Comments

  1. niles says

    The very last thing we need right now is to start casting blame and dividing the Democratic party along these lines. Shame on Bruni for seeking publicity in his hateful campaign toward the Clintons (of long-standing) that is hurting our forward movement.

  2. Roger says

    Yeah, I smell politics here (Bruni was very close to Bush II and not the Clintons/Gores). He also badly needs to make a name for himself with the paper. He claims his presence on the op-ed page represents the first gay person in that position. We could be so much better represented.

  3. David in NYC says

    Frank Bruni is a snake.

    1. Bill publicly endorsed gay marriage 3 years before Barack “evolved”. Why isn’t he asking Obama to apologize for 2008 when he had the house and the senate at his disposal to overturn DOMA??

    2. Bill passed DOMA when the country was going ape sh*t about gay marriage because of Hawaii and prevented a federal constitutional amendment that would have kept marriage out of all states for a very long time.

    3. No way would Bill have won reelection in 1996 if he didn’t respond to the conservative Hawaii hysteria. This was 16 years ago. I’m SURE Bob Dole would have made fantastic strides for the plight of gays in America.

    4. God let Hillary become prez and have Bruni and that other monster David Geffen to their enemy list. They live on mars.

  4. Patric says

    David in NYC, the comparison you make in your first point above is completely inapt. President Clinton need not consider any electoral consequences when he first endorsed marriage equality. Had he still been in office, I highly doubt that he would have endorsed equality any sooner than President Obama, who has by far done more for gay rights than any other President, did. President Clinton’s wife has yet to endorse marriage equality.

    I also don’t accept as given that the President could not have won in 1996 had he vetoed DOMA. No doubt DOMA was a political ploy by Republicans intended to split the President from his base and no doubt the President’s campaign felt that he would or might lose if he did not sign it. He vetoed a partial birth abortion ban at the same time, though, and while the politics of abortion rights and gay rights at the time may not have been quite comparable, it remained the case that President Clinton had many advantages in that election: a recovering economy and a weak opponent chief among them. He could’ve defended a veto in terms meant to minimize its impact (this is a state’s rights issue; there’s no real threat here: no state has yet recognized marriage rights for gay people, etc.). I just don’t think we should accept as given that, despite all the advantages he had in that election, he would have lost had he vetoed the bill. (Btw, though this is perhaps not surprising, he has urged only your second point and not the third in defending his signature of the law.)

  5. Bingo says

    YAY YAY YAY for David in NYC.

    We all knew at the time that Bill Clinton did exactly what he had to do and that it made no difference in real terms because DOMA would have easily been passed over his veto. Bruni has his head up his ass on this one.

    Hillary has been great on LGBT rights while at State. And I have no doubt we’ll be hearing plenty from her after State.

  6. alex says

    I think it’s fairly clear that Hillary Clinton is on “our” side. Anyone saying that she should be doing more doesn’t seem to understand her role as Secretary of State. The US Secretary of State needs to be able to work with all foreign leaders, including those that hate us.

    If Mrs. Clinton made a public statement about a divisive domestic issue like DOMA or marriage equality, she could undermine her stature within the international diplomatic community. The last thing our nation needs is countries like Egypt, Syria, and Pakistan hating us even more simply because our Secretary of State made a public comment about a topic that is against the religious tenets of their country.

    Does it suck that the world is this way? Of course. But, part of being a diplomat is acting diplomatic. If you need to maintain a dialogue, you don’t offend the person (particularly if the reason to offend is not directly relevant).

  7. Belthazar says

    @Patric – you are correct. People seem to have selective memories when it comes to Clinton and make excuses as to why he signed DADT and DOMA. Yet, these are the very same people that have called Obama a “gutless coward” when he did not sign an EO in the attempt to end DADT (instead of through Congress) and decried the excuses of his supporters — concentrate on the war(s) and the economy.

    Go back and read some of the comments (on this very site) when Obama was evolving on gay marriage. You did not read a lot of “he’s doing exactly what he needs to be doing or it would undermine his stature within the international diplomatic community.”

    @David in NYC: Remember, Clinton also suggested to Al Gore that he come out against gay marriage to help win the election against Bush (see NY Times Article(s) back in ’99/’00). What was the excuse then? He was leaving office.

Leave A Reply