It Took Bill Clinton 20 Years To Realize DOMA Unconstitutional, Unfair?
Couldn't the guy just admit to political pandering? Is there anybody in politics who can still remember how to tell the truth?
Clinton writes in the WaPo:
On March 27, DOMA will come before the Supreme Court, and the justices must decide whether it is consistent with the principles of a nation that honors freedom, equality and justice above all, and is therefore constitutional. As the president who signed the act into law, I have come to believe that DOMA is contrary to those principles and, in fact, incompatible with our Constitution.
Because Section 3 of the act defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, same-sex couples who are legally married in nine states and the District of Columbia are denied the benefits of more than a thousand federal statutes and programs available to other married couples. Among other things, these couples cannot file their taxes jointly, take unpaid leave to care for a sick or injured spouse or receive equal family health and pension benefits as federal civilian employees. Yet they pay taxes, contribute to their communities and, like all couples, aspire to live in committed, loving relationships, recognized and respected by our laws.When I signed the bill, I included a statement with the admonition that "enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination." Reading those words today, I know now that, even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, the law is itself discriminatory. It should be overturned.
via @SteveSilberman
Bill Clinton? Political pandering? naaaa, say it ain't so!
Seriously, the guy will do anything to get back into the White House. I do believe that he wants back in more than he wanted any intern in a blue dress.
Charles at March 8, 2013 5:33 PM
DOMA is unconstitutional. This prick is an unbearable bore with zero internal guiding principle.
There is no "heart" in that mans chest cavity. He has always been about political expediency.
Bill "put some ice on it" Clinton - what a mensch!
(on the flip side, requiring every state accept gay marriage would also be unconstitutional). Just sayin.
Feebie at March 8, 2013 6:12 PM
In a classic case of "this law won't affect me" chutzpah, Congress passed and Mr. Clinton signed "The Religious Freedom Restoration Act". Public Law 103-141 said at its core that the Attorney General could determine whether a religious group was a "cult", determine whether it was a burden on the Federal government - and disband it by force if necessary!
It was overturned later, not because it was obviously grossly at odds with the 1st Amendment, but because it was an unfunded mandate.
Odd, isn't it? We recite the 1st constantly, but don't pay any other attention to it if we get to run our mouth, especially if we get to make money running our mouth. The same people who have no problem identifying an "establishment" as the business of a proprietor, or a political coalition, somehow make sure the definition is shifted to "aiding/abetting" when it comes to government and religion. That way, Congress is excused, as they can and do pass laws affecting religious groups all the time, notably with favorable tax code.
Look up 103-141, and you'll have a handy reference to use when someone tells you they trust their government. Ask them, "Is YOUR church BATFE-approved?" REMIND them that another nation found it perfectly wonderful to declare a religion a cult and even execute its practitioners. ASK them just what about THEM is superior, that the same situation cannot happen here - and if WJC is their hero, ask them how he could sign that filth.
Radwaste at March 9, 2013 4:31 AM
We need to remember that for most of those years Bill Clinton had been stripped of his license to practice law.
So his grasp of detail may have been diminished.
crid at March 9, 2013 5:37 AM
@Clinton: "When I signed the bill, I included a statement with the admonition that "enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination." Reading those words today, I know now that, even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, the law is itself discriminatory. It should be overturned"
_________________
That was always Clinton's style. When he would sign something, he'd say he was against it and would change it but for now it was better than what we had. When he would veto something, he'd say he was for it but had to veto it to protect the country from those bad bad Republicans.
I remember DOMA, and a dear friend of mine who is gay was very upset over it. I told him that he got bit by the Clinton snake. He said he didn't blame Clinton for it, he blamed Congress. Bewildered, I asked how he could excuse him for saying one thing and doing another every time he takes action. He said "because he explains everything so clearly." I said, yeah, but those words do not change what he enacted.
I won't pretend that I am in favor of gay marriage, i am not. Actually, it is not that I am against gay marriage, moreso than I am for keeping the mother/father ideal. I only say that because I do not want to spin my position. But simply being for or against something should not automatically translate into an unconstitutional law for it. DOMA was just wrong. Period.
Trust at March 9, 2013 6:33 AM
Not to quibble, but when properly regarded, ideals are like austerity: They don't give a fuck about your preferences or belief in them.
OK, that was actually to quibble.
Crid [CridComment at gmail] at March 9, 2013 6:40 AM
And he's been barred for life from arguing in front of the Supreme Court - so any legal argument he makes on the Constitutionality of anything is little more than noise.
Conan the Grammarian at March 9, 2013 2:15 PM
That's what we get for electing a politician to the White House.
MonicaP at March 9, 2013 2:37 PM
I wonder what Reagan would do?
At this point, probably throw in the towel.
Jim P. at March 9, 2013 8:15 PM
Leave a comment