Today in gay history - Bill Clinton announced he'll sign anti-gay bill

[iman]

^They weren't stumbles. The Don't Tell bill avoided an outright Congressional ban on gays in the military and The Defense of Marriage Act was passed in the Senate with a veto proof 84-14 vote. These were necessary compromises to avoid much worse actions favored by the conservatives.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Yes you're referring to DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act:

SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS

DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT
AS INTRODUCED ON MAY 7, 1996

BY REPS. BOB BARR (GA), STEVE LARGENT (OK), JIM SENSENBRENNER (WI), SUE
MYRICK (NC), ED BRYANT (TN), BILL EMERSON (MO), HAROLD VOLKMER (MO), IKE
SKELTON (MO)

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) does two things. First, it provides
that no State shall be required to give effect to a law of any other
State with respect to a same-sex "marriage." Second, it defines the
words "marriage" and "spouse" for purposes of Federal law.

The first substantive section of the bill is an exercise of Congress'
power under the "Effect" clause of Article IV, section 1 of the
Constitution (the Full Faith and Credit Clause) to allow each State (or
other political jurisdiction) to decide for itself whether it wants to
grant legal status to same-sex "marriage." This provision is necessary
in light of the possibility of Hawaii giving sanction to same-sex
"marriage" under its state law, as interpreted by its state courts, and
other states being placed in the position of having to give "full faith
and credit" to Hawaii's interpretation of what constitutes "marriage."
Although so-called "conflicts of law" principles do not necessarily
compel such a result, approximately 30 states of the union are
sufficiently alarmed by such a prospect to have initiated legislative
efforts to defend themselves against any compulsion to acknowledge same-
sex "marriage."

This is a problem most properly resolved by invoking Congress' authority
under the Constitution to declare what "effect" one State's acts,
records, and judicial proceedings shall have in another State. Congress
has invoked this authority recently on two other occasions; in the
Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1980, which required each State to
enforce child custody determinations made by the home State if made
consistently with the provisions of the Act; and in the Full Faith and
Credit for child Support Order Act of 1994, which required each State to
enforce child support orders made by the child's State if made
consistently with the provisions of the Act.

The second substantive section of the bill amends the U.S. Code to make
explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years;
that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and
wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex. The DOMA
definition of marriage is derived most immediately from a Washington
state case from 1974, Singer v. Hara, which is included in the 1990
edition of Black's Law Dictionary. More than a century ago, the U.S.
Supreme Court spoke of the "union for life of one man and one woman in
the holy estate of matrimony." Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45
(1985).

DOMA is not meant to affect the definition of "spouse" (which under the
Social Security law, for example, runs to dozens of lines). It ensures
that whatever definition of "spouse" may be used in Federal law, the
word refers only to a person of the opposite sex.
------

104th CONGRESS 2D SESSION

H.R. 3396

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. BARR of Georgia (for himself, Mr. LARGENT, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Ms.
MYRICK, Mr. VOLKMER, Mr. SKELTON, Mr. BRYANT, and Mr. EMERSON)
introduced the following bill, which was referred to the Committee
on_____________

A BILL

To define and protect the institution of marriage.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the "Defense of Marriage Act".

SEC. 2. POWERS RESERVED TO THE STATES.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is
amended by adding after section 1738B the following:

Section 1738C. Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect
thereof

"No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian
tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or
judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe
respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is
treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory,
possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such
relationship."

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. -- The table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 115 of title 28, United States Code, is amended by inserting
after the item relating to section 1738B the following new item: "1738C.
Certain acts, records, and proceedings and the effect thereof."

SEC. 3. DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE.

(a) IN GENERAL. -- Chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended
by adding at the end the following:

"Section 7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling,
regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and
agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal
union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word
'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or
a wife."

(b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. -- The table of sections at the beginning of
chapter 1 of title 1, United States Code, is amended by inserting after
the item relating to section 6 the following new item:

"7. Definition of 'marriage' and 'spouse'."

source: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/leg23.htm

I don't really care for the Act it'self, and I'm not even sure if it would hold up under Constitutional Law because it attempts to abridge the fulll faith clause of the U.S. Constitution; State recognizing laws past in other states.

HOWEVER, DOMA has been used as a damn good excuse for not requireing a Constitutional Amendment that would essentailly do the same.

Now it's a "State's Rights" issue, and not a Federal one DOMA. Take the wind out of the "we need to amend the constitution" crowds sails!

Thanks for the note in history. Look how much has changed in ten years!

Then Gay Marriage wasn't much of an issue at all!

 

[NickCole]

^They weren't stumbles. The Don't Tell bill avoided an outright Congressional ban on gays in the military ...

Well ...

Congress hadn't wanted to do anything at all about gays in the military.

During the 1992 Presidential campaign Clinton vowed to lift the military's ban on gays and, once in office, immediately took steps to fulfill that promise.

Congressional opposition (led, incidentally, by Democrat Sam Nunn), wanted to keep the military rules as they'd been since the early 80s (which did ban gays in the military -- but all that meant was that to be gay in the military meant being in the closet, a situation not improved with Don't Ask Don't Tell).

Clinton buckled without putting up much of a fight. His easy capitulation was shameful. He'd taken on a huge divisive issue too soon, arrogantly unaware of the way Washington worked. And therefore, although not maliciously or intentionally, he betrayed a great many gays and their supporters who'd trusted him. If he'd put up a better fight it'd be forgivable but he caved too easily and too quickly. It was obvious he wanted to save whatever political capital he had for other fights.

I thought at the time, and I still think Clinton should simply have issued an Executive Order allowing gays to serve openly in the military, as Truman had done to desegregate the military.

 

[kinkikiki]

Cant beleive ma man Clinto did that shit.

 

[hornyshauny]

Dumb and DOMA!

 

[NickCole]

A brand new president doesn't veto a bill he cannot over-ride, not if he doesn't want to become a lame duck in his first term. Politics, they aren't pretty.

Don't give Clinton a pass on that, General. He doesn't deserve it.

If he wasn't willing to go the distance he should have done it with an Executive Order or waited. It was his mistake, it was a big miscalculation and it cost gay Americans a lot.

The Clintons were not new to politics and he should have known better; he had a responsibility to know better.

 

[NickCole]

ICO7,

I think you couldn't be more wrong.

Republicans of a certain stripe were going after Clinton from day one. His turning over gays in the military as a sacrificial lamb to them didn't quell their hunger for destruction and revenge one bit.

Truth is Republicans have been lusting for revenge at least since Watergate.

Clinton caving in on gays in the military didn't help anyone at all. And it hurt gay Americans. If gays had been allowed to serve openly in the military the past 14 years there would be plenty of evidence that nothing changes for the worse when gays are allowed to participate openly. With that, there's a chance all the anti gay marriage legislation might not have gone through. I think if Clinton had played it differently he could have made it so gays could serve openly in the armed forces.

The religious right now had to wait until planes hit the wall before America overreacted and gave up enough common sense to allow religion to dominate as it has

And I don't know what this is about.

The religious right had Americans overreacting before 9/11 if that's what you're referring to. Remember George Bush was in the White House before 9/11.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Well hindsight is always 20/20.

We have to deal with the hand that is/was dealt.

Things could have been worse, and without question things could have been better.

Within the span of 10 years we went from "The Gay Plague" to Don't Ask Don't Tell, and the Defense of Marriage Act.

GLBT issues are at the forefront of the "social war" in this country, and so far we've won some, and we've lost some.

One thing that the Religous Right doesn't get, is that we're not going away.

 

[wundersteve]

Unprincipled, spineless, lying, self-serving piece of trash. He also try to convince Kerry during the 2004 campaign to give in and support the gay-marriage bans.

 

[Homoaffectional]

September 20, 1996 - President Clinton announced his signing of a bill outlawing homosexual marriages, but said it should not be used as an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against gays and lesbians.

You sign a bill that is about discrimination and then say "it should not be used as an excuse for discrimination...against gays and lesbians."

I still think he was a great president and furthered gay rights more than any president in history, but this and DODT were major stumbles.

That's D *A* DT It's Don't 'Ask', Don't Tell, thanks.

Also, re: signing DOMA... sure... he could have vetoed it. Then it would have been overriden, he would have lost his reelection bid, and the Republican nightmare we're currently experiencing would have begun in earnest four years earlier than it has, thanks in part to Clinton's wise choice to simply sign it then, and live on to fight another day...

 

[Homoaffectional]

Don't give Clinton a pass on that, General. He doesn't deserve it.

If he wasn't willing to go the distance he should have done it with an Executive Order or waited. It was his mistake, it was a big miscalculation and it cost gay Americans a lot.

The Clintons were not new to politics and he should have known better; he had a responsibility to know better.

The miscalculation was in trying in his *first* term instead of his second. But some gay activists weren't willing to wait four years...

 

[iman]

Clinton had no sooner been sworn in when the Republicans and the press (looking for a good story) started asking if Clinton would issue the Exec Order. The Republicans were trying to roll Clinton early in his Presidency. They knew they had the votes in Congress to enact a legislative ban on gay service and had Vet's groups and the public horrified at the idea of homosexuals in the military. Nunn actually came to Clinton's rescue and worked out the compromise known as Don't ask, Don't tell. General Powell and John McCain were among those opposed to allowing gays to serve openly.

Sometime a future President will issue the Exec Order and not have to try and overturn a law passed by Congress thanks to the Clinton compromise.

Do you guys just make up your own history?

 

[Homoaffectional]

General Powell and John McCain were among those opposed to allowing gays to serve openly.

Yep... those loveable 'moderates'... and guess what? Thirteen years later, they are still opposed to it.

It's not Democrats and Clinton that are holding anything up right now... but of course you can go back a decade and continue to rake Clinton over the coals until the day you die. See if that helps change a thing...

 

[Homoaffectional]

Can not resist posting yet again the popular 1996 joke inside the Beltway:

"Which one of Bob Barr's four marriages is he defending?'

At least Barr came out against both the constitutional amendment and that bullshit Marriage Protection Act (the one from 2004 when the amendment was called 'FMA'), even if it was *after* he was ousted from office. Meanwhile, McCain who we should be able to expect more from... as a fucking *prisoner of war* who suffered from torture, shouldn't he be against this kind of persecution of armed forces and *immediately* come in favor of repealing DADT?

 

[Homoaffectional]

Whatever you can do, or think you can, begin it.
Boldness has magic, power, and genius in it.
Johann Wolfgang Goethe
​

Great saying, and one I'll live by from now to my last day.​

 

[Kulindahr]

On this frikking dial-up connection I'm not going to burn a half hour checking for this.... but couldn't Clinton have just let the bill sit, and neither signed nor vetoed? If memory serves me, that's a way for a president to express disapproval but let the thing become law, anyway.
Someone with a decent internet connection check me on this!

 

[NickCole]

Since the first part is speculation on both of our parts I'll just let your opinion stand counter to mine and be done with it ... for now.

I love that! "... for now."

I don't recall the religious right having the prominence it has had prior to 9/11,

It did. It's been building for years and had plenty of power prior to 9/11. First with Republicans controlling Congress for a few years and then Bush slithering into the WH, by 2000 the religious right was flexing its muscles and increasingly insisting on their due for having put those guys in office. Far as I can tell 9/11 had little to do with it except allowing foul-mouthed extremist Christians to use it as an opportunity to direct nastiness at Muslims.

Again, I wasn't discounting the religious right's role or existence pre-9/11---they were a growing menace that I allege Clinton perceived and wanted not to further rile considering they had sway with the Republicans that controlled the Congress at the time

Republicans did not control Congress when Clinton agreed to and signed Don't Ask Don't Tell.

Especially relevant is neoconservatism's interest in the Middle East and Evangelical Christian Zionists interest in Israel and the Rapture.

It sure is especially relevant. I'm glad you pointed it out. It's too much ignored.

I don't know, perhaps my vigilance was shitty when I was 13 to 20 years old, the Clinton years, so I'd have to ask someone more alert then what it is I may have missed to think the religious right has grown to become a serious detrimental problem only in the last five years when they finally got Congress, the Presidency, a war that could bring back Jesus, and a way to own SCOTUS so they can destroy the Constitution that they hate so very much.

I agree except that the religious right had been working for years to achieve the power they attained in November 2000 and along the way they had enough power to do plenty of damage. Meanwhile they remained focused on acquiring more power to fill the chambers of Congress and, ultimately, seats on the Supreme Court with their picks -- so they could inflict more damage over a longer period.

They're trying to change the Constitution of the United States, to make gay Americans second class citizens, for god's sake! How any gay American could be a member of a party that's trying to do that is beyond me. It's mind boggling.

But anyway, having that power today means they've been a serious problem for many years and were allowed to strengthen. Clinton dealt with them as best he could and he was a savior -- the Democratic Party was practically impotent before he came along even though it dominated Congress. But still, to my original point, Clinton made some mistakes and one of them was Don't Ask Don't Tell.

 

[NickCole]

I don't see it your way, Nick, I don't think he had any cards in his hand that amounted to much.

General, he had the trump card.

Executive Order.

Consider something. Clinton never was very good at confrontations -- he got better as his skin toughened, but he really wasn't good at going toe-to-toe with the America Haters. That cost him. And I agree that his caving on this point only made the zombies more willful and more sure-footed. Bill Clinton was more Woodrow Wilson than Harry Truman, and at that time in history, history has shown that a Harry Truman was needed. The consequences of pussy-footing and yielding to the frothing fag haters are evident today.

Well said; and I agree.

 

[NickCole]

One thing that the Religous Right doesn't get, is that we're not going away.

Back in my more radical days I chanted a lot of different things during marches and protests but my favorite will always be

We're here, we're queer, get used to it!​

because it shut up those mean motherfuckers. There was nothing they could say in response.

 

[NickCole]

That's D *A* DT It's Don't 'Ask', Don't Tell, thanks.

Also, re: signing DOMA... sure... he could have vetoed it. Then it would have been overriden, he would have lost his reelection bid, and the Republican nightmare we're currently experiencing would have begun in earnest four years earlier than it has, thanks in part to Clinton's wise choice to simply sign it then, and live on to fight another day...

I agree Clinton was cornered into signing DOMA and it was right thing for him to do.

Failing to sign it would have gained nothing and, as you point out, possibly lost him the White House.