Clinton and Gay Rights

[Lostlover]

Wow, Clinton appoints an AIDS czar and the gay community should be proud?

Gays have AIDS? And blacks like watermelon. And Mexicans are landscapers. And Jews are greedy... blah blah blah.

 

[Spensed]

"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.

In 1993, a Hawaii case looked as if it might result in the recognition of gay marriage and effectively force other States to do the same (at least with respect to gay marriages in Hawaii).

This resulted in a lot of anti-gay rabble rousing, demanding some action to stop this and it was one of the issues threatening Clinton re-election chances in 1996.

The Defence of Marriage Act was passed in that year as a mechanism for taking the wind out of the anti-gay marriage lobby and Clinton's support for DOMA helped get him re-elected.

It took until 2003 for the Defense of Marriage Act Amendment to make its appearance. Even then many opponents of gay marriage thought that an Amendment was redundant because of DOMA and, despite repeated attempts, the Amendment didn't get its required majority.

Obviously, I don't like DOMA, but as a strategy against the opponents of gay marriage, it worked. Without it the situation, I think, would be much worse.

My point wasn't that Clinton had a totally clean gay report card. He didn't. But he still did more to promote gay visibility and progress than any other President.

Where he didn't do as much as he could have, it was out of political expediency that did more good than harm. Shitty maybe. But, if you remember how far gay issues and rights have come since 1993, wholly explicable.

 

[seamusnewwest]

In 1993, a Hawaii case looked as if it might result in the recognition of gay marriage and effectively force other States to do the same (at least with respect to gay marriages in Hawaii).

This resulted in a lot of anti-gay rabble rousing, demanding some action to stop this and it was one of the issues threatening Clinton re-election chances in 1996.

The Defence of Marriage Act was passed in that year as a mechanism for taking the wind out of the anti-gay marriage lobby and Clinton's support for DOMA helped get him re-elected.

It took until 2003 for the Defense of Marriage Act Amendment to make its appearance. Even then many opponents of gay marriage thought that an Amendment was redundant because of DOMA and, despite repeated attempts, the Amendment didn't get its required majority.

Obviously, I don't like DOMA, but as a strategy against the opponents of gay marriage, it worked. Without it the situation, I think, would be much worse.

My point wasn't that Clinton had a totally clean gay report card. He didn't. But he still did more to promote gay visibility and progress than any other President.

Where he didn't do as much as he could have, it was out of political expediency that did more good than harm. Shitty maybe. But, if you remember how far gay issues and rights have come since 1993, wholly explicable.

I didn't mention the Hawaii situation in my original post, but it was the precursor of the whole debate. If Hawaii (or any other state) had gay marriage, would other states be forced to recognize those marriages?

And yes, my friend, at the time the appointment of an AIDS czar did make us proud. How much people take things for granted now. I mean, does the appointment of an AIDS czar make him bad somehow?

 

[seamusnewwest]

To those who've expressed support and interest in my original post, thank you. You make me glad I took the time, and you reflect the best in the idea of JUB as a supportive community.

Why, you've even prompted me to take the time to fill out a profile and put up a few (non-porn) pics in my little gallery!

To those of you who took the time to thoughtfully and intelligently present other points of view and information, thank you, duly respected and kudos for thinking about these issues.

Kisses!

Seamus.

 

[NickCole]

What a terrific thread, Seamus!

I just read through every single post, and that's rare for me.

Seems like almost everything has been talked about so I'll respond to Lostlover:

Wow, Clinton appoints an AIDS czar and the gay community should be proud?

Gays have AIDS? And blacks like watermelon. And Mexicans are landscapers. And Jews are greedy... blah blah blah.

Yes the gay community should be proud. And we were very grateful.

Men my age and older lost most of our friends and our lovers. Those of us who were out and very sexually active in urban areas, and made it through still HIV- are a rare species. AIDS hit the gay community first, and hardest for many years. Reagan ignored it, ignored us, ignored our need and our losses. Bush was a little better but not much because all they really said was stop having sex.

Then Bill Clinton came along and appointed an AIDS Czar. Try to imagine the legitimacy that brought to our efforts to end discrimination, raise funds, encourage research. And also give back a little dignity to the gay community that had been swept to the gutter. AIDS, what we dealt with because of it, when Clinton became President changed very fast. Reagan ignored us, Bush acknowledged us but left us in the cold, Clinton came in, said you've got a friend in me and I've got your back. And he did.

You apparently don't know what it was like to go from finally being liberated out of seamy secret backrooms, being out and unashamed and living a full life, to being blindsided by a vile disease, losing friends and lovers, and at the same time knocked to the gutter by our President and other Americans. As a gay man maybe you might think about finding out about the fairly recent history of gay men. Bill Clinton made plenty of mistakes and he, in my opinion, bungled gays in the military, but he and Hillary have always been on our side, they've done their best to help and in many instances they have helped. It will be a great shame if the gay community forgets who our steadfast friends have been and treats them the way they tried to protect us from being treated.

 

[seamusnewwest]

When I came out, I was fairly young, and AIDS had only recently been the great terror of the gay community, which it was, because back then if you got it you were expected to die. It ripped through the community like the worst of historic plagues. And it was not that long ago.

Coming out was quite scary for me, I'll admit it. The gay community was not really that established in my city (it is now), and hostility including beatings outside of gay bars was not that unusual. No one came out in high school, very few were out to their families, and coming out was usually a lonely process.

Add to that the extra threat of AIDS at the time, a disease for which the only support we had politically was right-wing politicians who offered to quarantine people who had AIDS - or even everyone who was gay, just to be sure!!! And the best advice offered to gay men to avoid AIDS was just not to have sex. Where I lived, it was not even advertised that condoms would help until later. So, coming out, I was just left with the paralyzing fear that sex could lead to death. And we were left with the fear that if we got tested for AIDS, if we had the disease, that it could be reported to the government, and that at some point we might actually all be rounded up and locked away somewhere. My province actually introduced legislation to allow for such a widespread quarantine to take place, and it was supported across North America by many politicians. And this position did not at all discredit them, some went on to become more prominent, including one Republican by the name of Mike Huckabee (http://wizbangblog.com/content/2007/12/08/huckabee-favored-aids-quarantine.php).

And there have been so many that were lost. For me, one of the lost was a friend I had known since my days in cub scouts. The talk in the bars was often gossip to catch up on who had died. The gay papers were full - absolutely full - of beautiful and grieving obituaries.

People were dying, but for the state, AIDS was essentially a right-wing political issue. It took political leadership to make it a public health issue.

So yes, my friend, when Bill Clinton, the President of the mightiest country on Earth appointed an AIDS czar, funded research, fought the ignorance, initiated public education to promote prevention and understanding, standing with us during the worst health crisis in the entire history of the gay community, yes, yes, we were very proud.

 

[Lostlover]

What a terrific thread, Seamus!

I just read through every single post, and that's rare for me.

Seems like almost everything has been talked about so I'll respond to Lostlover:




Yes the gay community should be proud. And we were very grateful.

Men my age and older lost most of our friends and our lovers. Those of us who were out and very sexually active in urban areas, and made it through still HIV- are a rare species. AIDS hit the gay community first, and hardest for many years. Reagan ignored it, ignored us, ignored our need and our losses. Bush was a little better but not much because all they really said was stop having sex.

Then Bill Clinton came along and appointed an AIDS Czar. Try to imagine the legitimacy that brought to our efforts to end discrimination, raise funds, encourage research. And also give back a little dignity to the gay community that had been swept to the gutter. AIDS, what we dealt with because of it, when Clinton became President changed very fast. Reagan ignored us, Bush acknowledged us but left us in the cold, Clinton came in, said you've got a friend in me and I've got your back. And he did.

You apparently don't know what it was like to go from finally being liberated out of seamy secret backrooms, being out and unashamed and living a full life, to being blindsided by a vile disease, losing friends and lovers, and at the same time knocked to the gutter by our President and other Americans. As a gay man maybe you might think about finding out about the fairly recent history of gay men. Bill Clinton made plenty of mistakes and he, in my opinion, bungled gays in the military, but he and Hillary have always been on our side, they've done their best to help and in many instances they have helped. It will be a great shame if the gay community forgets who our steadfast friends have been and treats them the way they tried to protect us from being treated.

I don't have AIDS.

AIDS is a terrible disease that I hope they can find a cure.

But don't connect me liking dick with me having AIDS.

 

[andysayshi]

I don't have AIDS.

AIDS is a terrible disease that I hope they can find a cure.

But don't connect me liking dick with me having AIDS.

That is possibly the most insulting post I've ever seen on this forum. How dare you?

I have chastised you repeatedly on this forum for your childish name calling and repeated ageist remarks. I've questioned your so-called "support" of issues and you've never once responded or verified your commitment or sacrifice for that "support".

I stopped bothering to comment on your posts some weeks ago because you clearly haven't the moral fibre or the maturity to rationalize your own juvenile comments.

But I can't help but comment now.

I am lucky young enough that I was not touched directly by AIDS, but I have many friends who were. Can you imagine watching your friends become sick and die, watching your partner or lover become sick, covered in lesions, unable to eat, unable to clean himself, become emaciated and eventually die, in your arms, or alone in a hospital? Not just one friend. Not two. But many.

Now imagine that, on top of this horror, the public has turned against you. People are demonstrating outside your partner's hospital, asking to have you taken away, quarantined. You leave the hospital to go home and collect clean pajamas for your lover, and demonstrators throw eggs at you, jeer at you, tell you you're an AIDS carrying homo.

Medical insurance fails to recognize your illness, or fails to cover you because you didn't disclose you were gay. The hospital denies you visiting rights to your lover near the end because you're "not family".

These are not fairy tales. This happened. People experienced these things. And they stood up and demanded change, they went to court, fought officials, cut through red tape. They made real sacrifices so that you and I can live the more comfortable, more accepted lives we live today. People rallied and demonstrated to have research into treatments.

It's easy to lean back with the knowledge we have today and sneer at the people of yesterday. But people fought hard for that knowledge, demanded change from our governments, pushed and rallied for visibility and acceptance.

"But don't connect me liking dick with me having AIDS."

????

Grow up. You're gay. You are in the highest risk category of HIV infection, even if you use protection. More gay people contract HIV and AIDS in your country than any other group.

Many wonderful people died before AIDS was understood. Many more fought and suffered to push the public messages of protection and safety that you and I take for granted because we grew up with them.

Your dismissive, uninformed post is an insult to the people on this forum who survived a terrible, horrific era in gay history, and to those who enabled the knowledge that you now possess in order to live happily and healthily. Your insensitivity knows no bounds.

 

[andysayshi]

And back to the original topic, I wholeheartedly agree.

It's easy to be critical of Clinton's decisions now, but at the time he made HUGE strides in gay rights and recognition, most of which we are all benefitting from today. Perhaps some of those changes were watered down, or didn't go far enough. But many paved the way for freedoms we now enjoy, or set building blocks that a new administration may further develop in the future.

 

[construct]

Credit where credit is due! DADT was proposed by Rep. Barney Frank and Mr. David Mixner, Pres. Clinton's liaison with the gay community. It was a compromise measure. I often argue that Clinton's pushing the issue of how to include gays in the military was the most important gay political advancement of the 1990s. It created a situation where gays were featured on the evening news every evening for six months. It had the effect of demystifying gays like no previous single effort had done. It was more important than Ellen. It was more important than Will and Grace. I view DADT as a positive compromise that had unintended consequences.

Likewise, Clinton's appointment of an AIDS czar was an important advancement for the situation of gay Americans. AIDS and homosexuality had mutually reinforcing stigmas that hindered appropriate risk-reduction education efforts within the most affected communities. Many moderate politicians wanted to help only infants born with AIDS to avoid having to talk about anal sex and drug use. Any risk reduction that does not explicitly inform about reducing risks in anal sex and injecting drugs is inadequate.

DOMA was a Republican effort. It was an attack, not a fire-break. Clinton was justified in not vetoing it. He didn't have the votes to sustain the veto. But Clinton did not have to sign that bill because it would have taken effect without his signature anyway. He, himself, wanted to play down signing it, but it was not inconsistant with his position on marriage. His signing that bill was a huge disappointment.

 

[Spensed]

If Hawaii (or any other state) had gay marriage, would other states be forced to recognize those marriages?

Yes under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution, which basically says that the States have to recognize each others laws, subject to the US Congress.

DOMA permits each individual State not to recognize same sex marriages and prevents the Federal Government from doing so.

 

[Spensed]

I don't have AIDS.

AIDS is a terrible disease that I hope they can find a cure.

But don't connect me liking dick with me having AIDS.

I don't see that anyone's saying you have AIDS.

But your liking dick has an obvious connection with the possibility of your having AIDS, if you don't play safe.

So it's foolish to be in denial about the connection.

 

[Spensed]

DOMA was a Republican effort. It was an attack, not a fire-break. Clinton was justified in not vetoing it. He didn't have the votes to sustain the veto. But Clinton did not have to sign that bill because it would have taken effect without his signature anyway. He, himself, wanted to play down signing it, but it was not inconsistant with his position on marriage. His signing that bill was a huge disappointment.

I don't totally disagree, but it's just not as black and white as you're making out.

Clinton, I suspect for political expediency, has consistently been against gay marriage. But signing DOMA is one negative, albeit an important one, amoung many positive pro-gay achievements.

And it was a fire-break in the sense that Clinton's opposition to gay marriage made that less of an issue in getting him re-elected for a second term in 1996, things would probably have been a lot worse without it and it was still one reason the Federal Marriage Amendment to the Constitution didn't get anywhere in 2003 and later.

What do you think would have happened if Clinton hadn't signed DOMA? As it was, the anti-gay marriage lobby went from strength to strength and my guess is that they would have had even more momentum and got more mainstream support without DOMA.

Obviously, I don't support DOMA, but I understand why Clinton felt he had to sign it. To use a cliche, sometimes you have to step back to jump the further forwards.

 

[seamusnewwest]

"Obviously, I don't support DOMA, but I understand why Clinton felt he had to sign it. To use a cliche, sometimes you have to step back to jump the further forwards."


Ha ha, I like that analogy. I used to be a long jumper. And as every long jumper knows, once you take that jump, you better make sure you fall forwards and not backwards when you land!

 

[construct]

What do you think would have happened if Clinton hadn't signed DOMA?

I don't think there would have been any difference at all. I think it had absolutely no practical effect. I think it was nothing more than a symbolic slap in the face to his gay supporters.

 

[construct]

Yes under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the US Constitution, which basically says that the States have to recognize each others laws, subject to the US Congress.

DOMA permits each individual State not to recognize same sex marriages and prevents the Federal Government from doing so.

Not true.

The Full Faith and Credit clause states, "Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state." Marriage has never been held to be covered under the Full Faith and Credit Clause except in so far as particular marriages have been the subject of judicial proceedings in a foreign state. Thus, marriages are not automatically portable under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Judgments are.

DOMA section 2 says that states do not have to recognize foreign judgments concerning marriages. Thus, DOMA section 2 is susceptible to constitutional challenge.

 

[seamusnewwest]

Not true.

The Full Faith and Credit clause states, "Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other state." Marriage has never been held to be covered under the Full Faith and Credit Clause except in so far as particular marriages have been the subject of judicial proceedings in a foreign state. Thus, marriages are not automatically portable under the Full Faith and Credit Clause. Judgments are.

DOMA section 2 says that states do not have to recognize foreign judgments concerning marriages. Thus, DOMA section 2 is susceptible to constitutional challenge.

I'm intrigued, but I didn't fully understand that.

 

[construct]

I'm intrigued, but I didn't fully understand that.

Let me give an example. A same-sex marriage celebrated in Massachusetts would not be recognized by a Texas court regardless of DOMA. The U.S. Constitution does not require a Texas court to recognize such a marriage, and the marriage would violate Article 1 of Texas' Constitution. On the other hand, if one of the Massachusetts spouses dies and the will is probated in Massachusetts and the court renders a judgment about the marriage as a part of the probate proceeding, the U.S. Constitution requires a Texas court to recognize the validity of the Massachusetts court's judgment--even though the Texas court would have decided the matter differently. The same rule might come up in divorce and child custody proceedings, disputes over insurance benefits, or similar proceedings.

 

[Spensed]

What do you think would have happened if Clinton hadn't signed DOMA?

I don't think there would have been any difference at all. I think it had absolutely no practical effect. I think it was nothing more than a symbolic slap in the face to his gay supporters.

That makes no sense.

Why would Clinton want to slap his gay supporters in the face?

Even if you don't think DOMA weakened the growing anti-gay marriage efforts in the 90s, it was certainly a factor in derailing the Defense of Marriage Amendment in 2003 and thereafter.

 

[construct]

That makes no sense.

Why would Clinton want to slap his gay supporters in the face?

Precisely. The reason he signed DOMA is that he really does believe in what it says. It was not political expediency.

Even if you don't think DOMA weakened the growing anti-gay marriage efforts in the 90s, it was certainly a factor in derailing the Defense of Marriage Amendment in 2003 and thereafter.

Yes. I think you're right about this. I was distracted by my rememberance of the flurry of DOMA-like referendums on the 2004 state ballots and forgot about the FMA. Of course, I'm not sure the FMA would have passed anyway. The ERA didn't pass, and I think it probably had greater public support than the FMA.