No requirement to read Bill’s thoughts needed. All that is needed is to read what his White House advisor on gay rights, Richard Socarides, wrote in The New Yorker back in 2013: Why Bill Clinton Signed the Defense of Marriage Act
and
Those are just a couple of quotes from the article that show this was a decision made to avoid possible repercussions come reelection time. They are being made by a person who was intimately involved in this decision making process.
Actually, a very interesting article.
Oh, and in this article, written by someone who has unique knowledge of the conversations that led to Bill Clinton signing DOMA, guess how many times concern about a potential constitutional amendment forbidding SSM came up? C’mon, guess.
Lance, here’s a link to an article in the NYT on the day in 1996 the White House announced President Clinton would sign DOMA. I found this part particularly relevant:
So again, fear of this becoming an issue that could hurt the White House during the coming Presidential campaign.
A lot of quotes about how gay rights groups and their allies saw this as a betrayl, but guess how many times concern about a constitutional amendment forbidding SSM comes up in that article?
The fact is Bill signed DOMA because he was worried it would interfere with him being reelected. Lance, please provide a contemporaneous article showing otherwise. The talk of Bill being motivated by concern about a constitutional amendment is little more than HRC’s campaign trying to re-write history.
Gay people were going to be fucked over anyway,a nd Bill couldn’t have changed that. The only issue was whether Bill let himself get fucked over too.
If there was the slightest chance his veto could have carried I’d agree that he shouldn’t have signed it. But there wasn’t, so he backed down on this in order to fight battles he could win. It sucks but it was a pragmatic move regardless.
ETA: But the Constitutional Amendment story remains bullcrap.
This is good evidence that Clinton’s motivations were political only. However, it doesn’t necessarily mean DOMA wasn’t a strategically wise or useful thing to avoid a constitutional amendment, even if that wasn’t Clinton’s concern. In hindsight, it may have done just that.
The first I remember hearing about a constitutional amendment from Bill was actually in the mid/late 2000s, like 2007 or 2008 maybe, as Hillary prepared her first run for the White House.
A constitutional amendment may have had enough votes in the House/Senate, but I don’t think it could’ve gotten 3/4ths of the States even in 95/96. The culture war conservatives had no reason not to try for a constitutional amendment back then if they really thought they could get one, and they didn’t. The first time the GOP seriously mentioned a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage (that I remember) was in 2012, several of Romney’s primary opponents supported it. Romney remained silent on it until a couple weeks before the general election when he announced he’d support such an amendment (I can only guess his late announcement was based on the belief it’d energize conservative voters enough to make up for any moderates it’d alienate.) At that point the reactionary wing had grown so strong that they could demand this sort of thing as a political platform, but by 2012 its possibility of passing both Houses was zero as was its chance of coming close to passing 3/4ths of the States.
It is interesting why Clinton didn’t just ignore the law, I believe Jed Bartlett actually employed that strategy over a similar piece of legislation on the West Wing, and they actually laid out the reasons why it made sense to do so politically. I think a no-sign was probably the best political move for Clinton’s long term legacy. I think Clinton’s advisers were playing conservatively, fearing that even a no-sign could be used against him; and that the gay vote was going to him regardless of what he did so the veto made the most sense.
FWIW I don’t remember Dole making gay marriage an issue in the campaign, and I don’t necessarily know that he would have even if Clinton had vetoed DOMA.
Perhaps, but the entire debate and efforts of the gay rights movement could have been defensive - stop the constitutional amendment - instead of making progress.
A constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage was first introduced in Congress in 2002.
Yeah, it was really tough to find. Google searched for “clinton signed DOMA” and there is was at the #3 position. :rolleyes:
As you note in your subsequent post to this a constitutional amendment wasn’t introduced in Congress until 2002, after Bill left office. DOMA was signed in 1996.
My point was, and continues to be, that HRC’s campaign is whitewashing this issue. Bill signed DOMA to protect his ass in the reelection. Whether it was a good move strategically isn’t the issue. It probably was but it illustrates how quickly the Clintons, and most politicians, will sell out a minority when necessary. Particularly a minority like the LGBT community that spent so many years getting shit on that any crumbs thrown our way were eagerly accepted. After all, the point has been made numerous times, we didn’t have any better choice. And still don’t, frankly.
People need to remember that democracy isn’t about picking the best, but keeping out the worst. We will always be picking from the least worst. There will always be some hypothetical candidate who is better.
Clinton’s convictions don’t matter all that much. What matters in an elected official is that they by and large have the right position on the issues and have shown that they can handle the job. Changing your position to align with that of the people is a good thing.
Progressives want everyone to change their opinion. That’s why a former feminist hero can be hurt by not moving on with the times and supporting trans gender rights. Progressivism REQUIRES changing your ideas over time. It’s not a bug but a feature.
And, yes, Bill Clinton supported DOMA. So what? You do realize it had veto-proof majorities, right? It was, at the time, what the people wanted. So he did it.
And that’s what you are supposed to do. I hope President Hillary Clinton would do the same.
Except that it didn’t actually protect anyone. Discharges for homosexual conduct went up almost every year the policy was in place until 9/11. All DADT did was enshrine a discriminatory policy in law.
DADT was put in place to let homosexuals serve (just not openly), and was seen as a victory by LGBT groups as such at the time. Not a great law, but it was put through after much negotiations, and for the first time commanding officers couldn’t go on witch hunts and root out gays who were serving. But in practice, that isn’t what happened - gays were still discharged, to the surprise of many supporters of the law. I’ve served since '88, and remember clearly when it was signed, and how happy folks were, but I also worked in human resources for a time and was amazed when I saw numbers of discharges increase. That was never an intent of the law; the intent was to let gays finally serve, but once the law was put into practice the result was quite different.
On the Army side we had a big mandatory, get it done last week, chain teach when they modified guidance in 2000. That was coined as “Don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue, don’t harass.” It was a response to some commanders going out of their way to actively seek evidence for people they suspected of being gay and the way they dealt with cases. I remember having to cram it in to the schedule at the last minute during summer of 2000. That seems to roughly correspond with Miller’s numbers. The period of the increasing discharges was in the first half of the policy’s existence.
If this is addressed to me then you haven’t read my posts very carefully. I have made it clear Bill Clinton supported and signed DOMA because it was easier from a political stand point and I understand that even if I don’t like it. And I know it was supported by veto-proof majorities. The cites I’ve linked to and quoted mention that several times.
What I take issue with is Hillary’s campaign lying about why he signed it because now it is in their interests to appear to be the friend and protector of LGBT people. If they would just acknowledge why it was done rather than engage in whitewashing I wouldn’t be bothered by it so much. I long ago realized politicians will fail certain of their constituencies when the going gets tough.
And yes, I know she is a much better choice for President than anyone on the GOP side when it comes to issues of concern to the LGBT community. Acknowledging that doesn’t mean I have to be happy about her trying to rewrite history.