# Clinton and DOMA **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [April 26, 2014, 11:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-doma/687082 "2014-04-26T23:40:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-doma/687082/41 "2014-05-03T02:17:49Z")
It was part of Clinton’s “triangulation” strategy. In fact, supposedly he and several other Clintonites were annoyed about John Kerry not supporting Kerry objecting to Ohio pushing to ban gay marriage in 2004 and felt that cost him Ohio and the Presidency. ---
**Author:** ![Johanna](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johanna/32/8318_2.png) [@Johanna](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johanna)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 11:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-doma/687082/42 "2014-05-03T11:59:58Z")
> [@Procrustus](#): > > Depends if Congress is in session or not. See “[pocket veto](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pocket_veto)” You repeated the very same thing I’d already said. Didn’t read all of my post, did you? Is there any answer to the question I asked? Couldn’t Clinton have allowed it to pass without his signature? Or is that option, though theoretically available, now deprecated in practice? ---
**Author:** ![LibrarySpy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f9ae1b/32.png) [@LibrarySpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/LibrarySpy)\ **Post date:** [May 3, 2014, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-doma/687082/43 "2014-05-03T16:49:37Z")
> [@etv78](#): > > Did Clinton sign DOMA because he knew a veto would be overridden? Yes. Even at the time, this was obvious. See also: [COPA](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Online_Protection_Act). Political pandering. His mind never “changed.” ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-doma/687082/44 "2014-05-05T03:40:33Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Here;s what Landrieu and Pryor most recently had to say on the issue: > > [http://www.salon.com/2013/04/09/mark\_pryor\_i\_still\_oppose\_gay\_marriage/](http://www.salon.com/2013/04/09/mark_pryor_i_still_oppose_gay_marriage/) > > Smell the courage! And Democrats will fully support their reelection despite their “hateful and bigoted” views. In the Republicans are being “consistent” on the gay marriage issue, so are Pryor and Landrieu considering the states they are representing. You have to remember that we have a two party system which would necessarily result in a a broad spectrum of views in both parties. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 4:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-doma/687082/45 "2014-05-05T04:45:03Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > You have to remember that we have a two party system which would necessarily result in a a broad spectrum of views in both parties. Not the Republicans much anymore. There used to be liberal and moderate Republicans, but as the conservatives got more and more power in the party, liberal and moderate Republicans were driven out, nationally. There may be some around in state parties in certain regions (the NE/New England, for example) but there ain’t any in Congress. ---
**Author:** ![bengangmo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@bengangmo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bengangmo)\ **Post date:** [May 5, 2014, 10:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-doma/687082/46 "2014-05-05T10:15:34Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Fair enough. > > So why do you think he changed his mind? Or did he ever have a firm opinion to begin with? It seems to me that his decision to sign DOMA and his decision to oppose DOMA later was based on pure political calculation. Bill Clinton does have firm beliefs and I think he stood up for them well during his eight years in office. But I also understand that a lot of issues are just not something everyone is going to invest a lot of emotion into and I think for most straight people the issue of gay marriage is not one of them. I’ve supported gay marriage since reading Andrew Sullivan’s A Conservative Case for Gay Marriage in 2002. I was easy to persuade since I didn’t care much then and frankly I don’t care much now. It just seems like the right thing to do, but not an overriding moral imperative like preventing hate crimes or employment discrimination against gays. Bill Clinton I’d bet probably hadn’t given much thought to the idea of gay marriage as of 1996 and since he didn’t feel strongly one way or the other probably defaulted to Dick Morris. Forgive me for being stupid… But isn’t the President pretty much supposed to sign bills as passed by congress? Yep - he’s got a veto, but isn’t that supposed to be some form of “nuclear option”? Or am I totally misunderstanding your political system? ---
**Author:** ![etv78](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/d78d45/32.png) [@etv78](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/etv78)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2014, 6:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-doma/687082/47 "2014-05-06T18:45:11Z")
Ben-The President was never meant to be a rubber stamp of Congress. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2014, 6:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-doma/687082/48 "2014-05-06T18:51:09Z")
> [@etv78](#): > > Ben-The President was never meant to be a rubber stamp of Congress. Correct, it’s part of the job to veto. Obama hasn’t had to do it much, because things he’d want to veto don’t generally get past the Senate. But, I think it’s generally thought that a president has as much right to veto as a member of Congress has the right to vote against a bill. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2014, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-doma/687082/49 "2014-05-06T18:56:52Z")
Traditionally, Presidents try not to use the veto too much. But yes, they have the right to veto whatever they want and it takes a two thirds vote in both chambers to override a veto. The veto is usually the final word. I do wonder if enough Democrats would have backed Clinton on the override vote had he been willing to go to the mat over the issue. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [May 6, 2014, 6:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-doma/687082/50 "2014-05-06T18:59:24Z")
We have three nominally co-equal branches of government, with a system of [checks and balances](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_powers_under_the_United_States_Constitution) between them. There is inevitably some ambiguity and tension about just who has what powers (ISTM that’s actually a healthy condition). The President does not have to accede to a bill he opposes, for whatever reason. It doesn’t often get to the point of a veto, because normally the legislation is done via cooperation that includes the congressional members of the President’s party, and involves various friends and opponents. And even if he does veto a bill, his veto can be overridden by a supermajority of both Houses. But later the Supreme Court can find it unconstitutional and throw it out anyway. And the President can appoint new Justices, which Congress can approve, that will reverse that ruling eventually. Or the President and any Justices can be impeached and removed, if things deteriorate that far. Sometimes votes and vetoes, and threats of each, are just posturing, naturally. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/clinton-and-doma/687082.md?page=2)