If Hillary Is Answering For DOMA

[Prism]

Then she needs to answer for the HIV travel ban.

Look, I wasn't exactly going to hang DOMA around Clinton's neck. She was first lady then. She had no vote. She wasn't in Congress.

But, clearly, she wants to run on her husband's record. The good parts, not the bad parts. Uhm, anything bad was, uhm, someone else's fault.

And that's why we ended up with this ludicrously bad DOMA explanation. "It was, ultimately, good for you!"

Oh god, no. No LGBT person thinks this way. At least, not any without a partisan agenda. And if she's going to defend her husband's record on DOMA, she'd going to need to defend the HIV travel ban.

So, what have you? Was that okedoke too?

How far down this rabbit hole does the homophobia go out of political necessity?

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. Clearly?

Nope....

[Prism]

2. Then why say *anything*

She literally doesn't have to. It was not on her in the slightest. But she feels the need to apologize for it. Why?

[VanillaRhapsody]

3. I AM old enough to remember those days

They were calling for an amendment....

[Prism]

4. No, they weren't

Are you seriously going to sit back and lecture a gay man about his life and history and what was happening with it?

Seriously.

Just fucking stop. You're not going to have a better memory of my teenaged years than me.

[moobu2]

5. I clearly remember that

Hillary's explanation was exactly right and true.

[VanillaRhapsody]

7. Yep they most certainly were....

They ran campaigns on it....

[Chitown Kev]

6. Elizabeth Birch and Mike Signorile agree that

an amendment was not a serious consideration at that time.

And when Birch and Signorile actually agree on something, you have to know that's about as common as the passing of Hailey's Comet.

[VanillaRhapsody]

9. Ir was still used in thier campaigns...

It WAS the case...

[Chitown Kev]

11. Bob Dole never used it.

It wasn't in 2000 Republican platform either.

Was it talked about on talk radio? A little bit. But it was never the threat that Hillary said that it was in 1996.

[Prism]

12. Newp, try again

It was not the issue you claim it was.

[Motown_Johnny]

24. They also wanted an Amendment so Arnold Schwarzenegger

could run for President.


What is your point?


There was no serious threat of an Amendment passing. None.

[VanillaRhapsody]

25. No effect on voter turn out AT ALL

I might point out to you....my parents were staunch Republicans....the kind that became Republicans after George Wallace was shot. Not to mentiom my father was career military.....the US military was huge in those days....I know what topics drove them to turn up at elections! ....hell talk of it started yesrs earlier with Anita Bryant. The Republicans were using the issue to make them fear "the Gays" and drive my parents to the polls along with any issue that addressed the poverty of the poor...especislly if those poor...happened to be of the African American persuasion....but oh yeah anytime they just sentvup that trial balloon of an am3ndment to prevent Gay from getting any protection or benefit....that got em there quick

[Motown_Johnny]

28. That is a different argument.

Yes, that false hope of an amendment to prevent marriage equality did increase turn out for them. That does not mean that there was any real threat of an amendment ever being passed.


Are you now trying to claim that DOMA was backed by both Clintons just as a way to try to decrease voter turn out for the (R)s?

I haven't heard that rationalization from anyone else yet.

At least you are not trying to claim that there was a real threat of an amendment being passed. I just hope you can see that Hillary's explanation for supporting DOMA makes no sense at all. At the time she said the she believed marriage should be between a man and a woman and went into some crazy sh*t about the historical context. Her story now is just bull sh*t. How can anyone support a candidate like that? I just don't understand it.

[VanillaRhapsody]

29. Its the same argument....and the base....

My parents....were paying attention....and among THAT crowd a Constitutional Amendment was discussed alot.....it was marketted to them....they bellied up....and remember....my family were career military....they wrre very worried about THAT....

[Chitown Kev]

30. First, you bring up Anita Bryant

That wench did her thing in the late 1970's....gays were not for marriage equality at that point.

and they weren't for it in the 80's

Not even all that much in the 1990's, actually...gay rights groups weren't pushing the issue (they were pushing for ENDA)

Now, of course, they eventually did push for one but not in 1996 although...yes, it was talked about.

Bob Dole was trying to run away from the religious hardliners a bit in fact because so many people were turned off by them in 1992.

[VanillaRhapsody]

31. I know that....

They stirred that pot a long time.....I was trying to show how long they used that technique....the history of it in elections...

[Motown_Johnny]

34. Some people were for marriage equality in the '60's as well as the 70's and beyond.

Your timeline is incorrect.

http://www.scotusblog.com/2012/07/gay-marriage-and-baker-v-nelson/

^snip^

Gay marriage and Baker v. Nelson
Analysis

1971. “This was the year,” a history of the gay rights movement recalls, “we began to make ourselves real. For decades, homophiles had spoken in polite whispers. In 1969 a gay battle cry had been sounded at Stonewall. In 1970 we got organized and began to argue over our goals. Nineteen seventy-one was the year we grew loud enough to be heard, and like us or not, America could no longer deny that we were there.” (Arnie Kantrowitz, in Long Road to Freedom, published in 1994 by The Advocate magazine)

In October of that year, however, Pacific Telephone & Telegraph Co. announced that it would not hire a known homosexual. And, on October 15, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled — in a five-page opinion without dissent — that the Constitution does not protect “a fundamental right” for same-sex couples to get married. That ruling, in Baker v. Nelson, was upheld by the Supreme Court in Washington almost exactly a year later, with this order: “Appeal from Sup. Ct. Minn. dismissed for want of a substantial federal question.” (Baker v. Nelson, October 10, 1972, docket 71-1027).

Now, 40 years later, the Supreme Court is being asked to apply that ruling anew, to save a 1996 law, the Defense of Marriage Act. Soon, it also will be asked to rely on Baker v. Nelson to uphold California’s “Proposition 8,” banning same-sex marriage in that state. Some lower courts, in deciding gay rights cases in recent years, have been finding ways around that precedent, saying either that it does not cover the legal issues at stake, or that it has been outdated by changes in gay rights law in the four decades since 1971. The Supreme Court, though, may have to confront it directly.

Baker v. Nelson had begun when Richard John Baker and James Michael McConnell, a gay couple, applied to a court clerk in Minneapolis, Gerald R. Nelson, for a marriage license. They were turned away, because a state law limited marriage to “persons of the opposite sex.” A judge agreed with the clerk,. and specifically barred such a license, leading the couple to appeal to the state Supreme Court. Marriage, that court concluded, “is a union of man and woman,” in an institution “as old as the book of Genesis.”




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baker_v._Nelson

^snip^


On May 18, 1970, two University of Minnesota gay student activists, Richard Baker and James Michael McConnell, applied for a marriage license in Minneapolis. The clerk of the Hennepin County District Court, Gerald Nelson, denied the request on the sole ground that the two were of the same sex. The couple filed suit in district court to force Nelson to issue the license.[6]

The couple first contended that Minnesota's marriage statutes contained no explicit requirement that applicants be of different sexes. If the court were to construe the statutes to require different-sex couples, however, Baker claimed such a reading would violate several provisions of the U.S. Constitution:[7]

[Chitown Kev]

37. Neither gay rights groups nor the overwhelming number

of gays and lesbians were for gay marriage in the 70's, marriage was the last thing on their minds (then, the community fell under the "marriage is an oppressive and patriarchal institution thing).

Isolated individuals, yes...that was the furthest thing from a movement that I can think of.

[Motown_Johnny]

32. It is nowhere near the same argument.

There was no real threat of an amendment being passed no matter what your family experience was. Reality does not depend on your personal history.


Also, you argued that DOMA was passed because of it's effect on voter turnout. A Constitutional Amendment is an actual thing. It is not some figment of our collective imaginations. Until it was actually on a ballot to be ratified then it is a separate argument from trying to reduce (R) voter turn out. If we passed discriminatory laws every time the (R) said they wanted to amend the Constitution there would be hundreds more discriminatory laws on the books that would need to be repealed. They do this crap all the time and you know it.

You are either being deliberately dishonest or are so desperate to defend something that is indefensible that you have fallen into some form of self delusion. Either way, you are simply wrong.

[VanillaRhapsody]

33. Are you telling me

That didnt happen...my parents and thier rightwing friends were not discussing it even that far back? Bunk....they used it in elections for years...Republicans ran on it....for years....

[Motown_Johnny]

35. No, I am telling you that they were never going to get an amendment.

I don't doubt your personal history. I just know that passing an amendment was not in the process of happening nor was it reasonable to assume that it would ever pass.


Just because your family felt that way did not mean that an amendment could have ever been passed.



http://www.advocate.com/election/2015/10/26/more-activists-dispute-hillary-clintons-doma-history

^snip^

More Activists Dispute Hillary Clinton's DOMA History

Disappointment with Hillary Clinton's version of how the Defense of Marriage Act became law is bubbling into public conversation among activists.

During an interview with Rachel Maddow on Friday, Clinton described her husband signing DOMA in 1996 as a "defensive action," meant to stave off passage of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.


But that's not how activists on the ground remember the fateful law's passage.

"It's just not true," wrote Michelangelo Signorile in a column today for The Huffington Post. "There was no talk, among activists, antigay forces or politicians, of a constitution amendment in 1996 when Clinton signed DOMA."




Reality exists outside your personal experiences as well as within it. Please try to look beyond yourself for the truth. Truth and Reality are what make good policy, not isolated incidents from personal family histories.

[VanillaRhapsody]

36. Lots of things are said

Never gonna happen
...my parents also thought a Black President was never going to happen!

Reality exists....pretending things were just peachy keen for LGBT until DOMA isnt reality....pretending there were no preachers demanding an amendment....isnt reality either...churches didnt just start talking about what to "do about the gays" in the 90's.....the hatred was there...and they used it.

What made it impossible? Democrats...

[Motown_Johnny]

41. Please present some evidence of a

Serious movement for that amendment.
All you do is offer your opinions as if they are facts. They are not.

[VanillaRhapsody]

42. I said used as an election prompt...

it wasn't serious BECAUSE it couldnt get passed Democrats...

BELIEVE this IF they could have...they WOULD have

[Motown_Johnny]

43. But Hillary claims DOMA was to prevent an amendment...

.. so are you calling her a liar?

[VanillaRhapsody]

44. Are you?

[Motown_Johnny]

45. .

http://www.advocate.com/election/2015/10/26/more-activists-dispute-hillary-clintons-doma-history

^snip^

More Activists Dispute Hillary Clinton's DOMA History

Disappointment with Hillary Clinton's version of how the Defense of Marriage Act became law is bubbling into public conversation among activists.

During an interview with Rachel Maddow on Friday, Clinton described her husband signing DOMA in 1996 as a "defensive action," meant to stave off passage of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.


But that's not how activists on the ground remember the fateful law's passage.

"It's just not true," wrote Michelangelo Signorile in a column today for The Huffington Post. "There was no talk, among activists, antigay forces or politicians, of a constitution amendment in 1996 when Clinton signed DOMA."

[Motown_Johnny]

46. So you won't answer that question?

That is very telling. Thank you.

[VanillaRhapsody]

47. It tells nothing

Republicans spoke of it for years....denial doesnt look good on you....

[Kentonio]

50. So what you're saying is..

Clinton supported DOMA just in case at some point in the future, the Republicans had decided to try and pass an amendment that they had little or no chance of passing? So just in case, right?

[Motown_Johnny]

54. You are so very wrong.

The fact that you know Hillary's explanation is false but will not admit it is very telling.


https://www.google.com/search?q=Hero+worship&rlz=1C1CHWA_enUS617US617&oq=Hero+worship&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.2423j0j7&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8

^snip^

he·ro wor·ship
noun

1. excessive admiration for someone.

[SwampG8r]

48. I am

And journalist steve n leser agrees
She lies a lot its the main reason she will tank in the ge

[VanillaRhapsody]

49. she lies alot...

That tired old RW trope...

[SwampG8r]

51. A poll of 100/Bosnian snipers says

Yup she does
Sir Edmund Hillary agrees

[Motown_Johnny]

56. .

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/07/28/why_voters_dont_trust_hillary_clinton_127567.html

^snip^

Why Voters Don't Trust Hillary Clinton



Voters in Colorado, Iowa and Virginia think Hillary Clinton is not honest or trustworthy. According to the latest Quinnipiac poll, a mere 34 percent of Colorado voters think she can be trusted; 62 percent do not. In Iowa, those numbers are 33 percent to 59; in Virginia, Clinton is underwater on trust, too, 39 percent to 55 percent.

Clinton's conduct is catching up with her. In March, Clinton told reporters that as secretary of state, she had "opted for convenience" to use private email because she "thought it would be easier to carry just one device" for her work and for her personal emails. Oh, and she used a private -- not a government -- server, and the private server already has been scrubbed. She deleted some 30,000 emails -- because they were personal -- before sending another 30,000 to Foggy Bottom. Voters will have to take her word that half the emails were personal and did not risk national security. An inspector general has asked the Department of Justice to investigate. It seems a sampling of 40 emails Clinton sent as secretary of state found that four contained classified information that should have been labeled "secret." The only question is: What took so long?

In 1996, The New York Times' William Safire branded Clinton a "congenital liar" in a column that cited the first lady's amazing acumen in the commodities market, her role in firing staff in the White House travel office and the mysterious disappearance and appearance of documents from her former law firm. The Clintons have a way of playing the clock until the public loses interest in an overcomplicated story.

[JI7]

8. Obama ended the ban

[VanillaRhapsody]

10. Thats right....because America evolved...

[Prism]

13. Obama did a lot of good work

He will go down as the President who said "fuck you" to LGBT discrimination. And the best part? He supported gay marriage during an election. He will always live that. That will always be his.

So why the hell is Clinton apologizing for 90s style discrimination?

[dsc]

14. You are dead wrong on this

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251416587

An article from a college paper was posted here, which quite amusingly instructed us to read history books, that claimed that Clinton signed a travel ban on HIV infected people and that one should vote for Sanders due to this. There are sadly some problems with this.

We tried to get rid of it in the 1990 immigration bill by mandating that the list would henceforth be maintained by the CDC, and that it would include only conditions with a solid medical justification. To his credit, President Bush (41) signed it into law, and his CDC issued a rule in 1991 knocking everything off the list except tuberculosis. There was a revolt in the Republican Conference in the House, led by then Rep. Bill Dannemeyer (R-CA). The CDC pulled the rule and the INS kept the old list in place.

Clinton campaigned on a promise to remove the ban. Shortly after he got to the White House, in February of 1993, Sen. Don Nickles (R-OK) offered an amendment to the NIH reauthorization to keep the old list. Ted Kennedy tried to offer an alternative, but it failed 42-56. The Nickles Amendment then passed 76-23.

(All 23 “no” votes were Democrats. Notably, Joe Lieberman was one of the “yes” votes one of the many early examples of his cozying up to Jesse Helms on gay rights and AIDS/HIV issues.

When the House and Senate went to conference on the bill, then-Rep. Tom Bliley (R-VA) offered a motion to instruct conferees to agree to the Nickles Amendment. It passed 356 to 58. Again, all 58 who voted “No” were Democrats (plus Bernie Sanders). At that point, both chambers of Congress had voted to block Clinton's planned executive order by veto-proof margins. When Congress sent Clinton the NIH authorization in June of 1993, he signed it.

http://www.theatlantic.com/daily-dish/archive/2006/12/the-hiv-travel-ban/232005/

Now here's the kicker. Sanders voted for the bill that Clinton signed.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/103-1993/h178

In short, Sanders and Clinton both did the same thing. Both favored an ending of the travel ban, both fought the amendment that added it to the NIH appropriation in 93, and both wound up supporting the final bill after being beaten back. And both made the correct decision at every step of the process. That NIH bill was vital to all people but especially those with HIV. It funded both care and research. That research is why the writer of that editorial doesn't have to fear AIDS as a deadly disease like I did when I was his age. Read history books indeed.

[Prism]

16. You work under a misapprehension

You seem to think I believe Sanders is perfect. I don't. And I would actually like to see an explanation for his vote.

But Clinton seems to want to run under her husband's record. She offered up her views on DOMA. So she gets this, too.

And I see you not saying a word about her DOMA remarks.

Why?

[dsc]

17. The ban isn't a Clinton ban

it is pretty sad you didn't even read what I typed. It was put in effect in 1990 (WHEN CLINTON WAS GOVERNOR OF ARKANSAS).

[Prism]

18. I read every single word you typed

And I read every link you provided.

And you threw out a nonsequitur, to boot.

Do you still want to defend DOMA?

Really, I'd love to see this. Go to town.

[dsc]

19. you brought up the travel ban

which you apparently didn't know a god damned thing about. If you didn't want to have it discussed there was a very easy way to make that happen. Don't post bull shit about Clinton's role in it.

[riderinthestorm]

23. You know what, I didn't read your links

I pulled up a NY Times article I remembered from that era.

I was relying on that info instead of yours. My memory was that Clinton didn't put any effort into getting it lifted. The NY Times actually credits Bush for the attempts to repeal it, not
Clinton.

Mea culpa and I'll delete.

Edited to add a link to the NYTimes article.

Again, I apologize

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/31/us/politics/31travel.html

[Agschmid]

22. ^ Yup.

[Doctor_J]

26. doma was politically correct then. gay rights are PC now

Hence Mrs Clinton's change of position

[Nye Bevan]

39. People certainly have evolved on this issue.

In 2006, when Sanders first ran for the Senate, he said that the state was not ready for gay marriage, given the fact that the civil-union law had caused so much political controversy after it was approved. In an Associated Press article about Sanders’ opposition to a constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage, he was asked whether Vermont should legalize full marriage rights for same-sex couples. He replied: “Not right now, not after what we went through.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/11/03/sanders-evolving-and-wishy-washy-stance-on-same-sex-marriage/

[Bluenorthwest]

53. Nye, DOMA and marriage equality are NOT 'the same issue'. Related issues, but not the same issue.

Attempting to play that sort of facile game is not a good thing to do. When DOMA passed, many Democrats very clearly explained why those who opposed marriage equality should oppose DOMA anyway:
Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.): “Whether senators are for or against same-sex marriage, there are ample reasons to vote against this bill because it represents an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power.”

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.): “This bill isn’t conservative. It’s Big Brother to the core. My judgment is this is a subject that the federal government ought not stick its nose into.”


So straight people might think these are the same things, DOMA in 96 and marriage equality in 2006 but they are not the same things at all.

[CheshireDog]

27. Hillary is her own person

She doesn't have to defend or answer for Bill no more than Sanders does

[JTFrog]

38. You weren't exactly going to....

I stopped reading right there. You are gonna drudge up any and everything you can. Don't pretend otherwise.

[MohRokTah]

40. Is Sanders answering for everything his wife has done?

If you're holding a standard for one candidate, you must hold the same standard for all candidates.

[Bluenorthwest]

52. The problem with that argument is that Hillary freely answered for Bill on DOMA when she had

no actual reason to do so. It is not at all reasonable to both speak as if one had to answer for Bill then act insulted when asked to do so again. She did this. She could have said many things including 'I am not my husband and I did not vote for DOMA'. But that's not what she said. She revised history in his favor, voluntarily.

Cake and eat it too? No thanks.

[Chitown Kev]

55. All she had to say was

"Look, my husband, Bill, has gone on the record ]as saying that he supported DOMA at the time but times have changed."

The at least RM could have directed question geared more toward Hillary's OWN record on the subject. That would have been acceptable...but Hillary opened herself up to this.

bill-clinton-warned-about-hillarys-discomfort-with-gay-rights-during-2000-senate-race