The Advocate: Bernie Sanders Doesn't Share Hillary Clinton's Memory of How DOMA Passed

[portlander23]

Last edited Mon Oct 26, 2015, 10:03 AM - Edit history (4)

Bernie Sanders Doesn't Share Hillary Clinton's Memory of How DOMA Passed
LUCAS GRINDLEY
The Advocate

Clinton said during an interview with Rachel Maddow on MSNBC Friday that her husband's signing of DOMA was a "defensive action" meant to stave off a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Sanders was in the House of Representatives at the time and voted against DOMA, which passed on a vote of 342-67.

"In 1996, I faced another fork in the road. A very, very difficult political situation," he said. "It was called the Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, brought forth by a Republican-led Congress, and its purpose was clear, to discriminate against gays and lesbians in the law.

"And let us all remember that gay and lesbian rights were not popular then, as they are today. It was a tough vote. And I'm sorry to have to tell you that bill won by an overwhelming majority in the House…. That was not a politically easy vote.

"Now today, some are trying to rewrite history by saying that they voted for one antigay law to stop something worse. That's not the case. There was a small minority in the House opposed to discriminating against our gay brothers and sisters, and I am proud that I was one of those members."

Famed LGBT activist David Mixner recalled Bill Clinton's signing of DOMA to The New York Times critically in 2013, after the former president finally decried it as unconstitutional: “He made a political calculation that was an immoral calculation.”

Even the president's former press secretary, Mike McCurry, was blunt in that same article about what had led to Bill Clinton signing DOMA: “His posture was quite frankly driven by the political realities of an election year in 1996.” Then Bill Clinton made things worse with LGBT voters when he touted the signature in campaign ads for his reelection.

Video at link.


Hillary Clinton accused of revising history on Defense of Marriage Act
Sahil Kapur
Bloomberg

But is this true, or is it revisionist history?

Bill Clinton's aides and confidants admitted to the New York Times in 2013 that he knew DOMA was wrong and discriminatory toward gays and lesbians. His former press secretary Mike McCurry said: "His posture was quite frankly driven by the political realities of an election year in 1996." Democratic consultant and Clinton ally Hilary Rosen added: "In my conversations with him, he was personally embarrassed and remorseful."

Neither said it was a strategic move to prevent something worse. And indeed, that might have been difficult. The Federal Marriage Amendment wasn't introduced until 2002. It didn't become part of the Republican Party platform until 2004.

A group of senators who voted for DOMA wrote in a brief to the Supreme Court in 2013 that they thought its passage "would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or more."

Prominent figures in the LGBT community, meanwhile, rejected Clinton's recollection of history.

"Hillary's version of DADT and DOMA is so wrong. The only 'defensive posture' was for their personal politics not LGBT," activist David Mixner said on Twitter. He added: "The LGBT community should NEVER allow any politician to revise our noble and courageous history for political purposes."

Radio host and HuffPost Gay Voices editor-at-large Michelangelo Signorile called Hillary Clinton's version "revisionism" and said it was "simply not true that DOMA was signed to stop something worse." He continued, "Hillary doesn't need to re-write Bill history to make her better. She's fine, has promised a lot."

Now in Defense of Gay Marriage, Bill Clinton
PETER BAKER
MARCH 25, 2013

The bill passed with overwhelming margins, enough to override a veto. He hoped to avoid calling attention to it with his post-midnight signature. Mike McCurry, the press secretary, got a call at home asking if they should wait until morning to announce it. “His posture was quite frankly driven by the political realities of an election year in 1996,” Mr. McCurry recalled.

Some gay supporters were outraged. Mr. Mixner, already alienated because of the military compromise, refused to attend the Democratic convention after Mr. Clinton made clear he would sign the bill. “He made a political calculation that was an immoral calculation,” Mr. Mixner recalled.

The schism widened when Mr. Clinton’s campaign broadcast ads on Christian radio in 15 states boasting that he had signed the Defense of Marriage Act. But most gay voters still voted for him, according to polls. His support for employment nondiscrimination legislation, AIDS financing and removing limits on security clearances for gay civilians outweighed what at the time seemed a more theoretical issue.

“People screamed as loud as they could inside the building and outside right up until the minute he signed it, and then when he signed it everybody moved on,” said Richard Socarides, then Mr. Clinton’s White House adviser on gay and lesbian issues.

Mr. Clinton did not back off the marriage law. As late as 2004, when 11 states put measures against same-sex marriage on the ballot, Mr. Clinton privately advised John Kerry to endorse a constitutional ban, according to Newsweek’s history of the campaign. Matt McKenna, Mr. Clinton’s spokesman, called that account “completely false.”

Over time, though, Mr. Clinton heard again and again from gay friends. “In my conversations with him, he was personally embarrassed and remorseful,” said Hilary Rosen, a longtime Democratic strategist. “It makes him uncomfortable that something he’s responsible for has caused so much pain to so many people he genuinely cares about.”

By 2009, times had changed and so had polls. After a speech, Mr. Clinton said he had changed his mind. He called Mr. Socarides that afternoon. “I think I’ve come out for same-sex marriage,” Mr. Clinton said.

To supporters of the law, Mr. Clinton’s new position seemed as opportunistic as his original one did to the other side. His “shifting views on marriage are precisely why we have an independent judiciary,” said John Eastman, chairman of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes same-sex marriage. “The Constitution is not designed to shift with momentary political winds.”

To some gay supporters, the statement was inadequate. “I would like him to say that it was always wrong and, even if he felt forced into making a political calculation, he’s deeply sorry that it became the law,” said Elizabeth Birch, who headed the Human Rights Campaign in 1996.

Mr. Mixner agreed but said the change was enough. “The purpose of a movement is to change minds, not in some Stalinistic way to punish those who are not ideologically pure,” he said. “We created a safe place where he could change his mind.

Added this for more context. This article is about Mr. Clinton, and I won't claim it applies to Mrs. Clinton's views. My jaw literally did drop when I read "Mr. Clinton privately advised John Kerry to endorse a constitutional ban". At least that was denied. More context on that here and here.


Related:

The Advocate: President Hillary Clinton would compromise on civil rights if necessary

"Some are trying to rewrite history" on Defense of Marriage Act

Clinton: ‘Don’t Ask Don’t Tell’ and DOMA Were ‘Defensive Actions’ To Stop Anti-LGBT Conservatives

BERNIE SANDERS | FULL INTERVIEW WITH JAKE TAPPER on 'CNN STATE OF THE UNION’ 10/25/15

[dsc]

1. But when it comes to GOP people

he is way more forgiving (I mean Lucas not Bernie), go figure. It is almost as if Lucas was a Republican.

[portlander23]

2. You forgot to post the context for the slur

Op-ed: Why Cindy McCain Really Is a 'Hero'

When the Trevor Project honors Cindy McCain tonight with its Trevor Hero Award, the knee-jerk reaction from those who haven't paid attention will be something like: "Wait, what?"

When The Trevor Project first announced Mrs. McCain as the recipient of its Hero Award in a news release, she credited her daughters for inspiring advocacy on behalf of LGBT equality. Meghan McCain's latest move is an ad campaign for Freedom to Marry.

"I think right now you are seeing so many people, Republicans and Democrats, coming out for marriage equality," says Meghan McCain in the video released Thursday, "and I think just in statistics alone it's obvious that the tide is turning."

When Mrs. McCain receives the Hero Award tonight, it makes sense that the presenter is slated as Meghan McCain. In 2010, Mrs. McCain followed her daughter in posing for a No H8 portrait. That's the campaign of everyday folks and celebs who reacted in protest over Proposition 8's passage in California.

Most probably missed it, but Mrs. McCain was also cast in a Phoenix production of 8, the anti-Prop. 8 play written by Dustin Lance Black and performed by celebs all over the country. Before bowing out due to illness, Mrs. McCain was cast as one of the lesbian plaintiffs who challenges the law's constitutionality. That case is now before the Supreme Court.

What's perhaps most striking about talking with Cindy McCain is her certainty that more Republican women like her are out there, silently wanting to support marriage equality. For some reason, or probably a multitude, these women are hesitating.

The Trevor Project

ABOUT THE TREVOR PROJECT

Founded in 1998 by the creators of the Academy Award®-winning short film TREVOR, The Trevor Project is the leading national organization providing crisis intervention and suicide prevention services to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and questioning (LGBTQ) young people ages 13-24

Yes, the right wing conspiracy is vast ...

[Babel_17]

3. Great attention to the details of history

Thanks for the documentation!

[HerbChestnut]

4. Great Post.

Supporting any law that discriminates against a group of people for political expediency is immoral and wrong.

[99Forever]

5. I guess neoliberals don't think us actual liberals...

... remember history or realize that all of their lies are easy access to everyone.

We were there Bill, we KNOW all of your dirty "secrets" and your wife's.

[Rose Siding]

7. "Actual liberals" remember what Sanders really thinks of us

“Kennedy was young and appealing and ostensibly liberal, but I think at that point, seeing through Kennedy, and what liberalism was, was probably a significant step for me to understand that conventional politics or liberalism was not what was relevant.”
http://www.buzzfeed.com/ilanbenmeir/bernie-sanders-despised-democrats-in-1980s-said-a-jfk-speech#.ykMgqwJK1

[frylock]

21. The latest rationalization is that Sanders lives in the past, while Hillary looks to the future.

[99Forever]

22. Why is it neoliberals never want us to look at their history?

Never mind, if I had done some of the things they have, I hide from my history too.

[Bluenorthwest]

6. Bernie was and is right, but the Grindley is not someone I respect at all. And watching DOMA

discussions among straight folks is hi-larious. They affect a great concern about DOMA votes when that serves their interests but when they want to they overlook DOMA support and make massive threads declaring that DOMA voters are the very picture of a progressive.

People who affect concern about an issue only because it serves their own agenda leave me cold.

[portlander23]

8. Not about DOMA votes

Lots of people voted for DOMA. Lots of people were opposed to marriage equality. Mrs. Clinton obviously didn't even vote on DOMA. No one is being demonized for their former position. The complaint is rewriting history for ... I dunno what. I don't see what the political gain is from protecting DOMA's legacy.

[Bluenorthwest]

12. Not talking about the reality of the votes is also rewriting history. All over DU today, DOMA voters

are being lionized when that is convenient, criticized when that serves the agenda. I'm talking about your tactics, I get sick of seeing this shit. You want to say the vote did not matter at all, but discussing the various points of view that existed around the votes matters very much. The problem with that is that the only reason to possibly forgive those who voted for it lies in those conflicting opinions about tactics. If people like Wellstone, Biden and Harry Reid all actually wanted to make sure there was never same sex marriage they were bigoted villains. If, on the other hand, some thought it was a tactical move, one can sort of mitigate what they did.
At that time, I wildly disagreed with Clinton and Wellstone and the vast majority of Democrats who voted for DOMA, most of whom muttered excuses and few of whom actually said 'we don't want those gays getting married'. To mitigate Wellstone or Biden's choice, it is necessary to consider the context of the times.
But of course when the subject is Biden or Wellstone or any of the other DOMA yes voters, none of that comes up at all, we just say 'Wellstone, best progressive ever, totally principled'. And that indicates that the issue only matters when it serves the agenda at hand.

[portlander23]

14. Not my position

I'm not saying the vote doesn't matter. I'm not saying DOMA didn't matter. I'm condemning DOMA. Bernie gets props for for getting it right. Wellstone and others get dinged for getting it wrong. Anyone who's come around in their view and is for marriage equality now, I'm more interested in working with them than demonizing them for the bad vote.

That's not the same as rewriting history on DOMA. That's wrong. The history indicates that the people who voted for this were legitimately against marriage equality at worst or making a politically expedient vote. Recasting the vote as a step against a constitutional amendment is simply not factual.

If you want to hold the vote against people, even if they've come around on marriage equality, fine. That's not my position. My position is we shouldn't allow people to equivocate on bad policy that hurt people.

[Bluenorthwest]

16. Your thoughts on this are very muddled.

The thing is Bernie was one of a very few who had the courage and foresight to do the right thing. That's very wonderful. This is why I support him, discernment, principle and conviction in the face of peer and voter pressures.
On the other hand, I know that in 1996 68% of Americans were opposed to marriage equality and that I myself had been very busy trying to help turn the tide on AIDS. 1996 was the year we saw deaths and infection rates begin to drop. Things done by the Clinton administration helped get that done, after years of Republican neglect. So the political theater in which DOMA was created was one of retaliation against Democrats for funding AIDS programs and not hating LGBT openly.

It was very complex, very nuanced, opinions varied at the time, some of us myself included held that against Bill Clinton and even helped fund Obama just for that reason. Ask David Geffin, he had the big stack involved. Geffin I hear supports Hillary this time. Complex and very personal history that is really only comprehended by those who were present and in action for the whole thing.

Which I was. Which is why I support Bernie but also do not care for many of these OP's that exploit an issue most DUers really don't care about.
Today on DU, Paul Wellstone is 'the Best Progressive Ever'. Voted for DOMA and the Patriot Act. Those who adore him in spite of that often rant about Hillary for those very reasons and that is a bogus double standard. Either it matters or it does not.

You don't care if they voted for it, just how they talk about it now. Well the people who voted for it all talk about it better now, Biden has a spiel, they all do. But they voted for it and that does in fact matter.
Those folks would perhaps take another punch then say sorry later and expect all to be forgiven. Which is why Hillary is not my first choice.

[portlander23]

18. Not muddled

1. I think voting for DOMA was wrong.
2. I think Bernie was right.
3. I think pretending DOMA was something it wasn't is wrong.
4. I think people changing their mind and coming over to our side on marriage quality is good. Lots of people have changed on this and I'm not going to hold it over their heads forever.

I'm not saying you should forget the vote, and if you think Mrs. Clinton would not be a trustworthy vote on future civil rights issues (as Grindley asserted in a different article), I won't fault you for that position. I tend to agree that Mrs. Clinton's record on this and other issues raises questions about her judgment and what actions she might or might not take in the future.

What I think is egregious here is equivocation on past stances. It's one thing to say you got something wrong and to move on. It's another thing to say a bad former position was secretly a good one.

On the topic of Wellstone or Biden or whomever, I'm fine with lauding them on their good votes and calling them out on their bad ones. Same with their stated positions. I'm Bernie 100%. I still don't like his position on drones. I'm not sure staying in Afghanistan is wise either. I don't have a problem complaining about these things while supporting him.

I'm not sure who's claiming that being right on certain positions make a particular politician correct all the time, but that's not me.

[DianeK]

20. I completely agree...

it points more to having the courage to stand up for what is right and in 1996 it was a very courageous vote on Bernie's part. I remember those times very well..my 17 year old daughter had just come out a couple of years before this vote and it troubled her so much that she wrote a letter of protest to President Clinton and she actually got a response. I have been looking all morning to try to find that letter..I know it is around here somewhere. But it was a disheartening letter..I do remember that.

If you want to know how strong and courageous our political leaders are you have only to look at their record...and I will stand with Bernie over Hillary any day!

[Bohunk68]

9. When I heard the interview on Rachel and heard this explanation,

I screamed at the tv, because that is not the way many of us remember it. If Bill had vetoed the bill, the Congress would have passed the SAME bill over the veto, not another more horrendous bill or a Constitutional Amendment. It would have been the same bill, because they would just have to vote it again. IN and OUT, done job. Same with DADT, DOMA, NAFTA and that horrendous POS Repeal of Glass-Steagol. Sorry, but Bill didn't have the guts to fess up to a BJ and then say,"Next question?" Nope, it was no guts then and it is no guts, flip-flop, now.

[kenfrequed]

11. Exactly!

Saying they would pass a more horrible bill either tells me the speaker doesn't know how the process works or that they are expecting us to be ignorant about that process.

You are correct. You do not get to add amendments on a veto override.

[Bluenorthwest]

13. What I remember is that the Democratic voters of this Party did not rise up to support our rights

and that the bulk of straight voters were absolutely content to pass such a thing. None of the persons who voted for it suffered even a slight ding to their progressive images, and 68% of the people opposed marriage equality.
That's what I remember, being yet again abandoned by the very Party we'd just helped put back into power. By the politicians and by the voters.

32% were for us. The rest, against us. That was the fact of the times.

Which is why Bernie's vote against DOMA is so meaningful. He was surrounded by parsing progressives like Wellstone going along with the tide of discrimination and he did the right thing when almost no one did.

[portlander23]

15. I agree that Bernie should get credit for not abandoning us

[Bohunk68]

23. That too! We were abandoned and then people on DU were all going

y'all just want a pony/unicorn. Just sit in the back of the bus and stfu. I know the underside of that bus quite well and it was the Clintons that threw us there.

[NorthCarolina]

10. Nor do thinking Americans. eom

[sabrina 1]

17. There will have to be a lot of rewriting of history to explain so many of her wrong stances on

issues she either didn't have the courage to support or oppose when she should have, then later changed her mind depending on how the political wind was blowing.

If she was defending Gays back in 1996 by supporting DOMA, wouldn't that mean she supported Marriage Equality? But in 2013 she opposed it based on the 'Sanctity of Marriage'???

[arcane1]

19. Did she "mis-speak" again?

I'm glad I was sitting down for THAT revelation. Betraying constituents in order to further one's political career seems to be common to both Clintons.

[azmom]

24. Good lord. Hillary misleading the public

Again.

[WillyT]

25. Who'd A Thunk It ???