Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: "Some are trying to rewrite history" on Defense of Marriage Act [View all]portlander23
(2,078 posts)79. We're going to disagree on this
I'm not condemning anyone who voted for DOMA nor anyone who took some time coming around to marriage equality.
I'm condemning whitewashing the history of DOMA and passing it off as a favor.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
121 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
DOMA was ugly bullshit unconstitutional law. I expect presidents to know the constitution.
CBGLuthier
Oct 2015
#1
What was liberal about letting states not recognize marriages. Are you thinking of DADT?
CBGLuthier
Oct 2015
#64
The country was not ready: Bill and Hillary are not ones to talk about marriage
lewebley3
Oct 2015
#94
So she did oppose it. Thank you, they weren't in favour of it in 1996.
beam me up scottie
Oct 2015
#98
Yes. That was the reason for DOMA, to head off that Constitutional amendment. nt
stevenleser
Oct 2015
#113
I hope you don't mind me parking this, admittedly, off-topic question ...
1StrongBlackMan
Oct 2015
#4
Not at all, that's what the checks and balances in the system are there to prevent.
Kentonio
Oct 2015
#89
Don't you think it nice to know where a candidate stands on the major issues of the day?
A Simple Game
Oct 2015
#23
The preferred course is that a candidate make their principles clear when they run
Armstead
Oct 2015
#31
Yes, really. Did you read the post to which I linked? No Constitutional amendment of any degree of
merrily
Oct 2015
#33
Nope. Little to no controversy because of being of age to serve in the military. No significant
merrily
Oct 2015
#36
How do you know that? At least, the ERA made it out of Congress. The flag amendment did not.
merrily
Oct 2015
#39
Don't make the mistake of thinking she changed her mind. No one knows what she believes.
bowens43
Oct 2015
#7
Just 14 Democrats in the Senate voted No, 67 in the House. The rest were Yes voters like Paul
Bluenorthwest
Oct 2015
#40
1% is pretty low odds to base legislative strategy dealing that represses civil rights on
TheKentuckian
Oct 2015
#38
You and the OP are discussing 'their rights' while some of us are talking about our rights.
Bluenorthwest
Oct 2015
#58
Situational passion regarding an issue indicates an exploitative use of the issue.
Bluenorthwest
Oct 2015
#76
What's the point of that if the vote itself is not worthy of contempt? To excuse those who voted
Bluenorthwest
Oct 2015
#119
I didn't say they did, I asked if that was what was being implied in their question
TheKentuckian
Oct 2015
#78
You don't even understand what I'm saying to you, your context is all straight politics and we are
Bluenorthwest
Oct 2015
#118
I'm sorry you are upset by my response though I don't feel my comments about legislation
TheKentuckian
Oct 2015
#120
If you don't believe all folks deserve equal rights until your in your 60's and it's politically
Indepatriot
Oct 2015
#43