stats for wordpress
<% unless FeatureFlag.disable_quantcast? %> <% end %>
 







Are you on Facebook?

Would you please click "like" in the box to your right, or

Visit us on Facebook!


Dear President Clinton: Where’s Your Apology For DOMA?, NYT’s Bruni Asks

by David Badash on December 1, 2012

in Marriage,News,Politics

Post image for Dear President Clinton: Where’s Your Apology For DOMA?, NYT’s Bruni Asks

In “Dear President Clinton,” New York Times’ op-ed writer Frank Bruni aptly asks today, “Where’s your apology for signing the Defense of Marriage Act?” DOMA, the Defense of Marriage Act President Bill Clinton signed in 1996, bans the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages and affords the states the option to not recognize legal civil same-sex marriages from other states or countries.

“What a year you’ve had, the kind that really burnishes a legend,” Bruni, who is openly-gay, writes today at the Times. “At the Democratic National Convention, on the campaign trail, in speeches aplenty and during interviews galore, you spoke eloquently about what this country should value, and you spoke unequivocally about where it should head. Such a bounty of convictions, such a harvest of words, except for one that’s long overdue: Sorry.”

“Where’s your apology for signing the Defense of Marriage Act?,” Bruni posits.

Acknowledging that in “2009 you at last said that DOMA should be wiped off the books and you endorsed same-sex marriage, getting out ahead of many Democrats who still had elections to worry about and weren’t yet seeing, in polls, as much public support for same-sex marriage as they wanted to see,” Bruni continues:

In 1996, with an overblown worry about your re-election and a desire not to seem too liberal, you put your name to that execrable decree. And you’ve never wholly owned up to that, never made adequate amends. It’s past time, and it’s almost time for Hillary, who is about to step down as secretary of state, to catch up with other cabinet members and President Obama and make her presumed support for same-sex marriage explicit, which she has never done.

Her role as the nation’s senior diplomat discourages her from wading into domestic political matters: that’s the tradition and etiquette. But the gag order will soon be lifted, and I could make the case that it’s irrelevant anyway; that marriage equality is a matter of human rights, not politics; and that she’s powerful and beloved enough to have said whatever she wanted, at least once Obama finally laid down his marker.

In any case she, like you, has been largely on the sidelines during this vital chapter in our country’s march toward greater social justice. What a shame, given that no two people have been larger in the Democratic Party over the last quarter-century and given the party’s deserved pride in its embrace of same-sex marriage now. The two of you should be a more integral part of that pride. You should be at the very epicenter of this. It’s strange and it’s sad that you’re not.

DOMA is a nasty bit of business, in practical as well as symbolic terms. It denies federal pension, health care and medical leave benefits — among many other protections and considerations — to same-sex couples who have been legally married in the growing number of states that permit it. In the eyes of the Internal Revenue Service, those couples are singles and when one dies, the survivor has to pay estate taxes, for example, that heterosexual widows and widowers don’t.

This disparate treatment has rightly come under legal challenge, and many federal courts have now ruled that it violates the Constitution’s equal-protection clause. The Supreme Court late last week weighed which, if any, of these cases to take. An announcement is expected soon. With any luck, the nation’s highest court will dismantle DOMA, a decision that wouldn’t create marriage equality coast to coast but would change the tenor of debate in states considering the legalization of same-sex marriage.

After you signed DOMA — which, it must be said, a large majority of Democrats in Congress also supported — your defensiveness often trumped any suggestion of regret. As recently as 2008 you claimed that it’s a rewrite of history “to imply that somehow this was anti-gay.” You dodged the subject in your 2004 memoir, “My Life,” whose 957 pages didn’t include any mention of DOMA, as Frank Rich noted in New York magazine last February.

Bruni is right to challenge former President Clinton — before Hillary Clinton leaves her State Department post — on his ugly and evil contributions from the past. The former president, were the world perfect, not only apologize, but twist some arms behind closed doors to force GOP leaders to agree to repeal.

Hillary today is more popular than she has ever been. If she wants to win the White House in 2016 the Clinton family, together — Hillary has never said she supports marriage equality —  will need to right this wrong.

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Friends:

We invite you to sign up for our new mailing list, and subscribe to The New Civil Rights Movement via email or RSS.

Also, please like us on Facebook, and follow us on Twitter!

{ 3 comments }

CAxlRose December 1, 2012 at 8:45 pm

I'm no Clintonista, but it looks like we'll have to agree to disagree.

Yes, Clinton did sign DOMA, but that "execrable decree" reached his desk after being passed by an overhwelmingly bi-partisan, veto-proof majority.

Whether or not Clinton's disapproval of marriage equality played into his decision to sign DOMA (and, for that matter, DADT) is immaterial. Presidents have been holding their noses and signing pieces of legislation they'd rather veto for centuries.

Some in the community argue that Clinton could've went with Option #3, which was to do nothing, which means that DOMA would've became law without the President's signature. Same result, different course of action of Clinton's part, which really wouldn't have made a damn bit of difference.

No sense in holding onto the past. DOMA has gotten destroyed in nearly 10 consecutive federal court decisions in one year alone, and is on its way to SCOTUS. DOMA, like DADT before it, is on its way out. That's something to look forward to. :)

But to the subject at hand, Clinton apologizing for signing a piece of legislation that would've became law anyway won't change a thing. Let's focus on the amazing victories we've had over the past several years as we move equality forward. :)

thatsdrfreak December 2, 2012 at 2:47 pm

I agree. If Clinton had vetoed DOMA, his veto would have been over-ridden. Moreover, the election of 1996 could have become the referendum on marriage equality that we witnessed in 2004, when dozens of states rushed to enshrine anti-gay marriage amendments on to the ballot.

What he should be ashamed of was running radio ads (http://www.thetaskforce.org/press/releases/pr171_101896) in the South touting his having signed the law. His discomfort with the measure — signing it on Air Force during a red eye to Europe — was belied by his own campaign just months later. I would like him to address that.

James_M_Martin December 1, 2012 at 8:51 pm

Clinton advanced the community as far as possible with the congress he had at the time. He told the liaison to the community after his first brush with organized homophobia, "I had no idea the kind of prejudice you folks face" or words to that effect. But then the only thing George W. Bush did for the religious right was the executive order barring stem cell research, and he did it so early-on he could ignore their insanities from then on and maybe the electorate forgets about it. Clinton may have sold the community out when he allowed DADT as a substitute for open service. Isn't anybody still griping about that? President Obama has done more for the community than any previous four or five chief executives put together. Time marches on.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post:

<% unless FeatureFlag.disable_quantcast? %> <% end %>