Bill clinton | David Mixner | DOMA | News | Thomas Roberts

BigGayDeal.com

David Mixner Talks to MSNBC's Thomas Roberts About Bill Clinton's DOMA Reversal: VIDEO

David_mixner

Political strategist and longtime activist David Mixner joined Thomas Roberts on MSNBC today to talk about former President Bill Clinton's op-ed urging the Supreme Court to overturn DOMA, which he signed into law in 1996.

Mixner said that while he welcomes Clinton's decision to do so, it's important to not rewrite history and sweep his original actions under the rug. Mixner also talks about the upcoming SCOTUS decisions.

Watch, AFTER THE JUMP...

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. What is the SCROTUM decision?

    Posted by: Tim | Mar 8, 2013 4:28:37 PM


  2. There is no "right side of history" And the "coming on board" analogy is nauseating, used in any form. Roberts (who always presents like his sh-- doesn't stink) talks too fast. Bill Clinton wasn't stupid. He knew that homosexuals were universally despised. Politics. They still are. Please don't chain yourself to a fence if things don't go your way. Today's gay is not a clone or push over.

    Posted by: Jake | Mar 8, 2013 4:45:50 PM


  3. There is no "right side of history" And the "coming on board" analogy is nauseating, used in any form. Roberts (who always presents like his sh-- doesn't stink) talks too fast. Bill Clinton wasn't stupid. He knew that homosexuals were universally despised. Politics. They still are. Please don't chain yourself to a fence if things don't go your way. Today's gay is not a clone or push over.

    Posted by: Jake | Mar 8, 2013 4:45:51 PM


  4. I know enough about (INTREPID INTREPID INTREPID) Mixner to respect him and really want to see the bi-opic that is being made of his life. We should all be ambivalent about Bill Clinton: the smartest of Political Animals…and by the way he is NOT "reversing" his legacy. I do think that Mixner has a point that Chief Justice Roberts is SERIOUSLY considering the historical consequences before acting on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). BTW: Thomas Roberts only talks too fast when he’s introducing a guest or trying to segue to a commercial break…it’s annoying but it helps to focus on his…um…shoes when he does this.

    Posted by: Donny with a "D" | Mar 8, 2013 5:41:39 PM


  5. Used as a noun, "homosexual" is an archaic insult. Why do you use it, Jake? And of course there is a right side of history.
    We were NOT "universally despised" in 1996.
    Mixner (with whom I don't always agree) is exactly right on the facts.

    Posted by: John | Mar 8, 2013 5:44:59 PM


  6. Marriage.
    "This grand struggle over one word has ever put symbolism over substance, sentiment over sense, "respectability" over true self-respect. What might have been an effort to win legal respect for a range of human relationships was instead made a "gay issue." By gay people themselves -- finding it "strategic" to play oppressed victims.

    RCB

    Posted by: Gary | Mar 8, 2013 6:07:28 PM


  7. Then what do we call heterosexuals? You're insulted by your association with homosexuals? Sorry we can't to a Public Relations job on the entire dictionary. And Roberts talks too fast when the topic hits too close to homo. He's living the experiment, and it's so well furnished!

    Posted by: Jack | Mar 8, 2013 6:13:38 PM


  8. What's nauseating is "Jake" -- who truly despises himself for being gay, and therefore hates all of us who stand up for ourselves and refuse to take abuse.

    Posted by: David Ehrenstein | Mar 8, 2013 6:48:11 PM


  9. Mixner originally quit over Clinton's antics.

    Posted by: anon | Mar 8, 2013 7:10:54 PM


  10. :JACK: The tired "hate yourself" cliche doesn't work on me. Save your ten cent psychology for someone else. I love myself, and glad not to be like everyone else. Keep living those cliches - they'll get old real fast. Go sit back and look at your pictures of C-list celebrities.

    Posted by: Jake | Mar 8, 2013 7:47:48 PM


  11. Oh goody, Jake is back is to give us the "straight" man's perspective. Don't pay so much attention to your smartphone you miss a the next d*ck on the other side of the gloryhole!

    Because face it, Jake, if you were actually straight you'd have better things to do than worrying about gays and hanging out a gay blog. Go suck a d*ck and get out of your system because this part of your act is getting really stale. Even Ted Haggard pulled it off with more panache.

    Posted by: Caliban | Mar 8, 2013 8:21:13 PM


  12. Caliban: Don't even attempt to get bitchy with me. You'll lose. I got my PhD in it. I've never done "glory holes" More class that that, but you seem quite familiar, you miserable queen.

    Posted by: Josh | Mar 8, 2013 10:19:26 PM


  13. So are you Jake or Josh? "A troll by any other name" and all that. so let's just split the difference and call you "Joke" since it fits you so well.

    And don't make threats you can't make good on, Joke. What's a rough tough "straight" guy such as yourself doing saying you got a PhD in "b*tchy" anyway, huh? To some people that would sound awfully... gay.

    Posted by: Caliban | Mar 8, 2013 11:02:34 PM


  14. I've been gay since birth. I've been in long relationships, and single.I have done everything "gay" having visited NYC and lived in Boston, Miami and Los Angeles. My brother was a famous gay historian archivist. He died of Aids after a long fight in 2009. Many of his quotes appear above. I'm so glad that I got to l live most of my gay life in the 20th Century. It was a much different world for gays. Today seems to be a replication to the straight model. After all the fight for liberation, it's strange to think that this is what it morphed into. Still no glory holes though....

    Posted by: Josh | Mar 8, 2013 11:49:07 PM


  15. I know that Bill Clinton, like all of us, is an imperfect human being. I eagerly voted for him twice and I think that all things considered he was an excellent President.

    Posted by: andrew | Mar 9, 2013 12:59:57 AM


  16. @john: word usage is currently changing. The term "homosexual" is more clinical and tends not to be used very much in colloquial speech. It's complicated by gay rights activists and homophobes basically trying to claim various English words, resulting in a word-usage mess that will eventually sort itself out.

    It's probably roughly analogous to what went on in the civil rights movement in the 1960s and early 1970s, where the word "negro" became disfavored and people started to use "black" instead. During the transition, reasonable people were trying to figure out how to politely ask which term was preferable and in some cases were trying to figure out how to sort out conflicting answers. By "reasonable people", I mean those who simply wanted to avoid offending anyone.

    Posted by: Bill | Mar 9, 2013 2:50:31 AM


  17. Jack + Jake = Sadass Troll

    Posted by: Gigi | Mar 9, 2013 9:39:17 AM


  18. Once elected, one of the first things Clinton tried to do is allow gays in the military. That turned into the fiasco of Don't Ask Don't Tell. Later, he signed DOMA. Both measures, he claims were bitter pills which would stave off worse legislation or even constitutional amendments. Iknow the moves were political, but those were different times, thank goodness. I'm glad he has come aboard. And I really don't understand the animosity towards Thomas Roberts? He had the courage to come out and be an example of possibilities for young LGBT kids. He's bright, well spoken, and it doesn't hurt that he's gorgeous. Mixner is always fun to hear.

    Posted by: Jim | Mar 9, 2013 10:56:51 AM


  19. Gigi: Poor name for a dog.

    Posted by: Josh | Mar 9, 2013 1:34:15 PM


  20. John: Where does that put heterosexual? You can talk semantics all you wish, but perceptions are always held, if not spoken. Homosexual is the best description for what it is. JIM: You're at the age where everything is gorgeous. Roberts is no Ken doll, but you know he kisses the mirror every night. He'll age. I'm so happy everyone has come aboard the imaginary boat. Get ready for the 11PM News to delay your bedtime.

    Posted by: Seth | Mar 9, 2013 1:54:55 PM


  21. Whether you're gay or not, Joke, some of your comments read like those of a gay-hating troll on a drive-by mission, which is what I assumed you were. Rather than any sort of "replication" or mimicking of straight lives and society, what I believe in is that gay people, all people, should have OPTIONS. You certainly can't say that one manner of living is the only "authentic" one when in truth it was just the only choice.

    Many young gay people have grown up with gay role models and they've had the full support of their parents and families. Unlike previous generations of gay men (and women) there is nothing for them to run FROM. What many older gay people saw as stultifying conformity that offered no place for them, some younger people see it as comforting and welcoming and they want it for themselves. They WANT the "white picket fence" ideal; marriage, mortgage, and 2.5 kids.

    And they should have that option.

    Which isn't to say that other options aren't equally valid. I've heard older activists say they preferred it when being gay was counterculture because it forced them (us) to be creative, to reinvent things. There may be some truth to that, metaphorically like Heat + Pressure making diamonds. But it was also making the best out of a bad situation, lemonade from lemons. Nothing is stopping anyone from being "edgy," counterculture, an outsider. But merely being gay isn't enough anymore, so you may actually have to DO something to earn those labels instead of it being an accidental byproduct of your innate sexuality.

    Posted by: Caliban | Mar 9, 2013 2:08:45 PM


  22. CALIBAN: To quote by brother's close friend, the late Jane Rule (Lesbian Author) "This after decades of communal caring, friends devoting their lives to sick friends. (Aids) How soon we forget. And how willfully: this breathtaking disparagement of who gay people, at our best, have been is now common coin among those avid for the "right" to be "just like everybody else." We're meant to celebrate that "man and woman" has been replaced by "two persons" -- in a phrase that ends: "to the exclusion of all others."

    As Jane Rule (whom you'll also find here) lately wrote me: "the community we were working for in all its loving diversity, requiring of us all courage, imagination, humor, tenderness" is now "reduced to the right to 'marry,' to withdraw into the isolating conventions which allow and even justify neglect of other cares and commitments."

    Many of us seemed thrilled to trade what Jane has called "lives of our own invention" -- lives that have taught us not just courage and imagination but honestly, generosity, civic decency -- for admission to the privatized realm of Sacred Marriage.

    Posted by: Josh | Mar 9, 2013 9:35:32 PM


  23. I certainly agree with you (and Jane Rule) that marriage is not the end-all and be-all of gay rights, the ultimate prize after which the battle is won and everybody can go home.

    But even within the context of "communal caring, friends devoting their lives to sick friends," how many times did you witness biological family swooping in and refusing access to a sick or dying person? How many times did family, even cousins or more distant relatives, come in after the fact to collect the worldly goods when they had no time and no love to give that person while they were alive? I witnessed it myself, so surely you must have.

    It's always been true that there's the family you're born with and the one you create, not just with partners but with friends and community. But in the past that was sometimes only as good as the paper it WASN'T written on. There was no legal bond to back it up and so far as courts were concerned without that your only "real" family was the one on your birth certificate.

    I'm less interested in marriage as a romantic and societal ideal, the June, spoon, and honeymoon bit, than I am in the legal recognition of our relationships, legal ties that reflect emotional bonds. Lover to lover or friend to friend. Without doubt there will be ill-advised unions that end in bitter (and darkly amusing I suspect) fights, but there will be other times when those papers will honor bonds and offer protection in ways that CANNOT be equaled by mere contracts.

    So while I can admire the desire for and the sentiment of marital union, I also look at it in a very calculated way as legal protection. And that's nothing to sneeze at. It's worth fighting for.

    Posted by: Caliban | Mar 9, 2013 10:08:35 PM


  24. I think I got my timelines wrong, but didn't Clinton sign two historic measures demanded by the Republicans so they'd stop the impeachment process against him? These two things were, 1. DOMA and, 2., the relaxation of banking laws that have traditionally prevented things like the subprime catastrophe from happening. In short, this was all triggered by Monica Lewinsky.

    Posted by: Manny Espinola | Mar 9, 2013 10:24:13 PM


  25. CALIBAN: I agree with you, as it seems inevitable that marriage will happen. Again, I am happy to have had those years before marriage was a remote possibility. I was "married" for 14 years, in a relationship -- two proud gay 20 years olds living in three different cities together, facing the world. There was love and trust between us -- and we were probably spared Aids as a result. I have great respect for my late brother's opinions, and his writings have influenced me. I wish he were here to have his impressions. He was a key figure in gay Canadian history. He worked hard for the gay community. Guess that makes me the blonde boy.

    Posted by: Josh | Mar 9, 2013 11:05:44 PM


Post a comment







Trending


« «How to Identify a Gay Person: VIDEO« «