BREAKING: Bill Clinton comes out in support of marriage equality

not the most proactive or rousing statement

but it's a start!  Guess Bill wants to make certain Hill's house Queers keep showing up with some ching-ching for 2012, 2016, and 2020.

---

by: greatwhitebear @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 11:31:53 AM CDT

Of course this is just one more way for Clinton to screw with Obama...

... but it's still about time he dropped the right-wing pandering.  Now that Hillary isn't running for President, he could finally speak the truth.

---

by: diablorobotico @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 11:38:11 AM CDT

Huh?

"The damage you did with DOMA"?

I wouldn't have expected such oversimplification from you, Pam.

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 11:43:58 AM CDT

how many ways does DOMA damage thee and me?

I can count it every year my spouse and me file separate 1040s. Oh, and here's a fun fact: even if we repeal DADT, DOMA means that our military won't be entitled to joint TRICARE, joint on-base quarters, and a lot of other benefits that other servicepeople take for granted.

Yeah, that's damage.

---

by: coram nobis @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 12:34:38 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

The keywords...

The keywords I was referring to were "YOU did," but "damage" is addressed below.

Perhaps if more had resisted the demonization through oversimplification, not to mention the outright lies, of Clinton during the primaries we would not be in the position we're in now...virtually no more equal than we were on January 19th the day before the Messiah for the Gays was sworn in.

Those of us who remembered the imperfection of the last Messiah for the Gays [that would be Clinton] challenged such untested canonization but were demonized in turn.

But back to the lighter side of truth. People keep referencing that Clinton signed DOMA as if that's all anyone needs to understand. It's a little more complicated by that.

The bill, introduced not by a Clinton agent but Republican Clinton Hater Bob Barr, was passed by Congress by a vote of 85-14 in the Senate and a vote of 342-67 in the House of Representatives.

His veto would not have changed a thing...save the ability of those who luv to hate him to have one more excuse.

Yes, the Dick Slimeball Morris radio ads touting DOMA should never have run, even if they were quickly stopped.

Further, someone from another planet reading the usual histrionics would assume that before DOMA gay couples DID have federal benefits. Were you and your spouse allowed to file a joint federal income tax return before DOMA? Were gay military couples allowed military benefits before DOMA?

DOMA, regardless of whom one blames for it, did not create that inequality it simply, more explicitly codified it. Still WRONG to do but....

Yes, Clinton remains wrong about "states rights"...just as the CURRENT President does.

But while Clinton, as imperfect, disingenuous and self-deluding as he remains in many areas, recorded a message AGAINST Prop H8TE for robocalls to voters, they were drowned out Yes on H8TE robocalls using a recording of Obama preaching that "God is in the mix" at Rick "gay = pedophia" Warren's megachurch.

It is not Clinton filing an amicus brief defending DOMA to the Supreme Court using the homohating language Barr used to pass it in the first place...PLUS some new homophobic angles like poor straight people should not have to pay for federal benefits to gay couples...but the Department of Justice of Barack Obama and its Civil Division run by his pal Tony West.

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 12:48:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Leadership

That's what we needed in 1996, no more than we need it now, and both Clinton and Obama have FAILED when it counted. Perhaps Clinton was too aware of his sexcapades at that time with a woman young enough to be his daughter, and decided not to rock the boat by actually providing leadership, but now it's too little, too late.

Now, if he were to accept a "civil union" in lieu of his own marriage - Clinton having proven he is incapable of maintaining fidelity to his marriage vows - maybe I would be more impressed.  

---

by: CPT_Doom @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 13:15:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Stop Being an Apologist

He signs it; he owns it.

Oh, there's plenty of blame to go around. No one was solely responsible for it. It was Bob Barr's fault, and it was Bill Clinton's fault. Funny, though, how your bogeyman of choice, Bob Barr, managed to repudiate DOMA years before Clinton did.

You also conveniently forget that Clinton absolutely refused to try to get anything in exchange for DOMA. He sabotaged the Senate attempt to add ENDA to the bill. He didn't want to sign anything pro-gay, nor did he want his VP sitting in the Senate chair casting a tie-breaking vote on behalf of queers. The role of the Administration and congressional Democrats was far more unsavory than you're pretending it was.

And some of us can criticize both Clinton and Obama. You're the one making that a false choice. Indeed, some of us have been criticizing Obama's intelligence-insulting photo-ops about federal employee benefits, while you were trying to shout us down and proclaiming that the events were wonderful because they honored Frank Kameny, in showy tributes that some of us thought were sleazily exploitive by conniving, backstabbing Administration.

---

by: uh_huhh @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 13:18:18 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

If you're referring to me, uh_huhh

I have criticized both Clinton and Obama and have never made it a "false choice," thank you very much.

And I praised Kameny NOT the event.

Perhaps your local community college offers free "Reading for Comprehension" courses.

If you weren't referring to me, nevermind.

---

by: Michael Bedwell @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 13:25:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

To community-college Blenders:

I regret that my criticism of Mr. Bedwell's earlier comment prompted an unfair attack on the dignity of your educational achievement. I welcome your contributions and value your perspectives.

---

by: uh_huhh @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 21:33:57 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hey, don't be hating on the community colleges!

Kapiolani CC is the only school that offers paralegal studies on this rock. (Course, I DO have my BA from a 4-year Uni already...har har har)

God save ornery old queens! - kevinchi

---

by: Keori @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 22:29:59 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I think it's even <i>more</i> complicated than that...

Hillary mentioned several times during the primaries that they felt it was the only way to halt the push for a constitutional amendment.  And she's absolutely right.  A lot of Democrats supported DOMA because it could be undone much more easily than a constitutional amendment.  

---

by: lw @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 23:33:53 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

courage almost 20 years late

When you could have made a difference you were AWOL, and a sniveling coward on DOMA.

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 11:50:38 AM CDT

He can kiss my hairy ass!

---

by: Patrick @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 12:08:13 PM CDT

Sorry!

Sorry, I know where HIS lips have been and I don't want them ANYWHERE near my ass! So I'll let him kiss yours LOL :)

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." ~~~ Thomas Jefferson

---

by: SD_Dave @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 12:47:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ick...

but good point.  maybe with a dental dam only.

---

by: Patrick @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 13:20:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Buy this heroic president....a cigar

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 14:24:32 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Dam?

Maybe only with Hoover Dam between his lips and your you-know-what.

---

by: coram nobis @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 14:26:11 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Hurrah for nothing!

Too little, too late from a useless pandering rightwing turd of president.  Fuck off, Bill.

---

by: MediaGhost @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 12:18:38 PM CDT

See, Barack?

It is possible to grow a pair.

---

by: Naperville Mom @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 12:27:11 PM CDT

Ya......

9 years AFTER you leave office.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." ~~~ Thomas Jefferson

---

by: SD_Dave @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 12:48:25 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

yes, indeed

... possible to grow 'em after your second term and your retirement, Mr. Prez.

On this schedule, Barack might start making these noises in the summer of 2017 or '18. That'll be just as comforting.

---

by: coram nobis @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 12:50:56 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

How can it not be a "federal quation"?

Clinton made it a federal question when he signed Section 3 of DOMA.  How can we ignore that fact that we are ineligible for +1100 federal rights.

I think Clinton has now realized how bad history will judge his presidency and is trying to save face.  Too Late.

---

by: dstavro @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 12:27:51 PM CDT

Exactly

Here's another quote from the article:

The former president, however, added that he does not believe that same-sex marriage is "a federal question."

Gee, Bill, thanks to you it's exactly that....a federal question.  If it's not federal, why does DOMA specifically define marriage as hetero where federal policy is concerned.

Same with big O...what are these guy's reading comprehension?  They should get it checked.

---

by: Karen in Kalifornia @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 15:42:40 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Not much change

This may seem like quite a change in his opinion, but I'm not so sure. The Nation article states that "he does not believe that same-sex marriage is 'a federal question.'" This is essentially the essence of DOMA. DOMA does not prevent states from legalizing marriage equality, it merely prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and it precludes the federal role in forcing one state to recognize marriages from another state. Shorter version: states' rights, still no federal recognition. And since most of the benefits are federal, this is a distinction without much difference. Same old same old, in my opinion.

---

by: buster @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 13:15:30 PM CDT

Simpler Explanation

Supporting same-sex marriage makes Clinton seem less OLD to 22-year-old interns.

---

by: uh_huhh @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 13:24:03 PM CDT

BREAKING NEWS:

Jack the Ripper comes out against murdering prostitutes!  

Cynic, n.  A blackguard whose faulty vision sees things as they are, not as they ought to be.  
-Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary

---

by: QScribe @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 13:46:46 PM CDT

Laughable

Clinton like Obama is an expert at talking out of both sides of his mouth at once. I would trust neither of them not even half as far as I could throw them.

Clinton like Obama has demonstrated he is a liar and cannot be trusted.

---

by: LiZ @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 14:18:27 PM CDT

Clinton is a right centrist bigot.

His remarks are next to worthless. And typically those of an unreconstructed Dixiecrat. He injected states rights into the discussion. So did Geroge Wallace and Strom Thurmond.

Promoting homohating is a crime. The fury of anti-GLBT sentiment whipped up by the opposition of the Clintons, Obama and the Bushes to same sex marriage combined with Clinton's total and direct responsibility for the evils of DADT aren't going away. He not only championed DOMA he boasted about signing it on rightwing christer radio stations like those owned by Pat Robertson.

To make up for all the union votes he lost promoting pro-big business, anti-unions laws like NAFTA Clinton put out the following campaign ad in 1996 to get reelected:

"Protecting Religious Freedom. It's the foundation of our nation.

President Clinton wants a complete ban on late term abortions... The President signed the Defense of Marriage Act... President Clinton has fought for our values and America is better for it. "

Bill Clintons rampant bigotry isn't excused in the least because just because he's trying to out-maneuver another anti-SSM hustler, Obama, to promote some delusional 2012 comeback dreams of a third right wing christer bigot, Hillary Clinton.  

The looter rich much prefer working with Democrats like Obama and the Clintons - they're greedier, they fool more people and they're able to get away with a lot more than Republicans.  

---

by: donal1944 @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 15:16:49 PM CDT

worth parsing the issues

Pam raises an interesting point.

Is it about tactics (as in SCOTUS is too conservative in its current config, to deliver a positive ruling), or is it because they really do believe it's a states rights issue (in which case, how do they square this view with Loving v. Virginia, which dealt with marriage in a similar context?).

The Loving decision could have, but didn't, really address the federalism issue, that is, that the Virginia statute denied recognition, even criminalized, marriages concluded in other states. Chief Justice Warren simply ruled that it was a denial of the Lovings' right to equal protection under the law, and of due process, required by the 14th Amendment, which a state cannot deny to its own citizens.

The states' rights issue comes up in DOMA in several ways:
- can one state deny recognition to a marriage from another state, in violation of the couple's Privileges & Immunities rights,
- can one state deny the other state's enactments IVO Full Faith & Credit? (Art. IV),
- can one state deny US citizens the right to marry under the Privileges or Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment? (Yes, yes, this is probably a non-starter, but the last time this came up was with the Slaughterhouse Cases, so it's time to raise it again, perhaps).
- can the Federal government overrule state marriage law, where a state does recognize same-sex marriage but cannot either (1) have it recognized by other states or (2) have Federal law infringe on its own marriage law, e.g., in taxation?

In this case, a states' rights argument might very well come down on our side, where it was the opposite with the Lovings. The whole point of a federal system, see the Federalist papers, was that injustice by either the Federal or state gov'ts was supposed to be checked by the other.

---

by: coram nobis @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 15:17:25 PM CDT

But Loving was in fact a demonstration of Federal law, as in the US Constitution overruling state law...

even in areas where State law usually rules supreme.

State laws can NEVER be in violation of the US Constitution no matter what's in the State's Constitution and no matter how many amendments the people of a state pass (even if 100% of the people approve it).

Just as with Loving, the US Supreme Court could rule that denying gay couples marriage rights denies them their Federal Constitutional rights under Full Faith and Credit and the 14th.

---

by: Zeke @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 21:20:50 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

indeed it was

... albeit a test of states' laws flouting individual, Federally-guaranteed rights. My question was, absent that, whether the Federal gov't can abrogate civil rights reserved to the states, states' citizens, or the people. States can confer rights beyond those in the U.S. Constitution, f'rinstance, explicit rights to privacy in their state constitution -- but can or should the Congress veto that?

---

by: coram nobis @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 23:00:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

pressuring obama

whether this represents new thinking clinton or is just more sly double-talk i dont' know.  but i do think that it amounts to positive pressure on obama.  after all, most voters won't be examining the nuances of what clinton has said and done on marriage past and present.  all they'll hear is the that guy who signed doma now apparently supports marriage equality.  i like that.

Click HERE and sign up: Campaign For Military Partners.

Lurleen on Twitter.

---

by: Lurleen @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 19:42:10 PM CDT

Talk about "too little, too late"!

This

should have been attached to this

some 13 years ago.

I don't really care what the man has to say now.

---

by: Diane95 @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 19:50:37 PM CDT

Too bad he didn't believe that the Federal Government should stay out of the gay marriage debate...

When HE supported and SIGNED the FEDERAL "Defense of Marriage" law that FEDERALLY made it illegal to FEDERALLY recognize LEGAL marriages performed in STATES that allowed them!

---

by: Zeke @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 21:12:37 PM CDT

I think everyone vilifying Bill Clinton in this debate is completely missing the context.

Had Congress not introduced DOMA, and he not signed it, it would havedone nada to promote marriage equality and in fact, would have done possibly irreparable damage--a kamikaze move that, from a practical perspective, would have bordered on moronic.

If Congress hadn't introduced it, make no mistake about it, there would have been constitutional amendments in all 50 states, if not a US constitutional amendment.  That is damage that couldn't be undone for a very, very long time.  DOMA can be undone easily.  If Bill Clinton had vetoed it, Congress would have overriden it quickly and easily and Republicans would have ridden the hate wave to even bigger heights than they did.

Was it a brave declaration of his love of the gays?  Certainly not.  But was it a wise move for gay rights in the long run?  Absolutely.

---

by: lw @ Tue Jul 14, 2009 at 23:47:07 PM CDT

Clinton admitted he lied to gays in his book

He also sabotaged Howard Dean in the Primary because he had supported Civil Unions in VT.
To Bubba we ranked lower than willing interns on the food chain, F*cked us, and I didn't get a Walt Whitman,...Leaves of Grass.

"race, taste. and History finally overcome....and you ain't there"
by Tony Kushner

---

by: peteyPornpig @ Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 02:52:53 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Ahhh hhhhaaaaaaaaaAAAAAHHHHHAAAA haaaa ROTFLMAO

God and to think that I voted for this dude twice and Obama once.  Democrats are such slime bags.  He could give two shits about the gays....there has got to be a political angle to this.  Does he see a crack in Obama's armour that he thinks his wife can take advantage of either in 2012 if he crashes or in 2016 if he doesn't?  Or is this simply the ego jerk who spent the last 3 years in his second term talking out loud about what his legacy would be.  Jesus h christ.  Or is he seeing the writing on the wall that he will be labeled a complete self serving asshole bigot that he really is????

Can't believe I just wrote the above as I actually used to really admire him as I did Obama.  Guess this shit in the face of gays and all things equality has pushed me over the edge that I don't think I will ever will recover from thank God.  

I will never drink the cool aid ever again.  All those bastards can go fuck themselves and I will make that known even louder come next election cycle.  

vanhattan

---

by: vanhattan @ Wed Jul 15, 2009 at 01:09:03 AM CDT