2016 Postmortem

dsc

(53,445 posts)

81. sorry it was on page 2 not 3

Sun Oct 25, 2015, 12:58 PM

Oct 2015

DOMA is a reflection of the era of its enactment.
At the time, the world had no experience with gay
marriage, and the debate over its legal recognition
was still in its infancy. In that time of uncertainty,
DOMA enjoyed broad support, but for reasons that
varied widely. Some who supported it fervently
opposed discrimination on the basis of sexual
orientation in other areas. They pushed for
protection against discrimination toward gays and
lesbians in employment, adoption, and the military.
They nonetheless supported DOMA’s stated purpose
of leaving the debate on gay marriage to develop in
the states. And they believed that passing DOMA
would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional
amendment banning gay marriage, which would have
ended the debate for a generation or more.

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:

"Some are trying to rewrite history" on Defense of Marriage Act [View all] portlander23 Oct 2015 OP

DOMA was ugly bullshit unconstitutional law. I expect presidents to know the constitution. CBGLuthier Oct 2015 #1

DOMA was liberal at the time lewebley3 Oct 2015 #62

What was liberal about letting states not recognize marriages. Are you thinking of DADT? CBGLuthier Oct 2015 #64

It was politically not possible to push for same sex marriage in the 90's lewebley3 Oct 2015 #68

"Some are trying to rewrite history" on Defense of Marriage Act beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #71

No, Same sex marriage only had a chance after California's decisions lewebley3 Oct 2015 #92

Why did your candidate oppose it until 2013 then? beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #93

The country was not ready: Bill and Hillary are not ones to talk about marriage lewebley3 Oct 2015 #94

Sure looks like she talked about it to me: beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #95

She is speaking of marriage, not lecturing about her own marriage lewebley3 Oct 2015 #97

So she did oppose it. Thank you, they weren't in favour of it in 1996. beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #98

What difference does it make: The Clintons are not single issue people lewebley3 Oct 2015 #102

Wtf are "GAP people"? beam me up scottie Oct 2015 #103

And they have help from bloggers Fairgo Oct 2015 #117

In other words Rilgin Oct 2015 #114

Both Clintons supported civil unions, though. okasha Oct 2015 #106

Yes, the Clinton's went through the same path as most American's lewebley3 Oct 2015 #108

US Miltary had a no tolence of any king toward gays: lewebley3 Oct 2015 #91

The threat of an anti-gay amendment to the Constitution was very real Rose Siding Oct 2015 #77

Are you sure? portlander23 Oct 2015 #80

Yes. That was the reason for DOMA, to head off that Constitutional amendment. nt stevenleser Oct 2015 #113

I will say this. NCTraveler Oct 2015 #2

I agree portlander23 Oct 2015 #6

I agree with your second paragraph completely. A Simple Game Oct 2015 #18

Problem reflects the larger problem with her Armstead Oct 2015 #26

This is the same man who ... BooScout Oct 2015 #3

please....he is a better dem than most restorefreedom Oct 2015 #11

He's more of a Democrat than anybody else in the party pinebox Oct 2015 #53

He was also on the "Marriage is an issue for the STATES" bus, too. MADem Oct 2015 #60

I hope you don't mind me parking this, admittedly, off-topic question ... 1StrongBlackMan Oct 2015 #4

It's perfectly democratic Kentonio Oct 2015 #8

Ah, "benevolent dictatorship." okasha Oct 2015 #87

Not at all, that's what the checks and balances in the system are there to prevent. Kentonio Oct 2015 #89

I agree portlander23 Oct 2015 #9

Agreed ... 1StrongBlackMan Oct 2015 #13

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

I really don't care where a candidate stood on any issue ... 1StrongBlackMan Oct 2015 #30

And we can just take our chances on where they stand tomorrow? A Simple Game Oct 2015 #45

That's not what I've been saying ... 1StrongBlackMan Oct 2015 #63

Same story with the supreme court portlander23 Oct 2015 #27

The preferred course is that a candidate make their principles clear when they run Armstead Oct 2015 #31

There was a similar meme about Hillary's two flag "desecration" bills. merrily Oct 2015 #5

The flag amendment failed by one vote in the Senate dsc Oct 2015 #14

And? merrily Oct 2015 #20

really? dsc Oct 2015 #24

Yes, really. Did you read the post to which I linked? No Constitutional amendment of any degree of merrily Oct 2015 #33

18 year olds were given the right to vote dsc Oct 2015 #34

Nope. Little to no controversy because of being of age to serve in the military. No significant merrily Oct 2015 #36

The support for the ERA was never as high as the support for ending flag burning dsc Oct 2015 #37

How do you know that? At least, the ERA made it out of Congress. The flag amendment did not. merrily Oct 2015 #39

Ok really real slow dsc Oct 2015 #69

Don't make the mistake of thinking she changed her mind. No one knows what she believes. bowens43 Oct 2015 #7

Nailed it n/t MissDeeds Oct 2015 #10

hell yes. nt restorefreedom Oct 2015 #12

Bingo! GoneOffShore Oct 2015 #17

+100000000000 azmom Oct 2015 #50

She was dead right on DADT dsc Oct 2015 #15

It's not impossible portlander23 Oct 2015 #19

I lived in MS at the time dsc Oct 2015 #22

My problem portlander23 Oct 2015 #25

because it allowed skittish Democrats in the places I named dsc Oct 2015 #28

Does that require the president to sign it? portlander23 Oct 2015 #29

He took one for the team on this to some extent dsc Oct 2015 #32

We're just going to disagree on this one portlander23 Oct 2015 #35

Just 14 Democrats in the Senate voted No, 67 in the House. The rest were Yes voters like Paul Bluenorthwest Oct 2015 #40

This message was self-deleted by its author oasis Oct 2015 #74

Thank you for this excellent post and info. yardwork Oct 2015 #105

1% is pretty low odds to base legislative strategy dealing that represses civil rights on TheKentuckian Oct 2015 #38

I don't understand the politics portlander23 Oct 2015 #41

If it had passed marriage equality would have been dead dsc Oct 2015 #42

It looks like no such amendment was proposed until 2002 portlander23 Oct 2015 #44

Yes it was a real threat at the time. I remember. yardwork Oct 2015 #47

Had there been no DOMA there would have been an amendment proposed dsc Oct 2015 #48

But that gets back to my point portlander23 Oct 2015 #52

it did prevent Democrats from taking another hard vote dsc Oct 2015 #65

Which vote? portlander23 Oct 2015 #75

the override vote dsc Oct 2015 #82

How is voting for it twice worse than once? portlander23 Oct 2015 #84

I don't recall gay folks supporting it at all. TheKentuckian Oct 2015 #49

you are never happy to be losing dsc Oct 2015 #54

There was no talk of a constitutional amendment that early on portlander23 Oct 2015 #56

yes there was on the ground dsc Oct 2015 #66

That is not my recollection nor can I find any citations for it. portlander23 Oct 2015 #67

Here is one dsc Oct 2015 #70

What do you think this cites? portlander23 Oct 2015 #72

sorry it was on page 2 not 3 dsc Oct 2015 #81

Again, this is post DOMA portlander23 Oct 2015 #83

it was written past DOMA but it was about the time of DOMA dsc Oct 2015 #85

I'd be more convinced portlander23 Oct 2015 #86

You and the OP are discussing 'their rights' while some of us are talking about our rights. Bluenorthwest Oct 2015 #58

I'm pretty mad about DOMA portlander23 Oct 2015 #61

Situational passion regarding an issue indicates an exploitative use of the issue. Bluenorthwest Oct 2015 #76

We're going to disagree on this portlander23 Oct 2015 #79

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

Yes, that is my recollection, as well Laughing Mirror Oct 2015 #73

And the Supreme Court cases would have been moot. yardwork Oct 2015 #104

No triangulation. LWolf Oct 2015 #16

Yep. End. thread. closeupready Oct 2015 #21

If you don't believe all folks deserve equal rights until your in your 60's and it's politically Indepatriot Oct 2015 #43

As an older gay person who remembers when DOMA passed..... I don't care. yardwork Oct 2015 #46

GO BERNIE! pinebox Oct 2015 #51

How anyone can take anything Hillary says azmom Oct 2015 #55

Again: How can ANYONE trust Hillary Clinton? AzDar Oct 2015 #57

K&R. JDPriestly Oct 2015 #59

The attempt to rewrite history is everywhere these days Hydra Oct 2015 #88

See Bluenorthwest, Dsc, and yardworks' posts if you seek accurate history emulatorloo Oct 2015 #90

Yes. okasha Oct 2015 #96

Why Bill Clinton Signed the Defense of Marriage Act portlander23 Oct 2015 #100

The state amendments were a way to get out the vote for w. yardwork Oct 2015 #101

Many were okasha Oct 2015 #107

Always a strategy to turn out the base. yardwork Oct 2015 #109

Sure. okasha Oct 2015 #110

This lesbian agrees with you. yardwork Oct 2015 #111

And this lesbian with you. okasha Oct 2015 #112

"genuinely" against the right and proper thing reddread Oct 2015 #99

That is probably the most ridiculous attempt ever to try to get out of a bad situation. I have had 5 sabrina 1 Oct 2015 #115

Lol, I'm still laughing over this! n/t sabrina 1 Oct 2015 #116

This is what I heard yesterday, but it won't work. Major Hogwash Oct 2015 #121