Sanders Isn’t Buying Hillary’s DOMA Explanation: Everybody Knew That Law Was Homophobic [VIDEO]

On Thursday, Hillary Clinton told Rachel Maddow that her husband’s signing of the DOMA bill was a “defensive action” meant to ward off a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Bernie Sanders isn’t having it. Via The Hill:

“To my mind, I think the evidence is very, very clear that that legislation was anti-gay legislation, it was playing off the fears of a lot of Americans,” Sanders said on CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday. DOMA made the federal definition of marriage the union between one man and one woman and allowed traditional-marriage states to refuse to recognize gay marriages performed in other states. “What they were trying to do is make it impossible for gay couples to be married, to get benefits from the federal government, to have marriage in one state be accepted and recognized in another state,” he said. “I think everybody at the time knew that this was homophobic legislation.” “We have come a long way since that vote in 1996,” he added.

  • Silver Badger

    I agree with Hillary’s explanation. Can you imagine trying to reverse an amendment to the constitution? In the long run, an obviously unconstitutional law is far superior to an amendment to the constitution.

    • DaddyRay

      And Hillary may have faired better in 2008 if she ran on that

      • Silver Badger

        Perhaps, but then we would have missed the Obama years. If nothing else they have been a interesting ride!

        • DaddyRay

          Agreed – it was tough at the time, I was torn between Obama and Hillary and felt it was too soon after the Clinton Presidency and we needed a clean slate. I’m ready now for a Hillary Presidency.

          • Joe in PA

            I guess I am too. I recently watched her 2004 Senate speech on DOMA…it was nauseating to watch, and always gives me pause. But then again, after seeing her before the Benghazi panel, after seeing the debates, I believe she is FIRED up and has that ‘don’t-fuck-with-me-boys, not my first day…attitude. I’m ready for a president (kind of like Prez Obama is now) that will take on congress in a more forceful way. Can you imagine what she might be like at the end of her second term. Whohoo!!

          • Doug105

            Can only hope she would not give away as much trying to appease political terrorists as Obama did.

          • Kelly Lape

            I actually weighed the GOP’s animus towards the Clintons in Obamas favor. I felt that I’d had enough of the irrational anti-Clinton bullshit and anyone else wouldn’t have been as decisive. As the last 6-3/4 years have proved, it doesn’t matter who we favor the GOP is going to never stop attacking us, and never going to work with us toward improving America on “our watch”

            This is why I now favor Hillary, the futility of trying to work with the GOP is strongest in Hillary and I don’t want to waste the next administration with any pretense of trying to work with those pieces of shit in the GOP.

          • DaddyRay

            I couldn’t get past the feeling that the GOP were ready with a bunch of anti Clinton attack ads and when we picked Obama during the primary they were caught off guard not knowing how to attack without looking prejudice (they have figured it out now and just let their freak flag fly)

          • JT

            Little did anyone know how insanely rabid the wingnut teabaggers would be against Obama.

        • We would have had sexism instead of racism. Same song, different verse.

      • JT

        Of course, Obama was against same sex marriage then too.

        • DaddyRay

          That is my point – they were pretty much the same candidate and something was needed for me to differentiate the two

          • JT

            Unfortunately, the issue wasn’t the positive force it is today. In fact, it still had some “negatives” attached to it. That’s why both HC and Obama didn’t highlight it. It was political expediency all around. I don’t think either HC or Obama actually believed in the nonsense about marriage being only between a man and a woman.

          • DaddyRay

            I guess you are right and I think we had more of a role bringing them to where they are today than they were bringing us a to this point

          • JT

            We and also the changing demographics had effect. Things began to change rapidly after so many states were moving in that direction and especially once the poll numbers indicated how popular the issue had become. Still, politicians were not without effect. Obama had effect with his announced change. Bernie deserves much credit for voting against DOMA in 1996. Bill Clinton deserves credit for trying to end military discrimination way back in 1993.

          • LovesIrony

            because we came out, we are brothers, sisters, friends, uncles. aunts, coworkers nieces nephews mothers and fathers not some stranger lurking in dark alleys

        • GarySFBCN

          The difference is that there was a whisper campaign among many LGBTs that Obama really supported same-sex marriage and it seemed plausible. Not so with Clinton – he was against same-sex marriage, and, as others have stated, it was a different time.

          • JT

            I’m not following what you’re saying since the Clinton in question with Obama was HC and you’re using the masculine pronoun. BC may or may not have “really” been against same sex marriage in the 1990s. I don’t believe he or HC were “really” against it in 2012 which is when Obama made his announcement, or a few years earlier for that matter.

      • Hillary’s big liability in 2008 was her vote for the Iraq War. That would still be a liability if she had a stronger opponent this time. I’d be happy to vote for someone else I thought could win. The Iraq vote was calculated (her husband’s support for the first Gulf War helped him be a viable candidate in 1992) and it blew up in her face. It shows bad judgment and tells me that I can’t trust her. She’s a hawk and I really don’t like that.

        • Randy Left Brooklyn

          The first Gulf war (Kuwait) ended in 1991 after 2 months. Since Clinton was not in office and had only been the governor of Arkansas I don’t know how he could have supported that war, which was a huge victory, was over in 2 months and had 90% plus support from the public in the aftermath.

          • Clinton was a vocal supporter of the first gulf war. So he did have something to do with it. Many Democrats had opposed it and it hurt their chances for running for president in 1992. Hillary made the same calculation in 2002-2003 but with a different outcome.

    • Guest

      Yes, bernie is in the wrong. Not only was DOMA an obvious stop to prevent the growing movement for the constitutional amendment but the ‘poison pill’ flaw in it that would have made it unconstitutional was widely discussed when it was being passed. If it had just said it was going to treat same sex marriage contracts differently than opposite sex the SCOTUS would have found it constitutional but effectively ignoring a citizen’s legally issued civil contract as if it didn’t exist – that was unconstitutional.

    • GarySFBCN

      I totally disagree with HRC’s DOMA bullshit explanation and I posted a letter I received from Bill Clinton 6 weeks before he signed DOMA that reiterated that he was against same-sex marriage and that he always said he would sign an anti-same-sex marriage bill, which was DOMA. I attach it again in case you missed it.

      But I have to ask: Who cares now? Is this what we should be quibbling about or are there maybe some important issues that have surfaced during the last 2 decades?

      • DaddyRay

        I think it is good to get this out during the Democratic debates instead of being used during the General as an attack by the GOP.

        • Reality Check

          If Donald Trump (or Jeb Bush) is the candidate, the last thing that he will want to talk about is flip flopping.

          • DaddyRay

            The attack would be more about demotivating support for Hillary in hopes we don’t show up

          • GarySFBCN

            The “not-the-Republican” candidate has the LGBT vote, and given that MOST of the Republicans are rabidly anti-gay, that’s enough motivation to get even our least political brothers and sisters to vote.

          • DaddyRay

            You would think so but then I look at the midterms like 2010 where many in the LGBT community were upset that Obama wasn’t doing enough and didn’t show up

          • Ninja0980

            Or in 2014.

          • GarySFBCN

            Look, the Clintons are sleazy politicians, but they are light-years better than any of their Republican opponents.

            Nobody gives a damn if they flip-flopped on DOMA, especially since she did so on the Trans Pacific Treaty.

            They’ve got the LGBT vote, so they should just shut-up about their history. Ideally, they’d develop a canned phrase like “the whole country has evolved and we are all moving forward.”

          • DaddyRay

            I agree with the canned phrase because it is certainly the truth

          • Reality Check

            I agree with canned phrase too and I agree with the choosing the best option out of bad choices – “sleazy politician”, Republican opponent, or bitching and moaning like Bill Perdue while confusingly encouraging people to do nothing and not vote except for Socialist (but not Bernie Sanders) and risk still getting nothing anyway. Of those three bad choices, I will pragmatically take option 1.

          • JT

            The puddinhead was using just this issue yesterday in that way.

          • Bill_Perdue

            HRH HRC is a racist. That’s why you and Doug admire her.

          • JT

            See a psychiatrist.

          • Doug105

            Some never learn,and have to throw their temper tantrums.

          • Fuck you. Has anyone here said they’d not vote for Hillary in the general election? That doesn’t mean we can’t criticize her in the meantime. This blind allegiance to the Clintons is sickening. They come with a lot of baggage and we should go into another Clinton presidency with our eyes wide open.

          • Doug105

            Little overly sensitive are we? Clinton is my last choice.

          • No, just sick and tired of the same goddamn conversation with Clintonbots every fucking day.

          • Doug105

            Then may I recommend a break, you seem to be reading things that aren’t there.

          • Fallacious Argument Tactics

          • Bill_Perdue

            Dougie, you have a new fake name. Why are you afraid to take responsibility for your own comments.

          • Bill_Perdue

            Not a political comment.

          • Doug105
          • Bill_Perdue

            That just proves that you’re not bright. Poor thing.

          • Bill_Perdue

            Not a political comment.

          • Doug105

            Not a political Blog..

          • Baby Dave

            Wait.. so democracy doesn’t work when free citizens make a free will decision to support the candidate of their preference, rather than being badgered into voting for whoever you instruct them to?

            HUH?

          • Doug105

            Doesn’t work when you throw your hands in the air, you can not vote if your want too, but be assured this guy will. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/290ff037e23cf0ed7de7a9248f4108d1bbb1ce4ab8ff84d35dea1a6ae7c40bb5.jpg

          • Baby Dave

            I’ll vote None of the Above if there isn’t anyone I support on the ballot.

          • Bill_Perdue

            Some never stop supporting racism.

            Hillary Clinton played the race card against Obama every chance she got.

            “Hillary Clinton’s Campaign IEDs (Insinuations, Exaggerations and Distortions) – The Clintons have built their entire political lives on the premise that if they can’t win pretty, they’ll settle for winning ugly. … “Is Obama a Muslim.” Hillary was asked on 60-Minutes. “No. Not as far as I know,” she replied” http://www.alternet.org/story/79869/hillary_clinton's_campaign_ieds_(insinuations,_exaggerations_and_distortions)

            Hillary Struggles Against Sexism But Regularly Plays Race Card – In the face of raw, media-driven misogyny, Clinton resorts to playing the race card and loses some women’s support in the process. “Yet what is most troubling is that the Clinton campaign has used her rival’s race against him.” http://www.thenation.com/article/race-bottom-0

            The Hill: “Hillary Clinton’s K Street network is preparing for a White House run in 2016. With Democrats in Congress already anointing Clinton as the party’s standard-bearer, lobbyists are pledging their allegiance and making clear they will do whatever they can to help the former first lady become first in command.” http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/200059-several-lobbyists-say-theyre-ready-to-support-a-hillary-clinton-white

          • Doug105
          • Bill_Perdue

            Not a political comment.

          • Bill_Perdue

            Not a political comemnt.

          • Doug105

            Not a political Blog.

          • GarySFBCN

            Assuming that Clinton makes it to the presidential election, while I will hold my nose and vote for her – and hope for the best, I do not understand her widespread support and people being hypersensitive to any criticism of her.

            She will continue to ignore excesses in the financial industry and Wall Street, she will continue the Bush/Obama policy of war mongering and she will perpetuate our shift from a democratic republic to an oligarchy.

          • Fallacious Argument Tactics

            ..

          • Bill_Perdue

            Hi Dougie.

          • Bill_Perdue

            You want to vote for an unscrupulous, bigoted, warmongering, union buster who’s owned by Walmart and the rich. That’s why you’re for HRH HRC.

            “Take Hillary Clinton. Earlier this month, she said, “there can be no justification or tolerance for this kind of criminal behavior” that has been seen on Wall Street. She added that “while institutions have paid large fines and in some cases admitted guilt, too often it has seemed that the human beings responsible get off with limited consequences or none at all, even when they have already pocketed the gains.” Her campaign echoed the message with an email to supporters lauding Clinton for saying that “when Wall Street executives commit criminal wrongdoing, they deserve to face criminal prosecution.”

            Clinton’s outrage sounds convincing at first—but then, audacity-wise, it starts to seem positively Trump-like when cross-referenced with campaign finance reports, foundation donations and speaking fees.

            According to an Associated Press analysis, Clinton has already raked in more than $1.6 million worth of campaign contributions from donors in the same financial sector she is slamming on the campaign trail. Additionally, Clinton’s foundation took $5 million worth of donations from at least nine financial institutions that secured special deals to avoid prosecution—even as they admitted wrongdoing. The Clintons also accepted nearly $4 million in speaking fees from those firms since 2009.

            Oh, and that anti-Wall Street email from Clinton’s campaign? It was authored by Clinton aide Gary Gensler, a onetime Goldman Sachs executive who later became a government officialhttp://www.truthdig.com/report/item/more_2016_candidates_embrace_the_donald_trump_zeitgeistincluding_hillary

      • Reality Check

        I only care if someone is legitimately asking what lessons can we learn from then. If it is to score cheap political points like Bernie Sander’s is doing, then it is a waste of time.

        • GarySFBCN

          Yeah, Sanders is trying to score cheap points by being honest – when asked – as opposed to Clinton, who can’t bring herself to say “we screwed up and learned” so instead she just lies about it.

          • Steven Leahy

            EXACTLY

          • Reality Check

            We are going to soon cross into beating a dead horse territory here.

          • Lumpy Gaga

            As long as there’s cake…

          • DaddyRay

            Sanders said himself he doesn’t go negative but this certainly comes close

          • Steven Leahy

            I didn’t see him as being negative or attacking her, was was articulating the differences on their positions. If anything, I think she’s much more negative towards him than he is towards her.

            I think she’s taking a cheap shot at him by suggesting his comments about “shouting” are somehow sexist, a far stretch indeed and a cheap shot about sexism with no substantiation but a convenient means to attack her opponent. If we want to see a misogynistic sexist, Trump would be an example of that. People accuse and make fun of Sanders of shouting all the time.

            At least he stuck to issues and not ad-hominem attacks. I think his viewpoint on what initiated DOMA differs from HRC’s “recollection” but they just disagree, like many of us here disagree.

          • Lakeview Bob

            I think Sanders is starting to lose hope. He knows he won’t win and is starting to attack. This is not good.

          • Gigi

            Telling the truth isn’t “going negative.”

          • Todd20036

            That was an opinion of Sanders’

          • bill weber

            b.s.

        • bill weber

          Truth = “cheap political points” … you are a true Clintonite.

          also, learn how to use apostrophe-s.

          • Pitt Bull Lover

            “Cheap political point” means re-writing history and making 1996 seem like such a gay-friendly year.

        • gaylib

          It was nasty when Republicans used gay rights as wedge issue, and it is just as nasty when Bernie Sanders does it. He is not trying to make any policy point that will make gay lives better because in the here and now there is no difference in their policy agendas for gay rights (in fact Hillary’s is actually better). He is only trying to score political points and he’s doing it on the backs of gays and lesbians. fuck him.

      • Dramphooey

        What Hillary needs to do is stop apologizing for Bill. She needs to state this is the first term of the Hillary Clinton administration, not the third term of Bill Clinton, and we are moving forward from the Obama administration. Let Jeb remain busy convincing everyone that he will be the third term of W.

      • objectivistking

        HRC’s explanation is plausible. Bill Clinton, a player, gives a fuck about gay marriage? No way. That’s what had to be said. Bernie Sanders sitting pretty in Vermont in a quaint house seat with zero political ambition (at the time) can say those things and get away with it. He’s full of shit here.

        • GarySFBCN

          Did you read the letter?

          • objectivistking

            I did. I’m not saying it’s true, but plausible. Basically, it’s sugar to help the medicine go down. Medicine that was the social quagmire of gay rights. Sanders is being a hammer per usual and everything is a nail.

      • Bill Clinton also advised Kerry in 2004 to throw us under the bus.

        Really if I were advising Hillary I’d tell her to change the subject to all the appointments of gay people her husband made and other pro-gay positions and try not to talk about either DOMA or DADT any more. Every rationalization for their sell-out of the gay community just pisses some of us off yet again.

        • Ninja0980

          Or talk about judicial nominations and how important the courts are in preserving our rights.

      • guest

        Did we not just go through this yesterday? LOL

  • crewman

    My memory of the time is that Bill was maneuvered into having to take on this issue right off the bat in his administration, and if he hadn’t gone this route, it would have been much, much worse for us. Public attitudes were nowhere near what they are today. If he had staked out a stronger pro-gay stance, he wouldn’t have been able to focus on anything else for most of his first term.

    • Dramphooey

      You are thinking of DADT; DOMA was in 1996. There was big hoopla after his election that gays and lesbians would be able to serve openly and it came to nothing.

      • Kelly Lape

        LGBT issues were conflated with Defense (the “weakness” of the pot-smoking draft dodger) to position President Clinton’s first action as President for a very public loss.

        After Clinton “escaped” their trap in ’93 with the DADT compromise, the GOP continued to use the “boogie-man of pedophile animal-screwing faggots” for political purposes by the scare tactic of Hawaii’s potential Judicial decision authorizing same-sex marriage based on that state’s constitution.

    • David Kerlick

      DADT was a sop to right-wing DINO Sam Nunn who was powerful on Defense committees.

  • wc1e

    Sec. Clinton’s answer was poll tested, triangulated, bullshit. They pandered so they could win. End of story.

    • MattM

      And? You’d rather a Republican who’s up front and candid about hating fags?

      • Dagoril

        I for one would rather a Democrat who just said, “We fucked that one up. And we’re sorry.” Kick the ball back to Republicants and let them try to spin how they are really more gay friendly now too. I think we’ve all had enough of that Triangulation bullshit.

      • I just threw up in my mouth. So we have to be thrilled just because someone isn’t as bad as the raw sewage that has become the GOP? How revolting that this is all the Democrats have to offer us.

        • MattM

          Not great. But guess what? That’s reality.

          • yes, it is and it will stay that way as long as the sell-out baby boomers remain in charge.

      • wc1e

        Calling her on her bullshit isn’t the same as supporting a Republican candidate.

  • bkmn

    Things changed very rapidly on the issue of gay and lesbian rights since then. It was a very different playing field and it was an option that could get support and pass. It was right at the end of the time that it would have been possible to get a same-sex marriage prohibition passed.

  • clay

    “We have come a long way since that vote in 1996,” he added.

    A vote he participated in, but Hillary did not. This is a distraction.

    • Silver Badger

      Welcome to American politics.

      • Lumpy Gaga

        Have some cake.

    • Kelly Lape

      A statement that stole my respect for him. He’ll have to work hard to earn my vote in the General (should he win).

      • clay

        Then remember, this election is not about 20 years ago, or about 15 years ago, it’s about the next 20 years. It’s not about first lady, or about third terms for Obama, Bush, Bill or fucking FDR; it’s about who can better deal with the future.

        • Bill_Perdue

          Reliance on Democrats or their Republican brothers and sisters is foolish.

  • S1AMER

    DOMA was an election-year bill by the GOP to put Congressional Democrats and Bill Clinton on the spot: Either Congress voted for the bill, and Clinton signed it, or Republicans would tell the voters how much those Democrats favored “those people” coming after America’s children. Had DOMA not been passed and signed several weeks before the election, Republicans would have been hard at work pushing a constitutional amendment through Congress and on to the states (which would have approved it quickly).

    This is historical fact. I would add that not all Democrats personally hated on us, but they did fear the Americans who hated us. It’s instructive to check the record of who voted for DOMA and is still in the House or Senate or is currently our Vice President — many of them are unquestionably our allies nowadays, but were terrified of the overwhelming majority of Americans who opposed marriage equality back in 1996.

    The small number of Democrats who voted against DOMA in 1996 were either senators who weren’t up for reelection that year, or were safe in very strong Democratic districts. It’s sick, it’s disgusting, but it’s also politics.

    • David Kerlick

      A constitutional Amendment has to be approved by 38 state legislatures, so not “quickly.”

      • S1AMER

        Actually, I bet it would have happened in less than a year. When it comes to constitutional amaendments, that’s quick.

        • Reality Check

          DOMA slowed the momentum towards a constitutional amendment because politicans who actually supported gay right repeatedly said “why do we need a constitutional amendment when DOMA is already the federal law?” It was a good strategy.

          • S1AMER

            Precisely. Little was said about an amendment until after Goodridge in late 2003. Bush announced his support for the amendment in late February, 2004, as part of his reelection campaign.

      • Randy Left Brooklyn

        DOMA was introduced in the House in May,1996, passed the House in July, passed the Senate in September by a vote of 85 to 14 and was signed into law in September of 1996.

        They had the votes in the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment and it was the type of law that would fly though legislatures. If you remember the times the gay community had a whole lot less clout than it does now. Remember, SCOTUS did not overturn state laws against consensual sodomy until 2003 with Lawrence v. Texas

        • DaddyRay

          We also took a big blow politically at the time with the AIDS crisis

          • Randy Left Brooklyn

            And if you recall, Clinton made it clear that if the drug companies found drugs that worked, the feds would foot the bill. In 1996 the 3 drug cocktails came along and saved millions of lives.

        • lymis

          Remember too, how many Republicans, including Bush, as a candidate and as President, went on record as opposing the Defense of Marriage Amendment, precisely because DOMA was sufficient to prevent federal recognition and “forcing it on the states.”

          Without it, there would have been a lot more public support from high-profile Republicans for the Amendment, and it might well have passed. Look how many state Amendments passed during that time period, even with DOMA on the books.

      • They couldn’t do it in 2005 in spite of campaigning heavily on that issue. I don’t know why we should think they could have in 1997.

        • Mawm

          That’s because there was no Dem support in 2005 like there was in the mid 90s. Remember, we have gone from degenerate to almost fully equal citizen in a extremely short period of time. A lot of the Dems they would have gotten in 1995 had shifted their position by then, and DOMA always gave them political cover from having to make a stand on it.

      • Repealing prohibition took nine months to ratify, as did the amendment to give DC three electoral votes. Moving the date when President and Congress takes office took 10 months. Lowering the voting age to 18 nationwide took 3 months. Sometimes they do move quickly.

    • Kelly Lape

      What I see from the Anti-Hillary crowd is a lack of acknowledgement of any sort of Risk/Benefit analysis.

      There was absolutely a risk of an anti same-sex marriage amendment in 1996, note I said “risk” not certainty (there are NO certainties in politics). That risk and the potential consequences had to be part of any analysis on DOMA. You may not have agreed at the time that an amendment would have passed, you may even be naïve enough to believe an amendment wouldn’t have been proposed (I’d call that a foolish position), but the consequences of a successful amendment drive would have put us (the LGBT community) in a position of having to repeal that amendment to even begin fighting for equality.

      Combine the above with the veto-proof majority that DOMA carried, and not signing the bill would have damaged us and accomplished less than nothing, it would have emboldened our enemies into further legislation based on animus.

      There are times for compromise, and times for fighting. We won a partial victory in ’93 with DADT, we suffered a setback in ’96 with DOMA – but I don’t think we could have come out of ’96 any other way.

      As soon as the GOP stole the Executive Branch, we saw how they used LGBT issues on ballots in several swing states.

      • Blah blah blah. Yes, we ALL know all of that. It’s insulting that you think we don’t. I was there too, asshole.

        All you’ve proven is that the Clintons are happy to throw gays under the bus when necessary. What if it’s necessary again in 2017? Will they do it again? Of course they will. I’m not happy about that and it makes me hesitate to vote for her. I probably will, but that doesn’t mean I still don’t wish there was someone in the race who always support equal rights for all Americans.

        • Steven Leahy

          Well put.

        • sfprman

          I don’t believe that at all. They didn’t throw gays under the bus at all. If fact, had they not done that, gays really would have been thrown under the bus. Sorry, but standing on “principle” would have doomed us all then.

        • Kelly Lape

          “Yes, we ALL know all of that…”

          “ALL?” – You can speak for everyone? I’m glad you know that. I’m glad you LIVED through it. It seems more insulting to me to think that everyone has the same life experience as you, to assume that everyone not only knows everything you know, but that we all draw the same conclusions. It is insulting to state an “opinion” as fact, without supporting analysis. What you consider as “blah blah blah” I consider as supporting argument. I suggest you look up Dr. Robert Lob’s “Rule of Communication”

          “what if it’s necessary again (to throw us under the bus) in 2017?” – What do you envision that Hillary would throw us under the bus, that would be prevented by Bernie or any other candidate?

          Discounting the good because it wasn’t perfect isn’t always the best decision. I’m sure “Team Hillary” appreciates your tepid support.

          • Do you really think anyone reading you comments wasn’t as informed as you? Fuck you and your arrogance.

            I haven’t decided how I will vote in the primary. It’s not until MARCH where I live. But if you are posting this bullshit to help Hillary you should know that it’s doing to opposite.

          • Kelly Lape

            Arrogance is speaking for others. I repeat: “All”

          • But it’s not arrogance speaking to people who are mostly if not all well-informed as if they just started following politics yesterday?

          • Bill_Perdue

            In fighting is fun. More to the point, the Democrats and the Republicans are on the verge of splitting. Good.

  • Dramphooey

    The Democrats working in the reality of the time made it possible for Sanders to vote his conscience without long term damage to LGBT rights.

    • ultragreen

      Such bunk!

  • Webslinger

    In 1996, DOMA went from being introduced to being passed by the House – and given the OK of the Clinton administration – in less than 10 weeks

    September 21, 1996: President Bill Clinton signs the so-called Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) into law. DOMA mandates unequal treatment of legally married same-sex couples, selectively depriving them of the 1,138+ protections and responsibilities that marriage triggers at the federal level.

    http://www.freedomtomarry.org/pages/history-and-timeline-of-marriage

    http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2014/06/20/doma_scotus_wide-ec5f46505014ef2039bd589012128215a9822df3.jpg?s=1400

    • Randy Left Brooklyn

      This.

  • LonelyLiberal

    1996? An Amendment was a frighteningly real possibility. DOMA was far easier to strike down than an Amendment to the Constitution.

    And now that it is struck down, an Amendment simply isn’t possible. You’d never get the Senate on board, and even if you did, I doubt you’d get the required states to vote for it.

    I generally have a great deal of respect for Senator Sanders, but this is disingenuous and the attack is beneath him. Best case, if he doesn’t understand the political possibilities of 1996, he’s too much of a purist to be an effective President. Fie on you, Senator.

  • Justin

    Pure expedience on Clinton’s part. It won’t prevent me from voting for Mrs. Clinton, should she become the Dem candidate, but that is expedience on my part, in which I vote against the GOP rather than for the Dems. This does not mean I generally approve of Mrs. Clinton. In fact I have grave reservations about her… but she’s definitely the least of evils likely to be put before us.

    • Guest

      As far as I’m concerned the democrats could run Spongepants Bob – this is about future SCOTUS nominees – we can’t let the Republicans make them just as we can’t let them further gerrymander the congressional districts after the next census.

      • Todd20036

        Spongebob seems more intelligent than Carson or Trump.

        I’m not even being sarcastic

    • skeptical_inquirer

      That’s where I am. No way do I want any Republican Republican to make it a completely Republican government and create The Theocracy of Jesus Randia.

      • bill weber

        But meanwhile, any president of any party will want to prosecute Snowden, keep Manning in prison for life, and let the polar ice caps drown us.

    • bill weber

      I disagree — I’ve never voted for a Clinton (or a Bush) and am not about to start — but I can respect a “Clinton is a liar but I feel she’s the least worse liar” argument.

      • MattM

        If you insist on not voting, fine. But stop telling others how to vote. If you want to contribute nothing, contribute nothing. Stay out of something you clearly have no interest in.

        • bill weber

          My “telling people how to vote” is hilarious; what is the Church of Hil doing? Climate change is irreversible, this is all fucking academic in 40 years or less.

        • 2amor

          As someone posted above, “I believe Peter Wde has changed his name”…

  • abqdan

    Clinton knew that an amendment to the constitution was pretty much impossible. It was bluster from the Republican side. DOMA was a compromise, but it wasn’t a necessary one. I agree with Bernie’s assessment. Even back then, there was no way a constitutional amendment would have made it through the ratification process, and even if it had, the chances were good that the Supreme Court would have found such a provision unconstitutional. On the other hand, the LONG ratification process – often taking years – could have been valuable ammunition for the Republicans to energize their bigots – sorry, I mean their base.

    • BobSF_94117

      How can you say there was no way it would have made it through the ratification process? Over 30 states easily instituted their own. 37 was not an impossible goal.

      • Steven Leahy

        Well that’s all hindsight armchair speculation at this point.

        What I REALLY resent is the notion, perpetuated by Hillary, that somehow her hubby BILL pushed DOMA in some visionary countermeasure to “protect” LGBT people to ward off an amendment.

        He was an antigay bigot just like most of the rest of them (maybe a bit less so than the repubs, but still not our ally) and did NOT support marriage rights. I believe DOMA was an easier, quicker means to achieve the desired end than a marriage amendment would have been, and NOT that he did it somehow on our behalf.

        • Kelly Lape

          what part of “defensive action” escapes your comprehension?

          She isn’t saying DOMA did us any favors, she’s saying DOMA was the lesser of two evils, and anyone with any basic understanding of the Constitution and Legal Precedent knew at the time DOMA was going to fail the moment the proper legal challenge was presented.

          In fact, I remember the fear expressed by several LGBT “proponents” in the aftermath of DOMA cautioning against challenging DOMA too soon, before we had enough allies to block something worse.

          • Steven Leahy

            Oh fucking spare me your condescension. I know what she’s saying, and was alive and well and following the whole issue as it transpired in the 1990’s. Just because Hillary says so doesn’t make it true, and her history is so filled will plastic, phony flip flopping on a whole plethora of issues she doesn’t have the greatest credibility of any candidate out there.

            Yes, I am saying that I believe Bill Clinton’s intent with DOMA was NOT some visionary quest to protect LGBT people from a greater evil, I believe it was a more expedient means to an end. You don’t have to agree with that, your prerogative. Neither he nor she supported gay-anything in terms of marriage or unions for many years afterwards, so they were basically in the same camp as the republican haters when it cam to this.

          • Ken McPherson

            Spare us your silly judgments…

          • Steven Leahy

            Since from your 147 posts looks like you’re relatively new in commenting here, I’ll say this: It’s called a point of view, and no, I’ll speak my mind when and where I want, and i’ll do it without demeaning others. Don’t like it? Tough shit. That’s the thing about forums like this, we all get to have different POV’s and we don’t have to adhere to the same mantra.

          • 2amor

            Very well said Steven, thank you… Some people just don’t get what this site is about.

          • Ken McPherson

            In your opinion, Kelly’s comment is condescending. In my opinion, Kelly is correct, whether you find it condescending or not. Tough Shit. Yes, we all have opinions. But not all opinions are of equal value. Some opinions are informed, some are not. In this case, your opinion is not. And that is my opinion.

          • Steven Leahy

            I was there and lived and breathed it, and I was an ex military member, so I followed it closely and I don’t need your validation as to whether you think my opinion is informed or not. Btw, a hell of a lot of people here agree with me. So in short, why don’t you go fuck yourself with a spiked two by four, as well as your “opinion” – you appear to need it, newbie.

          • Ken McPherson

            Would you like to compare resumes?

          • Steven Leahy

            Resumes on what? You have your opinion and I have mine – and yours is no more important, meaningful or valid than anyone else’s anywhere besides in your own mind. Just because you THINK you know more than someone else doesn’t mean you DO.

          • Ken McPherson

            You are an armchair activist. I am a real activist. This “newbie” first began making national news on behalf of the LGBT community in 1985:

            https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1916&dat=19871105&id=tP8gAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1HQFAAAAIBAJ&pg=1840,938616&hl=en

            My career as a full-time LGBT professional, in leadership positions both elected and hired, lasted for over 20 years; details available by request. That experience informs my opinion.

          • Steven Leahy

            Oh I’m an armchair activist? How the hell do you know that? You really are quite full of yourself, aren’t you. So you’re referencing the Delta article? I came out in the early 1980’s while in the military and after I came out was drummed out in 1985 and went through a whole bunch of brutal garbage as a result of THAT. No, I didn’t make the paper, I was one of the thousands of gay service members to whom this happened and didn’t make the papers. I did, however, stand up to a hostile military apparatus by myself with ZERO support, and then dealt with returning to my small Midwestern city to take on more bullshit for being who I was.

            AIDS and AIDS-related stigma affected ALL gay men, not just you, and you didn’t have to be positive to be affected by it. My gay brother dealt with horrendous treatment in particular because of THAT and I was right there with him.

            You aren’t the only one who has dealt with oppression, humiliation, stigma, and wrongful treatment….you’re one of millions of other BRAVE LGBT people who did what they could when they could, and were honest with themselves while doing it. So, fuck you and your self righteousness. Your opinion isn’t WORTH any more than anyone else’s, nor are your experiences more valid, just because you think so.

          • Christopher Smith

            Wow. You got your name in the paper. We are *sooooo* impressed.
            You’re a perfect example of gays bitching at and disrespecting one other and doing the reactionary right’s work for it.
            With gay ‘activists’ as supercilious, self-important, and obnoxious as you, who needs enemies?

          • ultragreen

            You are right, there was no visionary intent on the part of Bill Clinton to save us from a greater evil. Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law during September, 1996, because he was up for re-election that year and he was more interested in saving his own political hide, even if that meant throwing us under the bus.

        • Randy Left Brooklyn

          Bill Clinton stuck his neck out for us with trying to get open service in the military and got his head handed to him politically. DADT was the result of that clobbering by the GOP. Bill Clinton did more to advance gay rights than any president by far until Obama came along in a very different era.

          DOMA passed the Senate by an 85 to 14 vote. The votes were there to pass a constitutional amendment, and the public would have fully supported the idea. DOMA was not strongly opposed by the gay community at that time as a way to head off changing the constitution.

        • BobSF_94117

          Right, and he put forward DADT in a sneaky attempt to hobble his own presidency…

          • Steven Leahy

            Two different issues. What does DADT have to do with marriage rights?

          • BobSF_94117

            You just called Clinton “an antigay bigot”. Why would an anti-gay bigot make gay rights his first order of business?

          • Steven Leahy

            There are degrees of bigotry. He didn’t support full civil rights for LGBT people, thats very clear.

          • Randy Left Brooklyn

            In those years fewer than 1 in 10 straight people supported equal marriage. He was light years ahead of the general population.

            If you recall Obama didn’t support equal marriage until 2012.

          • Steven Leahy

            I get that. I am fine with evolving and moving on. What I DON’T like is the lying and twisting and trying to pretend that wasn’t the case, since we all know it was.

        • ultragreen

          Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law to save his own political hide because he was up for re-election in 1996. DOMA was an election-year stunt of the Republicans. He didn’t have to sign that awful piece of legislation into law, nonetheless he did. Bill Clinton could have vetoed or not act on it (allowing DOMA to become law without his signature), he could have stood on the right side of history, but he chose not to for the sake of self-interested political expediency. Bill Clinton did not sign DOMA into law for our benefit, that’s utter nonsense.

      • Harry Underwood

        Because the last time that we had an amendment ratified by 2/3 of states was in 1992, after it had been waiting and waiting and waiting…for 202 years.

        By comparison, the Equal Rights Amendment was forced to expire after waiting for only a few years for 2/3 ratification.

        Passing an amendment proposed within a span of less than 5 years of passage has become impossible after the 26th amendment in 1971. Since constitutional “originalism” has become the GOP mantra, passage of federal amendments in Congress is now a pragmatic non-starter. Despite over 1,000 amendments being proposed every session, none get a floor vote.

        So abqdan is right. The FMA in 1996 was bluster, just like anti-abortion and Balanced Budget Amendments.

        • BobSF_94117

          Can you give an example of any other “bluster” amendment that had or went on to pass as state constitutional amendments in 30+ states?

  • Michael Rush

    infighting is funny ( ? )

    • DaddyRay

      It’s a conversation we need to have to put this behind us

  • Baron Ochs

    Just a reminder: she was NOT the president, HE was. I do remember that time when the repugs were out for blood – even worse than now. Newt and his gang were going full steam ahead for a constitutional amendment.

    • Guest

      Just look at how many states passed anti marriage equality amendments and tell me that there wasn’t a good chance of passing a constitutional amendment at that time.

    • Steven Leahy

      Right, but she’s defending him and making excuses for him. Constantly.

      • rusty57

        She is his wife.
        I don’t find her defense of him or her excuse making for him surprising.

        • Steven Leahy

          So? She’s also running for the presidency. A good reason she should NOT be running, if she can’t separate the two when it comes to her statements. Enough of family dynasties on either side.

          • rusty57

            Mrs. Clinton is going to be asked a great many questions about her husband’s presidency. However you might feel about it, she will defend him more likely than not. I don’t find that surprising, given that, again, she is his wife.
            Or if you prefer, he is her husband.
            And the Clinton’s aren’t exactly a dynasty yet.

        • bill weber

          She is his wife of political convenience.

          • rusty57

            Are you well enough acquainted with the Clintons that you know this to be true or is it supposition on your part?

      • What?

        Her campaign is relying on ’90s nostalgia as part of her winning strategy. As long as her husband’s numbers remain high as an ex-president, she’ll be claiming his legacy as hers as well.

        • Steven Leahy

          I agree with you on THAT.

      • Silver_Witch

        Still defending him and making excuses…still.

    • Bill_Perdue

      You’re lying.

      Evan Wolfson, of Lambda Legal and the National Freedom to Marry Coalition says, ”That’s complete nonsense. There was no conversation about something ‘worse’ until eight years later. There was no talk of a constitutional amendment, and no one even thought it was possible — and, of course, it turned out it wasn’t really possible to happen. So, the idea that people were swallowing DOMA in order to prevent a constitutional amendment is really just historic revisionism and not true. That was never an argument made in the ’90s.” MetroWeekly http://www.metroweekly.com/2011/09/becoming-law/

      HRH HRC supported her husbands bigoted law until the last minute.

  • oikos

    At this point it doesn’t matter to me, only what the makeup of the SCOTUS will be.

    • Sam_Handwich

      that’s where i am, too

      • Todd20036

        If the GOTP ran a half decent candidate, I’d agree with you, but Carson? Trump? Those 2 morons couldn’t govern their way out of a paper bag. Given that the alternative to Hillary would be one of those, I’d say there’s even more at stake than SCOTUS appointees.

    • Steven Leahy

      Agree, which is why it’s so important we get a democrat into the Oval Office…but also, we need to take back congress so we can succeed at pushing some meaningful legislation through.

      • oikos

        Absolutely correct. Not sure which (Clinton or Sanders) would have the best coattails but guessing Clinton would do better in swinging congressional races.

        • Steven Leahy

          Probably so. I’ll vote for her only to ensure a democratic agenda gets furthered, not because I am happy about her specifically, though.

          • bill weber

            The parts of the “Democratic agenda” you hear about are the 5% that differ from the Republicans’.

          • Steven Leahy

            Probably true, but it’s 5% further than we’d be otherwise.

          • Bill_Perdue

            Our gains were won by mass actions, direct actions and by changing the polls in our favor. Democrats and Republicans had nothing to do with it. In fact, we won on DADT and DOMA in spite of them.

          • oikos

            You have no gains. Nothing. Zip, Nada.

          • Bill_Perdue

            Hi oinker

          • oikos
          • Bill_Perdue

            Hi oinker.

          • Bill_Perdue

            When will you stop being a sleazy coward and join liberal groups like the ACLU in condemning Obama’s
            racist murders of Arab Americans?

          • Bill_Perdue

            Stop lying. Direct actions ended DADT We forced the Supremes to act and the March for Equality made the WH pee themselves and enact the Hate crimes bill. Of course Quislings like you had nothing to do with that because you support bigots.

          • oikos
          • ultragreen

            When it comes to progressive legislation, politicians are followers, not leaders. First, our culture became more gay-friendly, then gay rights organizations got our rights acknowledged by the courts, and finally the mainstream politicians (mainly Democrats) jumped on board. Most of the Republicans, though, still hate us.

          • Bill_Perdue

            Our culture became more gay friendly because of massive pressure from the LGBT communities.

          • oikos

            So which of our civil rights do the repugs support? How about funding for education and the environment?

          • Doug105
          • Ken McPherson

            Your objectively false cynicism advances nothing.

          • William

            I think Peter Wde changed his name and medication.

          • bill weber

            THE POLS are the cynics.

        • Only if the Democratic Party runs a national campaign. That’s going to mean better leadership and firing Wasserman-Schultz.

          • D. J.

            I agree Wasserman-Schultz needs to go. There were so many GOP candidates that ran unopposed in 2014. That has to stop.

          • There’s not much chance any Democrat is going to win in my district, but there are districts where we do have a change and we need to raise and spend the money in those races to help those candidates. There’s no reason we shouldn’t be doing better in much of the country. And in state races the recent showings have been terrible. Again, no excuses.

          • oikos

            Agree. Wasserman-Schultz sucks big time.

      • RainyDays

        There are so many things that desperately need to be addressed like infrastructure (roads/bridges).

        It would be so amazing to see actions coming from the legislature that moves the country forward.

        Instead of catch slogans like “Make America Great Again”, they need to work on making government viable and constructive in a meaningful way.

    • JT

      Also, remember that Obergefell could be overturned by the replacement of one vote by a wingnut appointee of a wingnut prez.

      • Gianni

        Only if some “legally legitimate” challenge is made to the equal marriage ruling. The court won’t just take up any case simply to upend the previous decision.

        • JT

          And with a wingnut majority making the decision about what is legally legitimate …? Remember the vituperative dissents?

        • Sure, but it doesn’t take much for an activist court to find a pretext. Look at Citizens United. They expanded the scope of the case way beyond what the plaintiffs were originally suing over.

          • clay

            and that might be expanded with the case this term.

    • Gianni

      True. More than just the presidency is at stake in this election.

    • TheSpinMonkey

      Amen! Can’t allow a GOP candidate in the White House – it could possibly undo everything!

    • lymis

      I agree incredibly about SCOTUS.

      We also have a census coming up in 2020, and it’s really hard to unseat an incumbent president – I would so rather see 2020 be the reelection of a Democrat than an attempt to unseat a single term Republican.’

      But either way, if the Republicans get their sticky fingers on redistricting again, we’re going to be in even worse shape than we are now.

    • Bill_Perdue

      Supreme court justices are just political hacks with funny robes. Democrat or Republican, they respond to pressure just as they did when they stuck down the Democrat/Republican DOMA.

      Republicans are just as susceptible to the pressure to the LGBT mass actions as their Democrat brothers and sisters. They voted for marriage equality in Massachusetts and California.

      There are no significant differences between the two parties.

      • oikos
        • Bill_Perdue

          Hi oinker.

          • oikos
          • Bill_Perdue

            Oinker speaks to us, but not politically, just to express his hatred for working people.

          • oikos

            Sorry ratfucker, but we’re on to you. No one is buying your fake socialist leanings. You’re merely another right wing hack. The fact that you don’t dispute your gambling is all the confirmation needed of your insincerity.

      • ultragreen

        Right now, more Democrats support LGBT rights than Republicans. In regards to SCOTUS, Democrat-appointed justices supported our rights, while Republican-appointed justices didn’t. While there are many similarities between Democratic and Republican politicians, they are not identical. However, you are right about the importance of public pressure in changing the minds of both court justices and politicians.

        • Bill_Perdue

          Right now no Democrats support us by voting for ENDA when it has a chance of being enacted, and they didn’t vote to repeal their own law, DOMA.

    • Baby Dave

      Yeah, I have a question. Why don’t you just vote your conscience,and I’ll vote mine?

  • Kelly Lape

    This is the moment that Bernie Sanders became someone I won’t vote for.

    DOMA had a veto-proof majority. I’m sure this will be played and replayed by Conservative Super PACS over the next 12-1/2 Months.

    • MattM

      Why would they? The GOP’s record on gay rights kind of leaves them out of all this, doesn’t it?

      • Kelly Lape

        There’s this thing called “Super PACs” – it will be perfectly legal to air an ad in a way that denigrates our nominee without promoting the GOP candidate.

    • Tempus Fuggit

      I’m not following you. What is it about this moment that stops you being interested in voting for Sanders?

      • Kelly Lape

        Creating propaganda for the conservative super PACs isn’t exactly “Presidential”

        What is there to gain by creating strife within the Democratic Party?

        • Tempus Fuggit

          Interesting. I don’t see any of this as creating propaganda or creating strife. Fact is, he’s competing with Clinton for the nomination; every nigh and then he’s going to need to differentiate himself from her.

          • Kelly Lape

            Thank you for considering my interesting point. I believe the recent attempted public prosecution of Hillary supports my contention that the GOP will use everything they can to denigrate whoever we nominate. With the new Super PAC laws, they will be able to not only lie about us, but they’ll be able to distance themselves from whatever horrendous lies they choose.

            Additional supporting evidence of the depths of depravity the GOP is willing to delve include but are not limited to every single action since President Obama was elected.

          • Tempus Fuggit

            Of course the Republicans will pounce on every opportunity to smear any Democrat—that’s what they do. I’m not sure how that’s apposite here…would you suggest that Democrats should sit quietly and not say anything, in case a Republican might overhear it and try to parlay it into a talking point? This is politics; it’s messy and ugly, but fortunately attacks don’t necessarily work; the Benghazi hearing is widely agreed to have left Clinton in equal or higher regard than before.

          • Kelly Lape

            There is propaganda designed to unite (Benghazi unites the Conservative base, but consequently also unites the liberal base as a consequence) and there is propaganda designed to divide. The divisive nature of an attack ad against a liberal candidate aimed at alienating a core demographic is potentially more effective.

            The one thing (until this cycle) the GOP was always good at, is the Reagan proverb of never speaking ill of fellow Republicans. This strikes me of going down the disastrous path pioneered by Ted Kennedy / Jimmy Carter in 1980.

          • Tempus Fuggit

            Perhaps. Time will tell!

  • As noted on Towleroad by Kevin Griffin: “Bernie Sanders is both a liar and a hypocrite. Bernie opposed marriage equality until 2009, he was pro-civil unions.

    Bernie is on record in 1995 saying he voted against DOMA for one reason. He felt marriage is a state’s rights issue and he is anti Federalism. He explicitly said he was not taking a moral stance on LGBT rights.

    Bernie said in the 90s that he would probably not vote for employment/housing nondiscrimination laws for LGBT people.”

    As she explained, had DADT and DOMA not passed the Republicans would have (and had sufficient numbers) to change the U.S. Constitution to ban and jail homosexuals in our military services and to make sure no same-sex couples could ever marry. It took the gay community another ten years to change the minds of the American people which is why today both DADT and DOMA are abolished. Had we followed Bernie’s path our military gay members would be jailed and none of us would be legally married today. His intent was good but it was too early and could have resulted in the real loss of gay equality/rights. The time simply wasn’t right.

    • sigh.

      no, they would not have. do you have any idea how hard it is to actually change the Constitution?

      let me put it another way. do you think, if it were that easy to change the Constitution, the thugs would not have done so a dozen times over in the last 50 years in which they have occasionally had a majority and a president? of course they would have. we’d all be reading bibles and bowing down to rich people in a temple right now. but they couldn’t do it. not during Reagan, not during any of the Bushes, not when they took back Congress…

      HRC is rewriting history here, if she thinks this excuse is supposed to suffice. and that insults me, a lot. as someone who was there fighting for the right thing and remembers how it went down. it was bullshit and she should just say so.

      • Scott Holcomb

        If you can’t capitalize a sentence you can’t expect respect much less credibility. Yeah, you’re cool, huh? You are talking through your hat lady and I suggest you adjust the tin foil so it points toward the North Star. That seems to be the best direction for noobies.

        • BlueberriesForMe

          The only “noobie” with “tin foil” around here is you. And yes, CD is “cool”.
          Feel free to grow up at anytime.

        • Doug105

          I most don’t agree with her, but do you have anything relevant to say?

        • Duh-David

          ChiDy has been posting respected, cogent comments here for years, newbie; and while I disagree with her interpretation, you couldn’t be more wrong about her hat, coolness, or sanity.

          • gaylib

            Well, she’s off the deep end on this comment. And I don’t care how often she comes here, I’ve seen her make many tinfoil, ignorant comments when it comes to Hillary just like she does here. It flies in the face of reality.

          • gaylib

            And anyone who starts a comment with “sigh” should just be banned from the Internet.

          • 2karmanot

            Reading your comment….sigh.

          • Bill_Perdue

            Anyone who supports bigots like the Clinton’s should at least be honest about why they like bigots.

        • Scott

          CD is correct, it is very difficult to change the Constitution. If you would like to educate yourself view the following and see how hard it is to Amend the Constitution. Educate yourself before you post or name call others, if not you look like the noob.

          https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/

          • Randy503

            It IS very difficult to amend the Constitution. At the start, you have to have two-thirds of both the House and the Senate to amend. That is a huge hurdle, and very few proposed amendments have even gotten that far.
            Then you have to obtain two-thirds of the states approval. That means you would have to have 34 states vote on the issue and approve it as well, and it is a long drawn out process, one that takes several years. The constitution is amended the moment the 34 state approves it.

            As any constitutional scholar will tell you, it is actually fairly easy to at least 25 states to agree to any amendment. It is the last three or four that are the most difficult. This is why the ERA failed, in fact. Nonetheless, it is a process that no one wants to go through because it is horribly expensive and takes political energy away from more important issues.

            If Clinton had vetoed DOMA in 1996, both houses would have overrided the veto and passed it into law because the vote was quite lopsided in favor.

            The end result is that we would be stuck with DOMA REGARDLESS of whether Clinton would have vetoed.

          • Randy Left Brooklyn

            The vote in the Senate was 85-14, and the House was similar. An amendment would have sailed through Congress.

            Over 30 states voted to amend their constitutions long after 1996, when equal marriage was much less popular. There was a real risk.

          • ultragreen

            If it was so easy to pass such an amendment to the constitution, then why wasn’t it done? Are you telling us that the homo-haters in Congress didn’t try to do this out of the goodness of their hearts? I hardly think so.

          • Randy Left Brooklyn

            It isn’t easy to amend the constitution, but if the facts I presented don’t explain it to you, then I don’t know what would. At least I back up my arguments with facts and logic.

          • ultragreen

            Facts? Logic? Bill Clinton didn’t have to sign DOMA into law, nonetheless he did. Members of Congress can’t force the president to put his signature on a piece of legislation. Bill Clinton could have vetoed DOMA or simply not signed it. DOMA would have become law anyway without his support, so why did he even bother to sign it? What kind of message to the LGBT community is that? The only reason Bill Clinton signed this stupid piece of legislation is because he was up for re-election and he thought his support of DOMA would improve his chances of re-election. It had nothing to do with a constitutional amendment and there were no noble motives (as Hillary implied). Bill Clinton threw us under the bus in order to promote his own political career. It’s kind of pathetic that Hillary Clinton would even try to defend DOMA and her husband’s willingness to sign it.

          • ultragreen

            Actually, at least three-fourths (75%) of the states must approve a constitutional amendment before it becomes law. So you have underestimated the difficulty.

          • Sporkfighter

            She is right that it is hard, but it has been done. A majority of the states had already done so, and certainly would have approved of a federal constitutional amendment. Seven more might have done so.

            Had that happened, we’d now be trying to get 38 states to ratify an amendment to reverse that earlier amendment. Do you think we could get 38 state legislators to amend the constitution to allow gay marriage today?

        • Joe knows who I am.

          oh gee, another a$$hole for billary. who would have thought.

          #assholesforhillary.

        • Bill_Perdue

          Not a political comment

        • 2karmanot

          Take the colander off your head troll, it’s heaver than traditional tin foil. #Go Chicago dyke.

      • JT

        You forget to mention a couple of things distinctive in this case: the insanity of the other side on this issue and the fact that before Obergefell 31 states had already adopted state constitutional amendments banning same sex marriage. Only 7 more would be needed to be in favor to pass an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In 1996, we were 8 years away from the first state allowing same sex marriage. That was MA and it came to be only because their own state Supreme Court required it.

        It’s not at all far fetched to think that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution wasn’t a viable threat.

        • Bj Lincoln

          At the time, it would have not been hard to get 38 states to agree on changing the constitution. The anti-gay people were in full force then and a large majority was against us.

          • Doug105

            I wonder how many complaining were too young at that time to remember what it was like.

          • Bj Lincoln

            Most of the people here were adults at the time this was going on. Many of us have first hand knowledge of the hate and lies believed by the majority. Several of us have studied history. American and world history as hobbies and as part of our degrees. Does that answer your question?

          • Doug105

            Was more of a statement I could tell you knew what it was like from your writing.

          • Bj Lincoln

            Sorry. I’m in a mood. Tired of dealing with stupid on a daily bases out in the world.

          • ultragreen

            Why do the apologists for Hillary Clinton always try to scare people into supporting her? This one of the things I find the most obnoxious about them.

          • Ninja0980

            I agree completely with this.
            Neither party was on our side back then and the anti-gay animus even in “blue” states was horrific.
            It is not at all out of the realm of possiblity that they could have passed this.

          • ultragreen

            Trust me, if the homo-haters in Congress had enough votes to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, they would have done so. However, I don’t think the support for such an amendment was there, especially in the U.S. Senate.

          • AnotherPoster

            If it wouldn’t have been that hard why did the Republican controlled Congress opt to pass DOMA instead then. They could have simply passed a joint resolution proposing a marriage amendment to the Constitution, gotten their 38 states to ratify it and been done with it. Instead we got DOMA.

            Perhaps it wouldn’t have been as easy as you think to get those 38 states?

        • Bill_Perdue

          There is absolutely no proof that a Federal Marriage Amendment was being considered at the time. Pretending that there was a threat is just a way of retroactively attempting to justify the bigots in the Democrat party, most of all the Clinton’s.

          • Doug105

            Lie much? It was raised several times back then in the news.

          • Bill_Perdue

            Stop lying. Prove it.

          • Doug105

            Like I give a F# what you think.

          • Bill_Perdue

            You’re a cowardly liar who, when challenged, runs away.

          • JT

            See a psychiatrist.

          • oikos

            You have nothing, keyboard warrior. Carry on.

            http://cdn.meme.am/instances/58278876.jpg

          • oikos

            If he’s using the keyboard, he’s lying.

          • BrandySpears

            Your ahistorical nonsense is laughable. Ever heard of the state of Hawaii and the ramifications of the state perhaps allowing SSM? Of course you have. It just doesn’t fit your nonsense.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Hawaii#Baehr_case_.281991.E2.80.931999.29

          • AnotherPoster

            Baehr v. Miike was the sole reason that DOMA was conceived and passed in the Republican controlled Congress of the time and willingly signed by the homophobic bigot Billy Clinton into the law of the land.

            They were scared to death that if the plaintiffs in Baehr v. Miike actually won their case and Hawaii recognized same sex marriage as legal and valid all the other states would have to recognize those same sex marriage as legal and valid under Article IV § 1 Full Faith and Credit clause of the U.S. Constitution.

            It had nothing to do with being a “defense against” a federal constitutional amendment. It had everything to do with preventing a single case in 1996 from legalizing same sex marriage in every state of the Union.

          • AnotherPoster

            H.R. 3396 is a response to a very particular development in the State of Hawaii. As will be explained in greater detail below, the state courts in Hawaii appear to be on the verge of requiring that State to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples. The prospect of permitting homosexual couples to ‘‘marry’’ in Hawaii threatens to have very real consequences both on federal law and on the laws (especially the marriage laws) of the various States.

            H.R. 3396 = Defense of Marriage Act

            DOMA was enacted to prevent Baehr v. Miike from legalizing same sex marriage in all fifty states of the Union in the event the plaintiffs actually won their case. (And it looked as if they just might do so.)

            It wasn’t a “defense against” a federal constitutional amendment but was a cold and calculated move the Congress made to prevent same sex marriage from becoming valid and legal in all fifty states under Article 14 § 1 of the United States Constitution.

            And little Billy Clinton willingly signed the homophobic, bigoted legislation into law.

            Source:

            http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-104hrpt664/pdf/CRPT-104hrpt664.pdf

        • Enough Already

          “Why do we need a constitutional amendment when DOMA is already the federal law?” slowed down the march towards an amendment to the U.S. Constitution until the Clinton and Obama appointees to the Supreme Court (plus one from Reagan) put the nail in the coffin.

          • Bill_Perdue

            Stop lying. There was no momentum for a constitutional amendment until 2002, when another Dixiecrat introduced it.

        • Bill_Perdue

          “It’s not at all far fetched to think that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was a viable threat.”

          Another lie. Stop lying.

          Evan Wolfson, of Lambda Legal and the National Freedom to Marry Coalition says, ”That’s complete nonsense. There was no conversation about something ‘worse’ until eight years later. There was no talk of a constitutional amendment, and no one even thought it was possible — and, of course, it turned out it wasn’t really possible to happen. So, the idea that people were swallowing DOMA in order to prevent a constitutional amendment is really just historic revisionism and not true. That was never an argument made in the ’90s.” MetroWeekly http://www.metroweekly.com/2011/09/becoming-law/

          • JT

            See a psychiatrist.

          • Doug105

            Can use his Obamacare.

          • JT

            What? Shouldn’t he have taken a stand and refused? Even be in jail if necessary?

          • Doug105

            Like that gambling in big money casinos he doesn’t want talk about?

        • ultragreen

          DOMA was passed because there wasn’t enough votes in the U.S. Senate to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Therefore, the homo-haters had to settle for DOMA. Bill Clinton went along with it because he was running for re-election in 1996.

          • JT

            A sizable portion of Congress was also up for re-election. Had the vote gone their way, there might well have been even greater Republican majorities in both houses for an amendment.

          • Bill_Perdue

            Inept social science fiction. Your fantasies are as irrelevant as your devotion to bigots like the Clinton’s.

          • JT

            Not a political statement.

          • Bill_Perdue

            Sure it is. The Clintons are bigots and taht’s why you admire them.

          • JT

            See a psychiatrist.

          • Bill_Perdue

            Not a political comment.

          • JT

            Sure it is. It goes to the source of yours.

          • Bill_Perdue

            Not a political comment. However, as I’ve proved, you are a liar.

          • JT

            See a psychiatrist.

          • Bill_Perdue

            I don’t need one, but apthological liars like you obviously do.

          • JT

            Yes, I can see how you might be afraid of the diagnosis if you saw one.

          • David

            You don’t like his opinions on the Clintons, fine. But there’s no need to resort to personal attacks. grow up, JT.

          • JT

            Thanks for your concern. You might want to read up his technique.

        • ultragreen

          This is so typical of the Clinton apologists. They are always trying to scare people into supporting them. However, if you look at their actions, not their rhetoric, there really isn’t much there to support.

          • JT

            Thanks for the ad hominem. That really makes your case for you.

          • ultragreen

            No, it’s simply a fact. The Clinton apologists are always trying to scare people into voting for Hillary. All you have to do is read their comments.

            By accusing me of ad hominem attacks, you are engaging in an ad hominen attack yourself. It’s called projection.

          • JT

            You might want to read up more on what an ad hominem argument is.

          • Bill_Perdue

            Not a political comment.

          • JT

            Off the mark.

            It’s a comment about reasoning in political argument.

        • AnotherPoster

          It’s not at all far fetched to think that an amendment to the U.S. Constitution was a viable threat.

          But it wasn’t a threat as DOMA was actually passed in reaction to a state court case, Baehr v. Miike (1), that threatened to legalize same sex marriage in Hawaii and thus in all fifty states of the Union under Article IV § 1 of the United States Constitution.

          And now HRH Hillary is attempting to pink wash away the real reasons her homophobic and bigoted husband so willingly signed DOMA into law.

          Source:
          (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baehr_v._Miike

          • JT

            It was a threat. It wasn’t until later that it was actually used politically. After DOMA, Bush initially said no Constitutional Amendment was needed because they had DOMA. However, when he needed to stir up the conservative electorate in 2004 they starting using it. In that election, when Bush needed Ohio to win, there was a state constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage on the ballot. It increased conservative turnout. That was true in a number of states. By the way, the Baehr case prompted Hawaii to amend its constitution. Same sex marriage wasn’t legal in any state until 2004, when the MA Supreme Court required it.

          • AnotherPoster

            It wasn’t a threat. At least not when DOMA was passed and signed into law by the homophobic bigot Billy Clinton.

            DOMA was a direct reaction to the court case Baehr v. Miike (1) which threatened to legalize same sex marriage in every state if the Union.

            And little homophobic bigoted Billy Clinton willingly signed the hate legislation into law. And set back gay equality by decades.

          • JT

            Same sex marriage was not legal in any state until 2004. In response to the actions of their own state Supreme Court in Baehr, Hawaii changed its constitution to prevent same sex marriage. Hawaii–a very Democratic state. That should indicate the threat that was involved.

      • Joe knows who I am.

        You hit the nail on the head when you said H R C wanting to rewrite history. But it ain’t Hillary.

      • PTBoat

        They could absolutely have changed the constitution. Of all of the things that the religious right have wanted to get through, there has been nothing so galvanizing as playing to the, especially then, common fear and hatred of gay people. At that time, the very thought that “sick homosexual perverts” would want marriage would have brought everyone out of the woodwork and they didn’t even need the crazies back then. It was considered unusual, and even scandalous, to be pro gay.

        • ultragreen

          Generation by generation, there has been steady movement toward greater recognition of gay rights.

          What motivated much of the anti-gay legislation during the 1990s was the growing recognition on the part of the haters in the older generations that the world was rapidly changing toward greater acceptance of gay rights, including same-sex marriage. This legislation signified the desperation of the homo-haters to prevent the mass movement toward greater acceptance of gay rights. However, no one can stop the momentum of change when it involves the whole world.

    • Silver_Witch

      So says he would can see the future from the past.

    • Ray

      “Everyone knew the law was homophobic.” That would include Senator Orin Hatch (R, Utah) how also voted in favor of DOMA and then told news reporters well over a decade ago, “We ****all**** knew it was unconstitutional.” [emphasis mine]. What part of “all” are we to misunderstand? I used Hatch’s comment endless times as a talking point when I was doing advocacy work on behalf of marriage equality.

      Does that make Senator Sanders and Senator Hatch liars?

    • Bill_Perdue

      There were no proposals for a Federal Marriage Amendment until six years after Bill Clinton rammed DOMA. IT passed in overwhelming numbers because both parties were for it.

      “There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party … and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat. Republicans are a bit stupider, more rigid, more doctrinaire in their laissez-faire capitalism than the Democrats, who are cuter, prettier, a bit more corrupt — until recently … and more willing than the Republicans to make small adjustments when the poor, the black, the anti-imperialists get out of hand. But, essentially, there is no difference between the two parties.

    • 2karmanot

      Not buying it—at all!

    • ultragreen

      I think Hillary’s explanation of why DOMA was passed is dubious. The real reason there was no constitutional amendment barring same-sex marriage is because there wasn’t enough votes in the U.S. Senate to support the passage of such an amendment. In the past, constitutional amendments were created primarily to protect rights, not to take them away from one group or another. Therefore, the homo-haters had to settle for DOMA and Bill Clinton, of course, jumped on the bandwagon.

      • AnotherPoster

        The real reason DOMA was passed was that Congress was wetting its pants over a state court case, Baehr v. Miike (1), that might have legalized same sex marriage in the United States as early as 1996 if the plaintiffs had prevailed in their lawsuit.

        Source:
        (1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baehr_v._Miike

  • BobSF_94117

    If you believe that Bill and Hillary Clinton have always secretly been anti-gay and everything they did was only to hurt us, how the hell do you explain all the gay people who worked so hard for gay rights inside and with Clinton’s administration? If he was really an enemy, why the hell didn’t those people walk?

    You think you’re just slandering him, but you’re slandering a generation of gay activists including many of the leaders of our movement organizations.

    • Silver_Witch

      Why do gay people work for and support the Republicans when they are clearly hated by them? Why does the log cabin exist? Why do people become Christians?

      Life is full of interesting juxtapositions and we can only wonder at them.

  • Sam_Handwich

    We can debate the excruciating details of the passage of DOMA til the moo-cows come home

    The bottom line, politically, is that the bill was brought to the Senate floor in September 1996 by Majority Leader Bob Dole, the republican running against Clinton the November ballot. It was a desperate stunt.

  • bill weber

    I’m no Sanders apostle, but YES.

  • DaveMiller135

    This is not substantive. She’s rationalizing, or at least trying to behind-the-scenes her explanation of her husband signing homophobic legislation. He’s calling it what it was: homophobic legislation. He’s displaying bracing directness, and she’s telling us she knows how to get things done. I don’t have to be happy about the past to be willing to move on. Or to wonder, wistfully, about a ticket with both of them on it.

    • DaddyRay

      I am a bit uncomfortable with the behind-the-scenes explanation as it feels more like an attempt to rewrite history

      • DaveMiller135

        I won’t say you nay.

    • Steven Leahy

      Exactly. She should just fucking acknowledge it for what it was and Bill C should OWN it. I can move on, too, but pretending it was some merciful legislation to save us is a bunch of bullshit.

  • greenmanTN

    To be fair, I don’t think Hillary was claiming DOMA wasn’t homophobic or even a good law, just that it was necessary at the time to head off a Constitutional amendment. Whether a Constitutional Amendment was really likely or whether it was political positioning by Bill Clinton is a matter of some debate but I’d still support Hillary over ANY Republican candidate.

  • sword

    Paraphrasing the old saying “Democracy is a bad system, but all the rest are so much worse”…I feel the same way about the Democratic Party and its candidates.
    I would never vote for someone who ‘always’ stuck to a promise. Re…GOP candidates, who signed ‘the no-new-taxes’ pledge and kept that promise even tho’ their states’ infrastructure was falling around their heads.

  • Jeffrey

    Sorry, I can’t agree with Bernie on this one.

  • Phil

    Truth be told, HRC never voted on DOMA. She did not hold elected office until 2001. If her husband did something stupid, she should have just stated so. It would have given her some distance from the issue. It’s rare for two spouses to agree 100% of the time.

    • Silver_Witch

      This this this this Phil. Why she is defending HIS actions is a mystery – unless of course she really was in the room and really did think it was a good idea?

      Clearly President Clinton did lots of things Hillary didn’t approve of (i.e., blow jobs in the oval office)…I am sorry she feels so much a part of him that his policies seem to be hers.

  • delk

    In 1996 I was already HIV+ for 13 years. I certainly was far more interested in AIDS funding than marriage.

    Lets remember than 1996 was before protease inhibitors and was the year with one of the highest AIDS death rates. The death rate did not start dropping until 1997.

    BTW, you have to be at least 37 years old to have voted in 1996. I have a hard time listening to being lectured by 23 year olds.

    • Randy Left Brooklyn

      Bbbut, they they were told it in their Queer Theory class!!! It has to be true!!!!!

    • Silver Badger

      Them young whippersnappers! Time will take care of them just like it did for us. Experience is useful as it is painful.

      • Kelly Lape

        Your comment made me very sad.

        “Time will take care of them just like it did for us” – I wish more of “us” made it through that time. I know you didn’t mean it in this way, just the law of unintended consequences and free association. That experience feels pretty damned useless, but god yes it’s painful.

        @ Delk: I’m happy you’re still with us and able to debate with these kids.
        @Aforementioned kids: Get off my lawn. 😀

        • Silver Badger

          As don’t we all, Kelly. What does not kill us makes us strong. The current crop of elder gays is tough. Now all we have to do is keep from becoming brittle.

          • Octavio

            We also need to keep upright and breathing, too.

    • LovesIrony

      Stay strong and I’m glad you’re still with us.

  • Hillary’s explanation is correct. It was a very different world then as far as attitude toward gay people. At the time a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage nationwide was a real possibility. And no one could foresee just how fast attitudes were going to change. I’m disappointed in Sanders for trying to take political advantage of this. It’s easy for us to look back in hindsight at DOMA and not understand the circumstances and the forces at work at the time.

    • Silver_Witch

      I am not the least disappointed in Sanders, I was there during DOMA and DADT and it was betrayal. He is just speaking the truth. Shit they can’t even pass an Equal Rights Amendment for Women – they could get an Constitutional Amendment passed.

      By the by were you “disappointed” by Hillary Clinton’s statements about Bernie Sanders Gun Control stance? Of course not, cause you support Hillary.

      This is what candidates do they call each other on their bullshit.

      • I too was there during DOMA and DADT. I’m a married gay Viet Nam vet. And I’m disappointed in Sanders for playing this political game which he is doing now because Hillary’s fortunes have improved.

        • Silver_Witch

          You are of course welcome to be disappointed. I am just a woman who cried as her friends went off to Viet Nam and stood by as they died and has been hugely disappointed by those we choose as our political leaders. President Clinton was not the first to disappoint and I am sure that he will not be the last. I will however, hope that Bernie wins and does not disappoint me as many before him have.

          Peace be with you Ritorna – we are not enemies…just seeing it differently.

          • Peace to you too. I like to remember that while the misleading Prop 8 campaign ads were running here in California, candidate Obama was silent. Only at almost the last minute did he come out against Prop 8, and at the same time he said he was also against gay marriage. Then on the night he was elected, Prop 8 also passed. Then a few months later at his inauguration Obama invited an arch-homophobe to give the invocation. But look at him now. He’s a wonderful advocate for gay marriage. The past is forgiven as far as I am concerned. And my take is that the vast majority of gays feel the same way. So it troubles me to see Sanders digging all this past stuff up in an effort to hurt Hillary. I also don’t think it’s fair, because there were reasons why it came down the way it did all those years ago. I think we should move on.

          • Silver_Witch

            We should move on RV and we shall and we are winning – so hah on them!!

        • ultragreen

          Look, the Republicans are not going to play nice with Hillary during an election or even if she becomes President, so both Hillary and her supporters better get used to being criticized, especially when she talks out of both sides of her mouth. As long as it isn’t excessive (like the Benghazi investigation), I have no problem with politicians of the same party questioning each other’s motives, actions, or explanations.

          • No one, including me, said otherwise. And there’s nothing wrong with responding to criticism of a candidate whom you support, especially when you believe that criticism is wrong and feel you have something to say on the subject.

  • Duane Dimitrov

    I don’t know how good it is for Dems to be arguing over who was less anti-gay re: DOMA.

    Everyone KNEW it was anti-gay, that was the hold point.

    What’s interesting is, while the rest of the country has moved on and is now litigated just how bad and unacceptable things like DOMA were, the conservatives are deciding just how anti-gay they can be. Pretty soon the Breitbart headlines will read, “Gays: Should we deport of shove into the ovens?”

    • Silver Badger

      Deport, where? BTW, those statements are way too common right now!

      • Duane Dimitrov

        I’m being hyperbolic. But don’t equivocate: these theocrats are the enemies, and given enough power they would be throwing us in the ovens.

        • Silver Badger

          Absofuckinglutely! I was not clear in my previous statement. We must do what ever it takes to keep the bigots and hater out of power.

          • Duane Dimitrov

            Well the first thing we need to do is not let them continue to describe themselves as “conservatives” and “patriots.”

            These people are dangerous, un-American religious radicals and need to be called out for this.

  • DaddyRay

    I will say this – Hillary should be very thankful that DOMA, DADT and Marriage Equality are now in the past.

  • way late to this party, but did she really say that? what utter bullshit.

    folks, we all know how impossible it is in almost any age or moment to pass a constitutional amd. they weren’t even close, not even in the heyday of hate. sorry, bzzt. that is just crap.

    if you don’t know it, look it up. the road to an amendment to the Constitution is way, way beyond almost any current party, movement or group. and that was true back then. she’s just fucking lying.

    • DaddyRay

      It certainly felt at the time to me like they had the votes – it was one of the catalysts to make me pay way more attention to politics in my late 20’s

      • Jeffrey

        absolutely

      • how many times have they changed the Constitution? the thugs have had major powerz for the last on and off 50 years and more. they have gotten a lot of shit passed that sucks, but the Constitution? no. we still don’t have to worship jeebus, or marry within our race, or any of that shit they want.

        sorry, it’s just a bullshit argument and she knows it.

        • Octavio

          And thank the powers that be we can all drink again. Whew! Those were some dry years.

        • Lumpy Gaga

          The rethugs have gerrymandered themselves into being the party pretty much ruling most states. Now, yes, it took longer for that to happen than it took for people to finally stifle yawns at “GAY MARRIAGE! GAY MARRIAGE!” but if we had to wait for a vintage 1994 amendment on gay marriage to be stricken — today? In 2015? NFW. Na gonna hap’en.

          Srsly, I don’t see how anyone can look at the chipping away this SCOTUS is doing at things that were settled for forty, fifty years (voting rights, abortion rights) and be glib.

        • Chris

          The only one rewriting history here is you. It doesn’t matter how many times the constitution was changed previously, it was a slam dunk at the time. Even if not it would have been years of hatred spewed. 31 stares had already approved amendments only 8 more needed, the passage of doma stopped those. A Doma veto would have been overridden in record time, by a bipartisan supermajority, and if Clinton hadn’t agreed to sign, the final bill would have been much much worse.

          I highly doubt you are old enough to be alive then, or if you were, then you were remarkably sheltered from reality, the mention of gay marriage swung elections,

          So stop the hullshit (your word) learn some history, so you don’t look like such an embarrassment.

        • ultragreen

          Yes, Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law because he thought it would make him more electable in 1996. That’s the REAL reason why he signed that awful piece of legislation. He could have vetoed the bill or simply not sign it, thereby standing on the right side of history. Instead, he put his seal of approval on it, throwing us under the bus for the sake of political expediency. I can’t believe how many people on here are dumb enough to fall for her clumsy lie. There was no constitutional amendment looming in the horizon, there were no noble motives, and Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law for HIS benefit, not our benefit.

    • Jeffrey

      So in your book no one is allowed to evolve or change and you knew the future back then better than the president and the first lady and once someone has disappointed you they are forever doomed. You should consider becoming a born again christian, you might do really well at that.

    • LovesIrony

      25thAddresses succession to the Presidency and establishes procedures both for filling a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, as well as responding to Presidential disabilities.July 6, 1965February 10, 19671 year
      7 months
      4 days26thProhibits the denial of the right of US citizens, eighteen years of age or older, to vote on account of age.March 23, 1971July 1, 19713 months
      8 days27thDelays laws affecting Congressional salary from taking effect until after the next election of representatives.September 25, 1789May 7, 1992202 years
      7 months
      12 days

  • LovesIrony

    my dog thought it was ok to pee in the house, she doesn’t anymore. I have forgiven her and we are both happier now.

    • Octavio

      I like that analogy. 🙂

  • DaddyRay

    OT: It is threads like this where I fell like we are having a conversation that make JMG such a great place to visit every day – I love you guys

  • Jeffrey

    I am concerned that some of my LGBT brethren are so liberal that when faced with the inevitable choice of some Conservitard VS Clinton they will stay home and not vote.

    • That won’t be me. If Clinton is the nominee, I will vote for her — and I consider myself a proud hippie liberal.

      That said, I’m disappointed she (and her husband) continues to try to spin DADT and DOMA as anything other than LGBT Americans being thrown under the bus. The calculation was made by President Clinton and the Democratic party leadership, that to be anti-gay would be more politically expedient than supporting gay rights. As far as I’m concerned, the 1996 advertisements which ran in many states where Clinton and the Dems touted how they “protected traditional marriage and values” were the proof of it.

      I’d have way more respect for Hillary if she’d just admit they were wrong to do this. They say now they did this to stop a Constitutional amendment. For this to happen, it would have taken the full cooperation of the Democratic party, whose leadership (including Clinton) could have said, “No, we won’t enshrine discrimination in the Constitution.” They are as much as admitting that EVERY single promise made to LGBT Americans to promote and protect gay rights in 1992 was a lie.

      • Silver_Witch

        Just as I would have had a LOT more respect for President Clinton if he has said “yeah Monica blew me – so what”. Lying is human nature when we are backed into a corner. I would just like to vote for someone who when backed into that corner told the truth.

        P.S. I doubt it was a “they” really. I am sure Ms. Clinton had little effect on the policy of President Clinton’s White House.

      • Jeffrey

        Well “they” weren’t president. But I agree, there shouldn’t be anymore apologies for something that I presume they have learned from.

    • DaddyRay

      I don’t think it is that serious – at least I certainly hope not.

      While I admit the issue is a lot more complex and nuanced it did have the feel of and attempt to rewrite history. It is probably best if Hillary avoids this in the future because it has the potential to turn people off.

      I think Dramphooey said it best:

      What Hillary needs to do is stop apologizing for Bill. She needs to state this is the first term of the Hillary Clinton administration, not the third term of Bill Clinton, and we are moving forward from the Obama administration. Let Jeb remain busy convincing everyone that he will be the third term of W.

      • Jeffrey

        I agree with that completely, but I have heard more that a few people threaten to not vote at all if they don’t get Sanders. Id hate to see that happen.

        • Stubenville

          Stupid crap from Hillary like this is going to make that happen.

          • Jeffrey

            Stupid crap like this from Hillary? If you are unable to take responsibility for your own vote then thats your problem. You need to grow a pair and don’t blame Hillary Clinton because you can’t man up and vote. Nobody gives a shit about how butt hurt you are over what happened 20yrs ago. Grow up.

          • Stubenville

            So, having no further rational arguments and not knowing me at all, you resort to made-up personal attacks.

          • Jeffrey

            You’re the one with a boner for personal attacks. “Burn in hell witch” those are your words. I’m done hearing from you.

      • Exactly. Stop apologizing for Bill — and stop pretending he never made any mistakes and never betrayed his supporters when it became politically expedient to do so.

        As for Jeb “Don’t Say My Name” Bush, it’s the same thing: If the idiot would just admit his brother fucked up in lots of ways, he’d be doing better in the polls.

    • Stubenville

      I was going to hold my nose and vote for the Democrat neat year, who I presume will be Hillary. But instead of apologizing and moving on, she invents THIS sack of bullshit, claiming that the LGBT community should be grateful for twenty years of inequality. Burn in hell, you witch.

      • Jeffrey

        NOBODY cares what you think you miserable troll.

        • Steven Leahy

          How is he a troll? He’s a regular poster here.

          • Octavio

            Yeah. I like Stubenville. He’s crazier than me! 🙂

      • Jeffrey

        And seriously? “Burn in hell you witch?” Do you have no idea what the supreme court could look like under another republican president? RBG is on her way out and we will be fucked.

        • Lumpy Gaga

          “Burn in hell, you witch, but I’m interested in your incentives for small businesses.”

          • Lumpy Gaga

            I’m putting “Burn in hell, you witch.” at the top of all my emails from now on. A real attention-getter!

    • Steven Leahy

      I will vote for her, because like many others who are progressives but not fans of hers, we recognize the alternative is far, far worse. That doesn’t stop us from having a hard time with her being a flip-flopping, disingenuous liar.

      • Jeffrey

        It is the smart thing to do. Not everyone recognizes the smart thing when its right in front of them.

    • Bill_Perdue

      There are no significant differences between the two parties. If you oppose ENDA, like wars of aggression, are not bothered by fracking or offshore drilling and hate unions, vote for any Democrat or Republican.

      If those polices are not what you want then on November 8, 2016 vote Socialist or Labor, vote for good referendums and if there aren’t any Left candidates write in Chelsea Manning or join the majority in sitting it out.

      It’s always better not to vote at all than to vote for our enemies, Democrats and Republicans.

      “It is better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don’t want and get it.” – Eugene V. Debs

    • ultragreen

      Bernie Sanders supporters are highly intelligent, so you needn’t worry about us.

      (cough, cough)

      • Jeffrey

        I don’t think Bernie Saders supporters are any more or less intelligent than Clinton supporters.

  • bill weber

    Mike Signorile also accuses HilRod of revisionism: https://twitter.com/MSignorile/status/658305901963644929

    • exactly.

    • LovesIrony

      • Lumpy Gaga

        Cake.

      • bill weber

        sorry, they are…?

        • LovesIrony

          benham brothers

  • Ben in Oakland

    The discussion of who believed what, who would’ve done what, what this or that meant 20 years ago was completely pointless. We all know that homophobia, despite the best of intentions, has ruled American politics ever since Anita Bryant raised her well coiffed reptilian’s snout above aFlorida swamp 38 years ago. What Bernie, Hillary, Bill, or Barack thought 20 years ago is simply unimportant, because we accomplished what we have accomplished not because of them, but in spite of them.

    I’m grateful to them for finally evolving. I’m grateful that they are own our side. But we will continue to fight regardless.

    • Silver_Witch

      100++ upvote

      • Ben in Oakland

        Thanks. 😃

    • ultragreen

      Oh, okay. So we will just pretend that the past 20 years didn’t exist. That should make it easier for Hillary Clinton to reinvent herself during this election. She will become the woman without a past.

    • AW

      Well said. And totally true. It was very important to me to have a sitting president say he was in full support of marriage equality but it wasn’t because of him that we achieved this it’s because of us. It’s because we lived our lives, we protested and we made ourselves visible and showed us as fully human.

      Thank you, for saying this Mr. Ben in Oakland it’s exactly true.

  • SoCalVet

    Bernie…thanks for pushing it left. Just don’t cause a whole generation of young gay people that support you to hate the party and the next President that they will need to work with please. I’ve really liked the positive message of the Democrats lately.

    • Circ09

      I expect Bernie will fully support the next Democratic nominee for President. Same as Bill & Hill did when she lost the primary to Obama. Bernie is playing up the cranky old man routine but he has always been a team player. I expect him to do the best thing for the country.

      • Max_1

        Oh stop…

        “Bernie is playing up the cranky old man routine but he has always been a team player.”

        Hillary is playing up the lying hag routine… blah de blad de blah…

        • Octavio

          So, I guess you won’t be voting for Hillary? 🙂

          • Max_1

            At this point, I’m voting for Bernie.

            So I guess you won’t be voting for Bernie…?

          • Octavio

            If Bernie is the Democratic candidate running for President, sure. But not in the primaries.

          • Lumpy Gaga

            How big is his dick?

        • Circ09

          Hey, everybody has a part to play. It’s all calculated. If you will notice from other posts, I’m no great Hillary Clinton fan. But I will GOTV for her when the time comes.

    • Episonix

      Im a gay millenial who is voting for Hillary

  • Max_1

    I said this before in all caps and I’ll say it again in all caps…

    JIM CROW LAWS WERE NOT AN ADVANCEMENT FROM SLAVERY
    DOMA/DADT WERE NOT AN ADVANCEMENT FROM HOMOPHOBIA

    They BOTH were designed to keep the target de jour oppressed!

    • RoFaWh

      But oppression of slaves was far worse than the oppression of lgbt folk, even after DOMA/DADT. In fact DOMA/DADT had little affect on much of anybody, except, apparently, in the armed forces where in some sectors the ongoing witchhunt against gays intensified.

      To put this another way, I’d rather be an gay man oppressed under those two enactments than a slave oppressed under the Constitution.

      Be aware that southern revisionists put forth the lie that slaves were well treated and had a good life. The law in 1860 cared not how badly slaves were treated, and while many managed to scrape together something along the lines of a good life, it wasn’t much.

      • Max_1

        DADT = a sign at the recruiters that read
        NO GAYS ALLOWED!

        And that’s NOT an advancement… Unlike Hillary’s historyonics.

      • Max_1

        DOMA = a sign at clerk’s office
        NO GAYS ALLOWED

        Hell, Kim Davis got this far because of it!

      • DOMA had “little affect (sic) on much of anybody”, you say. Really?

        It had an effect — and a highly negative one — on every single gay and lesbian couple and the families they headed.

        I’ve been with my wife since 1997. Because of DOMA, there were eventually lists of states we dared not travel through because if there was an accident and I was disabled in some way, my gay-hating family would not have hesitated to cut her out of medical decision making and would’ve demanded my share of our common property. We had to pay hundreds of dollars for protective legal paperwork, which had the potential of being declared null-and-void in states like Virginia and Ohio.

        You want to know what DOMA did? Check out ‘The Bridegroom Story’. (http://bridegroommovie.com/) From wikipedia:

        Bridegroom chronicles the story of Shane Bitney Crone and his same-sex partner Thomas Lee “Tom” Bridegroom, who died in a tragic accident. After Bridegroom’s death, Crone found himself cut off and deprived of any legal protection. The film tells the story of their 6-year-long relationship, and the struggles Crone faced after Bridegroom’s death, including the family not allowing Crone to attend the funeral of his life partner.

    • Lumpy Gaga

      CAAAAAAKE!

  • NY TImes, October 1996:

    “Ad Touts Clinton’s Opposing Gay Marriage”
    In a radio advertisement aimed at religious conservatives, the (President Bill) Clinton campaign is showcasing the President’s signature on a bill banning gay marriages in spite of earlier White House complaints that the issue amounted to ”gay baiting.”

    The advertisement also promotes President Clinton’s work to protect religious freedom and says he wants ”a complete ban” on late-term abortions ”except when the mother’s life is in danger” or when a woman ”faces severe health risks.”

    It refers to Mr. Clinton’s support of the Defense of Marriage Act, which the President signed into law last month, to the dismay of many gay rights advocates. Mr. Clinton signed the law early on a Saturday morning, minimizing news coverage. He said he had long agreed with the principles in the bill but hoped it would not be used to justify discrimination against homosexuals.

    Clinton said he “had long agreed with the principles” in DOMA. A law which, for the first time, said the federal government would single out one type of marriage (which at the time wasn’t even happening anywhere, but would some years later in Massachusetts) and refuse to recognize it. A law which blatantly violated the “full faith and credit” provisions in the Constitution itself. A law which everybody involved knew would be used for nothing but anti-gay discrimination.

    Let’s get real here: In ’92, Clinton and the Dems ran as almost-progressives. Then decided to swing hard to the conservative right.

    • Circ09

      I don’t leave George Stephanopoulos’s calculated shittiness out of the equation either. I still refuse to watch him on TV.

  • Given Sanders own opposition to gay marriage in Vermont, he’s probably not the best standard bearer for this argument. Both he and Clinton would be better off if they changed the subject and instead touted their accomplishments in terms of lbgt rights (they both have plenty) and what they would do as president. The continued discussion of this just reminds me of how angry I was at all of them at the time.

    • DaddyRay

      Agreed – it isn’t productive nor positive

    • Absolutely. Like I said below, I just wish Hillary would — just like she did about her email server — simply admit it wasn’t a good move, apologize and move on.

      Trying to retroactively convince everybody the DOMA/DADT shit sandwich was delicious is foolhardy and insulting.

    • LAguy323

      We know what Bernie Sanders was doing for gay & lesbian people in the early 1980s. What was Hillary Clinton doing?

      • ultragreen

        The Clinton supporters have been arguing that what happened during the 1980s, 1990s, 2000s, etc. are in the past, therefore they are no longer relevant. They want us to pretend that the past doesn’t exist. That way, Hillary Clinton can completely reinvent herself in order to win this election. They also say that if we don’t support her, Satan will be sovereign over the entire world.

  • Mawm

    Desperate to change the momemtum, Sanders turns to demagoguery. I was there, living in DC, when DOMA was passed. All people talked about was the silver lining that this would keep a constitutional amendment from happening.
    To follow Sanders here you have to actually believe Bill and Hillary Clinton hate gay people and wanted to see laws passed that limited our rights. But wait, if they did really want to see antigay legislation passed, why did they even attempt to let gay service members serve in the military openly? Why go through the pain of that struggle? Why spend the political capital?
    The answer is the simple one and its exactly what Hillary told Rachel. They came in in 1993 and their first thing was to allow gays to serve in the military. They faced such a huge wave of backlash from both GOP and Dem that the rest of their actions were to make sure that the damage the bigots did was minimized.
    Sanders, by his own statements, would have stood his ground faced with a veto proof majority that was homophobic. At best they would have passed DOMA anyway. The more likely scenario is we would now be facing getting a second constitutional amendment passed to undo the first one a task 1000 times harder than the obergefell struggle.

    • LAguy323

      What was Hillary Clinton doing for gay & lesbian people in the eighties?

      • Mawm

        When the Clintons got into the white house they immediately started funding the race to quell the aids crisis.

      • Ben in Oakland

        What was just about ANYONE but gay people doing for gay people in the 80’s?

    • Max_1

      Oh stop it…

      “Desperate to change the momemtum, Sanders turns to demagoguery.”

      Desperate to change momentum, Hillary turns to revisionism, again.

      • Lumpy Gaga

        Desperate for cake, I turn to gluten revisionism.

    • Stubenville

      Despite your Hillary avatar, I’m sure you’re unbiased. [eyeroll]

      • Lumpy Gaga

        Despite your “Burn in hell, you witch.” tagline, I’m sure you’re unbiased.

        • Stubenville

          You think that twenty years of rights denied and untold careers destroyed should be swept under the rug so her Highness Hillary the First can be coronated? I am NAUSEATED by Hillary Clinton’s exaggerated sense of entitlement, ANNOYED by her apparent inability to admit that she made mistakes and OFFENDED by her assertion that anti-gay legislation signed by her husband was anything more than a calculated ploy to improve his reelection prospects.

          Burn in Hell indeed.

          • Lumpy Gaga

            If you’re willing to go to “Burn in hell, you witch.”, I’m gonna go out on a limb and silently contemplate what goes on in your brain when you see a Disqus avatar based on a Hillary pic.

            The absurdity of hurling charges of bias becomes quickly evident.

      • Mawm

        I’m not unbiased. Clinton is an amazing leader, but I can also see when a candidate suddenly changes how he us talking about things and that usually signals they understand they are losing. There are issues to draw distinctions between the candidates, but this is offensive to me, because he is using our community to score political points and on a way that us completely dishonest.

    • LAguy323

      This is why Bernie Sanders voted against DOMA. Because he has always been a champion of equal rights for gay and lesbian people, not just when it’s politically advantageous like Mrs Clinton.

      You FIND ME one example where HILLARY had the fortitude to speak out like Bernie has. There are none. All you offer are excuses and revisionism
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O49wD6_g_Bs

      • Max_1

        Thanks for the clip. I think many revisionaries need to know their history better…

      • tcinsf

        Ah, good ol’ Duke Cunningham, convicted of bribery, jailed, moved to Arkansas. If only our wing nuts would all leave California BEFORE they do damage. On the other hand, even scum like Cunningham gets some credit for the anti-shark finning act.

    • tcinsf

      Well, as much flaming as you’re going to take for that comment, that’s my recollection too. As evil as DOMA was … prior to that service people could be thrown out, no asking, no telling, just on suspicion of being gay, with a dishonorable discharge. My recollection was that Clinton tried to lift the ban, ran into a monumental buzz saw, and DOMA was a compromise that nobody liked but it at least temporarily shut Pandora’s box until the Country could grow up a little more.

      • Menergy

        I think you’re referring to DADT, not DOMA, right?

        • tcinsf

          You are correct. That was early on a Sunday AM for me to be commenting.

    • Bill_Perdue

      “All people talked about was the silver lining that this would keep a constitutional amendment from happening. ”

      “Evan Wolfson, of Lambda Legal and the National Freedom to Marry Coalition says, ”That’s complete nonsense. There was no conversation about something ‘worse’ until eight years later. There was no talk of a constitutional amendment, and no one even thought it was possible — and, of course, it turned out it wasn’t really possible to happen. So, the idea that people were swallowing DOMA in order to prevent a constitutional amendment is really just historic revisionism and not true. That was never an argument made in the ’90s.’‘ MetroWeekly http://www.metroweekly.com/2011/09/becoming-law/

      Which of you is telling the truth?

    • LAguy323
  • Even Tawana Told the Truth

    Clinton is (mis)calculating how many people she can con and how many people she will alienate with this kind of lie. Clearly she thinks she can con more than she will alienate, but I’m not so sure. This is precisely, PRECISELY the kind of slime that the Clintonistas have dealt in since time immemorial, and the stench is something they can’t outrun. Will you never learn, woman? Tell the goddamned truth for once. Apologize for your own documented homophobia, and let’s move on.

    I may support HRC over any Republican, but I will do so holding my nose and gritting my teeth.

    • Stubenville

      This sack of bullshit revisionist history Hillary hs lobbed toward the LGBT community has me wondering if I even want to hold my nose and vote for her next year. Is there a not-so-bad Republican candidate on gay issues?

      • Lumpy Gaga

        In 2008, Bob Barr’s party (some combination of libertarianism and the Constooshun, damned if I remember) made him backtrack on his public “Ew!” over SS marriage, and toe the official party platform, which supported it.

        That same year, Obama was saying “God is in the mix.” which is more odious than anything the Clintons ever did. I voted Barr in 2008.

      • LovesIrony

        no

    • Ben in Oakland

      Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

      See my comment below.

      • Even Tawana….

        Huh? Didn’t I just say that?

        But what about “Don’t let the Lie be the enemy of the Truth.”

        Why does it have to be so hard for a politician, even one in Hillary’s place , to say “I was wrong 20 years ago, and the policies that we promoted did not protect you, and instead they inflicted a lot of harm on LGBT service people, and contributed to general negative attitudes against you. And for that, I am profoundly sorry, and sorry that it took me so long to understand that. I ask for your forgiveness, as well as your support in continuing to right the wrongs of the past.”

        What does she have to lose TODAY by making such an admission, apology and request?

        Will she lose the support of Fundamentalist Evangelicals by pretending that Clinton’s policies actually tried to protect LGBTs 20 years ago?

        What she loses is CURRENT credibility in the Progressive and LGBT communities by emitting this ridiculous and patently false narrative about events in our living memory, and suggesting that we should believe her. What she perpetuates is the notion of herself as a perpetual and congenital LIAR.

        I have no intention of being an enemy of the ‘good’, but I reserve the fucking right to point out when she’s being incompetent and delusional.
        Come clean, Hillary, or don’t come at all.

  • Gigi

    Bullshit. The Clintons knew exactly what they were doing. The reason that her explanation sounds mildly plausible is because she’s had many years to come up with and perfect the lie.

    • Lumpy Gaga

      Rilly? Because as it was unfolding, I felt like we had just stepped out of the way of an oncoming train.

      • Stubenville

        That’s funny – I felt like Billary threw us under a bus to help Bill’s re-election prospects. YMMV.

        • Lumpy Gaga

          The thugs could have gotten a Constitutional amendment in 1994.

          • jomicur

            It’s far from clear that amendment ever would have passed.

          • Lumpy Gaga

            Hell-o? Contract With America? GOP control of the House after 40+ years??

          • jomicur

            Hello? 3/4 of the states, with many of them having extremely difficult processes for constitutional amendments to pass? But if you believe that only congress is involved in passing amendments, be happy that way.

          • Lumpy Gaga

            I know how Federal Amendments work.

            Read Randy’s math and get back to us.

          • jomicur

            Randy’s “I am confident” is opinion, not math. “Over 30 states” is not enough to amend the federal Constitution.

          • Lumpy Gaga

            Show your work.

          • Randy Left Brooklyn

            It was 8 years before the 30 states, when the whole country was a lot less accepting of gay rights. It certainly would have been close.

          • Lumpy Gaga

            There were several states (Pennsylvania and WV included) which had state DOMAs but no ban by state Constitutional Amendment.

            I think it’s a mistake to exclude state-DOMA-only states from your calculations, and assume that they’d never ever ever put themselves in the column for a Federal Amendment.

            Remember, the Federal DOMA made state DOMAs superfluous, but that didn’t stop anybody from passing them like there was no tomorrow.

          • Randy Left Brooklyn

            Hello? States ratifying a federal amendment is different from passing a state amendment. They have to go by the federal rules. All it needs to be approved is a simple vote in 38 legislatures after the 2/3 vote in Congress.

          • jomicur

            Rules for ratifying federal amendments vary from state to state. PA, for instance, requires a yes vote by a supermajority of the legislature in two consecutive legislative sessions–and the GOP never held that kind of majority. It is a very high bar. Even in a state as conservative as this one, it’s highly unlikely it would have passed. Other states have similarly rigorous processes (and some make it fairly easy). I repeat: It is far from clear a marriage amendment would have passed.

          • Randy Left Brooklyn

            We’re talking 20 years ago. The majority of Democrats in both houses of Congress voted for DOMA. Support for equal marriage was about 10% nationally. It certainly was a risk not worth taking, because once it passed undoing it would be very hard. We certainly couldn’t get 38 state legislatures to vote for equal marriage today.

          • thevofl

            “Hello?” It seems everyone is on an Adele kick.

          • Kelly Lape

            Hey Howdy.

            A simple Risk/Benefit/Consequence analysis shows that you are correct that an amendment wasn’t guaranteed if DOMA failed. However, the consequences of an amendment passing did make DOMA a much better bet for the long term benefit of all Americans.

            Personally, I’m grateful that my future wasn’t gambled on probabilities based on the potential hatred of American’s against AIDS ridden Fags in 1996. (for the record I chose AIDS ridden FAGS purposefully because that’s what we all were then).

          • Max_1

            NOt really… but they had you scared enough that even today, you relish the oppressions of the past…

          • Mawm

            I do not relish those days for the “oppression”, but as a gay man living in DC at the time, I can tell you it was a Rollercoaster of highs and lows. People were starting to be treated by antiviral drugs. Many were still dying but at least there was hope now. We were also hopeful because we finally had a president that took on our issues, but the backlash was severe. I remember LGBT activists that were mad that Clinton was moving so fast on the military issue.they felt the backlash about that was hurting the fight against aids.
            It was an amazing time when everything was starting to open up for us, but at the same time our enemies were focusing their energy on us even more.
            I don’t relish the oppression, but I refuse to allow the Clintons to be included in the set of things that were oppressing us. That is the revisionist history as if some other equally skilled politician who would never vote for DOMA could have produced any better outcome for us. It’s fantasy, and Sanders is vile for using this to drive to divide LGBT from each other.

          • Randy Left Brooklyn

            For those who don’t remember, DOMA passed the Senate by and 85-14 vote. Only 67 votes are needed for a constitutional amendment. Over 30 states amended there constitutions to stop equality, and it the votes had been taken in 1997, I am confident they could have gotten 38.

          • ultragreen

            Bill Clinton didn’t have to sign the DOMA bill into law, nonetheless he did. He could have either vetoed the bill or simply not sign it (in the latter case, it would become the law after a certain amount of time had passed). Yes, Congress would probably have passed the law above Clinton’s veto, but at least he would have stood on the right side of history. However, Bill Clinton didn’t do this because he cared more about being re-elected than standing on the right side of history.

            To repeat: DOMA was nothing more than an election-year gimmick of the Republican party. Bill Clinton didn’t do anything beneficial for the LGBT community by signing that awful piece of legislation into law. Nonetheless, he did. And now Hillary is attempting to justify her husband’s act of throwing us under the bus in order to save his own hide. That’s really sad.

        • And gave us Ginsberg and Breyer on SCOTUS who still serve and voted for our rights to marry this year. So some good was done,.

      • Early 1993, just after President Bill Clinton is sworn in. In response to rumors that he might follow through with his campaign promise to end the ban on gays and lesbians serving in the military via executive order, the conservative Democrats (and the GOPers of course) ram through DADT. Clinton and the Dems try to spin it as a positive compromise that will let gays and lesbians serve — provided they remain 100% in the closet. Instead, what happens is the law makes the discrimination worse, because the “Don’t Ask” part is never enforced. Earned benefits denials, blackmail, extortion, and vindictive reprisals against gays and lesbians become commonplace.

        At this point, political homophobia becomes the Democratic party’s chosen path and policy.

        In August 1996, just a few months before the election, there was a court case in Hawaii which might have (but never did) make same-sex marriage legal there. In another panic, Clinton and the Democrats quickly pushed for DOMA, fearful of the issue being used against them in the ’96 elections. And then when it was passed, they ran ads in conservative states touting how they “protected traditional marriage.” They also issued statements declaring DOMA was, in their opinion, entirely constitutional despite the self-evident flaws which in 2013 would cause it to be overturned in the Supreme Court.

        I’d maintain that political homophobia became the default position of the Democratic party right up through the end of 2010, because “DOMA is unfortunate but constitutional, therefore we must defend it by equating gay with sex offenders” remained the official Obama administration policy, and the repeal of DADT was supposed to fail. Hell, they dropped ENDA like a hot potato and Obama couldn’t even be bothered to lobby for its passage. And the DADT repeal would have failed if not for gay rights groups such as OutServe and ActUP (meanwhile, the Human Rights Campaign kept justifying the betrayals…but I digress).

        There was a push to repeal DADT which began at the end of 2009 and peaked in early 2010. The Democrats had the White House and Congress majorities and it was time finally to start keeping the pro-gay promises they kept making. There might’ve been enough support then to do the repeal, but the Obama administration insisted on yet another impact study which was scheduled not to have results until immediately after the 2010 mid-terms. Lame-duck Congressional sessions are notorious for doing nothing.

        When the DADT repeal passed despite expectations to the contrary, the Obama administration slow-walked the certification period (remember, they claimed it would take “weeks not months” — but it wasn’t until the end of July, and the repeal itself didn’t take effect until the end of September 2011), giving the new GOP-dominated Congress ample time to undo the repeal if they really wanted, but they didn’t.

        Just my opinion here, but I think it wasn’t until the 2012 elections and the DADT repeal wasn’t a policy or electoral disaster and didn’t hurt the Dems as an issue that they finally began letting go of the political homophobia.

        In 1996, the notion of same-sex marriage was something which would not happen for another eight years. The Dems could have done nothing. Instead they chose to do something which was anti-gay and discriminatory, in the belief the gain in conservative support would more than offset the loss in progressive pro-gay support. “Who else are the gays gonna vote for anyway?” was the calculation. I’d rather the Clintons both admit that’s the reality and the documented history and just move on.

        • Lumpy Gaga

          tl;dr

          DADT was the pet project of several overly influential rich fags (Hi, David Mixner!) who should never have been listened to. It definitely should NOT have been the opening salvo in a culture war, and making it first screwed the pooch.

          • Okay, shorter version: After early 1993, “Promise gays support for gay rights causes, then throw them under the bus at the earliest opportune moment” became the Democratic party’s preferred tactic, up until 2012.

        • Mawm

          You don’t know what you are talking about. I was there. It started off as fully open service and the backlash was so great DADT was the compromise. DaDT was never the original proposal. Ask any gay service member from the time and they will tell you that although it was not at all what we would want. It was better than what had been there before.

          • I was there, too. I do know what I’m talking about. DADT was in no way, shape or form ‘better’ than what existed before. It codified the repression and exploitation of gay servicemembers.

          • Kelly Lape

            How was it worse for YOU? Please share your personal experience of how because of DADT your experience in the Military.

            Thank you in advance. I mean “(you) were there, too”

          • I don’t owe you my life story. And for my own part, my life was made considerably worse by the passage of DOMA. The early 1990s were an incredibly shitty time to come out of the closet, and in my case ended up with more than a decade of death threats from a close family member who decided it’d be better off if I was dead.

          • Kelly Lape

            So your family is made up of shitty people who don’t love you. How is that part of DADT? If you are now changing the subject back to DOMA just let me know.

            I responded to your statement regarding DADT and the codification of repression and exploitation of gay servicemembers. As a gay service member who’s life was greatly improved by DADT, I again ask you for your story in regards to DADT, not your shitty family, and not DOMA.

          • Fuck. You.

          • Kelly Lape

            Are you sure that death threat wasn’t based on your personality rather than your sexuality?

  • Max_1

    And on the heals of DADT/DOMA…
    … Ken Mehlman with his States Rights Marriage Amendments.

    He couldn’t have done it without that DOMA push!

    • Todd20036

      He could have gone federal constitutional amendment without DOMA already existing.

      • Max_1

        But he didn’t and that queen had all you other queens in a ninny…
        … Ken Mehlman won. His self hate beat your pride?

        He campaigned state by state on DOMA… Thanks to Clinton.

  • Steven B

    That was a different day and time. Yes, DOMA was homophobic and Yes it was a compromise seen as the lesser of 2 evils.
    I haven’t decided yet who I’m voting for but I won’t let this issue get in the way of my selection.

    • Gianni

      True – different time and greater animosity toward gay people. In hindsight, it was the better direction to take.

    • Max_1

      The lesser of two evils… A statement designed to ignore what the choice for the greater good is…

      • Kelly Lape

        And when is the lesser of two evils not the greater good?

        • Max_1

          The lessor of TWO EVILS…

          How about …
          THE LESSER OF TWO GOODS…
          … Said nobody!

          • Silver Badger

            Well no. One would want the GREATER of two goods.

          • Max_1

            Amazing… that people will defend the lesser of two evils at the expense of the greater good…

          • LonelyLiberal

            Show us the greater good, here, given the political realities of the time? By which I mean, a supermajority passage in the Senate, sailing through the House (I’d have to check the majority status on that vote, but can’t presently be bothered), and buttressed by the threat of a Constitutional Amendment.

            I expect factual alternatives that were apparent at the time, not some airy emotional handwaving that there was this imaginary “good” hovering out there somewhere. Show it to me.

          • Silver Badger

            Compared to the Republicans, both Bernie and Hillary are the far greater good. They would be a great team if they could decide who’s president.

          • LonelyLiberal

            We tend to call that “an embarrassment of riches.” It’s most unusual to find anybody who doesn’t choose what they feel is the greatest advantage in that case.

            Life–and politics–are filled with choices where neither (or none) are good, but at least one is very bad indeed. Avoiding the very bad is usually a pretty wise decision.

            I’m really not seeing the argument here, however. An inability to compromise and take what isn’t great but at least isn’t as bad as it could be is, somehow, terrible and Bernie won’t do that?

            That’s not going to earn my vote. A moral absolutist will simply disallow the compromise and allow the worst case scenario to stand while crowing, “I’m blameless!” And no, you aren’t blameless, merely inflexible.

      • Steven B

        But AT THE TIME it was the only choice!

  • Max_1

    People, PAY ATTENTION…
    The discussion is about the validity of DOMA/DADT.
    Like they were something to be proud of… yea, that’s it. PRIDE!

    Mind twisting is always fun when you can get your followers to gnaw at their own past oppressions like a summer BBQ, wanting more!

  • sfprman

    I agree with Hillary. And only she has the chance to beat the GOP nominee and save us from a dangerously conservative supreme court. Love ya Bernie, but time to have a seat.

    • Lumpy Gaga

      More Bernie, less Trump.

  • Lumpy Gaga

    Shorter LG:
    I’m sending Bern some money this year.
    I’m voting for the Democratic nominee next year.

  • ElenorRigby

    it was over 20 years ago and had nothing to do with her. It’s time to move on… we won.

    • Kelly Lape

      I agree this argument is pointless, but don’t lose sight of the fact that this fight isn’t really over. It’s no more over than Abortion is over because of Roe v. Wade. Haters are always gonna hate.

    • jomicur

      Of course it has something to do with her. Why else is she still defending it?

      • ElenorRigby

        because she was asked about it.

        • jomicur

          She was asked about it, so therefore she had to defend it. Um…okay, if you say so.

        • Bill_Perdue

          No. It’s because she was and open bigot until 3 days before she launched her campaign. “Hillary Clinton evolved on same-sex marriage within the first 72 hours of her presidential run, as her campaign said Wednesday that the former secretary of state now backs marriage equality as a US constitutional right.

          The about-face, dropped as Clinton was preparing the second of two progressive-leaning appearances in Iowa, represents a significant – if not completely unexpected – shift from her previous statements that same-sex marriage should be legislated state-by-state rather than on the federal level.” http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/15/hillary-clinton-gay-marriage-presidential-campaign?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

    • Max_1

      Oh, but her opinion of poor law isn’t her responsibility?
      … I know, move on and give her a PASS. MO?

    • Randy503

      Agreed. The question isn’t whether we should punish anyone today for their votes a decade ago, it is what their votes will be in the future.

      • ElenorRigby

        and let’s not forget… it wasn’t her vote, it was her husband’s. This is like punishing Donald Trump for his wife’s job 10 years ago as a table dancer.

        • Bill_Perdue

          She supported DOMA bigotry until 72 hours before he announced as a candidate.

          • ElenorRigby

            THAT is a fair thing to say because it was HER position. That said… even Bernie Sanders was only supporting civil unions until 2009. There is no “perfect candidate” and there never will be. We can’t ask for 100% purity on everything or we just end up the left wing version of the Tea Baggers. We have to be pragmatic about this… she’s our best bet to get the most done.

          • Bill_Perdue

            Democrats have done nothing substantive like repealing Bill Clintons DOMA or passing ENDA when it had a chance of being passed.
            Candidates of the Demorcrat and Repulcians parties won’t help us – building mass movements for change will help us.

          • ElenorRigby

            this is true. With Democrats, however, we know they’ll nominate friendly supreme court justices and they won’t give us MORE things like DADT and DOMA. Don’t forget that DADT was an attempt (failed, yes) to allow gay people to serve. DOMA was written by Republicans to humiliate him more. If you elect a Republican, we’ll get more of that… a LOT more.

          • ultragreen

            Yes, that’s correct. Bill Perdue overstates the similarity of the Democratic party and Republican party. They are not identical. Both political parties are ruled primarily by the rich and their corporations (as he correctly states). However LGBT rights do not stand in conflict with the interests of the rich (sometimes big business even openly supports us), and this allows the 2 dominant political parties to offer divergent policies on this issue. This is also true of women’s rights issues, like family planning services and abortion.

          • Bill_Perdue

            You keep electing Democrats who act just like their Republican brothers and sisters. The problem starts with voting for either party.

            “The truth of the matter is that my policies are so mainstream that if I had set the same policies that I had back in the 1980s, I would be considered a moderate Republican.” Obama, in an interview with Noticias Univision 23. ABC News, 12 15 2012
            http://abcnews.go.com/ABC_Univision/Politics/obama-considered-moderate-republican-1980s/story?id=17973080.

        • JCF

          Any table dancer is MUCH more respectable than The Donald!

      • Bill_Perdue

        ‘Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.’

        George Santayana

        • Aren’t you dead yet?

          I really thought you would have kicked off by now but still you continue to breathe. What a shame.

          • Bill_Perdue

            Hi oinker.

    • kladinvt

      So if 20 yrs ago, while Bill was president and Hillary was FLOTUS, doesn’t matter today, from when do you start counting her much lauded resume? What experiences of her’s actually count for anything? Her vote to attack Iraq, perhaps?

      • ElenorRigby

        Yes, I would say that her record as a Senator would totally be fair and any of her own policy and public positions on things before that. Punishing her for a bad decision of her husband is pretty sexist and we didn’t blame George W Bush for his wife’s accidentally murdering that guy by hitting him with the car.

    • Bill_Perdue

      We won because we built a mass movement that forced the courts to knock DOMA down.

      It’s always time to remember who the bigots are. In the case of DOMA and DADT they are the Clinton’s’ and both Congressional parties.

      • oikos

        You won nothing. You have exactly zero substantive accomplishments. Your own union endorsed Barack Obama.

        • Bill_Perdue

          Hi oinker.

          • oikos

            So if you can;t tell us why you support the 1% via your gambling then your credibility about wanting a socialist paradise seems to be in tatters sweetie.

          • Bill_Perdue

            Hi oinker

          • oikos

            Your avoidance in answering my question is confirmation of its validity. Thanks loser.

          • Bill_Perdue

            Hi, oinky.

  • Which is why I am voting for you in the primary.

  • Natty Enquirer

    Does it really matter why Clinton’s HUSBAND signed the bill? Are people confused about which Clinton they’re voting for?

    • LonelyLiberal

      Pretty much. Apparently, Hillary was really the President from 1992-2000 or something.

      We can certainly criticize Hillary’s stances in New York and the Senate, but any law passed while she was not in office really isn’t her responsibility.

      • Max_1

        But her defense of poor law… ?
        I know, give her a PASS…

        • LonelyLiberal

          To avoid a very, very scarily real outcome that was orders of magnitude worse?

          Oh, right, let’s ignore that because we’re not evaluating the situation from facts, just emotion.

          • Max_1

            I remember the air being stolen from the LGBT sails when DADT was passed…
            And then I remember that thunder of a sinking LGBT ship when DOMA was passed…

            The situation was that the Clintons, as alike the majority of Dems at the time felt we deserved better… later.

          • LonelyLiberal

            As I said, emotion. Factually, they did threaten an amendment and, at the time, it would have passed. What Clinton did or did not do actually didn’t matter, DOMA had a supermajority in the Senate by a mile. Since state Amendments passed in 30 states, the data is clear that they were very close at the time to having enough to pass a Federal Constitutional Amendment. Plus at least one of the states that I know of–PA where I live–had its Amendment blocked by exactly one legislator on the committee.

            That DOMA and DADT took this long to knock down was ridiculous, but not either Clinton’s fault, either.

          • DaddyRay

            To me DADT and DOMA were the wakeup call that we had a lot of work to do. If anything it focused us.

            Too often progressives get splintered on our own pet causes but watch out when we get together and fight for a common cause.

          • Bill_Perdue

            Democrats are not progressives and not part of the left. We beat DOMA and DADT in spite of the Democrats.

          • oikos
          • Bill_Perdue

            Hi, little oinky.

          • sherman

            Delusional. Judges appointed by Democrats beat DOMA, and Democrats in Congress and a Democratic president got rid of DADT. You and your invisible army have no influence on them because unless you supply votes or money they have no reason to listen to you. You’ll continue to claim credit but honestly you just reinforce your reputation as a flake.

            Now fetch Billy.

          • Bill_Perdue

            You’re delusional. We forced the courts to end DOMA while cowardly Democrats, with your support, refused to repeal it. Coward.

          • sherman

            We’re all waiting for you and your invisible army to force the courts to overturn their Citizen’s United and VRA rulings. And next time you’re forcing, why don’t you force more of the Republicon appointed judges to rule the correct way, cause you know when it’s mainly the judges appointed by Democrats who rule correctly, it really seems like it is the result of Democrats and not your superhero powers of court forcing.

            Fetch Billy.

          • Bill_Perdue

            Wait in vain. the left is going to build mass movements to end the racism, wars of aggression and attacks on the standard of living that cowards like you voted for.

        • lymis

          I actually watched the interview. She very carefully did not defend the law – in fact she did the opposite. What she did was explain the reasoning at the time that involved choosing between two bad choices in a political climate wildly different from today’s.

          And she most explicitly did not say that anything remotely resembling it would be right today.

          Don’t mischaracterize her current stance.

  • Max_1

    Kim Davis would agree…
    NO GAY ALLOWED at the Clerk’s Office
    … Thanks DOMA.

    • Silver Badger

      Do not honor the adulteress with a name. Her agreement is irrelevant.

      • Max_1

        You really think Kim Davis would be relevant had DOMA not passed and instead, we gained marriage equality in 2000?

        • Silver Badger

          I think that if DOMA has not been passed the haters would have passed something worse. The adulteress should fade into well deserved obscurity.

          • Max_1

            One never knows, do they…

          • Silver Badger

            One never will know. “Sooner or later we all have to admit we will never have a better past.”

        • sherman

          Gaining marriage equality in 2000 was less likely (legislatively or judicially) than Michelle Bachman being elected president in 2016.

  • Max_1

    Q U E S T I O N:
    If Hillary is that “EVOLVED” on LGBT Rights…
    … How is it that she thinks DOMA/DADT were a good thing?

    IT KEPT LGBT PEOPLE LESS EQUAL!
    HOW IS THAT A GOOD THING?

    • Silver Badger

      They were so blatantly unconstitutional, they paved the way for us to pursue equality.

      • Max_1

        At the expense of how many enlisted men/women being denied?
        The way has always been there, the ability to get there is not always sought.

        • Silver Badger

          We don’t live in a perfect world. Gays were still being lobotomized and subjected to shock treatments when I was young. Our children routinely stolen and taught to hate us. We have come a long way. Yes, we still have a long way to go, but we have to work with the tools at hand.

        • sherman

          Wasn’t the policy before DADTDP that gays were completely prohibited from serving? Before you could join the military you had to check a box to affirm you were not gay?

          As imperfect as it was, wasn’t DADTDP a step UP from the policy that existed before it?

    • Kelly Lape

      Shouting doesn’t make you right. Calm down and breath.

      I was serving during DADT (10 years before, and 10 years after). I saw my shipmates and participated with them debating and discussing gays in the military during this time. I’ve seen witch hunts before, and I know that witch hunts happened after. DADT leaves off the DP. DADTDP = Don’t ask, Don’t Tell, Don’t Pursue. Two simple words that allowed witch hunts to continue.

      DADT allowed many of us that were serving to continue our careers with some assurance that unless we spoke out we wouldn’t be subjected to a witch hunt. Unfortunately there continued to be abuse by anti-gay forces, taking what was supposed to be private information to publicly discharge victims of animosity.

      I never hid my sexuality after DADT. If someone asked, I deflected by asking them their motivation for asking “Why are you asking me out?” worked very well for ME. This doesn’t in any way mean it worked for everyone else, I can only speak for myself.

      It’s a good thing because I was able to finish my career in service to my country and in service to myself. I know that the example I set, by allowing straight service people to actually get to know a gay man and figure out that I (at least) wasn’t the scary predator that the GOP was painting us to be, changed minds. My shipmates came to my house, met my partner, knew me for who I was and am. My partner was at my retirement ceremony on the USS Constitution in 2003. My then CO, was instrumental in training command level staff on how to transition from DADT to a service where all men and woman could serve with the open dignity of being honest about who we are.

      Policy is a big picture, but every big picture is made up of the pixels of individual stories. Some pixels are dark, and some shine bright, but all create a mosaic. I know that the mural of DADT was a good thing for me.

      • sherman

        Thank you. It’s frustrating that I never hear anyone mention the Don’t Pursue part. I think even a majority of the people who post here never think of it.

        And thanks for improving the military from within.

  • thevofl

    I think I’m the only person that would easily and proudly vote for either candidate. Both have strengths that I admire and positions I want, yet both come with issues (minuscule in comparison to the GOP). Either will be my choice whoever gets the nomination.

    • I’ll vote for whichever nominee the Dems choose for president, because the GOP alternative is unthinkable. However, I’m still going to push for more liberalism and progressivism — and more honesty about mistakes made and discrimination enabled — by the Dems and their leaders back in the ’90s.

      I loathe the revisionist history of jackasses like Jeb and the GOPers who insist Dubya “kept us safe” almost as much as I hate it when the Democrats won’t admit when they failed to protect their own supporters. As in when the political calculation to betray LGBT Americans was chosen to try to pander to the conservatives or at least not offend them.

      I for one am glad Sanders is in the race and pulling HRC to the left in her positions.

    • Me too, and I love Bernie and I respect Hillary — and live her moxy. Both of them are worthy of our support

  • GayOldLady

    I watched the interview, Hillary never said that the DOMA wasn’t anti-gay. She said that it was viewed by some as a defensive measure to lessen the possibility of a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. DOMA was a Republican bill and the GOP controlled both Houses. Bill Clinton signing it was really a political calculation on his part. He could have vetoed it, but that veto would have been overridden because there were enough votes in both chambers and in both parties to do so. It was destined to become law. It’s time for folks to REMEMBER what the USA was like in 1996. I sure as hell remember it and it wasn’t a gay friendly country. DOMA saddened me, but it surely didn’t surprise me, or any other gay person that wasn’t living in a gay enclave.
    I don’t think Bernie wants to play this game with Hillary or any other Democratic candidate, unless his slate is pristine. I don’t think it is and it would be sad to see this become a shit slinging contest.

    • Doug105

      I do remember, at around that time I had started to open carry a gun at work and gotten an NRA membership. Watching Charles Heston(may he rot in hell) the head of the NRA push DOMA is something I won’t forgive.

      • My dad used to own pistols and I liked to go to the range with him in Florida and aim at paper targets the size of people. I was quite good at this, and he was proud of me (the only time I can remember him being proud of me for sports — I could not hit baseballs well). I started bonding with my dad who could only accept me as a gay person, later in life, and actually miss him now — but firing a gun was fun.

        • Doug105

          I was working late night in a small combo convenience store, carwash, and laundromat, after having a gun bang on the back of my head and 2 others pointed at me I had enough and got over the I don’t see a need for a gun thing.
          I did sell the two I had latter when no longer working there.

          • Well I agree with you, I do not own a gun. Just writing a story. BTW I had a gun aimed at me at the doctors office a few years ago in Florida, someone was holding the place up looking for drugs (many doctors sell painkillers around here) so I was terrified too.

          • Doug105

            North Republican Florida, Jacksonville.

          • I am in Palm Beach County. We need to replace Marco Rubio with a Democratic Senator as well as make sure the Republicans don’t take our state’s 29 electoral votes next year.

      • GayOldLady

        We were universally loathed in 1996. Bill Clinton was the first POTUS to ever openly embrace Gay issues when he attempted to end discrimination against L/G’s in the military. I understand that some people who comment here aren’t old enough to really remember the way it was in this Country in the 90’s, but some here are old enough to remember and really should take a few minutes to reflect on those times and to remember what it was like in this country and the world in 1994-2000. I’m amazed and excited and PROUD about how far we’ve come in 20 years, I’m too old to waste my time being bitter with people who came to love us LATE. All I care about is that we’ve finally shifted the paradigm and we shouldn’t be arguing among ourselves about how long or what time our supporters arrived at the PARTY. LOVE WINS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

        • coram nobis

          Some of us are old enough to remember when we had to skulk about in bars and baths and risk police raids, and remember people getting involuntarily committed or imprisoned as deviants. I can remember hearing hard-luck stories in bars, like, “Yeah, I had a lover, but then he died and the family took the house and the business.” DOMA meant no normal life, just more skulking about, no protection for your wills or your children. It was a nice gesture by Clinton to condescend to us, but we actually lost yardage on that play.
          – – –
          “The Tsar [Nicholas II] is not treacherous, but he is weak. Weakness is not treachery, but it fulfills all its functions.”
          — Wilhelm II

          • Doug105

            Yardage yes, but kept it from being game over

          • coram nobis

            Yes, although for the players taken off the field with permanent injuries …

          • Doug105

            Ya. I know.

          • GayOldLady

            I definitely fall into the old enough category. The gay bar scene, I was there and I know what you’re talking about!!! 🙂

          • scottrose

            But your prior claim — “universally despised in 1996” — completely untrue.

            David Dinkins, when he was running for mayor of New York in 1989, for example, openly and actively sought political support from the LGBT community, and he won.

            I was out at the time and fully accepted and respected by family, friends and business associates.

          • GayOldLady

            Of course we had a few supporters, but very few and most of us lived in States where we had NO political support whatsoever.

          • unsavedheathen

            Exactly. I remember the nineties very well (I went door-to-door for Clinton/Gore in ’92) and while the political environment re: LGBT issues was toxic, more broadly and more importantly, the Clinton Administration (whatever you believe about his motives and beliefs) badly misplayed almost every domestic policy issue. And that is the kind way of looking at it. In my opinion, more accurately they betrayed the left at almost every turn.

            G&L in the military? Completely fumbled that one. Healthcare reform? Lost that for a generation. Welfare to Work? A travesty. Banking regulation scuttled? I think we all know where that led. NAFTA? Kind of a nightmare for blue-collar America. Succumbing to the national freakout that left us with the highest incarceration rates in the world? I’ve said this before, I’m not blaming Hillary for the center-right policies of her husband’s administration but if your going to credit her, even tangentially, with its “achievements”, then look at them and their outcomes honestly.

        • Timothy Love

          I do remember and was at the Clinton inaugural and the Ball that evening in 1993. I hope a Democrat wins but do not trust the Clintons as I am more aware of the behind the scenes politics and loyalties. I worked my behind off for the Clintons for free. From the primary through the general election and beyond to 96. I do not accept the excuses. You must stand on principle not the politics of the day. If he thought he was going to be overridden than so be it. I just happened to end up as one of the plaintiffs who ended up at the Supreme Court this summer as well so I have unique insight. She will win and Bernie himself has not been as negative as he could be because of his interest in keeping the left coalition together. Make no mistake. If they feel the slightest pressure they will throw us so far under the bus we will up on the other side of the street. They understand one thing and that is political power. We better make sure we are prepared to punish them quickly and severely if they step out of line or they will walk all over us again. We must make sure we are never expendable again. Ever.

          • GayOldLady

            Congrats on the ruling, for you and for all of us. I know one of the Attorney’s who represented one of the couples in the suit.

          • Sporkfighter

            They may try, but things are different now. You have family that isn’t ashamed of you, friends who respect you, employers who value you, businesses that quake with fear of offending you and your allies, and a supreme court decision behind you.

          • cleos_mom

            Considering the whoopandholler about the civility between the Democratic candidates (up until this week), ‘not as negative as he could be’ sounds a bit like ‘just getting warmed up.’

        • 2karmanot

          I was there and am 70 years old. No damn it, I don’t forgive Bill or his obfuscating, rewriting history Hillary. ” I’m amazed and excited and PROUD about how far we’ve come in 20 years,” Couldn’t agree more….no thanks to Bill Clinton.

          • GayOldLady

            I respect your right to feel that way 2karmanot.

          • scottrose

            President Gerald Ford publicly supported same-sex marriage before either of the Clintons did.

          • Gerry Fisher

            Why can’t he be “the first President who reached out to us who also made some major mistakes”? And why should Hillary have to answer for *any* of this?

          • cleos_mom

            That’s the nudge-and-wink sexism in the argument that Hillary Clinton being elected would amount to “Bill’s second term.” The notion of the dutiful little wifey who’s content to be the (usually fictitious) “power behind the throne” is far from extinct.

          • Kathy Hutchinson

            If any of you have read Bill Clintons biography, he talks about how pissed Hillary was at him for caving and signing the DOMA. Not fair to blame anything on her, and not even fair to blame Bill, since I do know what the political and religious climate was back then. I was a church going conservative, and screaming for an ammendment . The church leaders were pushing for it badly, and the “moral majority” had more power back then than the Tea party does today. I am sure Bill thought this was a compromise to prevent something worse.

          • Joe in PA

            I remember watching the State of the Union in 1993? and Bill Clinton used the word GAY (in a favorable way) for, what I think was the first time. I yelled and high-fived the TV! How far we’ve come (and how little the crumbs were at the time).

          • GayOldLady

            I guess we all felt like crumbs were better than what we usually got. I lost my precious friend and cousin to AIDS that year, there really wasn’t much for any of us to cheer about in 1993.

          • Joe in PA

            I’m so sorry. That was a rough patch for us all. By 1993 we all had lost so many. Ugh, sometimes I just want to forget all of that, but can’t of course (and won’t). Hospital rooms, horrible family situations (not me), fear for our own survival, the funerals, ah, the fucking funerals. In so many ways (IMO) that period was the start of the ‘gay rights’ movement. Forget Stonewall, the BIG gay marches were almost always about AIDS. I marched in the 1987 march in DC, I was BLOWN away by the volume, it was inspiring.

            Life is SO much better now, in SO many ways. Thanks for sharing it on this here bloggie thing. 🙂

            2nd point: one thing that a lot of folks forget here (me included) is that life in some pockets of this nation did not evolve as others did, I’m pretty sure you live in rural Tennessee? Hell, all of Tennessee is rural in my book. Ahem. 🙂 We can’t judge what your life was (is) like. Everyone’s experience is unique.

            OK, enough prattling!

          • GayOldLady

            “Life is SO much better now”

            It sure is Joe. I’m glad we’re here to see it.
            And I’m with you, I try not to think about the friends we buried, but it’s tough not to think of them and feel hurt that they didn’t live to see some of the things that we’ve witnessed. I agree, nothing sparked our community and brought us together more than the HIV/AIDS crisis. We coalesced around the frustration, pain and the anger at being ignored and left to die. Every gay man I knew, including my 3 gay cousins, were terrified that they would be next, one of them was. And yes, unfortunately I do live in a rural community, but I wasn’t raised in a rural area, and didn’t spend most of my adult life in a rural area. We moved here because of a family situation, but we’re hoping to move back to the city within the next 2 years. It’s very homophobic here and in most of the South, but the rural South is really ugly.

        • Gerry Fisher

          >We were universally loathed in 1996.

          This isn’t accurate. I’m sorry.

          Was it a different era, did we have far less political power, and was our primary national organization–HRC–in a less powerful position (?!!), yes, absolutely. But you’re being ridiculous to say that we were universally loathed. A number of states had enacted ENDA laws. We’d turned the corner on AIDS (the protease inhibitors were in distribution then). A few Hawaii court decisions had returned decisions that favored marriage equality. We had several openly gay Congress people by then (Frank, Studds, Baldwin, and Gunderson…I may be missing a few). And major corporations had already incorporated anti-discrimination policies. Oh, yeah, and Melissa Ethridge and k.d. Lang had already come out.

          Ellen’s coming out would happen in a few years, and Vermont civil unions were 3 years away.

          • GayOldLady

            While we made strides in the 90’s, we were still looked down upon by much of society, in fact we still are. Your personal experiences must have been very different than mine. Between 1998 and 2012 Thirty States banned gay marriage/civil unions or recognition of gay marriages performed in other states. There are still 27 States with no sort of ENDA laws on the books at all. Even some of the states that have non-discrimination laws have a mixed bag of protections for the LGBT community. For example:
            Massachussetts law does not protect gender expression/identity from discrimination in public accommodations.
            – Utah law does not protect sexual orientation or gender identity/expression from discrimination in public accommodations.
            – New Hampshire, New York and Wisconsin law do not protect gender identity/expression from discrimination in employment, housing or public accommodations.
            – Delaware law does not protect gender identity from discrimination in private sector employment

    • GayOldLady

      And to make it really clear what a Slam Dunk DOMA was in 1996, it passed in the House 342 to 67, and in the Senate 85 to 14. It was a bi-partisan effort “Democratic Senators voted for the bill 32 to 14 (with Pryor of Arkansas absent), and Democratic Representatives voted for it 118 to 65, with 15 not participating.” It wasn’t even a contentious issue. NOBODY, except a few of us and a few straight people wanted us to have access to Marriage in 1996. DOMA was going to happen, with or without Bill Clinton’s signature, that’s just a fact!!!

      • ultragreen

        The fact remains, when his vote counted, Bernie Sanders stood with us and supported our rights when it was unpopular to do so, while the Clintons stood against our rights until it was politically safe to change their positions (almost 20 years later). Try as they might, Hillary and her supporters can’t change history.

        • GayOldLady

          I’m not trying to “change history” , neither is Hillary. Hillary wasn’t in the Senate in 1996. She only recounted her recollection of conversations from that time. Still Bernie’s motives weren’t as he presents them either according to this article. Maybe you’d like to check it out. And this won’t be the last critique of Bernie’s positions on a whole range of subjects, including his political affiliations in VT. I’ve cautioned the Bernie supporters that unlike Hillary, Bernie’s trail is only now being scrutinized.

          http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/05/bernie_sanders_on_marriage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html

          • ultragreen

            “Scrutinized.” You must mean “Bernie’s trail is only now being manufactured by the Clinton supporters.”

            Here’s a link that repudiates the information in your link:

            http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-lgbtq-rights/

            It’s easy to manufacture propaganda.

          • GayOldLady

            Nope!!! Feel the Bern is propaganda released by the Bernie campaign. It’s ok that Bernie is a politician, if you don’t believe he is visit the website of his former political party Liberty Union Party. They thought him quite a traitor.

          • ultragreen

            As I already said, it is an easy thing to manufacture propaganda. The Slate article is propaganda. To understand a politician, it is necessary to look at their actions, not their rhetoric, as they are frequently not the same. With Bernie Sanders, we see action and votes in support for LGBT rights spanning several decades, while the only thing the Clintons have done is manufacture support for gay rights only when it was politically safe to do so.

            Like a typical Clinton supporter, you rely on fear and scare tactics in order to persuade other people to support Hillary Clinton, rather than her record of positive accomplishments (which are few and far between).

            Thus: “Don’t vote for Bernie because he is really against LGBT rights!”

            And: “Don’t vote for Bernie because he is a sexist!”

            And: “Support Hillary Clinton, because DOMA was only passed to avert a greater evil!”

            And: “Support Hillary Clinton, otherwise the Republicans will appoint evil Supreme Court justices.”

            I see the same fear and scare tactics, fear and scare tactics, used over and over again because Hillary Clinton really doesn’t have much of a record to run on. And her past record reveals primarily that she is a war hawk. After a while, it becomes rather tiring.

          • Rillion

            Hahaha, talking about propoganda while posting from “feelthebern”. Okay, spin away. I’m not opposed to Sanders and will likely vote for him, but with my eyes wide open to reality and not spin. He has been better than most, but he has “evolved” on the issue with others, he has not been a leader or champion.

          • ultragreen

            Okay, if “feelthebern” isn’t good enough for you, then perhaps Bernie Sanders voting record will convince you? After all, he voted against DOMA in 1996, he voted against amending the constitution to prohibit same-sex marriage in 2004, and he voted against amending a similar amendment in 2006. I can’t think of any pro-gay legislation that Bernie has voted against, nor has he ever voted in favor of anti-gay legislation. See my links above.

          • Rillion

            Yes, he has an acceptable record on gay rights issues. I stand by my statements that he has not been a leader or champion on the issue though, he has evolved as have most “liberal” politicians. Ask any long time knowledgeable gay progressive from SF and they will say similar about a politician like Diane Feinstein, who also voted against DOMA. She had a lot of clashes with gay rights activists in SF before she started to be supportive of true gay equality. About the only straight politicians that I am familiar with that I would consider leaders on gay rights issue are ones like Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris that went on record in favor of full marriage equality well before 2006 when Bernie was still waffling on civil unions versus marriage. Honestly, I do not see any difference between Hillary and Bernie on the gay rights issue.

            Also, I just realized I will not be able to vote for either of the two in the primary in California because I recently left the Democratic Party (due to an unrelated issue with Jerry Brown). I will vote for either of the two in the general if it is close (although, if it is close in California, the Democratic candidate has lost).

          • Bill_Perdue

            Democrats have not ‘evolved’, they’ve merely rebranded to mask their bigotry.

          • .my classfellow’s younger sister making $97 in one hour Online….……Last weekend I Bought A Brand new McLaren F1 after earning 18,512$,this was my last month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with bonus opportunities & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $83, p/h..Learn More right Here….
            1jdu……
            ➤➤
            ➤➤➤ http://www.GlobalFinancialSupportJobsTopCareersToday/Get/$97hourly… ❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦

          • LAguy323

            You are a shameless liar. Listen to what Andrea Mitchell says here at 1:24
            http://launch.newsinc.com/share.html?trackingGroup=91074&siteSection=breitbartprivate&videoId=29861470

          • GayOldLady

            You are a sad Hillary Hater

          • LAguy323

            Spoken like a true Hillsbian.

          • Rillion

            Sanders record is better than many other politicians but stop trying to pink wash his history. He was against same-sex marriage when it was an issue in Vermont in 2006, favoring civil unions.

            http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/10/05/bernie_sanders_on_marriage_equality_he_s_no_longtime_champion.html

            ***
            Ten years later, Sanders took a similarly cautious approach to same-sex marriage. In 2006, he took a stand against same-sex marriage in Vermont, stating that he instead endorsed civil unions. Sanders told reporters that he was “comfortable” with civil unions, not full marriage equality. (To justify his stance, Sanders complained that a battle for same-sex marriage would be too “divisive.”) At the time, he also opposed a federal anti-gay-marriage amendment—but so did his Republican opponent for the Senate seat, Richard Tarrant, who also supported civil unions. With a wide lead in the polls and little at stake, Sanders declined to differentiate himself from his opponent by taking the lead on gay rights.

            ***

          • ultragreen

            The Slate article is propaganda. I wonder if the Hillary campaign paid them any money to produce it?

          • Wagnerian_thrice

            Hillary Clinton voted for the Iraq War. She shouldn’t even be running.

          • Gerry Fisher

            You’re cherry picking history.

            FWIW, I’m still supporting Hillary, and I don’t think this should be held against her. I just refuse to let Bill off the hook.

          • Christopher Smith

            No, Sanders is cherrypicking Clinton’s history.

          • Bill_Perdue

            You’re quibbling. Admid that HRHHRC supported her huysbands bigotry until the last minute or quit pretending to be honest.

            “Hillary Clinton evolved on same-sex marriage within the first 72 hours of her presidential run, as her campaign said Wednesday that the former secretary of state now backs marriage equality as a US constitutional right.

            The about-face, dropped as Clinton was preparing the second of two progressive-leaning appearances in Iowa,
            represents a significant – if not completely unexpected – shift from her previous statements that same-sex marriage should be legislated state-by-state rather than on the federal level.”

            http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/15/hillary-clinton-gay-marriage-presidential-campaign?CMP=EMCNEWEML6619I2

          • Wagnerian_thrice

            Hillary is trying to say that there was a threat of a constitutional amendment, and there wasn’t.

          • Kathy Hutchinson

            Actually, there was. The Newt Gingrich led republicans were stirring up the moral majority like crazy, and demanding that a constitutional ammendment be added to the constitution. Churches around the country were trying to stir up their members to demand it as well. I know. I was a church going conservative back then.

          • GayOldLady

            From a 2013 Amicus Brief to SCOTUS in Support of Edith Windsor. Written by 4 Former U.S. Senators who served in the Senate when DOMA was passed in 1996.

            Section titled Summary of the Argument, Page 2, “And they believed that passing DOMA would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation”.

            Here’s the link to the Amicus Brief
            http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/cases/windsor-v-united-states/amicus-brief-of-former-senators-who-voted-for-doma.pdf

        • Gordon.

          Thank you. This is exactly correct.

        • Rillion

          In the interest of not trying to change history, let’s not forget that while Sanders did vote against DOMA, he did so (as explained by his chief of staff) because it violated states’ rights, not because he was an support of ssm. When ssm first became an issue in his native Vermont, Sanders was opposed to marriage equality and in favor of civil unions. Sanders was marginally better than some other Democrats of the time, but he has not always stood with us and supported our rights.

          • ultragreen

            Actions are what matter, not empty rhetoric. Sanders stood on the right side of history and voted against DOMA at a time when such opposition was highly unpopular, while Bill Clinton happily signed it into law (when he didn’t have to). And that’s the end of the story.

        • Kathy Hutchinson

          Um, excuse me, but Hillary wasnt a member of congress at the time and didnt have a vote. NOt only that, but as late as 2006, Sanders was not in favor of marriage equality, but instead supported civil unions. Hillary is on record of saying in the late 90s that she supported civil unions. So his record on gay rights is pretty well the same as everyone else back then; not fully on board with full equality, since the great majority of the country opposed gay marriage. Dems wanted civil unions, republicans wanted nothing changed. The REAL crime is that no one is talking about adding gays to the protected classes, on a federal level. We protect other minorities with federal legislation, but GLTB can still be fired or denied housing in much of the country. It is long past time to federally protect them.

          • ultragreen

            Both Bill and Hillary Clinton publicly supported DOMA. As president, Bill Clinton signed DOMA into law and bragged about it afterwards. Hillary publicly stated that she would have voted for DOMA if she had been a member of Congress at the time. Bernie Sanders, in contrast, was one of the few people in Congress who voted against it.

            Similarly, during 2004 and 2006, Bernie Sanders voted against a constitutional amendment that would have prohibited same-sex marriage. If Bernie Sanders was really in favor of restricting LGBT rights to civil unions, as some people like to falsely claim, then he would have voted in favor of DOMA and both of these constitutional amendments. It didn’t happen.

            If you look at Bernie Sanders record, he has consistently supported LGBT rights since the 1970s. When he was the mayor of Burlington, Vermont, he marched in one of the first gay pride parades in the nation. At this time, he also signed one of the first ENDA laws in the nation, banning discrimination against the LGBT community in housing, employment, education, etc. Bernie Sanders has voted for every pro-LGBT rights legislation that has ever appeared before him, and he has never voted in favor of anti-LGBT rights legislation. As a result, the Human Rights Council has given Bernie Sanders a perfect rating (100%) for his support of LGBT civil rights.

            To say that Bernie Sanders’ record on LGBT civil rights is similar to pretty much everyone else is utterly ridiculous. Bernie Sanders has always been way ahead of the curve on this issue.

      • Chris Baker

        Those numbers were strong enough to pass a constitutional amendment (required: 291 Reps and 67 Senators), which does not require a presidential signature. While some of those may have not voted for an amendment, would it be worth the risk? Although Clinton could have vetoed and it would have been overridden, it would have caused more publicity and controversy. Clinton may have been advised that such a law would ultimately been found unconstitutional, which it was, but that’s speculation.

        • Gerry Fisher

          Evan Wolfson said that there was no–zero-talk of a constitutional amendment in ’96. It’s “tinkering with history” to imply that DOMA was necessary to avoid one. I believe Evan.

          • theo775

            So I’m a fan of Wolfson, but that’s just not true. In the wake of national evangelical hysteria following Baehr v. Miike in 1993, a constitutional amendment banning the recognition of gay marriage was a very real, very substantial threat. DOMA rose out of that as an easier, faster way to prohibit the nation-wide recognition of same-sex marriage, as congressional legislation is far easier to ratify than a constitutional amendment.

            Opponents of DOMA also recognized that DOMA was fundamentally weaker than an amendment. If faced with the choice between legislation which could be altered or overturned and an amendment, there was a clear choice to enable the legislation.

            Even after DOMA was enacted, opponents of equality were introducing legislation calling for a constitutional amendment. The first was in 2002, I believe… just a handful of years after DOMA was enacted.

          • cleos_mom

            And the so-called defense of marriage amendments added to state constitutions during those years were hardly imaginary nor “propaganda”; if Bernie’s misgivings about DOMA were on the basis of states rights I’m not sure how loudly he would have opposed them. That could come up in the election, as could his views on gun control.

          • Kathy Hutchinson

            I was a church going conservative back then . The church leaders were trying very hard to stir up evangelicals to demand a constitutional ammendment. It was in every pulpit, over and over, for most of the 90s. Take Mike Huckabee and multiply him across the country, and you get a sense of what it was like back then. The “moral majority” had more power than the Tea Party does now.

        • AnotherPoster

          You seem to forget that Congress can pass all the constitutional amendments they please but as long as they don’t get ratified by 3/4ths of the state legislatures then they don’t actually amend the Constitution.

          And as for your speculation. Quit making things up. Billy Clinton was a homophobic bigot that signed DOMA into law thus setting back the cause of equal rights for gays for decades. And no amount of pink washing is going to change that fact.

          • Chris Baker

            No, I haven’t forgotten that fact. As of a few months ago, 31 states had bans against SSM, It takes 38 states to pass a constitutional amendment. Most of these were passed in the past 10 years. We are talking 20 years ago, when there was less support for gays and SSM.

            On the other hand, here is Bill Clinton’s statement before he signed DOMA: “I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position.” So, yes the Clintons may be trying to re-write history. (A politician is lying, where are my smelling salts!)

            So then he ultimately changed his mind on the issue. What are we supposed to do? Are people not allowed to change their minds? Many liberals were opposed to SSM before they were for it too.

      • Gerry Fisher

        Totally not the point. We’ve never argued that he could stop it. We’ve argued that he didn’t behave or communicate like a true ally.

        • AnotherPoster

          And that’s because Billy Clinton wasn’t a “true ally” of the gays. And never was.

      • Bill_Perdue

        DOMA passed because Bill Clinton championed it and he did that because he’s a bigot.

      • LAguy323
    • Bill_Perdue

      DOMA was passed because Bill Clinton, bigot, championed it and said he wanted it. He did promise to sign it and supported it’s passage. He championed it. “Months earlier, May 23, 1996, Clinton made his first comments on DOMA, jumbling the specific effect of the bill but echoing comments from his press secretary that he would sign it. On July 11, 1996, the administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy: ”The President … has long opposed same sex marriage. Therefore, if H.R. 3396 were presented to the President as ordered reported from the House Judiciary Committee, the President would sign the legislation.”
      http://www.metroweekly.com/2011/09/becoming-law/

      Then he gloated about it when he approved these ads run on redneck christian radio stations: “Protecting religious freedom. It’s the foundation of our nation.When the Justice Department went after a church to gather the parishioners’ tithing money, the government was stopped cold because President Clinton overturned the government’s policy and protected us. It’s not the only time he’s defended our values…President Clinton wants a complete ban on late term abortions except when the mother’s life is in danger or faces severe health risks, such as the inability to have another child.The President signed the Defense of Marriage Act, supports curfews and school uniforms to teach our children discipline.President Clinton has fought for our values and America is better for it. Paid for by Clinton/Gore 96”

      One reason the Rick Warren thing is a big deal is because, after Bill Clinton, the gay community is unusually sensitive to getting the shorter angle of presidential triangulation. It is hard to overstate the optimism and excitement that gays and lesbians felt in 1992. But the optimism deflated spectacularly after “Don’t Ask, Don’t tell” and the Defense of Marriage Act, not to mention President Clinton’s sneaky 1996 ad boasting about DOMA, which aired only on Christian radio. Clinton was willing to say the word “gay” in public and appear in black tie at the Human Rights Campaign dinner, but, in the eyes of the gay political community, his commitment to gay rights vanished both times it counted most.” http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-4675355-503544.html

      Counting on Democrats like Clinton, Obama and the rest is like being in that cult that dances with rattlers. You never know when you’ll get bitten.

      • JT

        Misrepresentations as usual. DOMA was passed by a Congress with both houses controlled by Republicans–and passed with a veto proof majority.

        • Bill_Perdue

          Stop lying.

          These Democrat Senators voted for DOMA:

          Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.)
          Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)
          Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio)
          Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J)
          Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.)
          Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y)
          Vice President Joe Biden (D-Del.)
          Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D- N.J.)
          Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.)
          Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.)
          Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.)
          Sen. Harry Reid (D-N.V.)
          http://www.businessinsider.com/democrats-who-voted-for-doma-2013-3

          In addition 118 Democrats voted for DOMA. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll316.xml

          • Doug105

            Still daylight, out don’t you have a bridge to be under while waiting on some goats?

          • Bill_Perdue

            Not a political comment.

          • Doug105

            News blog, not a political blog.
            Some of us are awaiting your turning to stone.

          • Bill_Perdue

            Not a political comment.

          • Doug105

            News blog, not a political blog

          • oikos

            ^Not a coherent comment. Next.^

          • Lumpy Gaga

            Not a cake comment.

          • Robincho

            Adelson is wondering why you’re not in the Venetian’s keno pit.
            Run along, now…

          • Bill_Perdue

            Not a political comment

          • JT

            He likes to troll at unusual hours.

            He keeps saying such things as “Democrat Senators”, making him out as a shill.

          • JT

            You have reading comprehension issues. See a specialist for that in addition to a psychiatrist.

      • oikos

        Hey Billy boy. You never answered my question about how your gambling at casinos owned by the capitalist 1% furthers your support of the socialist agenda.

        • Bill_Perdue

          Not a political comment.

        • GayOldLady

          I wonder if Billy posts this sort of “I’m a socialist and everyone else sucks. Get even, vote for nobody” comments on Republican blogs?

          • Doug105

            Don’t think he’s paid to visit them.

          • GayOldLady

            Exactly!!!!

          • Bill_Perdue

            Not a political comment

          • oikos

            No. He’s a right wing hack. He only trolls liberal sites.

          • JT

            He always calls Democratic members of Congress, “Democrat members”.

          • oikos

            Like all republicans.

          • Bill_Perdue

            Not a political comment.

    • Joe in PA

      Hello GOL, darn, I don’t have time to read your posts right now, so I’ll just wave ‘hi’! I can’t wait till I have some time to read your (likely) insightful posts.

      • GayOldLady

        Hi, Joe. My views are just heartfelt. Insightful? probably not. Be good and WAVE right back at you my friend.

    • PTBoat

      You hit the nail on the head. I completely remember my disappointment with DOMA, but I also remember how the Neo-Cons were pushing for an amendment if DOMA failed. Newt Gingrich, who helped author DOMA said as much. People do forget what the climate was like at the time, which was at a fever pitch of anti-gay sentiment. Cobb County, GA, which is Newt Gingrich’s home county, had just passed an anti gay resolution of which Gingrich heartily approved. We’d just come off of the Baehr case which could have opened up marriage in Hawaii and Europe was beginning to allow partnerships. All of this was used by the right to stir up Bush Sr and Quayle’s Focus on the Family followers. Plus, they were using the 1993 production of Tales of the City and Mapplethorpe as a sign that we were all going to hell in a homosexual hand basket. The climate was ripe for a constitutional amendment and it was still a time when major politicians openly referred to gay people as disease ridden sexual deviants, and criminals as the sodomy statutes had been upheld only a decade prior.

      Even though DOMA was a long term disaster, an amendment would have been even more difficult to overturn.

      • GayOldLady

        Thanks PTBOAT…..Some of us are really old enough and were engaged enough politically to remember the environment of the time. It’s one thing to read about it, it’s another to remember it.

        • Ninja0980

          I also think some people don’t realize how ugly the battle was for marriage equality even in Blue states.
          Vermont passing civil unions nearly tore the state in half and Howard Dean and others had to wear bulletproof vests for the next several weeks.
          Massachusetts nearly came close to putting a marriage repeal on the ballot twice, with only a handful of votes stopping it and if you saw the horror show in Hawaii only two years ago, imagine what it would have back in the 90’s.
          And NY is not as liberal as people think it is.
          Get out of NYC and go to Upstate and you’ll find out that we can put anti-gay people in other places to shame.
          I’m sorry but for those saying an amendment couldn’t pass, I don’t agree.

          • cleos_mom

            Cue the chants of “oh, that’s so 20th century.”

    • Bill_Perdue

      That’s a lie.

      Evan Wolfson, of Lambda Legal and the National Freedom to Marry Coalition says, ”That’s complete nonsense. There was no conversation about something ‘worse’ until eight years later. There was no talk of a constitutional amendment, and no one even thought it was possible — and, of course, it turned out it wasn’t really possible to happen. So, the idea that people were swallowing DOMA in order to prevent a constitutional amendment is really just historic revisionism and not true. That was never an argument made in the ’90s.” MetroWeekly http://www.metroweekly.com/2011/09/becoming-law/

      • GayOldLady

        Well that provably untrue. 8 years later would have been 2004. HJ RES 93 was introduced in 2002. HJ RES 56 and SJ RES 26 introduced in 2003. It was reintroduced in 2004 as SJ RES 30, SJ RES 40 and HJ RES 106

        “The Federal Marriage Amendment has been introduced in the United States Congress 10 different times: in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2008, and 2013”

        And haven’t you criticized LAMBDA as right wingers too? Hillary scares the shit out of you, doesn’t she?

        • Bill_Perdue

          I’m afraid of all warmongers, racists and union busting scabs. You love them.

    • Gerry Fisher

      I just saw a quote from Evan Wolfson–who had been taking point on marriage equality since the 80s–in which he said there’s no evidence that a federal constitutional amendment banning marriage equality was in play in 1996. He said a federal constitutional amendment wasn’t discussed and didn’t come into play until 2003/2004.

      Now…IMO…Hillary shouldn’t have to defend Bill’s LGBT record. However, in order for her to draw a line between her husband’s performance and her own, she’d have to pull back a bit from this “we were co-Presidents” thing she likes to imply.

      • GayOldLady

        Gerry I’ve never treated you disrespectfully, so you don’t have to worry about me giving you “any crap”. I said clearly in my first comment that it was a “political calculation” by Bill Clinton to sign DOMA. And I believe that. He could have allowed them to veto it, but he didn’t. In fact he promised that he would sign legislation if it comported with his views, and he did. I believed it was a political calculation at the time he signed it, and I believe it now. And Hillary didn’t imply during the interview I watched that she was a “co-president”. She stated that she sat in on some of the discussions about DOMA. If you haven’t watched the interview you should.

    • AnotherPoster

      Oh please, enough with the Clinton rewrite of history. If Billy Clinton had been a real supporter of gay rights, he wasn’t by the way, he would have vetoed the bill and then let the Republican Congress override the veto. That way the Republican Congress would have owned the whole thing lock stock and barrel. But what did little Billy Clinton do? He willingly signed the homophobic hate legislation known as DOMA into law and set back the cause if gay rights for decades. All to pander to the Republican Congress.

      I don’t think Hillary needs to play game in the first place by trying to rewrite her homophobic husbands history on gay rights in a sick, sad and pathetic attempt to make her look good. And good for Bernie for calling her out on her hypocrisy.

    • LAguy323

      and it WASN’T “a defensive measure to lessen the possibility of a Constitutional Amendment”
      Stop your lying.
      https://twitter.com/hilaryr/status/658110744928612353

    • Christopher Smith

      GOL, as usual, you speak the truth and nothing but. Thank you so much.
      I remember VIVIDLY what it was like 20 years ago, and the Neanderthal celebrations at the passage of the Defense of MORONS Act.

  • LovesIrony

    It’s time to play Let’s beat up on our allies.

  • Hey people, was it Hillary or Bill who was President? It was Bill Clinton, and Hillary had to keep her mouth shut in public as his wife — even though some of her positions on national health care (her plan was shot down big time by Congress) and women’s rights (I speak of the Conference in Beijing in 1995) were considered far left at the time. Remember that Bill Clinton was elected President twice as a center – right Democrat (for the time) – carrying states in 1996 like Louisiana, Missouri, Arizona, Kentucky, and West Virginia that are considered deep-red now. He even carried Georgia and Montana in 1992! Sure, Hillary provided advice, and sure, Hillary comes from a Goldwater Republican background. But what would happen if Bill Clinton were not elected President and a Republican was? We would NOT have Ginsberg and Breyer on SCOTUS — and would have ended up with a far different landscape for LGBT rights. I don’t think we should hold Bernie’s position on guns against him either — there is no way any elected Congressman or Senator from Vermont 20 years ago could oppose the NRA and win. People grow and change, and like it or not, whore themselves to be elected at times to get elected. And its going to stay this way until we keep big business money out of politics. But please, we need to give people some leeway for change of position over 20 years.

    • justmeeeee

      Eddie, enough!

      • lol. You sound just like my boyfriend Benja/ Thumbs up!

    • coram nobis

      I liked her when she threw the lamp.

    • Max_1

      What is stopping Hillary from saying, “DADT/DOMA were the worst civil Rights laws under her husband’s terms”???

      Instead, she’s trying to convince you that oppression, when doled out in small bites is yummy!

      AND YOU’RE ASKING FOR DESERT FROM THE HOSTESS?

      • coram nobis

        Did you mean, “dessert?” Or maybe not. A dark desert highway near the Hotel California, and she’s the concierge.

    • ultragreen

      “Sure, Hillary provided advice, and sure, Hillary comes from a Goldwater Republican background.”

      Shhhhhhhh! You’re not supposed to say such things out loud, much less write them! Repeat after me: The past does not exist! The past does not exist!

  • As a gay Viet Nam vet who married in California before the passage of
    Prop 8, I have strong feelings about both DADT and DOMA. I was a Bill
    Clinton fan and I was for Hillary in 2008, but when Obama won the
    primary I got wholeheartedly behind him. During the 2008 campaign while
    the ugly and deceptive Prop 8 ads ran night after night on television, I
    remained behind Obama, even while he was opposed to gay marriage, and
    said nothing about Prop 8. When finally just before the election he came
    out against Prop 8, he also reiterated that he was against gay
    marriage. Nevertheless I was elated when he won the presidency. Though a
    few hours later came the announcement that Prop 8 had passed. While my
    husband and I waited to see if Prop 8 had retroactively nullified our
    marriage, Obama ignored criticism that his pick of Rick Warren to give
    the invocation at the inauguration was a terrible slap in the face to
    gays. Those were painful times. And yet look at how Obama changed. He
    has become a wonderful advocate for gay rights. All is forgiven, and I
    still love him. Personally I think his “evolution” is sincere and not
    just political. But either way, I don’t care! And I don’t have any gay
    friends who hold the past against Obama.

    So it bothers me when
    anyone dredges up the past to try to hurt the Clintons on the issue of
    gay rights. There were reasons that things came down the way they did
    back then. It was a very different world as far as acceptance of gays is
    concerned. And regardless of whether one accepts their explanations and
    reasoning or not, this is now, not then. Hillary is an ally on gay
    rights. That is what is important! I don’t need Bernie Sanders or anyone
    else standing up for my rights by attacking my ally. And frankly I
    think it is a mistake for Sanders to go down this road in order to score
    political points. I think it is divisive and undermines his image.

    • Bob Conti

      I agree with this, but I think Hil should’ve just said, “At that time, it seemed right. Now, we realize how wrong DOMA was and Bill and I regret its passage and the attendant harm.” Or words to that effect. It would’ve sounded a lot more authentic, because I don’t believe for a minute that it was “defensive” and thus casting yet a new shadow on her credibility, that I think she effectively clawed back during Draco Malfoy’s little dog and pony show last week.

    • coram nobis

      I was married in California in 2008 before Prop 8 passed. I do remember that the other side was running robocalls with Obama’s “I believe marriage is between a man and a woman” snippet. It’s nice that Obama and the Clintons have come around — albeit after the polls shifted — but it’s not nice of her to rationalize or spin what they did back in the day. Nor to remind us that their handling of DADT — the broken promise about not asking and not pursuing that destroyed 10,000 careers — was a betrayal. A retreat from Caporetto in which they got out but left disaster along the line of retreat.

      I’ll vote for her if that what it takes to save the court appointments, but I won’t trust her.

      • I don’t agree with a lot of what you said, but I’m glad you’ll vote for her.

        • coram nobis

          I still feel like we’re somewhere along the road from Caporetto.

    • ultragreen

      Of course Obama and Hillary Clinton support LGBT rights (now). That’s because they have nothing to lose politically. If Hillary Clinton thought support for LGBT rights would decrease her election chances, she would either remain silent on the subject or even condemn our access to such rights. The same thing is true of Obama. They are like two peas in a pod. For opportunistic people like them, politics comes first, while principles are dead last. Let’s not delude ourselves into thinking that the situation is otherwise.

      • They’re politicians, and you can believe that their opinions have changed, or you can believe that with them it is nothing but pure, cynical political calculation. It doesn’t matter. It only matters where they are now. I lived through decade after decade of the Democrats using gays for support when they needed it, but offering nothing in return. But that’s the past. They always were better than the Republicans, and they’re truly on our side now, and that’s all that counts in the end. And as for Sanders, he doesn’t have a perfect record on gay rights either, and now he’s made the political calculation that going negative on Hillary is going to help him. I think he’s wrong.

    • Max_1

      Hillary dredged up the past… and reimagined it.
      Oppression is NEVER a compromise…

      • Hillary certainly didn’t bring up her past record of not supporting gay marriage. Bernie did that. Nor does he have a perfect record on gay rights either. Nor does Obama. But what matters is where the candidates are now and what they will do. And going negative isn’t going to help Bernie in my opinion. One of the things most admired about him is the way he has conducted his campaign thus far.

  • kladinvt

    Triangulation is the Clinton’s mode of governance, so whatever they say they are for today, don’t hold them to it, tomorrow.

    • Yes and due to Bill Clinton we have Breyer and Ginsburg on SCOTUS — and if Bill Clinton were not a master politician who knew how to get center and independent votes 20 years ago we would have had 8 years of Republican Presidents in his place. And the President was Bill not Hillary —

  • Just some history — FDR is considered the father of the modern Democratic Party — we all know Social Security was pushed through by him. Lynching was still common during his Presidency — yet he refused to support laws to stop it (Costigan-Wagner bill in 1934) because it would have cost him the sold south in his 4 Presidential elections and cooperation from the Southern Democrats who ran important committees in the US Senate and House at the time. Eleanor, who was hated by segregationists, supported the anti-lynching laws of course and hectored him over this — but he shut his ears to her. . Certainly, comparing DOMA and Don’t As Don’t Tell is not comparable to hanging African Americans from trees — but even the greatest of Presidents have had to not do what was wrong to get reelected. Bill (not Hillary) Clinton is not the only Democrat who has had to pander to the right at times.

  • Baby Dave

    I recently attended a debate watch party. I confided in our hostess that for me, it was Bernie or Bust. I will not be voting for Secretary Clinton. Our hostess (literally) wagged her finger about an inch from my face and declared, You WILL got for Hillary if she wins the nomination!”. She was giving me a directive, an order, a command

    Yesterday, I went on a date with a gay Republican. I told him much the same thing. He rolled his eyes, and told me that I was stupid for voting for a “damn Commie”. He told me to vote for Trump.

    Everyone seems to think they can get me to do things by issuing commands at me. They seem to have forgotten, as many of the commenters here in this thread have forgotten, that this is my vote, and I am free to vote for whoever the hell I damn well want to. When I trot into that ballot booth and pull that lever, you will not be in the booth with me. However, if the memory of you scolding me comes in there with me, I will absolutely vote for someone other than the person you’ve tried to chide me into supporting. I might just write in “Fuck You” and vote for that.

    • Sporkfighter

      I’d choose Sanders over Clinton myself, but I’d choose Clinton over any of the Republican contenders. When it comes tome to vote, are you going to vote for the best future from the choices before you, or will you vote based on spite over some old slight?

      • ultragreen

        That’s a false dilemma for many people because they are not in key battleground states. If you live in a blue state that always hands over its electoral votes to Democrats, or in a red state that always hands over its electoral votes to Republicans, then you are free to vote in accordance with your conscience. However, pay attention to the polling in your state in order to be sure.

        • Sporkfighter

          You’re free to write in anyone you choose, but otherwise, you can’t vote for someone who isn’t on the ballot. As for “voting your conscience”, I don’t think voting for someone you know can’t win is any different from choosing not to vote at all. It weakens the winner by diminishing his or her perceives strength, and so strengthens the bigoted wing of the American legislature. And if you haven’t noticed, take a look; they’re too strong already.

          • ultragreen

            I don’t like Hillary Clinton and I don’t like the Republican candidates. Why would I ever want to strengthen them? They both need to know that they belong in the doghouse. But don’t worry, I’ll put Hillary in the nicer of the two doghouses.

            When I vote, I’m not interested in strengthening a particular candidate. Instead, I vote to strengthen the cause of the political left-wing. And Hillary Clinton definitely needs to feel some pressure from the leftists of her own party, otherwise she’s not going to pay any attention to them.

          • Sporkfighter

            Just remember, you go into the same “doghouse” as the winner.

      • Baby Dave

        I’ll vote my conscience. Anyone trying to make me do otherwise is wasting their time

        • Sporkfighter

          Not trying to tell you how you should vote, just wondering why voting for someone you know will lose is “voting your conscience”, rather than shaking you fist at the sky.

          • Baby Dave

            Its my conscience, and its my fist. Ill shake either in any direction I please.

          • Sporkfighter

            Go for it. I hope is somehow gets some attention. The rest of us will try to make real changes in real people’s lives.

          • Baby Dave

            I don’t need your attention. In fact, I don’t need you at all

    • coram nobis

      If she’s the nominee, I’ll vote for her simply because it matters in the long term what judges get appointed, and those appointments will outlast her presidency. In the short term, I’ll vote knowing that it’ll be a vote for more “free trade,” more drones, more NSA surveillance, more Wall Street, more defense spending and military aid overseas. Lesser of two evils is still evil, but that’s all that’s on the menu.

      “I’m really very sorry for you all, but it’s an unjust world, and virtue is triumphant only in theatrical performances.” — The MIkado

      • Baby Dave

        That’s your decision, not mine

    • zhera

      You can vote however you like, and you can date whoever you like. But you should not expect people to keep quiet when you’re doing really stupid things. You’re a Bernie man and you date a Republican? You’d fuck a Republican but you won’t vote for Hillary?

      Priorities, my dear.

      Allowing spite to interfere with something as important as voting for the future of your country (and if you’re really a Bernie man then you know what’s at stake) would make you a petty, stupid asshole. I’m pretty sure Bernie would say the same.

      • Baby Dave

        Its my dick. I get to decide who to fuck. Not you.

        Gert your greasy paws off my cock, bitch.

        • zhera

          Oh, sweetie. These paws won’t come near you. I like adult men with integrity and intelligence.

          • Baby Dave

            So why did you vote for Bill? Because he was a clever rapist?

          • zhera

            Never voted for Bill (I assume you mean Clinton). I’m Norwegian and can’t vote for either Bernie or Hillary.

            Bernie would be my choice but if Hillary gets the nomination there’s no way I would waste my vote by not voting Democratic. There’s too much to lose and too much to win. Just think SCOTUS.

          • Baby Dave

            Wait.. you can’t even vote in this election? Great! I no longer give a shit about you

    • rn

      Keep in mind that plenty of hardcore Bernie supporters do the same finger-wagging. It’s not a one-way street.

      In 2008, I voted for Obama despite some of his over-the-top, annoying supporters. My candidate lost the nomination, but I wasn’t going to stomp off in a snit and help the Republicans. I spent too much time in 2000 trying to convince my pure-of-conscience friends that their vote for Ralph Nader would simply help George Bush. (In Florida, Nader got 97,000 votes; Bush “won” by 500.)

      • Baby Dave

        So, how effective was your attempt to covert Green
        Party supporters by yelling at them in 2000?

        Did your boy win, thanks to your bitching?

        • rn

          I never said I yelled, nor that I was bitching. That’s entirely your projection.

          • Baby Dave

            Al Gore lost because he was a shitty candidate.

            If you’re looking for someone to blame, its not Nader. Its the super delegates that keep nominating substandard candidates.

          • rn

            Gore was a better candidate than Bush. That’s the point of the ongoing debate between voting by conscience or practicality.

          • Baby Dave

            The American public seemed to think Al Gore wasn’t good enough. Al Gore himself, who gave up fighting for a recount, seemed to think he wasn’t pod enough.

            You asked 65 million voters to just buck up and hold their nose all the way to the polls. They said no. Rathe than accept responsibility for nominating an unqualified candidate, you’re still whining 15 years later.

            Oh fuck off

          • rn

            Angry much?

          • Baby Dave

            The American voting public gets angry much. You know why centrist Democrats lose so many elections? Its because your holder than thou smugness makes even the most patient person want to push you in the jaw.

          • rn

            Again, angry much? Swearing and threatening violence is probably not the face that the Sanders campaign wants to put forward.

          • Baby Dave

            I don’t work for his campaign. I’m one of those voters you consistently fail to win over because you are so fucking irritating.

          • rn

            I never suggested that you worked for his campaign. But clearly you evangelize for him. And I’m pretty sure you are just as irritating in person as you are here.

          • Baby Dave

            I’m the irritating little shit you need to win over to get the votes required to win. So why don’t you quit insulting me and try to charm me? If you ca’t do that, you’re going o lose.

            Better to be irritated and win than comfortable in your loss

          • rn

            You already stated up top “Bernie or bust.” You seem set, by our own words.

          • Baby Dave

            I’m set because you refuse to talk to me like an intelligent human being. I’m voting Bernie or Bust with y middle finger raised to the snobs who think they can just order me to vote for them without giving me any reason to want to

          • rn

            Go back and read your initial post. You told your hostess “Bernie or bust” and that you would never vote for Clinton. When she (apparently) scolded you, then you announced that you might vote in opposition simply out of spite. The “Bernie or bust” bit came first. Your words.

          • Baby Dave

            I don’t need you. You need me. So quit trying to “put me in my place”. The harder you push me down, the more dedicated I become to defeating you at the ballot box.

            Either address me as an equal, or lose. Fucking lose. I will not support your candidate as long as you maintain this holier than thou attitude. You got that?

          • rn

            You began by stating “Bernie or bust. I will not be voting for Secretary Clinton.” Your words. I doubt you could be persuaded in any case.

          • Baby Dave

            Since you give up without even trying (like Al Gore), you’re right.

          • Doug105

            I will not support your candidate as long as you maintain this holier than thou attitude.
            Find a mirror.

          • Baby Dave

            I would, but you broke that mirror when you looked into it

          • Doug105
          • Baby Dave

            Thanks!

          • zhera

            what the hell is it you want? A promise of a blowjob for voting Democratic even without Bernie?

            We’re trying to explain how the election is important with or without him but all you can say is ‘fuck off’. You’re not interested in a discussion of the politics, only to bitch at people.

          • Baby Dave

            What do I want? For you to go fuck off

    • EqualityForAll

      … if the memory of you scolding me comes in there with me, I will absolutely vote for someone other than the person you’ve tried to chide me into supporting.

      Yes – forget about voting for who might be the best candidate. Let’s all vote out of spite instead. That’s just what this country needs.

      Fool.

      • Baby Dave

        I think it’s even more foolish for you to lose every single fucking time just because you can’t act like a human being instead of some pompous jackass .
        You remember when Bill said Obama couldn’t win, that his campaign was a big fairy tale? Guess what? You lost, he won.

        • EqualityForAll

          Huh? I supported Obama from the get-go. How could you have possibly deduced who I’ve supported or voted for in the past, just by my pointing out that only fools (take a look in the mirror) vote out of spite?
          I repeat: I would never ever vote simply out of spite. Only idiots and morons who don’t really deserve the right to vote would stoop to that.

          • Baby Dave

            Those people you dismiss as saps and fools are the people you need to win over to win. If you keep insulting them, they’re going o stop listening to you.

            It doesn’t even matter i you’re right or wrong. Alienating the electorate is going o make you lose, no matter who you think you are.

      • Baby Dave

        People do it all the time. If you piss people off, they will not support you.

    • Max_1

      Oh, so you want the GOP to win… /snarc.

      V O T E
      J. ust
      E. lect
      B. ernie

      • Baby Dave

        Jeb Bush just laid off half his campaign staff. If you think he’s the GOP candidate for 2016, you really need to stop typing and start listening to the news

    • Doug105

      if the memory of you scolding me comes in there with me, I will absolutely vote for someone other than the person you’ve tried to chide me into supporting.

      Fitting name .

      • Baby Dave

        I don’t care if you vote for him or not. I’m voting for him as a protest against people like you, the elitist snobs who think they can just bark orders at us.

  • Sporkfighter

    A majority of the states had already amended their own constitutions to ban same sex marriage, and certainly would have approved of a federal constitutional amendment. Seven more might have done so.

    Had that happened, we’d now be trying to get 38 states to ratify an amendment to reverse that earlier amendment. Do you think we could get 38 state legislators to amend the constitution to allow gay marriage today?

  • nycmcmike

    I all for Bernie but unfortunately there’s an aspect which makes him unelectable unfortunately. Unless I’m wrong Bernie is an atheist.

    • coram nobis

      And The Donald apparently worships Mammon, but that isn’t slowing him down either.

      • ultragreen

        It isn’t just the Donald, I think most politicians, particularly Republicans, worship Mammon (money) and Moloch (war).

    • GreatLakeSailor

      Yep, you’re wrong.
      I wish he was an atheist, but he ain’t.

  • Lather

    There is a possibility that marriage equality would not exist today if not for DOMA. Remember that having DOMA in place allowed for its validity to be challenged in the Supreme Court. Certainly an impetus for some to strengthen their fight for marriage equality.

    • EqualityForAll

      Please, I hope you aren’t insinuatnig that that was Bill’s plan all along!

  • Lumpy Gaga

    Bottom line, two words: Brian Sims.

    If he gets elected to the house, do you want to saddle him with a GOP POTUS?

    http://cdn05.philebrity.weblinc-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/Brian-Sims-HEAD.png

    Well, do ya, punk?

    • GreatLakeSailor

      Ah, permutation #859 of the But Bernie CAN’T Win!!1!!!

      • Lumpy Gaga

        Actually, that was Donkey-agnostic fun, but read what you want into it.

    • Max_1

      I’ll just saddle him… Giddy-up pony.

  • 2karmanot

    Well, the old Hills did some pretty impressive back flips and a double gainer in that lying dive. I read it as: If you only have one Auschwitz, it will mollify the mob and other ‘work’ facilities will not be necessary. #Nazi snark for Hillary

    • Lumpy Gaga

      DOMA wasn’t Auschwitz. It was bad news. REALLY bad news. But it wasn’t Auschwitz.

      Take it down a notch.

  • Jim

    Hooray for Bernie Sanders. At least somebody can tell the truth about the Clintons since the Clintons never do.

  • Ninja0980

    By the way, keep in mind Joe Biden voted for DOMA when he (among many others) didn’t need to.
    And yet I rarely see him get called out for that.
    Chuck Robb and Bob Kearney faced far greater threats with a no vote and yet they voted no on it.
    That was political courage, something many of our “allies” back then didn’t show.

  • GlennF

    Before anyone gets the false idea that Sanders has a softer spot in his heart than Hillary Clinton does for the LGBT community, here’s today’s Washington Post article explaining what Sanders is REALLY up to.

    Sanders has a brand new strategy of going negative on Clinton to try and stop her recently increased momentum. So much for saint bernie and his pledge not to go negative:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bernie-sanders-sure-sounded-as-if-he-was-running-a-negative-campaign/2015/10/25/78b3c1b0-7b3b-11e5-837b-2c3f2478487e_story.html

    • Max_1

      Bernie was/is for LGBT Rights way before Hillary “EVOLVED”…

      • thevofl

        Why is it, who was for LBGT rights first? I’m happy that both are here to support us.

  • Separation of Corporation and
  • Stuart Wyman-Cahall

    By acknowledging we’ve come a long way, Senator Sanders tacitly admits that a constitutional amendment on the federal level was a genuine possibility. I lived through that era. Had it become constitutional law every court decision that came OUR way over these last few years would have been deemed constitutional as a LEGITIMATE ban instead and we would not have marriage equality today. We must not look back. We must look forward only. President Obama reminds us that WE OURSELVES MUST CREATE OUR OWN DESTINY. We are the ones who must change hearts and minds. It is OUR responsibility to hold our leader’s feet to the fire. The politicians we elect respond to US. The next POTUS is going to nominate several justices to the Supreme Court. They will be making critical decisions on religious freedom and marriage equality. If you think America is ready to elect a Democratic Socialist, good luck to you with that. I’m taking no chances. It’s Hillary for me.

  • OZ_in_TX

    Simply put – I’ll be voting for Bernie Sanders for the Democratic primary. If Hillary wins, I’ll vote for her. If Bernie wins, I’ll vote for him. If nothing else, Bernie has succeeded in yanking Hillary left-ward – if she becomes President and starts ‘dragging her feet’, then it will be up to us to hold her feet to the fire. The same goes for Bernie Sanders… though I get the feeling he wouldn’t be dragging his feet so much.

    And regardless of who is in the White House, they will need a Democratic majority – which means one way or another we will need to get off our progressive asses and Go. Vote.

    Because you know the Reich Wing will be… singing ‘Onward Christian Soldiers’ as they go.

  • Baby Dave

    DOMA was a slap in the face to the gay community. The Clintons treated us like an ATM, only owing to us when they needed money. She only changed her position on GLBT rights after the poll numbers showed her that was a popular thing to do.

  • Baby Dave

    Okay, Chicago Dyke just compared the GOP to the Nazis.

    If there are any of my fellow Jews in here, could you please tell her that 6 million of our ancestors died because of the Nazis. And could you please inform this ignorant, antisemitic person that the GOP, as awful as they are, does not even come close in comparison to the Shoah?

    And if I do so happen to be the only Jew int he room, could any Rroma, Jehovah’s Witnesses, trade unionists, socialists, GLBT people or persons living with a disability please tell this ignorant, bigoted person just how fucked up it is to desecrate our ancestors graves by computing everyone she doesn’t happen to like to the monsters that murdered them?

    You fucking bigot

    • Ninja0980

      The AIDS virus where St. Ronnie and the Republicans did NOTHING but let us die came pretty damn close.
      If you’re coming here hoping to get support for the GOP and what they’ve done to us, you’re in the wrong place.

  • Ginger Snap

    Okay my 2 cents. We have been thrown under the bus and oppressed for years, no forever. The fact that we are talked about and courted by politicians and gaining Equality and moving forward is a very good thing to this old Queen. Politicians do a lot of good and bad things to be electeted and sometimes it’s not always the right thing. The fact that we are e en being acknowledged and recognized on the national stage is a good thing for me. Politicians have a hard time apologizing ond it has a lot if side speak and just plain bushit in it.

    We have come so far and I am willing to overlook some of the political bullshit that oppressed us for so long. Not so long ago my friends were left to die alone from a GAY PLAGUE called AIDS and no one gave a shit about them. Things have changed and we are moving forward. I’m not sure if this makes any sense to anyone but me but I’m all in for Hillary because I truly believe that She and Bill were never our enemies just politicians who were trying to do their jobs in the political environment they were employed under.

  • Mark_in_MN

    It’s actually possible that both are correct, or at least partially. It was homophobic legislation. It was also defensive against an amendment.

  • ColdCountry

    I don’t really care what Bill’s politics were 20 years ago, I care what Hillary’s are now.

  • Joseph Miceli

    Here we go again. “Hillary is a power mad shrew who does only the most politically expedient thing.” ” Bernie Sanders is secretly untrustworthy, hated by his old party and his followers are naïve.”
    Who is this argument helping? Republicans!
    Everyone needs to start being civil and courteous to each other. Save the vitriol for our enemies.

    • ElenorRigby

      honestly that’s mostly fringe. Everyone I know says “I support _____ more but i’ll vote for _______ if he/she gets the nomination.”

      • Joseph Miceli

        Which is where I am! I don’t trust Hillary and her
        bankster connections, but that doesn’t mean I won’t support her. Compared to her Republican opponents she’s a god damn saint!

    • marshlc

      I do hope that neither of them (or their followers, though I think that ship has sailed) descend to the ugly nasty mud slinging we’re seeing from the Republicans. Progressives need to keep showing themselves as the grownups in the room. An attitude while campaigning of “he/she would make a fine President, but I think I’d make an even better one” would serve everyone better than “he/she is terrible, a liar, and no good”.

      Frankly, if I were an American I’d probably be voting for Bernie, but have to say that the behaviour of many of the Bernie supporters would be my main reason NOT to. Hillary Clinton is not their enemy – the Republican Party is.

      • Joseph Miceli

        I’ll drink to that!

      • DutchBoy74

        I’m just tried of wall street bought politicians and family dynasties.

  • bill weber

    ”That’s complete nonsense,” Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry told Metro Weeklyin 2011. “There was no conversation about something ‘worse’ until eight years later. There was no talk of a constitutional amendment, and no one even thought it was possible — and, of course, it turned out it wasn’t really possible to happen… That was never an argument made in the ’90s.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michelangelo-signorile/bill-clinton-and-doma-the_b_2838666.html

    • Xuuths

      Except that a number of political groups I was involved in at the time had such conversations about “something worse” while DADT was being hammered out in hearings. How can these people forget that?

      • bill weber

        The subject is DOMA, not DADT.

        I’d prefer to talk any LGBT person out of joining the US war machine.

        • Xuuths

          But during the DADT hearings, we heard the slippery slope discussions of “what next?” and that brought up remarks about needing a federal amendment to prevent even the possibility of gay equality, gay marriage equality, serving in the military equality. They are not totally separate issues, because the anti crowd saw them as dominoes lined up to fall one after the other.

  • coram nobis

    There is evil, all around, fundamental, system of government quite incidental. This must be a metaphor for our time now.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9xyWLjwKDA

  • JCF

    Argh, it’s depressing to see Clinton and Sanders partisans attacking each other. Infighting is NOT funny!

  • .my classfellow’s younger sister making $97 in one hour Online….……Last weekend I Bought A Brand new McLaren F1 after earning 18,512$,this was my last month’s paycheck ,and-a little over, $17k Last month ..3-5 h/r of work a day ..with bonus opportunities & weekly paychecks.. it’s realy the easiest work I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months ago and now making over $83, p/h..Learn More right Here….
    1jdu…..
    ➤➤
    ➤➤➤ http://www.GlobalFinancialSupportJobsTopCareersToday/Get/$97hourly… ❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦❦

  • Ninja0980

    I’ll be blunt, I’m no Clinton fan but if she is the nominee, we have to grit our teeth and vote for her.
    Whatever her many issues are, a Republican will be worse.
    And if you need to see proof of that, feel free to look at WI,NC,IN etc where Republicans have taken control and made their states horror shows.

  • Xuuths

    Ah, the Monday morning quarterbacking is in full swing. So sad.