Bill clinton | Democratic Party | Gay Marriage | News

BigGayDeal.com

Bill Clinton and Students in Spirited Exchange on DOMA

Lily Lamboy of the Smith College newspaper The Sophian recently questioned Bill Clinton about the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) at an MTVu roundtable. Clinton defended his record on gay issues and accused Melissa Etheridge of "rewriting history" when she said, during the Presidential Forum on LGBT Issues, that gays were "thrown under the bus" by his administration.

(Via Visible Vote)

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Michael, a couple of points.

    1) From where is all this anti-Obama vitriol coming? I just don't get it. I am all for expressing your opinion. Sometimes those expressions will be heated. I disagree with Bill about DOMA, but it is just that-- a disagreement. I don't need to rip him to shreds. The energy coming from you is just so negative and angry. I just don't get why you feel you need to direct it Obama and the other folks who are party of the Towleroad online community.

    2) As for not knowing anything about full faith and credit, I have to disagree with you for a variety of reasons. First, the article you cite states SUPPORTS what I said. The last paragraph states: "Referring to D.O.M.A.'s relationship to the Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause, Tribe said, 'a state that fits professor Kmiec's hypothetical would be a state that would not be influenced by Congress anyway because an act of Congress is subordinate to the Constitution." If you read my post (instead of merely just making nasty comments), you will see that I said: The Constitution-- not congressional legislation-- is the supreme law of the land. Accordingly, my analysis AGREES with Lawrence Tribe's.

    Second, my post says that the "common legal view" was that full faith and credit would apply to marriages." I did not say that it was the ONLY view. If people weren't concerned about full-faith and credit clause, why even have DOMA? The reason that you have DOMA was BECAUSE of the full-faith and credit clause. It was a preemptive strike because of those concerns. There were arguments about if and how full-faith and credit would apply.

    As I an attorney, I understand a bit more of the nuance regarding this issue which is why I used the phrase "common legal view" versus trying to explain the full contours of the clause.

    But you don't have to take my word for it. Here's a snippet from an article from the Libertarians at the American Enterprise Institute regarding DOMA and federalism:

    "While the meaning of the Full Faith and Credit Clause is anything but clear, the historical practice concerning marriage has been relatively straightforward. As a general rule, states recognize marriages concluded in other states. In all states, however, courts have consistently recognized an exception for out-of-state marriages that violate the strong public policy of the forum state. For example, states will generally refuse to recognize a sister-state marriage where the partners chose that state for the transparent purpose of evading the laws of the state in which they are domiciled. (The point of this rule is to protect against a "race to the bottom," meaning Nevada.) Similarly, the public policy exception has traditionally covered cases of bigamy, polygamy, consanguinity, and, in an earlier age, miscegenation.

    When the Hawaii Supreme Court legalized homosexual marriage, it seemed unclear whether the public policy exception would extend to such unions."

    In fact, Justice Scalia in his dissenting opinion in Lawrence (the case that declared the Texas sodomy law unconstitutional) said the following regarding the majority's opinion:

    "what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case “does not involve” the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so."

    Justice Scalia (who is no intellectual slouch) was concerned about full-faith and credit. Why, because if it is not ok to discriminate against gays on a moral basis in state legislation, then you don't even get to argue whether you could apply a "public policy" exception.

    Bottom line:

    Using profanity, you cited an article that supports what I said. You also failed to fully understand the legal nuance regarding full-faith and credit generally and put Obama's comments in context.

    I'm not mad at you for that, but I'd hope that Towleroad can remain a community where we can disagree somewhat agreeably.

    Posted by: Brandon | Mar 24, 2008 8:20:16 PM


  2. Oh, please, Dan. All you care about is dissing Hillary. This is your 11th Commandment: the Dali Obama can do no wrong and the Evil Clintons can do nothing right. Bill can misstate all he wants and, as much as he might like to be, his name isn't on the ballot. Neither is a referendum on what she did or did not do 15 years ago. What was the name of the homohating gospel singer who starred in Hillary's campaign rally again?

    You wanna debate historical revisionism? How about Obama revising the history of the gay rights bill in Illinois. Obama said he was a "chief cosponsor" of it when he was no kind of sponsor at all. He claimed he "passed" it when he wasn't even in the state legislature anymore when it was voted on.

    Or how about the Illinois bill regulating the nuclear industry that he also claimed he passed—that one was NEVER voted on at all?

    Or how about his claiming that over 23 years, over 1000 Sundays, he never heard Jeremiah Wright say any of that crazy, racist crap; that somehow Mr. "I praise Jesus every Sunday" apparently slept in the Sunday after 9/11 so missed Wright blaming the United States for it?

    Or how about this from another Hillary Hater:

    "Sen. Obama has long known perfectly well ... that he'd one day have to put some daylight between himself and a bigmouth Farrakhan fan. But he felt he needed his South Side Chicago 'base' in the meantime. So he coldly decided to double-cross that bridge when he came to it. And now we are all supposed to marvel at the silky success of the maneuver.

    You often hear it said, of some political or other opportunist, that he would sell his own grandmother if it would suit his interests. But you seldom, if ever, see this notorious transaction actually being performed, which is why I am slightly surprised that Obama got away with it so easily. (Yet why do I say I am surprised? He still gets away with absolutely everything.)

    Looking for a moral equivalent to a professional demagogue who thinks that AIDS and drugs are the result of a conspiracy by the white man, Obama settled on [his] 85-year-old [grandmother]. ...

    This flabbergasting process, made up of glibness and ruthlessness in equal proportions, rolls on unstoppably with a phalanx of reporters and men of the cloth as its accomplices. Look at the accepted choice of words for the ravings of Jeremiah Wright: controversial, incendiary, inflammatory. These are adjectives that might have been—and were—applied to many eloquent speakers of the early civil rights movement. But is it "inflammatory" to say that AIDS and drugs are wrecking the black community because the white power structure wishes it? No. Nor is it "controversial." It is wicked and stupid and false to say such a thing. And it not unimportantly negates everything that Obama says he stands for by way of advocating dignity and responsibility over the sick cults of paranoia and victimhood."

    - Hillary Hater Christopher Hitchens, Slate, today.

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Mar 24, 2008 8:25:20 PM


  3. Golly gee Bill! I didn't realize I should be THANKING you for codifying discrimination into federal law!! Silly me!!

    Posted by: Tim Franklin | Mar 24, 2008 8:35:01 PM


  4. We are all f**ked. At this point we will have Mccain!

    Posted by: Travis | Mar 24, 2008 8:52:51 PM


  5. The repeal of DOMA will allow lawsuits to be filed to recognize other states' gay marriage laws in the handful of states that do not contain their own DOMA.

    This is a crucial step to allow gay marriage to reach beyond Massachusetts. Gay marriage is inevitable, but repealing DOMA now will fast track it become a reality.

    Obama does not support same-sex marriage, but no candidate does. A full repeal of DOMA, however, supports gay marriage as stated above. He mentioned the need for federal civil unions, since many rights get left out if it is just left to the states. Civil unions are important to protect the rights of devoted couples now, before the rest of society catches up.

    Posted by: oregonstudent | Mar 24, 2008 9:01:52 PM


  6. Oregonia, repeal of DOMA does no such thing even in Magical Obama Land. Sen. Clinton has the exact same position on allowing all federal benefits to gay couples as Obama. And lawsuits have already been filed challenging the crux of both federal and state DOMAs in relation to "full faith and credit" and they have all failed and the Supreme Court has refused to hear appeals. Except in the half dozen or so states that have do not have their own DOMA and/or state constitutional amendment all of this hot air about Section 2 of federal DOMA is legally moot.

    PROFANITY, Brandon????!!!! OMG, can you ever forgive me? More tea?

    What's PROFANE is your resorting to homohating propaganda tanks like the AEI and the vilest, homohating fascist on the Supreme Court—an ideologue first and an intellectual second who was apparently concerned that “Lawrence v. Texas” would not just lead to the legalization of gay marriage but...wait for it.....MASTURBATION—to try to support your views.

    I think Tribe is a fool to support an empty suit like Obama, and shameless in his silly attempt to smear Sen. Clinton with something called a "symbolic insult to gays" which is right up there with "being Lanced" as the idiot coinage of 2007.

    But given that, unlike AEI and Scabrouslia, Tribe is PRO gay equality and the author of "American Constitutional Law," the most frequently cited resource in that field, along with 11 other legal issue books, as well as a treatise on "Lawrence v. Texas" for the Law Review at Harvard where he is the Carl M. Loeb University Professor, and has argued before the U.S. Supreme Court some 36 times, I’ll accept his overall dismissal of the states-related portion of federal DOMA over their opinion, and with all respect you have due, yours.

    Finally, you misinterpret Tribes rejoinder to Kmiec while pointedly leaving out this passage: “Tribe rejects Kmiec's warning about Obama's approach by arguing that a court that feels compelled to recognize a same-sex marriage conducted in another state CAN DO SO EVEN WITH DOMA IN PLACE.”

    The shorthand: Obama is once again smile fucking us and Oregami and Brandon are just bending over saying, "Please, Sir, may I have another?"

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Mar 24, 2008 9:24:03 PM


  7. Forget his support for the union busting NAFTA, his last minute pardons of millionaires, the murder of Iraqi children by his embargo on food and medicines and Monica’s cum stained blue dress. This is Slick Willie at his sleaziest.

    Bigots didn’t raise the idea of DOMA as a constitutional amendment until Bush2’s first term. Anyone who says otherwise, including Bill or Hillary Clinton or one of their shills is a liar. It’s similar to his theory that Kerry lost in 2004 because he refused to take Clintons advice and support state DOMA’s. According to NEWSWEEK Magazine “President Clinton, who signed the Defense of Marriage Act when he was in the White House, advised Kerry in a phone call early in the campaign to find a way to support the state bans.”

    In any case the events of 1996 prove that Clinton had unsavory motives for supporting and signing DOMA. He was set to lose the White House after his policies had cost the Democrats their decade’s long control of Congress. Clinton was increasingly unpopular and had to reach out to bigots for their support because of his steady support for anti-worker bills like NAFTA, for decimating cuts in welfare and health care, and for his signature on bills to deregulate corporate predators and provide an unending series of tax cuts taxes for the rich. According to TIME Magazine “By the time Clinton arrived in Chicago for his party's convention in August, nothing that hinted at liberalism was left hanging on him. When the President, who had begun his term advocating the rights of gays in the military, came around to supporting the Defense of Marriage Act, which barred federal recognition for gay and lesbian unions, Dole was wide-eyed. "Is there anything we're for that he won't jump on?" Dole asked. The answer, essentially, was nothing...”

    What we do know for sure is that Clinton, in a bid to be reelected in 1996 boasted about his bigotry in signing DOMA. The AP ran a story on October 17, just three weeks before the 1996 which said “After angry complaints from gay-rights advocates, the Clinton campaign on Wednesday replaced an ad running on religious radio stations that boasted of the president's signature on a bill banning gay marriages....The Clinton spot also touted his signing of the Defense of Marriage Act, in spite of earlier White House complaints that the Republicans' use of the issue amounted to "gay baiting." Clinton’s ads were so bigoted and so scandalous that even his lapdogs in the HRC felt compelled to let out a yap or two.


    http://www-cgi.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/analysis/time/9611/23/kramer/


    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6415858/site/newsweek/

    Posted by: Bill Perdue, RainbowRED | Mar 24, 2008 9:24:29 PM


  8. This vile shitbag has sold out anyone he needs to sell out to further his day. Throwing under the bus is a genteel term for what he does/did.

    And "rewriting history" is not a stone he should throw, less the words Bosnia and Rwanda come up.

    That said, I don't associate Hillary's work to his. Personally, I think she is capable of more than he is. So is Obama. I'll be happy to vote for either if that is the choice. Because McCain won't do shit for us.

    Posted by: sleepdawg | Mar 24, 2008 9:40:45 PM


  9. Earth to all: Bill Clinton still not on ballot. Ya wanna play that game then:

    it was Obama who blamed the US for 9/11 and whites for trying to kill all blacks with AIDS not his former pastor and hero Jeremiah Wright.

    it was Barack Obama who said this was the first time in his entire life he's been proud to be an American not Mrs. Barack Obama.

    it was Obama who said that gays are trying to kill the country's children not his campaign's gospel concert star Donnie McClurkin.

    it was Obama who said that being gay is an "evil sickness" and not his other "spiritual advisor" the Rev. James Meeks.

    it was Obama who voted against the gay rights bill in Illinois and not his pal Meeks.

    it was Obama who called Sen. Clinton a monster and not his former foreign policy guru Samantha Power.

    it was Obama who said that he has no intention of keeping his promises about withdrawals from Iraq and not Samantha
    Power.

    it was Obama who called Sen. Clinton a sleazy liar and frustrated thief of White House artifacts and not Obama gay advisor Maxim Thorne.

    it was Obama who lied when he said he passed the gay rights bill in Illinois and passed another bill regulating the nuclear industry and used dirty political tactics to prevent anyone from running against him for the Illinois senate Dem nomination and lied when he said he would serve out his first Senate term before running for President and lied when he said he is a law professor at the U of Chicago rather than just a lecturer....er, wait, all that was Obama. Sorry.

    Posted by: Michael Bedwell | Mar 24, 2008 9:56:28 PM


  10. what an ass. i can't believe that our community fell for this guy. hindsight is such a bitch. his serial rationalizations are just too much to stomach any more.

    Posted by: jim | Mar 24, 2008 10:23:37 PM


  11. I won't add much except to say AMEN BILL. I'm so sick of people pretending that the environment in the 90s is the same as it is today.

    DOMA was a response to try to keep states from proactively seeking state constitutional amendments that would forever be difficult to overturn from arising b/c of a decisions by one state to allow gay marriage. And for years it was quiet until the MA issue arose and people became afraid that courts would overturn it and states ran to the ballots to ban it. It was exactly what they were trying to stop with DOMA.

    He's dead on and I praise him for defending what continues to be one of the friendliest administrations to gays in the history of the United States, where Obama's supporters (so many of whom were in grade school during these years) want to rewrite history or not. AMEN BILL. AMEN.

    Posted by: BANNE | Mar 24, 2008 10:24:40 PM


  12. Full faith and credit covers

    Corporations
    Contracts
    Legal Rulings
    Incarceration
    Regulation
    Tax Collection
    Marriage
    Police Investigations and Jurisdiction
    Probate and death certificates
    Joint State Ventures
    Movement of citizens
    Sovereign immunity
    Legislative immunity
    Property
    Trusts

    Shall I go on?

    Congress has the authority to regulate interstate relations. This authority was granted to prevent the formation of confederations. (Well, it almost worked).

    I'm becoming convinced that MB is Leland Francis ver2.0. Turing lives!

    Posted by: anon | Mar 24, 2008 10:46:02 PM


  13. Why is Bill Clinton using "Michael Bedwell" as an alias?

    Posted by: homer | Mar 24, 2008 10:47:11 PM


  14. But we got all those state constitutional amendments anyway. What makes this so bad is not that he was pragmatic in signing DOMA but that he ran radio ads in the south BRAGGING about signing DOMA. What did the Clintons REALLY do for the gay community besides take our donations and bask in our applause? Was it better than a second Bush term or Bob Dole? Yes. But we deserve better now. Will Obama sell me out? maybe. Will Clinton? Absolutely. I'd rather cast my vote for someone who might actually stand up for me and not sell me out the moment the going gets the least bit rough.

    Posted by: Houndentenor | Mar 24, 2008 10:52:43 PM


  15. But we got all those state constitutional amendments anyway. What makes this so bad is not that he was pragmatic in signing DOMA but that he ran radio ads in the south BRAGGING about signing DOMA. What did the Clintons REALLY do for the gay community besides take our donations and bask in our applause? Was it better than a second Bush term or Bob Dole? Yes. But we deserve better now. Will Obama sell me out? maybe. Will Clinton? Absolutely. I'd rather cast my vote for someone who might actually stand up for me and not sell me out the moment the going gets the least bit rough.

    Posted by: Houndentenor | Mar 24, 2008 10:53:13 PM


  16. But we got all those state constitutional amendments anyway. What makes this so bad is not that he was pragmatic in signing DOMA but that he ran radio ads in the south BRAGGING about signing DOMA. What did the Clintons REALLY do for the gay community besides take our donations and bask in our applause? Was it better than a second Bush term or Bob Dole? Yes. But we deserve better now. Will Obama sell me out? maybe. Will Clinton? Absolutely. I'd rather cast my vote for someone who might actually stand up for me and not sell me out the moment the going gets the least bit rough.

    Posted by: Houndentenor | Mar 24, 2008 10:55:17 PM


  17. I think it's more than a bit ingenuous for Bill Clinton to claim that Melissa rewrote history on DOMA when it is HE, the same man who, IN HIS OWN VOICE, recorded political ads to be aired in the Bible Belt in 1996 where he BRAGGED about his support of DOMA.

    Are we now to believe that the socially conservative voters that he was attempting to impress with his DOMA support ad, were also just looking to keep a marriage amendment off the table in order to look out for the best interests of gays.

    Was that also the reason why Clinton STRONGLY encouraged John Kerry to publicly support the marriage amendment in MA in 2004 when he was running for President? Was that because of his concern for the gays and our relationships?

    Sorry, THAT DOG JUST WON'T HUNT!

    Posted by: Zeke | Mar 24, 2008 11:08:38 PM


  18. Hey Marc, the clusterfuck is anyone who continues to bleet about Clinton or Obama being a problem when McCain is the problem...whichever Democrat survives the massive clusterfuck that is the nomination process is the one we're going to have to vote for, and continue to advocate for our issues with one or the other, or risk another four years of right wing insanity and a Supreme Court stacked against us for at least a generation. Get over your Clinton-esque criticisms of Obama. I hate both Clintons but damn it I'm voting for her if she swindles the nomination.

    Posted by: So Left I'm Right | Mar 24, 2008 11:25:29 PM


  19. I don't agree that all this infighting is tearing apart the Democrats. It's a political campaign; worse things have been said in past presidential campaigns by people who were later happy to get in bed together, politically (think McCain and Bush---I would respect McCain way more if he never forgave the smear campaign that Rove and Bush used to destroy him in 2000, and said Fuck You to his endorsement. What else was Bush going to do?).

    Bill Clinton is, for better or worse, trying to get his wife elected. Yes, probably to pay her back for the shit he put her through. But I sincerely doubt that a lot of people will say, "Oh I'm not going to vote for Obama or Clinton because they're arguing. I'll vote for McCain instead." People of all political stripes are too angry with the current administration. They'll vote for either Democratic candidate, because either way they no longer trust Republicans to serve or protect this country---fiscally, on social issues, the war, or anything else.

    Posted by: Paul R | Mar 24, 2008 11:34:00 PM


  20. "Oh, and while we're speaking of "clusterfucks" -- Bill Clinton invented the term around almost exactly 10 years ago.

    Posted by: FRANK L
    --------------------------------------------

    really, frank? where did bill clinton "invent" it, indeed, even use it?

    as far as i can tell, the phrase was coined in the '60s by the poet Ed Sanders and was frequently used in the military to refer to SNAFUs (situation normal, all fucked up) and/or things that are FUBAR (fucked up beyond all repair). "Charlie Foxtrot" was the euphemistic term.

    There have been others more recently who have used the term, author John Barnes in the '90s and Jon Stewart in "America (The Book)", are among them.

    DAN,

    you may not like the way bedwell says stuff, but it is hardly convoluted. michael is one of the few here that doesn't merely pull stuff out of his ass. yes, i know it is harder to actually know a little about history and be able to put things like DOMA and DADT within that context. and, yes, it requires developing an attention span longer that what is required for some of you to spit out some anti-clinton talking-points or fart out some misconstrued point of fact.

    if you, brandon and others do not stop, we will all be drowning in the phlegm of ignorance and the miasma of facile disinformation that you help perpetuate. then, we can all bemoan the clusterfucks of this primary and the FUBAR situation of the democratic party.

    it is not the questioning that hurts an argument, it is the shutting down of the questions that does. don't forget that america is in a "war" of choice for that reason. four young men died today bringing to 4000 the number of needless deaths. one of those boys -- after all, many are just children --lived less than 20 miles from me. he left a wife and a nine-month old son he never got to see. had he been safe at home with his family, he could have walked down to the corner store, but he would not have been allowed to by a cerveza, if he had wanted to. he was too young. he joined the army to learn computers. that was his goal.

    BANNE,

    you're one of the good guys.

    Posted by: nic | Mar 24, 2008 11:38:31 PM


  21. Michael, I'd hoped for a different tone, but I'm not surprised by your response.

    Fortunately, logical argument is not based upon name-calling OR immediately dismissing a perspective by trying to delegitimize the source.

    Evan Wolfson formerly of Lambda Legal and one of the foremost proponents of gay marriage has argued the same point, i.e., that states would have to recognize a gay marriage under full-faith and credit.

    It's a good tactic to try to switch the ball so that it appears I was proclaiming what the law is. I'm not that good. And, for the record, neither is Tribe. He is espousing a position about what he thinks full and faith and credit means in a very particular context. His is not the only opinion and he's making an argument as to what the law should ultimately be. The only real and binding "decision" about what is or is not Constitutional is made by a court. (Remember, Tribe argued and lost Bush v. Gore.) My point was that people from various positions on the spectrum believed that full-faith and credit applied to gay marriage. Hence, DOMA. (Did it occur to you that Tribe's position may be political? As a gay rights advocate, he's going to espouse a position that would allow you to sidestep an anti-gay law. Lawyers call it advocacy.)

    You've also, I think, missed the mark again on another point. Tribe's point that a court CAN ignore DOMA if it wants to recognize gay-marriage is true. Courts can "do" anything. A smart judge can argue that DOMA violates the federal constitution because, as I stated earlier, the Constitution trumps. You're trying to create a disagreement where one doesn't exist. Nice try, but it doesn't wash.

    Lastly, you're not seeing the big picture or some of the other issues.

    Saying that the federal government should not be involved in the marriage discussion (like Obama has) supports the concept of federalism-- the concept that certain roles belong to states and some to the federal government. That's not an inherently anti-gay position. It is, again, far more nuanced than that. And, this was the primary thrust of why Obama called Tribe. Remember, Tribe supports Obama.

    Additionally, Obama, according to the article that you cite, supports the repeal of DOMA while Hillary only wants to repeal part of it. Note that Hillary DOES NOT want to repeal the portion that allows states to decline to recognize gay marriages from other states.

    Can you explain why you're attacking Obama for stating that the entire statute should be repealed? Shouldn't Hillary be calling for the total repeal of DOMA?

    Obama isn't trying to screw gay people on this point. He's making a principled point about federalism. He's also setting up a domino. Court cases are about arguments. You can argue that states didn't have to recognize a gay marriage previously because of the potential policy exception. But, if you make that argument, you have to analogize gay marriage to stuff like polygamy. The question is would that argument wash.

    You get rid of DOMA and you take away an arrow in the quiver of the anti-gay marriage forces. Part of making an effective legal argument is depriving your enemies of ammunition.

    A federal statute saying that a state doesn't have to recognize gay marriage is evidence of legislative intent. Courts sometimes consider the intent of the legislature and the legislative history in making legal determinations about a statute. The full faith and credit clause states:

    Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof

    Note the word "Congress." One reading of the phrase is that Congress has a role in deciding how full faith and credit plays out. If you have a statute from Congress saying that you don't have to recognize gay marriages, a court could say: Congress has spoken on the issue and there's no full-faith and credit for gay marriages. I don't think it likely, but it could happen.

    These types of constitutional arguments are incredibly nuanced and often are angels-dancing-on-the-head-of-a-pin type things. There's pro & con.

    However, you never want to give ammo to your enemies in a legal battle. Why would Hillary would want to do that?

    Posted by: Brandon | Mar 24, 2008 11:40:21 PM


  22. This is pretty disgusting. It reminds me that I was so angry at him in 1996 that I voted for Ralph Nader (I did not repeat that choice in 2000.) A federal constitutional amendment was not a threat in 1996: the bigots were wise enough to save that until after the federal law was passed. It would be nice if he would just shut up because he makes his wife and himself look worse than they actually are. Her current position on DOMA (that it can be and has been used to fight a federal constitutional amendment) is reasonable and pragmatic, but it is a case of making lemonade out of lemons. And despite caving in on DOMA, Bill is not lying when he talks about appointing gay people and chipping away at the bigotry of power in Washington. In part because of the Clintons, the culture has changed so much that it is hard to remember the huge amount that his administration did to aggressively combat discrimination against gays and lesbians. How nice it would be to come away from this interview thinking about that rather than what a dick the dude can be.

    He truly would be disastrous in any diplomatic capacity as first gentleman, wouldn't he? A bull in the nuclear China shop.

    Jesus. Fine.

    Obama 08

    Posted by: Landon Bryce | Mar 24, 2008 11:42:37 PM


  23. What a weasel. Bill began his Presidency by screwing up his promise to end the ban on gays in the military, and ended it by signing an act to "defend" marriage even as he cheated on his wife. What did this guy do for gay people, exactly? He let some work for him, he had a few over for dinner. But in his *job* as President he totally threw us under the bus. This is the same myth that the Clintons were great for the black community. What exactly did they do? They let some work for them, had a few over for dinner. But what did they do to improve their lives.

    Answer: nothing. African-American voters have figured it out this time. They're going to Barack in droves not because he's black, but because he has integrity and can win. Many gays,sadly, have not figured this out yet. They attempt to re-write history to portray Bill's as a better admin for us than it was. For some reason they still think the Clintons will do something for them.

    Posted by: Keith | Mar 25, 2008 12:14:52 AM


  24. Am I the only one who thinks Michael needs to get his own blog? Geez.

    Posted by: Anon | Mar 25, 2008 12:18:46 AM


  25. I just think people are so over optimistic that "acceptance" for the LGBT community is here for everyone. I don't know about you, but United States of America, as my American friend say, is about God, guns, and money. This violates the God part of the equation.

    This is different than the civil rights movement. Everyone hates the gays. I mean, you don't see groundswell support the gays.

    People who think that homosexuals-friendly laws are just going to be a walk in the park will be sorely disappointed.

    Posted by: Landis | Mar 25, 2008 12:23:30 AM


  26. « | 1 2 3 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «George Michael Announces Summer U.S. Tour« «