« Fifteen minutes and counting… | Main | Obama's Wright Stuff (III) »
March 18, 2008
More Bill Clinton revisionism
Posted by: Chris
The Clinton campaign is having one heckuva time keeping "the big dog" on the porch, and almost every time Bill Clinton barks, it's his wife's candidacy that ends up getting bitten. Thus far he hasn't been as divisive on gay issues that he has been on race -- probably because conventional wisdom says Hillary is doing better among gays -- but he has repeatedly rewritten his own political history.
You can't blame him, really, considering that two of his wife's central promises to LGB voters are to repeal the discriminatory anti-gay laws he signed as president. So first two months ago and then again this week, the former president rewrote the history of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and even the substantive policy himself.
Jennifer Vanasco at Logo's Visible Vote notes that in the same interview this week with college journalists, Clinton was also asked to respond to Melissa Etheridge's memorable comment in the HRC-Logo forum that the Clinton administration "threw gays under the bus" -- in particular because of the Defense of Marriage Act.
In response, the former president once again threw facts to the wind and scribbling his way through the history books:
There was at the time a serious effort to argue that the Congress ought to present to the States a constitutional amendment on gay marriage. The idea behind the Defense of Marriage Act was not to ban gay marriage, but for them to simply to say that if a marriage was…just because Massachusetts recognized the gay marriage. …
All [DOMA] said was that Idaho did not have to recognize a marriage sanctified in Massachusetts. That seemed to be reasonable compromise in the environment of the time and it’s a slight rewriting of history for Melissa, whom I very much respect, to imply that somehow this was anti-Gay.
Once again, the history and the substance are wrong. DOMA was not a defensive measure in response to a federal marriage amendment. It was a pro-active measure meant to "protect" other states from having to recognize marriage licenses issued to gay couples in Hawaii, where the state supreme court had signaled it was going to require.
What's more, it's flat wrong to suggest that "all DOMA said was that one state did not have to recognize a marriage sanctified in another state." For one thing, state laws don't "sanctify" marriage; churches and synagogues do. For another, DOMA has two provisions and the one Bill Clinton cites would remain on the books if Hillary Clinton has her way.
DOMA's other provision -- which has a much greater real-life impact -- is to define marriage under federal law as a heterosexual-only institution. One of the college reporters even tried to make that point, saying "people see this as an equal opportunity problem at the federal level, not just at the state level."
But Clinton bulldozed his response, turning the tables on his interviewers. "Will there be more or fewer gay couples free of harassment if the law is that every gay couple in America could go to Massachusetts and marry and didn’t have to be recognized in Utah?" he asked.
Got that? Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law, depriving bona-fied married gay couples from hundreds of federal rights and the portability of recognition in other states, but only to protect us from a backlash. The subtext is clear: Stop badgering our champions, the Clintons. Just say thank you for your inequality and wait for enough change so that it's politically expedient to support you. (See Kerry, John)
Bill's final point on DOMA:
The only point I was making is that I think that the attack that Melissa Ethridge is raised is a slight rewriting of history and doesn’t take a good account of where we were at the time and the fact that the Republican Right thought if they could just have a national referendum on gay marriage and make the Democratic Party about nothing but that they could bury the progressives in the country.
Got that? Lesbian and gay Americans' claim to equality threatened the Democratic Party politically, so DOMA was a necessary evil to preserve viability. So yes he threw us under the bus, but at least he had a good political reason.
The full excerpt relating to DOMA is available after the jump:
JUMP TO THE POST:
LILY LAMBOY, The Sophian, Smith College: The gay community has traditionally been a huge base of support for Democratic Party but recently Melissa Ethridge accused you of “throwing the Gay community under a bus.” I think she was referring to the fact that in 1996 you signed the Defensive Marriage Act which allows States to refuse recognition of same-sex marriage. Given that my home State of Massachusetts has legalized Gay marriage, in the interim period, I wanted to know what you position on same-sex marriage is today and how you hoped that the Administration…
PRESIDENT CLINTON: I think that it is a slight rewriting of history and let me just say and remind you that one of the issues that the Republican Party used to get it’s base out, I think it was in 2004, was to have all of these amendments on the ballot, right, to change the constitution of these states to ban Gay marriage.
There was at the time a serious effort to argue that the Congress ought to present to the States a constitutional amendment on Gay marriage. The idea behind the Defense of Marriage Act was not to ban Gay marriage, but for them to simply to say that if a marriage was…just because Massachusetts recognized the Gay marriage…Hillary and I at the time defended their right to do, that marriage had always been a matter of State law and religious practice.
LILY: But…
PRESIDENT CLINTON: The Defense of Marriage Act did nothing to change that. All it said was that Idaho did not have to recognize a marriage sanctified in Massachusetts. That seemed to be reasonable compromise in the environment of the time and it’s a slight rewriting of history for Melissa, whom I very much respect, to imply that somehow this was anti-Gay, when I had more openly Gay people in my administration and did more for Gay rights and tried to provide an opportunity for Gays to serve in the Military and did provide an opportunity for Gays to serve in civilian positions involving the national security that they had previously been denied from serving in. That is a little bit of rewriting of history there.
LILY: Even if it is a rewriting of history, what is your position in 2008 given that people see this as an equal opportunity problem at the Federal level, not just at the State level?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: The important thing is what is Hillary’s position. Hillary’s position is that she doesn’t support it and if we have the votes to repeal it she’ll be happy to repeal it, but let me ask you this; do you believe there will more or fewer efforts to ban Gay marriage constitutionally around the country if a Massachusetts marriage has to be sanctified in Utah? Yes or no, answer the question. We live in the real world here. In the real world…
LILY: It’s a political backlash..
PRESIDENT CLINTON: No, no, no not a political backlash. It’s a substantive backlash. The lives of Gay people; will there be more or fewer Gay couples free of harassment if the law is that every Gay couple in America could go to Massachusetts and marry and didn’t have to be recognized in Utah?
LILY: When is that going to change though if you aren’t willing to set a firm stance on…?
PRESIDENT CLINTON: So you don’t care what the practical implications are?
JOSH: We’re asking you.
LILY: That’s not what I’m saying…
PRESIDENT CLINTON: What I’m saying is…and I’ll tell you what Hillary’s position is; Hillary’s position is that she is opposed to it and she also believes that we can…she is also opposed to the ban on Gays serving in the Military. We now have a dramatic change in opinion and even one of the former Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staffs, General Shalikashvili, has written an editorial saying that he has changed his position on this. So we’re a long way now from where we were in the early ‘90’s. We’ve made a lot of progress, but my position is that I think that the one thing we know about Gay rights is the same thing we knew formerly about Civil rights, and the same thing we knew about women’s rights; personal contact and familiarity removes barriers and resentments and we are way beyond where we were in the early ‘90’s when all of this was done. So what she would like to do is to get rid of both the Defensive Marriage Act and the ban on Gays serving in the military. The only point I was making is that I think that the attack that Melissa Ethridge is raised is a slight rewriting of history and doesn’t take a good account of where we were at the time and the fact that the Republican Right thought if they could just have a national referendum on Gay marriage and make the Democratic Party about nothing but that they could bury the progressives in the country. What I tried to do was to keep moving the Gay rights cause forward in the best way I could.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834527dd469e200e55146a0808834
Comments
The comments to this entry are closed.
Robert Jackson on Jan 4, 2009 11:31:53 AM:
I think the gay community should realize that Bill Clinton moved us as far as he could politically. Would it be better had he taken a stand on this back in 1996 and lost the election to Dole? How many other progressive and moderates would have also lost elections? Only 14 democratic senators voted against the measure....even a veto would not have stopped this, and it may have cost us a whole lot more. The far right would have argued that the liberals in Massachusetts are forcing their views on middle America, Iowa, Utah, Nevada, Colorado...And the democrats would have paid come voting time. This took the republican issue of gay marriage and killed it as an election issue, mitigating any potential of a federal ban on gay marriage (which would have nullified all the Massachusetts and Hawaii marriages). The Clintons are on our side on this. As is Obama. But they do have to get elected in order to make any progress.