Tweet
Considering Big Dog was the guy who signed the horror known as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) into law, seeing this turn of events is welcome, it still leaves a bitter taste in the mouth. But it’s a different world than it was 17 years ago and there was almost zero political courage to stand up for the civil right of gays and lesbians to marry. Clinton, along with a lot of pols across the political spectrum, have finally seen the light on marriage equality to come out of the closet on the issue. From his op-ed in the WaPo:
”When I signed the bill, I included a statement with the admonition that “enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination.” Reading those words today, I know now that, even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, the law is itself discriminatory. It should be overturned.
We are still a young country, and many of our landmark civil rights decisions are fresh enough that the voices of their champions still echo, even as the world that preceded them becomes less and less familiar. We have yet to celebrate the centennial of the 19th Amendment, but a society that denied women the vote would seem to us now not unusual or old-fashioned but alien. I believe that in 2013 DOMA and opposition to marriage equality are vestiges of just such an unfamiliar society.
Americans have been at this sort of a crossroads often enough to recognize the right path. We understand that, while our laws may at times lag behind our best natures, in the end they catch up to our core values. One hundred fifty years ago, in the midst of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln concluded a message to Congress by posing the very question we face today: “It is not ‘Can any of us imagine better?’ but ‘Can we all do better?’?”
The answer is of course and always yes. In that spirit, I join with the Obama administration, the petitioner Edith Windsor, and the many other dedicated men and women who have engaged in this struggle for decades in urging the Supreme Court to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.”
Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin:
“A growing chorus has risen up in opposition to DOMA but the loudest voice is now the man who signed the bill into law calling for it to be overturned. President Clinton has already voiced his opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act and his emphatic repudiation of this discriminatory law is a reflection of the views of a majority of Americans who don’t understand why loving and committed couples should be ignored by their own government. As President Clinton eloquently articulated, DOMA is a vestige of another time and now we must turn our back on legally sanctioned discrimination.”
12 Comments
Well, hopefully there’s a lesson for Illinois state reps in this–especially downstate democrats: find your spines, vote for marriage equality, and get on the right side of history.
Clinton was a triangulator extraordinaire in his day, and it wasn’t just about DOMA as a single outlier or a careless mistake.
One issue could always be overwhelmed by others regardless of the merits. It’s probably always been the case, but with Clinton’s DOMA the craft became an art.
Screw Clinton. About 10,000 days too late & millions of dollars short.
When’s he gonna get all repentant-y over overturning Glass-Steagle?
Gimme a break. Complicit.
Despite Clinton’s often awful policy choices, I really feel he does have the capacity to admit error and improve (this is not to deny that he is a calculating politician to his fingertips). I get no such sense about Obama.
Clinton figures he’s on safe ground vis-a-vis this issue on March 07, 2013. A bit late out of the starting blocks, eh Big Dog?
When he says it’s time to break up the Wall Street zombie banks, indict, vigorously prosecute and remand to federal prison anyone found culpable, then I’ll buy his bullshit. Until then, however, he’s just another disingenuous, jagoff politician, albeit one with an above-average stage presence.
Exactly. Now it’s all trendy to be against DOMA, so big deal. Where was he blabbing about this 4 years ago??
Yet another way to keep his mug in the nooz. My other bet is: another paving stone towards Hills’ 2016 nom. Dunna fergit that Big Dawg owes Hillary BIG time.
Clinton’s very savvy… at making the right move at the right time.
Bill’s political risk here is zero. As many point out above, he gets love and respect when he calls for the repeal of Gramm-Leach-Bliley. Glass-Steagall had worked great for 60 years and this “updating” of “outmoded” banking regulation passed by a Republican Congress and signed by Clinton was a major contributor to the crash of 2008 – but also to the next crash, which will be along shortly.
Day late and a dollar short, buckaroo.
We can always count on good ol’ Bill to get around to doing the right thing when there is no risk in doing so. He signs DOMA into law when its popular. But hey, he was for it before he was against it.
I can’t help but remember how in the non-competitive race of ’06 against Dole he ran ads in Southern States touting his signing of DOMA in a variation of the Southern Strategy. Another case of a hack pol seeing a parade, jumping in front of it, and claiming leadership. An obvious opening move for Shrillary ’16.
Consider this, though. Yes, at the time DOMA was signed in the ’90s, it was politically popular to be against the gays. It was so popular, in fact, that we can see how quickly legislative action was taken from Hawaii’s court case that opened the question for same-sex marriage to the passage of DOMA just a few years later with overwhelming support. Some argue that the passage of DOMA appeased the anti-gay forces and slowed the sociocultural impetus that otherwise probably was powerful enough to promote a federal constitutional amendment. Support for banning same-sex marriage was high, and people were foaming at the mouth with slippery-slope arguments. Had DOMA not been signed, it’s scarily possible that federal amendment would have been approved instead, and then we’d really be fucked because 3/4 of states would have to ratify a new amendment nullifying that one before progress was made. Considering that states in the 30s have amendments banning it, we would be set back several several decades. Yes, Clinton was wrong to sign it, but now he can come out against it to help overturn it. DOMA at least has the ability to be ruled unconstitutional which is the one benefit to its passage in lieu of more permanent legislation from the ’90s.
Much more useful than a self-serving op-ed in the Washington Post would have been a brief to the Supreme Court expressing his belief that DOMA is unconstitutional and signed William Jefferson Clinton.
I think it’s good news that Clinton is putting his fame to good use, and writing this oped. He is an opinion leader, whose words can encourage others to do the right thing in a number of state legislatures.
That doesn’t mean I forget his signing of DOMA or don’t ask, don’t tell.