Clinton and DOMA

Politics & Elections
21

Gay marriage has been part of the National Democratic party Platform since 2012.

[QUOTE=democratic-national-platform]
Freedom to Marry. We support the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law. We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference.
[/QUOTE]

I’d say that’s a pretty official Democratic position.

Feel free to compare that to the Republican National Platform:

[QUOTE=Fox News]
The platform affirms the rights of states and the federal government not to recognize same-sex marriage. It backs a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman
[/QUOTE]

22

Why do you even fucking bother? Do you really think anybody believes all this stuff you present as fact, apparently for no other reason than you wish it were true?

Here. :rolleyes:

Yet you go on to criticize them for exactly that, just a post or two later. Remarkable. :rolleyes:

23

And you won’t. You’ll fully understand and support their reelection. See, the difference between me and you is that if I see a Republican lying his ass off or taking a position I vehemently disagree with to get elected, I don’t back him. I understand why a party committee might feel the need to, but a Doper has no reason whatsoever to do so.

24

Which Republicans are being “entirely consistent”? The ones who oppose SSM or the ones who support it?

25

This is probably my fault. adaher, if you want to argue about this, take it to a new thread. This one is supposed to be about Bill Clinton and DOMA.

26

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.

27

And part of the plastform for some sdtate Democratic parties for even longer than that.

Here in Minnesota, for example, it was made part of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party Platform in June, 1972 – 44 years ago!

28

I can’t even really see where you’re going with this. He was an electoral politician in the 90s. Even if it had been his own personal crusade to legalize same-sex marriage, he had no chance of doing so at the time. Since then, he’s been not so much a politician as an elder statesman and party elder. And either his mind has been changed or he feels he can reveal his true feelings about the subject now. Frankly, WHY he feels that way now is irrelevant and moot.

So what’s your point?

29

Is it more enlightening to ask why Clinton signed the bill, or why the Republicans passed it, and would again today for that matter?

30

That’s easy. Unlike Democrats, you don’t have to read minds to figure out what Republicans actually believe.

31

Adher you’re like a baseball coach bragging that while his team has lost every one of their games, at least they’ve been consistant.

32

They didn’t cheat, is what you meant to say. When politicians do things only because they have to do them to survive, that’s a form of cheating. Perfectly Acceptable Cheating in politics, of course, but still cheating.

And true to form, at least one Senate Democrat will throw gays under the bus to save his or her skin and succeed in doing it. Democrats who supposedly are anti-bigotry will treat this Democrat as a good colleague and friend.

This is what having no principles entails.

33

I agree with you there, mindreading is of little use.

34

Get back on topic. That goes for everybody.

35

Deleted because apparently arguing tangents is off-topic now.

36

How is asking why DOMA was created not relevant to why Clinton signed it?

37

The question is fine. The problem was adaher’s (typical) decision avoid answering it so he could take a potshot at Democrats.

38

I’d really like to know what he thinks caused DOMA to be written and passed.

But you’re right; he won’t go there.

39

That’s all it was. Although I’d always heard in civics education that the president can allow a bill to pass by simply not doing anything, as long as it didn’t coincide with Congress being out of session, because that would effect a pocket veto. If Clinton intended to let the bill pass, he could have chosen not to sign it and it would be passed anyway. Instead, he chose to commit to the wrong side. For whatever reason. It was anyhow the wrong side in 1996, too. It was the bigoted side.

So do presidents now decide to either sign or veto every bill? Has the option to allow it to pass, by leaving it alone, become deprecated in practice?

40

Depends if Congress is in session or not. See “pocket veto”