ever thought about it or talked it through concedes are there. So I think it can—it strengthens my hand on the principle as well as on the process.

more

Same with DOMA, it was Clinton's compromise.


President Obama has done more than most Presidents on many issues, but evidently more isn't good enough. In fact, doing more means he's "right wing."

He's got all of Bush's policies to reverse, and some of them are going to be harder to do than others.

Going back to the Clinton years, Obama has reversed or is making progress toward reversing/improving 1990s policies, including DOMA, DADT, Glass-Steagall repeal (implemenatation of the Volcker Rule), trade and more.

Obama doesn't get credit for delivering health care reform, Wall Street reform, which included the first ever CFPB. Obama doesn't get credit for appointing Elizabeth Warren to set up the CFPB, but he gets criticized for not yet making her permanent to an agency that wouldn't exist if not for him.

UN backs gay rights for first time ever

He keeps going, trying to fix what other Presidents screwed up while the excuses and apologies for Clinton become more creative.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[great white snark]

59. Nice wide brush ya got. Care to give examples?

[CakeGrrl]

60. That actually makes more sense in reverse.

"Obama apologists", as you put it, have no reason to "get over" the primaries. That doesn't make sense.

The original post is itself an example of going to great lengths to excuse one President for instituting the very policies that the current President is getting absolutely excoriated for not undoing fast enough.

There is no logical reason for that. There are definitely some ILLOGICAL reasons, to be sure.

[Patriot 76]

61. Double braided pretzel logic.

It's only ok for the guy who couldn't keep his dick in his pants.

[nashville_brook]

63. you right on here, VBN

there's a lot of people who weren't around during the Clinton Administration who don't understand how thing went down. Clinton was actually criticized for "wasting political capital" on GLBT issues early on. Many said he coulda/shoulda left GLBT issues alone. DADT was actually considered 'the end of the world' by conservatives at the time. That DADT is something to move beyond doesn't reflect badly on Clinton -- it was progress at the time.

[ProSense]

65. More revisionism

Clinton introduced DADT less than two weeks after he took office.

And on DOMA:

It's no coincidence that after hiring Penn, Clinton signed the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act and then ran radio ads on Christian radio touting his support for DOMA.

From the Associated Press, October 17, 1996:


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."

DOMA wasn't something Bill Clinton was forced to do, it's something he chose to do, wanted to do, was happy to do. And that explains why Bill Clinton has never repudiated his support for DOMA. I thought at the time, and still thought up until a few days ago, that Bill Clinton was forced to sign DOMA. That the only reason he hadn't repudiated that support - hadn't said "look, it was GOP gay-baiting and I didn't have a choice, no Democrat had a choice" - was because it might put Hillary in a bind, forcing her to also repudiate DOMA, something she of course would WANT to do but couldn't because it might prove politically dangerous. But now it seems Clinton's Choice was much clearer, and more calculated, than that. Clinton thought DOMA was a great idea for him then, and thinks it's a great idea for his wife now. It's not a necessary evil, it's manna from heaven.

The final proof that legislative gay-bashing is still something President Clinton recommends as smart Democratic politics? Bill Clinton wanted to make sure that John Kerry's presidential defeat in 2004 would be blamed on Kerry's unwillingness to sufficiently bash the gays. That's the most sensible explanation for why he made the following leak to Newsweek within days of Kerry's loss (Kerry-Edwards campaign staff tell me that they were not the ones who leaked this to Newsweek, and Clinton and his people were the only other party involved).

link

In the 1993 case Baehr v. Lewin (name later changed to Baehr v. Miike<4>), the Hawaii State Supreme Court ruled that the state must show a compelling interest in prohibiting same-sex marriage. This prompted concern among opponents of same-sex marriage that the state might legalize it, and that eventually other states would recognize same-sex marriages performed in Hawaii. The Defense of Marriage Act is designed specifically to "quarantine" same-sex marriage and prevent states from being required to recognize the marriage of same-sex couples in other states.

The Defense of Marriage Act was authored by then Georgia Representative Bob Barr, then a Republican, and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996, after moving through a legislative fast track and overwhelming approval in both houses of the Republican-controlled U.S. Congress. Its Congressional sponsors stated, "he bill amends the U.S. Code to make explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years; that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex."<5> Barr has since apologized for his sponsorship of the DOMA.<6>

The legislative history of the bill asserts authority to enact the law under Article IV Sec. 1, which grants Congress power to determine "the effect" of such full faith and credit. Proponents made clear their purpose to normalize heterosexual marriage on a federal level and to permit each state to decide for itself whether to recognize same-sex unions concluded in another state. Opponents variously question whether the power asserted extends so far as to permit non-recognition altogether, argue that the law is unconstitutionally vague by leaving out essential details, assert a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, or some combination of the three.

Although Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act into law during his re-election campaign in 1996 and opposed same-sex marriage, he did not mention the law (or the controversy surrounding it) in his 2004 memoir, My Life.<7>

In a June 1996 interview in the gay and lesbian magazine The Advocate, Clinton said: "I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered."<8>

Until May 2009, President Barack Obama's political platform included full repeal of the DOMA.<9><10> As of May 2009, President Barack Obama no longer explicitly supported full repeal of the DOMA. <11><12>

link

Bill Clinton + DOMA = revisionism

4) Finally, there was no discussion at the time (1996) about a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage. DOMA was not crafted as a defense against further assault upon LGBT families by an increasingly hostile Republican Party. National discussion about amending the constitution came in 2003 after the Lawrence decision by the US Supreme Court and the Goodridge decision in Massachusetts and the news that Canada would recognize same-sex marriage. This was 7 years after Clinton signed DOMA.

In my research of NY Times articles I found the following:

"Excerpts from Platform Adopted by Republican National Convention" 8/13/1996:

Individual Rights and Personal Safety - "We endorse the Defense of Marriage Act to prevents states from being forced to recognize same-sex unions..."

Does it say anything about the need for a federal amendment?? NO. If this were the impending doom predicted by Clinton in 2008 (following years of amendments that now inform his defense of DOMA) there is no evidence to support that he was at all public about the possibility of further federal action against LGBT families.

[Name removed]

86. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

87. Here

these are valid points. Being self-righteous, not so much.

[Tarheel_Dem]

66. Unrec for obvious reasons.

:thumbsdown:

[Honeycombe8]

67. What is Bill Clinton's personal view on gay marriage? Has he ever said? nt

[TriMera]

68. This should help to answer your question...

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-05-06/news/29530102_1_gay-marriage-marriage-equality-lesbian-couples

[Alenne]

69. In a June 1996 interview

in the gay and lesbian magazine The Advocate, Clinton said: "I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered."<8>

Now that he is not in office and it can't hurt him he is in favor of gay marriage.

[TriMera]

71. At least he "evolved" in the right direction. n/t

[Alenne]

76. That's awesome.

I'm sure Obama will evolve back to supporting it when he's out of office.

[TriMera]

77. I don't doubt it. n/t

[Drunken Irishman]

96. I actually think he'll do it before he leaves office...

Maybe even before the 2012 election.

[karynnj]

107. To be fair - it is 15 years later and public opinion has shifted enormously on this issue

Clinton is not alone in changing.

[ruggerson]

79. I don't believe he actually issued an exec order

he said he was going to and that's what started the whole uproar which led to DADT.

[ruggerson]

81. I think it behooves the straight people here to listen and learn from gay folks

who actually lived during the period in question and were politically active at that time.

[ProSense]

85. Here

this is what everyone should know.

[CakeGrrl]

88. Well, I'm here to tell you that

there was quite a crapload of talking in my direction the other day, and there sure as hell wasn't much of anything to learn.

Back to the topic at hand, what is the issue with what ProSense has posted regarding Clinton's actions on the subjects of DOMA/DADT?

Is that information in dispute? Did these things NOT actually take place?

[ruggerson]

93. Can't help you with that

as I don't read her posts, but the cliffs notes version of what actually occurred is that Bill Clinton attempted to lift the ban as one of his first moves in office. Congress went nuts (both Repubs and Southern Dems) and, after lengthy, wildly homophobic hearings, the resulting compromise was DADT. Which in that day and age was considered progress.

DOMA was another story entirely. At the time it seemed that Hawaii might be on the verge of court ordered same sex marriage, once again Congress went into hyperdrive with talk of a constitutional amendment. Some moderate Dems saw DOMA as a bad but clearly necessary statute to assuage and appease those who were backing an amendment. Bob Barr wrote the legislation (Southern Repub who now has done a 180 and wants it repealed) and it passed overwhelmingly - with a far more than veto proof super majority. Clinton could have and should have vetoed it anyway, and gone down in glory on the issue - instead he signed it in the middle of the night, one of the most cynical moments of his tenure. He chose the path of cowardice and history will remember that.

The moral of the story is that Clinton was neither all good nor all bad on LGBT issues. He was the first Democrat at a national convention (twenty years ago) to officially and specifically include gays in his acceptance speech, which at the time was considered as welcome and bold as when Obama mentioned repealing DADT in his State of the Union.

It goes without saying that Clinton was a far better President for the LGBT community than the alternatives - Bush or Dole. As Obama is a far better alternative today. Clinton's LGBT legacy is is a mixed bag. But part of his failure can be directly tied to the fact that America 15 -20 years ago held very different views about gay people, and their status as equal citizens, than it does today.

[Jakes Progress]

89. But, but. If that's true (and it is) then the current

president isn't better. We can't have that. Chaos, I tell you. Skies falling.

Better we just stick with the facts based on beliefs instead of reality.

[w4rma]

95. I won't defend Clinton on economics, but I'll defend him on this.

He got sliced and diced by the blue-dogs and had to deal with a veto-proof vote for something worse that DOMA.

[mkultra]

101. Clinton was against same-sex marriage

In a June 1996 interview(the same year DOMA was authored) in the gay and lesbian magazine The Advocate, Clinton said: "I remain opposed to same-sex marriage. I believe marriage is an institution for the union of a man and a woman. This has been my long-standing position, and it is not being reviewed or reconsidered."

Over time, Clinton's personal views on same-sex marriage shifted. In July 2009 he said "I personally support people doing what they want to do. I think it's wrong for someone to stop someone else from doing that." Clinton added that he personally supports same-sex marriage but does not believe it is a "federal question", stating, "I think all these states that do it should do it."

[karynnj]

108. It becomes a federal question, when gays married under state law don't get federal benefits

due to DOMA.

Next month, I am happy to be going to a ceremony for a sister and the woman I have considered my sister in law since the 1980s. They became a couple about the same time my husband and I did in the mid 1980s. I was married the next year, had kids, and recently celebrated my 27th wedding anniversary. They have been together as a couple the same length of time, adopting kids and raising a daughter from my sister's earlier marriage. This summer, they will finally be able to have a ceremony for a civil union in Illinois. Even if Illinois had passed a marriage bill instead, they would still not get the federal benefits that my husband and I did as soon as we married years ago.

[mkultra]

109. all issues of discrimination are federal issues.

At least thats my view. Rights should be established and protected at the federal level. Anything else can be pushed down to the state.

[karynnj]

110. Completely agree

[treestar]

113. Congress forced something down his throat?

That really clashes with the allegations I often see around here about how Obama ought to "grow a spine and use the bully pulpit."

[Very_Boring_Name]

114. Obama has (had) a solid dem majority in congress.

Clinton didn't.

[ProSense]

115. "Clinton didn't." More

fact-free excuses. Clinton introduced DADT two weeks after he took office.

The 103rd Congress: Clinton had 57 Senators and the House Democratic caucus was 258.

[treestar]

124. Had is correct, don't know why you'd include has

But Clinton still had veto power. And what about the bully pulpit that's supposed to be so effective for Obama?

And you haven't mentioned the Senate and how the Senate under Clinton did not filibuster every single damn thing.

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AtomicKitten]

118. Yahtzee.

[CakeGrrl]

121. and...Bingo!

[ohheckyeah]

123. How so?

Bill didn't run in the primaries against Obama and Hillary is her own person.

[treestar]

125. No kidding. The premise of this thread is so damned absurd!

Your explanation is all that makes sense.

[CakeGrrl]

128. I'll say again: DEFENDING Clinton for DOMA/DADT going in, ATTACKING Obama for not ending them yet.

Defies logic.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

135. It's like blaming Obama for not ending the wars ASAP, but not blaming Bush for starting them.

[ieoeja]

120. DADT was progressive. DOMA was regressive.

I remember everyone celebrating DADT because it established that gays were allowed to serve in the military. Not openly, but it at least admitted that they could serve otherwise. That represented progress and was a step to getting to where we are today.

The big negative to DADT is that it prevents a US president from allowing gays to serve openly. By enshrining the prejudice in law, only Congress or the US Supreme Court could change the policy. Fortunately, Congress did just that with the president's signature.


Nobody celebrated DOMA except bigots. Nor was it forced down Clinton's throat. He embraced it whole-heartedly. And as others have posted, he criticized Kerry for *not* embracing anti-equality measures in 2004.


Revisionist : criticizing Clinton for DADT.
Revisionist : excusing Clinton for DOMA.

A pox on both your houses. It's about fucking civil rights. Not a god damned political football! I find both DU sides on this issue repulsive.

[ProSense]

122. DADT was progressive?

No it wasn't. Not unless Sam Nunn was a progressive. Ah, "enshrining the prejudice in law" is not progressive.

Boxer tried to strip DADT from the bill:

● Codification of the Ban on Gays and Lesbians in the Military (September 9, 1993)
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) offered an amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act of 1994 (S. AMDT. 783 to S. 1298) to prevent codification of the discriminatory “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy on lesbians and gays in the military. The amendment failed 33-63 (Record Vote No. 250). HRC supported this amendment. Biden also supported it.

link

Roll call

Kerry, before DADT was proposed gave a Senate speech, where he makes an eloquent case. With very little change - to put in the current situation and his position, this speech could be given today. A rare thing 17 years later on an issue that has showed enormous change in public opinion.

But against that you have to measure what those problems really represent once you have acknowledged them: Why is there a problem? There is a problem because many people view gays with scorn or derision or fear. There is a problem because when people look at gays or lesbians, they find a lifestyle which they may abhor, cannot understand, do not want to understand, and believe they should not have to understand, and so do not.

The result is that we find ourselves put in the position of either embracing or rejecting what is a fundamental form of discrimination--a dislike of someone or something else because it does not conform to our sense of how we want to be or how we think everybody ought to be.

That is not what this country is supposed to be about. Whether it is a matter of skin color or religion, that is not who we are. And it is also not who we are with respect to matters of sexual preference.

Now, I am not going to spend a lot of time going into or discussing why someone is or is not gay . I am no expert on that. I can only suggest that the vast majority of people to whom I have talked who are gay do not view it as a matter of choice. They are born with that choice already part of their constitution. And for many, there is a lifetime of agony in trying to face up to the realities of who they are as a human being, as a person. And those agonies can drive some to suicide. They drive some to live a life of lies and running away. Others embrace it more readily and more capably.

We are supposed to be a society that does not drive people to run away from themselves or from their history or who they are. We are supposed to be a society which allows human beings to live to the fullest capacity of who they may want to be or who they are, defined by themselves, as long as they do not break the law, break the rules, intrude on other people.

Now, that is conduct, and conduct is what should matter in making judgments about what should or should not be allowed within the military . Status, the actual fact of being gay , and only being gay without attendant conduct that might offend somebody, cannot be sufficient in the United States of America to disallow somebody the choice, if they are qualified in every other regard, of serving their Nation.

Now, if we were to adopt a policy in this country that were to codify discrimination of this form, I think we would turn our backs on a number of different things, Mr. President, not the least of which is reality. Is there anyone in the Senate, or in this country, or in the Pentagon particularly, who believes that none of the 58,000 heroes listed on the wall in front of the Lincoln Memorial was gay ? I have never heard anybody, nor do I believe anybody could, make that assertion. Is there anyone who believes that there are not hundreds, perhaps even thousands of individuals who were gay who are buried beneath the white crosses at Arlington?

Is there anyone who does not believe that there are thousands of gays and lesbians in the military at this minute? Eleven thousand of them over the last few years have admitted it, voluntarily or not and they were drummed out.

We can be assured that there are surely thousands more who are scared to admit, who are forced by our policy to live a lie. They go about their business. They defend their country. They defend our freedoms. They defend the Constitution because they believe in what we, as a nation, stand for.

The question is not whether we should have gays in the military , because we have gays in the military . Gays have fought in the Revolution, in the Civil War, in both World Wars, in Korea, in Vietnam, in the Persian Gulf, and they fought, Mr. President, and they died not as gays or lesbians, but as Americans.

So the question is whether we as a country should continue to treat a whole group of people as second-class citizens? Is it appropriate to codify a lie, to pretend that there are no gays in the military ? Is it right to continue a policy that says to this group of Americans you are somehow not part of America, not entitled to help defend America, not someone whom we are willing to openly associate with in the military , even though every day in the workplace, every day in schools and colleges across America, we have learned to live and work together?

Mr. President, to codify discrimination in the military alone is not worthy of America. These are people who want to serve our country. They want to risk their lives and we respond instead by treating them like criminals, requiring them to hide from the fundamental part of their own identities not asked for but God given, forcing them into lives of secrecy and needless and senseless fear.

[Name removed]

129. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ProSense]

132. There

was nothing progressive about DADT. Not even in pretense.

[Name removed]

133. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TriMera]

136. Really? Were you gay and in the military prior to DADT? I was.

I was discharged for being a lesbian in 1985, but for 6 months prior to that, I was threatened with jail time for lying on my enlistment papers. You see, back then they were allowed to have you sign a document swearing that you were not a homosexual. DADT sucked, but at least folks couldn't be sent to jail for lying on an official government document. I didn't go to jail (luckily), but some did. So, don't tell those of us who lived it that we don't know what we are talking about.

[ProSense]

138. Again

what does that have to do with Clinton's position and what DADT did? Gays were still being discharged. The bill was a disgrace, which is why President Obama got so much flak for not moving fast enough.

It wasn't progressive. Clinton could have issued an executive order, no Congress needed. He could have rallied Democrats to oppose DADT, and the bill wouldn't have gotten the 67 votes to override a veto. Thirty-three Senators voted to strip it from the bill.

Clinton could have done what Obama just did on DOMA. Stand up at the executive level.

[TriMera]

139. I'm not arguing that DADT was a good thing, but

it was better than what we had. I could go round and round with you on Clinton "could haves" and, in the end we might even end up in agreement. However, that would be a huge waste of time. As far as taking a stand on DOMA at the executive level, President Obama has stepped aside and that's good enough for now, IMO.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

126. The same Clinton who told John Kerry to support gay-marriage bans?

http://www.americablog.com/2007/06/bill-clinton-reportedly-told-john-kerry.html

And this was when he was out of office.

And how do you explain this:

From the Associated Press, October 17, 1996:

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."

Personally, I can't recall any time Obama ever actively proposed or signed legislation that would hurt the LGBT community, let alone brag about it to fundies, though there are certainly many positive things he has done for them, even if he is wrong on the marriage issue.

[MessiahRp]

137. +1,000,000

Exactly what I was going to say (about the Clinton comment to Kerry). Obama has been no prize on LGBT issues but Clinton was worse.

Rp

[Number23]

141. Damn. This is the SECOND time you've killed this thread

[Starbucks Anarchist]

142. LOL, thanks.

:hi:

[Name removed]

143. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tx4obama]

144. Ah, so we should all 'THANK' Bill Clinton for signing into law DADT and DOMA?

See comment #65