Clinton: Court should nix anti-gay marriage law

Mar 7, 2013 Full story: CBS News 59

Former President Bill Clinton is calling on the Supreme Court to overturn a law he signed that bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages.

Full Story
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#1 Mar 7, 2013
From the article:

" ... Clinton says the Defense of Marriage Act is incompatible with the Constitution. He says he signed the law in 1996 to avoid legislation that would have been even worse for gays ... "

whatdiditellya.

“Live and let live”

Since: Apr 08

New Orleans

#2 Mar 7, 2013
Wow! Not one, but two presidents, nonetheless the one who signed it, both asking the Supreme Court to overturn DOMA?! Incredible!

“A Militant Homosexual”

Since: Jan 07

West Hollywood, California

#3 Mar 7, 2013
As president, he was concerned that gays would be subjected to an even worse law so he signed DOMA? As the President he has the power to Veto and had he been a more courageous leader he would have done so then rather that jumping on the band-wagon now when it's politically safe...

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#4 Mar 7, 2013
Robert In West Hollywood wrote:
As president, he was concerned that gays would be subjected to an even worse law so he signed DOMA? As the President he has the power to Veto and had he been a more courageous leader he would have done so then rather that jumping on the band-wagon now when it's politically safe...
EXACTLY !

I'm glad that YOU said it !

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#5 Mar 7, 2013
Robert In West Hollywood wrote:
As president, he was concerned that gays would be subjected to an even worse law so he signed DOMA? As the President he has the power to Veto and had he been a more courageous leader he would have done so then rather that jumping on the band-wagon now when it's politically safe...
No. There was, at the time, a very great push for an Amendment against us. It was a very real threat. Clinton bargained like a fishwife to get what we got.

“ WOOF ! ”

Since: Nov 12

Coolidge, AZ

#6 Mar 7, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
No. There was, at the time, a very great push for an Amendment against us. It was a very real threat. Clinton bargained like a fishwife to get what we got.
We should've impeached him for it.

“"And Stay Off"”

Since: May 12

Tempe Arizona

#7 Mar 7, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
No. There was, at the time, a very great push for an Amendment against us. It was a very real threat. Clinton bargained like a fishwife to get what we got.
I believe that you also have to take into account that Clinton like Obama have evolved over the years and have come full circle to the positions that they espouse today! I agree there was a national amendment on the horizon that would have been absolutely disastrous for equality! Good point! ;)

“"And Stay Off"”

Since: May 12

Tempe Arizona

#8 Mar 7, 2013
Fa-Foxy wrote:
<quoted text>
We should've impeached him for it.
And I believe we should impeach you! LoL,Along with Bush Jr.! But alas,I regress off topic! You sound like a Tea party supporter? You do realize that they are in fact the American Taliban,right?

Since: Dec 08

El Paso, TX

#9 Mar 7, 2013
You Kids Get Off My Lawn wrote:
<quoted text>
And I believe we should impeach you! LoL,Along with Bush Jr.! But alas,I regress off topic! You sound like a Tea party supporter? You do realize that they are in fact the American Taliban,right?
Honey, we impeached him a long time ago. He changes names more often than underwear.

Since: Aug 08

Location hidden

#10 Mar 7, 2013
Josh in New Orleans wrote:
Wow! Not one, but two presidents, nonetheless the one who signed it, both asking the Supreme Court to overturn DOMA?! Incredible!
Very good point!

“We are all atheists”

Since: May 11

Lewes, DE

#11 Mar 7, 2013
Robert In West Hollywood wrote:
As president, he was concerned that gays would be subjected to an even worse law so he signed DOMA? As the President he has the power to Veto and had he been a more courageous leader he would have done so then rather that jumping on the band-wagon now when it's politically safe...
I remember those days, and I agree with Clinton. Both DOMA and DADT were relatively mild responses to an overwhelming push to destroy everything gay. A veto would have done no good - there was enough anti-gay animus to override a veto. Would you rather be trying to undo a law, or undo a Constitutional amendment? DOMA and DADT defused what at the time was a strong push for a Constitutional amendment. I recall him campaigning to lift the ban on gays in the military (making him a hero to me), and his first tentative steps were met with such utter resistance and led to talk of amending the Constitution.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#12 Mar 8, 2013
Robert In West Hollywood wrote:
As president, he was concerned that gays would be subjected to an even worse law so he signed DOMA? As the President he has the power to Veto and had he been a more courageous leader he would have done so then rather that jumping on the band-wagon now when it's politically safe...
The President has no veto authority over constitutional amendments; and that's what the anti-gays we're really pushing at the time.

DOMA bought us the time we needed for society to "evolve" on the issue of marriage.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#13 Mar 8, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
The President has no veto authority over constitutional amendments; and that's what the anti-gays we're really pushing at the time.
DOMA bought us the time we needed for society to "evolve" on the issue of marriage.
Precisely.

Nobody ever claimed that Horny Willie wasn't a genius.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#14 Mar 8, 2013
snyper wrote:
<quoted text>
Precisely.
Nobody ever claimed that Horny Willie wasn't a genius.
Yep, in retrospect DOMA & even DADT we're both beneficial laws, though they might not have seemed like it at the time by those not paying attention to everything else going on.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#15 Mar 8, 2013
snyper wrote:
From the article:
" ... Clinton says the Defense of Marriage Act is incompatible with the Constitution. He says he signed the law in 1996 to avoid legislation that would have been even worse for gays ... "
whatdiditellya.
If memory serves, he said that from the very beginning. He never wanted to sign that legislation, but there were enough idiots panicking and crapping their pants over it, that there was a real possibility that a FEDERAL marriage amendment might have been able to be passed. If that had happened, we would likely be 50 to 100 years behind the rest of the world because getting a Federal amendment repealed is much harder to do.

It's super easy for hoards of panicking fools to get something big done, but it's far more difficult for level-headed, thinking people to do the same. Sad, but true.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#16 Mar 8, 2013
Robert In West Hollywood wrote:
As president, he was concerned that gays would be subjected to an even worse law so he signed DOMA? As the President he has the power to Veto and had he been a more courageous leader he would have done so then rather that jumping on the band-wagon now when it's politically safe...
That's not it. He wouldn't have been able to veto a Federal Marriage Amendment and there was a LOT of talk about it and a very real possibility that the panicking idiots would have been able to muster up enough anti-gay panic to do it.

Him signing the Federal DOMA stopped the panic and derailed the momentum that was building toward the FMA. Only within the past few years Has the threat of a Federal Amendment finally faded away as the number of states that would potentially support it has gone below the 37 state threshold and support for in in Congress has faded.

It sounds bizarre, but yes, things would have been FAR worse for much longer had he not done that.

“Marriage Equality”

Since: Dec 07

Lakeland, MI

#17 Mar 8, 2013
WeTheSheeple wrote:
<quoted text>
Yep, in retrospect DOMA & even DADT we're both beneficial laws, though they might not have seemed like it at the time by those not paying attention to everything else going on.
Very true. Both laws focused enough awareness on the issues that we were able to use them to our advantage, though it took a bit of time.

Had DADT not been implemented, GLBT service members would have continued to be totally invisible and openly persecuted. Under DADT, there was some visibility, and possibly more important, record-keeping of the damage that such a policy does to the military.

Without the Federal DOMA, I believe we would have absolutely had an anti-marriage amendment to the Federal Constitution, meaning that we wouldn't have had couples marrying in Massachusetts nearly 10 years ago and proving to those on-the-fence on the issue (which, back then, was just about everyone) that marriage equality won't bring on the end of the world. Or even effect anyone else.

So, yeah. As difficult as they were at the time, they both ultimately ended up being good for us. They both created visibility and highlighted the unequal treatment we face for not valid reason.

“Headed toward the cliff”

Since: Nov 07

Tawas City, Michigan

#18 Mar 8, 2013
eJohn wrote:
<quoted text>
If memory serves, he said that from the very beginning. He never wanted to sign that legislation, but there were enough idiots panicking and crapping their pants over it, that there was a real possibility that a FEDERAL marriage amendment might have been able to be passed. If that had happened, we would likely be 50 to 100 years behind the rest of the world because getting a Federal amendment repealed is much harder to do.
It's super easy for hoards of panicking fools to get something big done, but it's far more difficult for level-headed, thinking people to do the same. Sad, but true.
Correct. Only 1 amendment (prohibition) has ever been overturned in our 200+ year history.

“Luke laughs at hypocrites!”

Since: Sep 10

Palm Springs, California

#19 Mar 8, 2013
TomInElPaso wrote:
<quoted text>
Honey, we impeached him a long time ago. He changes names more often than underwear.
He actually wears his underwear OVER his pants. he says they stay cleaner longer that way.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

St. Louis, MO

#20 Mar 8, 2013
Curteese wrote:
<quoted text>He actually wears his underwear OVER his pants. he says they stay cleaner longer that way.
I'd hate to be his dry-cleaner.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 3
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

History in the News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Scott Walker has no college degree. That's norm... 29 min Cat74 1,904
#1 PERSON for today according to Baltimore Bob 17 hr RighteousRobert 90
Clinton used personal email account as Secretar... 22 hr okimar 2
O'Malley points to financial regulation as a ca... Sun Sterkfontein Swar... 1
On this Day: 19th Amendment Gives Women Right t... (Aug '08) Mar 1 Charles 55
Can Obama's presidency be saved? Feb 28 Jaimie 1,893
Giuliania s false claims about Obamaa s speeches Feb 26 Fox_Y_Fiends 65
More from around the web