Clinton and Gay Rights

[seamusnewwest]

I decided to post this to a new thread. I'm concerned about the way some have attacked the Clintons as a pair, and have denigrated the Clinton presidency. The point I want to make is that whatever you think of Hillary, and whether or not you support Barack, Bill Clinton does not deserve some of the venom he's been thrown as a way of attacking his wife's candidacy. And by the way, neither Hillary or Barack have come anywhere close to what Bill Clinton did for gay rights when he ran, the only Presidential candidate ever to really stick his neck out on the issue.


Sorry for the long pst, but I wanted to clarify the claims about Bill Clinton's record on gay rights, because this is the most unjust of all attacks.


I remember "don't ask, don't tell" very well. Bill Clinton took on a Republican congress AND the U.S. military, which openly opposed and defied him, the Commander in Chief, knowing that Congress would back them. In this case, Bill Clinton lost. But no President has tried anything like that before or since.

It was the Senate that defeated Clinton's first course of action, to allow gays to serve unimpeded in the military. And sadly, they were led by a powerful Democrat, Sam Nunn, working if full thrall with the Republicans. They arranged for publicly televised hearings, where speaker after speaker, including military leaders, attacked Clinton's proposal. The battle never benefitted Clinton, but he knew it was the right thing to do. Clinton fought back in a variety of ways, including speaking directly to the nation's youth on MTV about gay rights, saying, "I don't believe we have a person to waste in America."

Don't Ask, Don't Tell was implemented by Congress, not by Clinton, but it was a response to Clinton's insistence that gays should be allowed in the military. After being defeated, he still fought for us, demanding some kind of compromise that would allow gays to serve. And Clinton never did support Don't Ask, Don't Tell as anything like fair treatment, describing the decision by Congress as "out of whack."

So, those of you who dish "Billary", or Bill Clinton, he doesn't deserve it. Not on gay rights anyway. Stop trying to make a point by attacking his presidency. Had the American people had half the sense to elect a Democratic congress to support Clinton, we would have gays in the military, universal health insurance, and many other wonderful things. I believe that the book Clinton wrote with Al Gore on their political program and goals is still available today. Far ahead of anything put out by the usually overly cautious Democrats ever since then.

Clinton did sign the Defence of Marriage Act, but again only because of a hostile Congress, and only after engaging in debate and a fight on our behalf. Clinton said he would sign the bill because it passed the Senate by 85 to 14. This meant two things. Firstly, a veto would be easily overruled. Secondly, Clinton's own party would not support him if he vetoed the bill. So what happened? The administration got the bill watered down, so that rather than banning gay marriage as Republicans wanted, it was limited to states not having to recognize gay marriages in other states. The actions of Clinton's administration actually set the territory for progressive states to go ahead and legalize gay marriage without federal government inteference.

Clinton also supported legislation to ban discrimination based on sexual orientation in employment and education.

It was Clinton who appointed the AIDS czar.

Even during the primary, Bill Clinton was the first major candidate to openly support gay rights. The Republicans responded to Clinton's nomination by allowing Pat Buchanan to give a keynote anti-gay speech. Said Buchanan, "Yet a militant leader of the homosexual rights movement could rise at that convention and exult: 'Bill Clinton and Al Gore represent the most pro-lesbian and pro-gay ticket in history.' And so they do." Buchanan told Republicans that Bill Clinton would "destroy the traditional family." After Clinton won the nomination, he regularly spoke on gay rights, including at his address to the Democratic convention - even though polls showed that the issue could be a vote loser for the Democrats. Republicans ran radio ads in the South, fear-mongering that Clinton would lead to more gay teachers in the schools.

Where were the Democrats before Bill Clinton? Four years before Bill Clinton, the Democrats officially supported gay rights in some areas, but would not campaign on the issue. The policy on AIDS was almost the same as that of Bush.

So, what could Bill Clinton do, with a hostile Congress, and limited executive power? Well, he could speak, meet, bully, submit budgets, and make appointments. And remember, we're talking back to 1992 here. It's almost impossible for people to understand how much worse it was back then, especially the freaking out about the military and gay marriage. Republican Jesse Helms practically shut downt the Senate trying to stop Clinton's appointment of openly gay Roberta Achtenberg as Assistant Secretary of the U.S. Department of Housing and Development. This was an important issue for gays at the time, with so many people becoming impoverished by AIDS and losing their housing. Achtenberg was the very first openly gay federal official who's appointment was confirmed by the Senate. The Republicans absolutely flipped out. And Clinton fought them, and with more experience under his belt (that experience issue again) this time he won. Then it was the first openly gay ambassador of the United States, Jim Hormel, and Bill Clinton said to the world, we have openly gay representatives here sometimes, deal with it. Under Ronald Reagan there were witchhunts of gay employees, lost security clearances, lost jobs. It was Bill Clinton who stopped the withhunts (which included forcing federal employees to name any gays that they knew on the job) and introduced job protection for gays in federal employment.

In retirement from the Presidency, Clinton, through the William J. Clinton Foundation, has made AIDS one of his major initiatives. http://www.clintonfoundation.org/cf-pgm-hs-ai-home.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=5155888
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/...n1167958.shtml

Google Clinton and AIDS. You'll be amazed at the extent of his work.

There is more, but it's been a long post already. This information is quite easily available to anyone who wanted to inform themselves.

If you are wondering why the Republicans hate Bill Clinton - and his wife Hillary - so much, this is the original reason. They hate Bill Clinton because he fought for us, and they hate us. They couldn't believe the Democrats would go so far out on a limb, they thought Clinton's support of gays would lead to his certain defeat. They were able to impede his agenda, but they hated him as the pro-gay President, and they made no secret of it back then. They hate the Clintons originally because they hate us. Everything else came after.

This is all part of the odd tendency of Americans to not understand their own government, and to think that the President is the government when he is not. But the President, even when faced with a hostile Congress, can take on issues and can have influence. And Bill Clinton had a positive influence for us. One that even several years of a Republican House of Representatives, Republican Senate, Republican Presidency, Republican two-thirds of governerships, and Republican Supreme Court all combined dared not to take all of our gains away.

By the way, Bill Clinton actually campaigned on the issue of including gays in the military, putting the issue front and center, championing the cause while trying to get elected. No presidential candidate has done anything like that before or since. And no presidential candidate in this race is doing anything like that. So from a gay point of view, please do not attack Bill Clinton to try to make your point. He doesn't deserve it.

 

[jetsonboy]

And you did not mention that the Clinton administration's very first efforts in office were directed tp the issues of gay rights.

 

[JackFTwist]

the rewriting of history ^^^^^^ above

I remember "don't ask, don't tell" very well. Bill Clinton took on a Republican congress AND the U.S. military, which openly opposed and defied him, the Commander in Chief, knowing that Congress would back them. In this case, Bill Clinton lost. But no President has tried anything like that before or since.

simply untrue

Clinton campaigned in is promise to end discrimination in the military. He won. There was a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate. Clinton backed down.

 

[PabloZed]

Bill Clinton was very successful on many issues and was more open-minded on gay issues than previous presidents. He deserves and gets praised for some efforts. But that does not mean that no one is allowed to criticize his record - or anyone else's record. Clinton promised to "END" the ban on gays in the military, but once he became president he ran into Colin Powell and others who had served in the military and he simply backed down. As president he could have simply ordered it, just as Truman ordered the military to desegrate in the 1940's - decades before even the civil rights movement began in earnest. Talk about courage! The military was the first US institution to desegregate and today it is the most desegregated institution and many minorities have risen to the very top of its leadership.

Clinton's foundation is doing incredible work in HIV/AIDS, but Bush deserves a world of credit also for his global AIDS initiative. But that does not mean Bush doesn't also warrant criticism for some of his anti-gay measures.

 

[jetsonboy]

the rewriting of history ^^^^^^ above



simply untrue

Clinton campaigned in is promise to end discrimination in the military. He won. There was a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate. Clinton backed down.

You seem so bent on putting the Clintons down so people vote for your Obama. I really, really hope that if he gets the nomination, he will not turn out to be another mistake like Bush, cuzz we surely don't need any more problems (and I think he will find plenty of those to deal with!).

 

[JackFTwist]

more on the rewrite of history done in the OP:
it is claimed:

Clinton did sign the Defence of Marriage Act, but again only because of a hostile Congress, and only after engaging in debate and a fight on our behalf. Clinton said he would sign the bill because it passed the Senate by 85 to 14. This meant two things. Firstly, a veto would be easily overruled. Secondly, Clinton's own party would not support him if he vetoed the bill. So what happened?

A person of courage would have negotiated with the Congress and would have vetoed the bill. Instead he happily signed it as a trump card to that Dole could not accuse Clinton of being "pro gay" in the 1996 election. Clinton sold us out and pandered to the right in the name of political expediency: his re-election. And Clinton played DOM act card as needed in the campaign. We got sold out and the house gays seem to be ok with it. I am not.

 

[JackFTwist]

You seem so bent on putting the Clintons down so people vote for your Obama. I really, really hope that if he gets the nomination, he will not turn out to be another mistake like Bush, cuzz we surely don't need any more problems (and I think he will find plenty of those to deal with!).

How did I put anyone down? I corrected a rewrite of history with the actual facts.

If speaking the truth is a put down, then the problem is not mine.

 

[newlink]

excuse me jftwist... Clinton did back off because of this poor excuse for a democrate.

*And sadly, they were led by a powerful Democrat, Sam Nunn, working if full thrall with the Republicans.*

by the way... what is BO's take on gays?!?

 

[iman]

Newlink is right. The Democratic majority in Congress meant nothing, they were frightened to death by the controversy. The public hearings featured numerous witnesses testifying that soldiers would be frightened to take showers with openly gay men and General Powell said openly gay soldiers would foster disorder in the military. Sam Nunn saw the writing on the wall and urged Clinton to sign "Don't Ask", a bill passed by the Democratic Congress.

[edited by springboksfan]

 

[jetsonboy]

Thank you iman, my words exactly.

 

[Spensed]

Don't get me wrong. I'm happy to support Obama. But the attacks on Bill Clinton's record on gay rights really are completely one sided and over-simplified.

Does anyone really think that Bill got Don't-Ask-Don't-Tell implemented because he changed his mind on his his election promises to gays?

Or that he signed the DOMA because his goal was to put gays down?

Of course, not.

Bill Clinton's compromises disappointed the more militant gays, but most folk understood that he was taking things as far as he thought he could politically and laying the groundwork for future change.

Bill's attempts to deal with gays in the military was one of his first actions as President and, despite the Democratic majority, he faced heavy opposition from the Republicans and the Military and the public. Gay rights have moved ahead so far since then that people forget what it was like.

Likewise with DOMA, it was a largely successful attempt to defuse the anti-gay Constitutional Amendment folk, who, without it, would have had an even bigger stick to beat the Dems with. I'm not saying I support it, but I understood the strategy. It was a strategic retreat. Easy to carp about it with hindsight.

Knock Hillary if you must, but don't distort history into black and white.

Hillary's position is very pro-gay, qualified only by her need (like Obama and Bill Clinton) to make some political compromises. I don't believe either of them don't really support gay marriage. They just don't want to lose votes by saying that.

http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Hillary_Clinton_Civil_Rights.htm#Gay_Rights

Either Obama or Hillary Clinton should be fine on gay rights.

McCain would be a disaster. His Supreme Court nominees would re-criminalize gays at the earliest opportunity.

 

[JackFTwist]

Newlink is right. The Democratic majority in Congress meant nothing, they were frightened to death by the controversy. The public hearings featured numerous witnesses testifying that soldiers would be frightened to take showers with openly gay men and General Powell said openly gay soldiers would foster disorder in the military. Sam Nunn saw the writing on the wall and urged Clinton to sign "Don't Ask", a bill passed by the Democratic Congress.

[edited by springboksfan]

Yes the Dems could have been supportive and Nunn was not at all helpful. Harry Truman put his order through on desegregation. In Clinton's first act as president he backed down off of a campaign pledge for which he was elected on.

He backed off on DOMA too. In realpolitik sometimes you do those things. But he always backed down. Same as he did on Lani Guernier.

Actaully I am quite a fan of Bill's. I do not subscribe to your idolatry of any Clinton. Bill was overall a president that I loved. He could have done so much more however of not for his own reluctance to lead and his personal vices.

I pity you for whatever is the cause of your inability to understand that to speak the truth, even if critical, is not a sign of hate.

 

[Sammie13]

Newlink is right. The Democratic majority in Congress meant nothing, they were frightened to death by the controversy. The public hearings featured numerous witnesses testifying that soldiers would be frightened to take showers with openly gay men and General Powell said openly gay soldiers would foster disorder in the military. Sam Nunn saw the writing on the wall and urged Clinton to sign "Don't Ask", a bill passed by the Democratic Congress.

Good job, Iman and thanks for the opening post, seamusnewwest. The whole gay issue that President Clinton started within days of his administration ultimately caused such upheaval that he nearly undermined his presidency, created unsettled relations with many people of his own party, and lead to the 1994 Republican surge in Congress, which then lead to an even less likelihood of him getting his own agenda through by having to compromise with the right. On gay issues, Bill Clinton was ahead of his time (this was pre-Will & Grace and pre-Ellen in a time when gays weren't as open in the public media). I cannot fathom why people would call him cowardly; especially, since bold leadership is not something you typically get with politicians. I think Hillary would try to amend much of his gay agenda "failures" with a Democratic congress now 14 years later.

 

[iman]

The Republicans brought up the issue of gays in the military days after Clinton took the oath in an effort to roll him on a controversial subject. Don't Ask, Don't Tell was the compromise worked out by Nunn to prevent a statute being passed to ban gays outright from the military.

That is simply history and it is disgraceful that some Obama supporters find it necessary to lie about in their ongoing efforts to trash the Clintons.

 

[seamusnewwest]

Turn off your bitch switch, ladies! You claim Obama's men hate the Clintons, but that seems to be the pot calling the kettle barack.

Aren't there simply a lot of people in America who love Clinton (especially Bill) but love Obama even more?

The first post on this thread is very praiseworthy. I wouldn't mind reading a longer version. Or the sequel.

I'll bet there are people who love Bill Clinton more than they love Barack Obama, but are still voting for Barack Obama. After all, Bill is not running against Barack. Part of my point. Yes, Bill and Hillary are married, yes they are tight political allies, but they are still their own people. And Bill Clinton has a positive record that does not deserve to be attacked. At the end of the day, it only serves the Republican interest to do so.

Attacking Bill makes no sense.

And I am utterly confused by the tone of some of the postings - clearly, with Obama's messages of hope, non-partisanship, compromise, etc., some of his supporters are just not willing to follow their candidates campaign script. Since Bill Clinton is the last Democrat President, should Obama secure the nomination, he would do well to remind the people that they really liked the last Democratic Presidency.

 

[seamusnewwest]

[edited remark]


That's really taking it too far. These posts are the only ones, of any side, that do so much to energize the hostility of these discussions. True, before typing right away, others have used strong political opinion. But the qoute above really goes too far. You want us to vote for your candidate? Are you representing him with that? Imagine if some of your postings got on CNN, it would hurt your candidate. No other Obama supporter on these forums, consistent with a campaign advocating less partnership and more inclusion, has taken this tone or language. Reading the reactions to these posts, they have inadvertantly created more firm resolution on the part of Clinton supporters, and have not brought any support to Obama. Calm down, not every opinion that rivals yours is an attack, and not every criticism merits an even more heated response.

The poster is obviously very politically involved, a man of strong opinions, and some of the posts are informative. We do appreciate THOSE qualities. Keep bringing that part to the table. Don't be provoked so easily! And there will even be praise from Clinton supporters for the informative and positive nature!

 

[chuck10x]

The original post is right.
Republicans rewrote history.
The real truth can be found by using google, President Clinton / Gay rights.
The Christian conservative movement SURGED because of it.

 

[seamusnewwest]

There's been some myth propagated here about Truman's racial desegregation of the military, and incorrect argument that Clinton could simply have issued an executive order to fully integrate gays.

The powers of Commander in Chief have never been absolute. I won't give the full history of that, but even John F. Kennedy, for example, had to personally phone the ships captains during the Cuban missile crisis blockade of Cuba, because the country's admirals refused to order the ships closer to the shore, as Kennedy wanted. He had to phone the ship's captains himself.

I'll start with Truman. Like Clinton, Truman deserves full credit and praise for what he did. But he did not simply order desegregation, and like Clinton he compromised. Surprised? Read on.

Truman had served in the military, an officer in World War One. He knew first hand the racial attitudes in the military. Desegregation had been campaigned for but even by supportive politicians was not considered politically possible, because it was well understood that whites would simply refuse to serve in desegregated units. World War Two is what changed that - the record of service of blacks in the war brought a new respect for black soldiers, even though it did not exactly end racism. Truman was there at the right time, but he was not the first politician to toy with desegregation. In fact, Truman himself was a product of this post-war appreciation for black servicemen. Prior to that, Truman was himself a racist (look it up if you don't believe me). It was World War Two that changed his mind, as well as the public's.

So yes, Truman issued his executive order, to desegregate the military - kind of. Truman avoided the kind of open disobediance that Clinton received from the military by compromising from the very beginning. The executive order was issued July 26, 1948, Executive Order 9981. However, Truman allowed local commanders to implement the order when they deemed it appropriate. So, every commander who opposed desegregation was allowed to maintain segregation. The last segregated unit wasn't abolished until late in the Korean War (1954). For its part, the Department of Defence did not take other measures to ensure equality of treatment and opportunity until 26 July 1963 with Defense Directive 5120.36, 15 years after Truman's order.

By the way, the first "integrated" basic training company was not until 1951. So much for the military being automatically subservient to Presidential dictat. It happened at Fort Riley, Kansas, June to August 1951. Army clerks screened black to recruit northern blacks with a high education, and then assigned only one black to each platoon - that was "integration", after all, right?!?!

Was the army effectively segregated even at that point? In the reality on the ground, it would not be until the Gulf War forty years later, a war fought under the leadership of black general Colin Powell, that a majority of black service personnel would say that racial segregation and actual assualts by whites had reached the level of "not too noticeable."

So, was Truman wrong in compromising? His compromise, as is often the case, did lead to the eventual desegregation of the military. But it was not, as a poster has said, a fait accompli simply through the fiat of Presidential power. So, Truman did have the power to issue an executive order - but that power still had to ensure the compliance of congress, was still neccessarily a compromise, and still took decades to fulfill.

And Congress does have the power to pass laws regarding the military. Had Clinton issued an executive order - the very kind of confrontational move that some modern politicians say should not be a part of modern politics - Congress would simply have passed opposing legislation, and there would have been on compromise, and a badly damaged President.

 

[Kulindahr]

Clinton campaigned in is promise to end discrimination in the military. He won. There was a Democratic majority in both the House and Senate. Clinton backed down.

A majority, but... how big? and how many were working the opposite side of the issue?

The whole gay issue that President Clinton started within days of his administration ultimately caused such upheaval that he nearly undermined his presidency, created unsettled relations with many people of his own party, and lead to the 1994 Republican surge in Congress, which then lead to an even less likelihood of him getting his own agenda through by having to compromise with the right. On gay issues, Bill Clinton was ahead of his time (this was pre-Will & Grace and pre-Ellen in a time when gays weren't as open in the public media). I cannot fathom why people would call him cowardly; especially, since bold leadership is not something you typically get with politicians. I think Hillary would try to amend much of his gay agenda "failures" with a Democratic congress now 14 years later.

He stood up some, he backed down some. It was maneuvering, and anyone can argue against those maneuvers with hindsight.

But the firswt post is a nice history review, no matter where you sit on this.

 

[cmhcrew]

"Likewise with DOMA, it was a largely successful attempt to defuse the anti-gay Constitutional Amendment folk, who, without it, would have had an even bigger stick to beat the Dems with. I'm not saying I support it, but I understood the strategy. It was a strategic retreat. Easy to carp about it with hindsight."


You mean easy to rewrite history, or is it?

This was H. Clintons excuse for DOMA, to head off the anti gay constitutional ammendment.

Problem is this, at the time, NO ONE, absolutely NO ONE was even suggesting a federal marriage ammendment, NO ONE. That didn't happen till Massachusets started talking marriage rights.

DOMA was not necessary to head off anything, he simply caved or he purposely threw us under the bus.

Either way it was shitty. Shittier still is trying to rewite unpopular history with a lie to try to come off as our hero.