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.
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?
Yes. Even at the time, this was obvious.
See also: COPA.
Political pandering. His mind never “changed.”
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
We have three nominally co-equal branches of government, with a system of checks and balances 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.