Gay Activists Unhappy With Clinton REMARKS On DOMA

[Segami]

Sen. Bernard Sanders isn’t the only one taking Hillary Clinton to task over her recent assertion that the Defense of Marriage Act was a “defensive” measure to prevent worse discrimination against LGBT people.

A number of gay rights activists took to Twitter to say Clinton engaged in historic revisionism during her appearance Friday on “The Rachel Maddow Show” when she said DOMA was a means to stop the enactment of a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage entirely. Many of those activists also tempered their objections by saying Clinton is generally doing right on LGBT rights during her campaign.

David Mixner, a gay rights activist who once supported Bill Clinton before the two had a falling out over “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” urged LGBT people to reject the explanation of DOMA offered by the Democratic presidential candidate.

Hilary Rosen, a lesbian Democratic activist in D.C. and known Clinton supporter, said Sanders was right in his criticism during the Jefferson-Jackson dinner on Saturday that Clinton is revising history to explain DOMA.


Also saying Clinton engaged in revisionism is Joe Sudbay, a D.C.-based progressive blogger known for being the first to get President Obama to say he could “evolve” on same-sex marriage when he had yet to support marriage equality. Sudbay pointed out Bill Clinton in 1996 campaigned on his support for DOMA in a radio advertisement to religious conservatives.

cont'

http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/10/25/gay-activists-unhappy-with-clinton-remarks-on-doma/

[closeupready]

1. Yes. K&R

[DURHAM D]

2. I feel like I woke this morning back in the 90s.

Same activists arguing now as then. Same egos. Same shit.

[virtualobserver]

3. you don't mind this rewriting of history?

[DURHAM D]

4. What I mind is straight people

enjoying and having fun with it.

I don't need you or anyone else explaining what I lived through.


Done

[virtualobserver]

5. fair enough

but this is about deciding who will be President.

Hillary is lying, and that has implications for all of us.

It is a bad sign when people will say anything to obtain political office.

[dbackjon]

17. She is not lying. You just don't accept her answer as being valid

Sanders has an opinion. Clinton has an opinion.



That is all they are.

[arcane1]

28. That is not what "opinion" means.

She made a claim that appears to be contradicted by facts.

[dbackjon]

31. I am seeing opinions, not facts

[virtualobserver]

34. “I think a marriage is as a marriage has always been, between a man and a woman.” Hillary Clinton

.... in 2000.

If she was telling the truth about 1996's DOMA, then she lied and pandered later to the anti-gay conservatives.

It is a question of when, not whether she lied.

[SoapBox]

10. Well...I'm NOT straight...

And I don't like what she said!

[LettuceSea]

6. I don't think pandering at parades will help this time

[Fearless]

7. Agreed completely

There was no reason for him to sign DOMA except to cater to political cause.

[DirkGently]

8. A "Constitutional Amendment?"

That's the new excuse? Wow. That is a whopper of amazing proportions. Literally no one thinks that.

Jesus.

[SoapBox]

11. Whooper is correct.

[DirkGently]

14. Seriously, no one for a SECOND thought we were

actually headed for a Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage. Conservatives may have floated the idea, but in no way was that ever a serious threat to occur. It is ridiculously difficult to amend the Constitution.

Why even say such a thing?

[dbackjon]

18. Yeah, and 30+ states amending their own constitutions never happened either.

Would it have happened? Hopefully not.

But you seem to forget in 2008 even California voted to ban gay marriage.


It was a very real possissiblity.

[DirkGently]

20. Not even remotely comparable.

State constitutions get amended yearly, all over the country. It's generally a simple referendum. A Constitutional Amendment is a huge, huge deal. How many of those have you seen lately?

I'm really surprised Clinton is saying this, if she is. It absolutely reeks of flat-out historical revisionism, and suggests she thinks she should otherwise be held accountable.

[dbackjon]

22. You are incorrect

Most states it is a multiyear process.

[Chitown Kev]

23. And in Illinois

referenda are advisory only.

In order to have gotten something like an anti-gay marriage amendment into the Consititution, the voters would have had to vote first to redo the entire Constitution...which was tried in 2010.

[DirkGently]

24. The last U.S. Constitutional amendment took 202 years.

Again, state constitutions are amended constantly. There's not even a discussion to be had on that account.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-seventh_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

In contrast, state constitutions have been amended about 12,000 times.
http://ballotpedia.org/Amending_state_constitutions

No one ever honestly thought conservatives had a prayer of passing a Constitutional Amendment to ban gay marriage. It is an utter, bad-faith falsehood to suggest that.

If Clinton's campaign is actually floating this, it is embarrassing itself, and worse, it suggests Clinton is ashamed of her position and thinks it requires a frantically invented excuse.

[mythology]

19. Look how many states passed amendments to ban gay marriage

Not just state laws, but actual state constitutional amendments. 31 states did that. Yes that is 7 states fewer than required for an amendment, it's also well over 50% of states.

[DirkGently]

21. State constitutions are amended constantly.

That's why they did it that way -- everyone supported the ERA, and look how far that's gotten as a Constitutional amendment.

It is utterly in bad faith to excuse DOMA or anything else with the made-up excuse that we were in any danger of a Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

Really, really bonehead move, if Clinton is actually arguing this. She'd be far better off sticking with "I evolved," or some other rationale, than this bit of creative fiction.

Is her camp that afraid of this issue? If so, maybe they should be.

[closeupready]

25. Yes, it's total horse shit. There was ZERO talk about a constitutional amendment over this.

But when has reality ever deterred her from telling us how she always had everyone's best interest at heart...

[DirkGently]

26. Supporting marriage equality WAS a tough stand to take then.

But DOMA was a bad law, and making up imaginary reasons for supporting it is disturbing.

What really bothers me -- again, if this is what Clinton is actually arguing -- is the arrogance of floating a made-up explanation like this.

The fact is very few politicians or even members of the public were as sensitive to this issue then. A lot of liberals thought civil unions made more sense, or were more politically viable.

I'd accept that explanation a lot more readily than this really transparent attempt at historical revisionism. It speaks poorly of the people around Clinton that they'd try it.

[closeupready]

27. It was a tough stand, but what about simply letting it go without his signature?

He could have refused to sign it, and it would have become law anyway. Meanwhile, Bernie voted against the DOMA in 1996, so there you go. I guess Bernie that makes Bernie homophobic, at the end of the day, considering that by doing so, he was fueling calls to amend the constitution to actually ENSLAVE gay Americans like me!

Sorry, I know this isn't a light subject, but the silliness of the Hillary camp on this is really childish, just as childish as it sounds, too.

[DirkGently]

32. You're right. It deserves better than a silly excuse like this.

It's insulting to the issue, and to the intelligence of Democrats and public at large. We all failed to protect gay rights, for a long time, (edit: not that we've got it all "fixed" now) and inventing specious excuses is a cop-out.

[dbackjon]

30. You are incorrect - there was a LOT of talk of it.

And half the GOP field still wants it.




If a Constitutional Amendment had been proposed in 1996, at least 25 states would have ratified in within a year.

[DirkGently]

36. The point is that DOMA did nothing to satisfy conservatives

... as you correctly point out.

Nor did anyone think they were on the verge of amending the Constitution. Therefore this rationale is utter nonsense.

It's even worse, actually, if she or her people believe it, in which case they are irrational and incompetent.

[dbackjon]

38. They would have tried. DOMA just shifted the battlefront to the states

Same as it would have had there been no DOMA, but the priority would have been to amend the US constitution, not the individual state constitutions.

[DirkGently]

39. And the focus on the U.S. Constitution would have doomed it.

In other words, if anything, DOMA encouraged the successful strategy of discrimination at the state level.

Any way you slice it, it was inexcusable to support it.

[dbackjon]

44. WE will never know

I think I am right, you think you are right.


I knew DOMA was unconstitutional. I also knew that it would take a SCOTUS ruling to give me rights.

[DirkGently]

45. That's not the real question though. What's at issue is

whether Clinton had any reason to believe DOMA was somehow advancing the cause of marriage equality or gay rights as she is apparently arguing.

She did not. No one thought that. It is an utterly ridiculous argument to make, and it is embarrassing that anyone would even make it.

[angrychair]

9. Bill and Hillary

Supported DOMA and DADT to help LGBT people from something worse just like farm owners in the rural south used to kidnap people from African nations to keep them from being eaten by lions.
Just trying help.
The pain, frustration and mental distress caused by DOMA and DADT ruined lives, ruined families and did more to create shame and distrust then anything else could have done. The LGBT community could have successfully campaigned against Constitutional admendments about gay marriage with the support of the WH but the WH choose a different path, one that didn't include the LGBT community as equals.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

12. If Hillary Rosen is --

calling Hillary out publicly, then Clinton has really fucked up.

Yeah, I was there and politically active during the whole DOMA thing, and my recollection is in line with Rosen's. DOMA was one of the (many) things that had me go from a super-supporter to a non-supporter of Bill Clinton.

Go sell it to someone else, Hillary.

[riderinthestorm]

48. +10000 nt

[Chitown Kev]

15. That Bill Clinton signed was bad enough

Congress would have overrode if he vetoed it.

What burned many LGBTs up (including me...so much so that this was a big part of why I didn't vote for Clinton in '96) was that he ran ads in the South for a few days touting his support of DOMA.

[hootinholler]

42. I'll lay odds that

If Bernie is put in a similar situation he will make Congress override his veto.

An over ride is not a black mark. Sometimes you need to stand up for your core beliefs. Some may say that weakens a Presidency, I couldn't disagree with them more.

[dbackjon]

16. These Gay "Activists" don't speak for most gay people

And Hillary was correct.


DOMA prevented a full scale attempt to amend the Constitution - which had a pretty good chance of passing.


Sorry, Bernie, but you are not a gay man. I am. I understood the danger.

[Bluenorthwest]

29. I will agree that some at the time made that same argument, but they were wrong then and now.

Here are some of the Democrats who agreed with me back then, and with Bernie:

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.): “I rise in strong opposition to this ill-named “Defense of Marriage Act” and I do so on the basis of conscience, Constitution and constituency.”

Rep. Neil Abercrombie (D-Hawaii): “I understand some of the people who are sponsoring this bill are on their second or third marriages. I wonder which one they are defending.”

Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.): “Whether senators are for or against same-sex marriage, there are ample reasons to vote against this bill because it represents an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power.”

Rep. Jane Harman (D-Calif.): “I recognize that my views are likely to be in the minority as well as unpopular, but this isn’t the first time I’ve come to the well to stand up for what I believe in, and it won’t be the last.”

Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.): “Let us not take part in this assault on lesbian and gay Americans and their families.”

Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.): “Discrimination is discrimination, and it is wrong.”

Rep. Lynn Rivers (D-Mich.): “I rise in opposition to this bill and I oppose it with both my head and my heart.”

Sen. Charles Robb (D-Va.): “I feel very strongly that this legislation is fundamentally wrong, and feeling as I do it would not be true to my conscience or my oath of office if I fail to speak out against it.”

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif): “To me, this is ugly politics. To me, it is about dividing us instead of bringing us together. To me, it is about scapegoating. To me, it is a diversion from what we should be doing.”

Sen. Bob Kerrey (D-Neb.): “These couples are not hurting us with their actions, in fact they may be helping us by showing us that love can indeed conquer prejudice and hatred.”

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.): “The arguments against gay and lesbian marriage are essentially the same argument that we used to hear against black-white marriages.”

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.): “This bill isn’t conservative. It’s Big Brother to the core. My judgment is this is a subject that the federal government ought not stick its nose into.”

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.): “Why do you want to destroy the love they hold in their hearts? Why do you want to crush their hopes, their dreams, their unions, their aspirations? We are talking about human beings, people like you.”

Rep. Steve Gunderson (R-Wis.): “Why shouldn’t my partner of 13 years be entitled to the same health insurance and survivor’s benefits that individuals around here, my colleagues with second and third wives are able to give to them?”

Rep. Patsy Mink (D-Hawaii): “It seems to be quite apparent that our court system is going to yield a decision which will validate same-sex marriage.”

Rep. Gerry Studds (D-Mass.): “We are going to prevail, Mr. Chairman. And we’re going to prevail just as every other component of the Civil Rights movement in this country has prevailed.”

Sen. Carol Moseley-Braun (D-Ill.): “I hope that every person on this floor who is going to look at and vote on this bill considers for a moment what the judgment of history might be if 50 years from now their grandchildren look at their debates and look at their words in support of this mean-spirited legislation, and consider the judgment that will be cast upon them then.”

[RichVRichV]

33. Let's pretend that what Hillary said was 100% truthful for a moment.

How many bills does she intend to sign into law that won't be as harmful as they could be? That's a hell of a way to govern.

[DirkGently]

37. You've hit the proverbial nail there.

This is Third Way logic. It's okay to hurt people, start wars, let Wall Street eviscerate the middle class, if you can argue it could have been worse.

Accepting that terrible people who want terrible things must get at least a good portion of what they want is exactly the problem we need to address.

[Armstead]

40. Question: If the GOP were threatening to push a constitutional amendment requiring....

driver's licenses as ID to vote, would that justify supporting legislation requiring drivers licenses as ID to vote?

Maye a bad analogy, but seems about as plausable.

[ibegurpard]

41. They should

It was bullshit.

[Babel_17]

43. If the narrative on this can't be controlled then it was unwise to make that DOMA remark

This isn't twenty years ago. The news cycle is highly amenable to being quickly influenced by input from online resources.

Truth can sometimes get its boots on very quickly, in response to a falsehood traveling around*. It looks like this one got away from Secretary Clinton's campaign's spokespeople. This might be a memorable unforced error.

*http://quoteinvestigator.com/2014/07/13/truth/

[Babel_17]

46. Some context I was unaware of

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x691912

ProSense was impressive with her response.

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/usa/federal/doma/1996/lcc.on.ads-10.15.96

The Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) -- 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.
Campaign spokesman Don Foley said the new 60-second spot
was ``an improved version of the ad ... a more direct response to
the scurrilous ad that the Dole campaign has been running.''
After Dole ads on some 70 stations suggested Clinton
approved of certain types of late-term abortions, the Clinton
campaign responded with a spot pointing out specific reservations
led him to veto a bill that would have banned the procedure.
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.''
The Human Rights Campaign, Log Cabin Republicans and other
gay rights groups protested, and ACT Up threatened demonstrations
and newspaper ads to criticize Clinton for the ad.
ACT Up spokesman Steve Michael said the group was not
satisfied with the campaign simply switching the ad, calling on
Clinton to take out ads apologizing for the error.
The new ad focuses criticism on Dole's new negative tack
and deletes the reference to the gay marriage ban.
``There's a value we all teach our children and practice
ourselves -- telling the truth,'' the ad says. ``Unfortunately,
Bob Dole has resorted to untruths.''
AP-NY-10-16-96 1841EDT

Copyright 1996 The Associated Press. The information
contained in the AP news report may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten or otherwise distributed without
prior written authority of The Associated Press.

http://www.qrd.org/qrd/usa/federal/doma/1996/clinton.radio.ad.txt-10.14.96

Date: Tue, 15 Oct 1996 09:41:07 -0700
From: [email protected] (Jeff Harris)
Subject: Clinton Gore Buy Radio Ads Boasting Support For DOMA

CLINTON CHRISTIAN RADIO AD
TRANSCRIBED OCTOBER 14, 1996

"Protecting religious freedom. It's the foundation of our nation.

"When the Justice Department went after a church to gather the parishioners'
tithing money, the government was stopped cold because President Clinton
overturned the government's policy and protected us.It's not the only time
he's defended our values. Don't be misled by Bob Dole's attack ads.

"President Clinton wants a complete ban on late term abortions except when
the mother's life is in danger or faces severe health risks, such as the
inability to have another child.

"The President signed the Defense of Marriage Act, supports curfews and
school uniforms to teach our children discipline.

"The President enacted the V-chip to block out violent TV programs. His
crime bill expanded the death penalty for drug kingpins. Bob Dole opposed him
and is resorting to untrue negative attacks. President Clinton has fought for
our values and America is better for it.

"Paid for by Clinton/Gore 96"

[WillyT]

47. Huge, Huge, HUGE... K & R !!!

[olddots]

49. remember the Clintons took over from the Reagans

After the new car smell wore off we felt duped .

[zappaman]

50. I think the idea to amend the constitution is not a new one

Bobby Jindal Endorses Ted Cruz's Push To Ban Same-Sex Marriage

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal (R) said Sunday he would support an amendment to the Constitution that would enable state legislatures to outlaw same-sex marriage if the U.S. Supreme Court were to overturn various state bans.

“If the Supreme Court were to throw out our law, our constitutional amendment -- I hope they wouldn't do that -- if they were to do that, I certainly will support Ted Cruz and others that are talking about making ... a constitutional amendment to allow states to continue to define marriage,” Jindal said on ABC's "This Week," referring to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/25/bobby-jindal-gay-marriage_n_6541920.html