Why doesn't Hillary support the full repeal of the DOMA?

"she distances herself from a central plank of DOMA -- its bar on the federal recognition of same-sex marriages -- but not from the portion which allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states....

Clinton spokeman Phil Singer adds, "Sen. Clinton backed the Defense of Marriage Act because it enabled us to fend off right wing attacks like the Federal Marriage Amendment by keeping marriage as the purview of the states. She believes DOMA served an important purpose in that respect. Marriage should be left up to the states.

"She has also long believed in the need for full equality of benefits for same sex couples, and believes the federal government should recognize civil unions. It was not until Massachusetts passed its law that it became clear that those in civil unions could receive better treatment under DOMA than gay and lesbian couples in Massachusetts who have gotten married, and therefore, that aspect of DOMA makes little sense to her. However, she still affirms the general principle of DOMA that marriage should be left up to each state. "

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0607/Hillary_repudiates_DOMA.html

Obama and Edwards are for the full repeal.

If all things are equal between Obama and Edwards concerning gay civil liberty issues, my vote goes to John Edwards.

(A) He didn't allow a notorious homophobe to perform at a campaign event.

and

(B) I think he just might eventually support equal marriage because of the fact his wife and daughter both support it. Therefore, I think there's a chance he could eventually be convinced.

There's nothing about Obama that leads me to believe he'll change his mind.

And considering how he allowed that homophobe to perform for him, I'm concerned about what he might do next.

I wrote about this here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3654067

In 2004 in the interview below,he said his position was primarily a strategic issue. Since then, he has not contradicted this view, though he's shifted the language he uses. He has stated his personal opposition to gay marriage from his religious beliefs, but he also stated that his personal opposition doesn't necessarily factor into public policy. (see Keyes debate http://youtube.com/watch?v=SG5u04Gbg0A at 0:50 , where he says he says that his religious beliefs don't necessarily translate into public policy.)

For a candidate who opposes gay marriage, this is the best possible stance. He opposes it because it isn't possible, at this time, to get a gay marriage law passed. He doesn't oppose gay marriage legislation for moral reasons, so if the country moved to a point where a gay marriage law was politically possible, he would obviously support it.

The interview from 2004:

WCT: Do you have a position on marriage vs. civil unions?

Obama: I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. I know that’s true in the African-American community, for example. And if you asked people, ‘should gay and lesbian people have the same rights to transfer property, and visit hospitals, and et cetera,’ they would say, ‘absolutely.’ And then if you talk about, ‘should they get married?’, then suddenly ...

WCT: There are more than 1,000 federal benefits that come with marriage. Looking back in the 1960s and inter-racial marriage, the polls showed people against that as well.

Obama: Since I’m a product of an interracial marriage, I’m very keenly aware of ...

WCT: But you think, strategically, gay marriage isn’t going to happen so you won’t support it at this time?

Obama: What I’m saying is that strategically, I think we can get civil unions passed. I think we can get SB 101 passed. I think that to the extent that we can get the rights, I’m less concerned about the name. And I think that is my No. 1 priority, is an environment in which the Republicans are going to use a particular language that has all sorts of connotations in the broader culture as a wedge issue, to prevent us moving forward, in securing those rights, then I don’t want to play their game.

WCT: If Massachusetts gets marriage and this gives momentum to the proposed federal Constitutional amendment against gay marriage?

Obama: I would oppose that.

http://outlineschicago.com/gay/lesbian/news/ARTICLE.php

Interview from 2007 on gay marriage:
"Well, I think that 'marriage' has a religious connotation in this society, in our culture, that makes it very difficult to disentangle from the civil aspects of marriage. And as a consequence it's almost -- it would be extraordinarily difficult and distracting to try to build a consensus around marriage for gays and lesbians. What we can do is form civil unions that provide all the civil rights that marriage entails to same sex couples. And that is something that I have consistently been in favor of. And I think that the vast majority of Americans don't want to see gay and lesbian couples discriminated against, when it comes to hospital visitations and so on."

http://www.towleroad.com/2007/03/barack_obama_on.html

The 2004 vice presidential nominee said in an interview broadcast Sunday that he is not ready to take a position yet on same-sex marriage and acknowledged that his upbringing in the rural South makes this a troubling issue for him. ''It's easy for me to say, 'Civil unions, yes, partnership benefits, yes,''' he said. But on same-sex marriage, he said, ''I'm just not there yet.''

http://www.advocate.com/news_detail_ektid40780.asp

Clinton, Obama and Edwards answered the questions exactly the same way. If Clinton thinks this is a states' issue, she's not alone:

EDWARDS: So what that -- I'm sorry. All I was going to say is I think what that means in this case is the substantive rights that go with partnerships, civil unions, for example, and all the subsequent rights that go with that, should be recognized in this country, at least in my judgment, should be recognized. And I think it is not the role of the federal government to tell either faith-based institutions, churches, synagogues, what they should or should not recognize. Nor should the federal government be telling states what they should recognize.

June 4, 2007


http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0706/04/sitroom.03.html

I'm still looking for Obama's position on federal vs state involvement.

Nothing will get done federally, it just won't happen. But those states that CAN do something will help draw the rest of the country, by example, into this century.

it should be left up to the states to decide whether women and blacks should have the right to vote?

It's outrageous that a gay person's legal marriage in Massachusetts or New Jersey is not recognized in all of the other 48 states.

to make a case for it the federal level. It makes it a more common thing. It makes idiots realize their world won't end, because MASS and NJ and whoever else has the guts to do the right thing are doing just fine.

It diffuses the situation, and takes the power away from zealots who are trying to make it a flash-point issue to smack down Dems.

Change from within.

out of his pocket and stopped it.

I like that the ban was not written into the Constitution

Hillary used the same technique on the Flag Amendment that was about to be passed - which she converted into a discussion of a law, and then killed the law.

She knows the game

which is very difficult to do and typically takes years. Bill Clinton did it for political reasons.

it was a danger we did not need.

Citizen Chris covers it here:
It's fascinating to see how Hillary Clinton's candidacy has the ability to polarize, not just among the left and right of American politics, but within constituencies. Consider the split-screen, almost schizophrenic reaction to the release this weekend by the Human Rights Campaign of its "report card" on the Democratic presidential candidates.

Ben Smith, blogging at The Politico, saw a Hillary headline in the HRC release:

The news … seems to be that Hillary is repudiating her long (if tepidly) held support for the Defense of Marriage Act, which her husband signed, and which drew her criticism in New York.

Smith quotes Clinton spokesman Phil Singer confirming, however, that Hillary still supports the one-half of the Defense of Marriage Act that allows states to refuse gay marriages from other states. That drew scorn from the gay left, where bloggers like Pam Spaulding questioned "sHillary's" position as half-hearted:

It was obviously not ok for states to prevent people of different races from marrying back in the day (that was overturned by Loving v. Virginia in 1967), but Hillary Clinton is saying that it is ok for a state to apply that discriminatory thinking when the couple is gay or lesbian in 2007. That renders CUs legally unequal when you cross state lines.

In similar fashion, conservative blogger Andrew Sullivan suspects HRC may have "rigged" the report card for "the other HRC" — Hillary Rodham Clinton — by masking her continued support for half of DOMA. Gay Republican blogger Boi From Troy sees it the same way:

I had grown some respect for Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton yesterday when I read that in a survey for the Human Rights Campaign, she had repudiated her support for the Defense of Marriage Act and was now opposed. It would take a pair to disagree with a policy signed into law by your husband!

But it looks like defending her own marriage is more important that standing up for the equal rights of all Americans to marry, as the New York Senator is backtracking, telling The Politico that in her own responses to HRC, “she distances herself from a central plank of DOMA — its bar on the federal recognition of same-sex marriages — but not from the portion which allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.”

What makes all this fascinating is that Hillary's position on marriage and DOMA is exactly the same as four of the other six candidates who responded to HRC. Only Barack Obama and Dennis Kucinich favor full repeal of DOMA.



http://citizenchris.typepad.com/citizenchris/2007/06/was_the_fix_in_.html

provisions of DOMA.

Edwards and Obama support appealing DOMA entirely.

The "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution says that all of the states must recognize marriages performed by other states. Remove the part of DOMA that drops this requirement and GLBT's will be able to go to a state that allows same sex marriages and their home state must recognize it

Go for eliminating it entirely and you will get more opposition which might torpedo the whole effort.

questionnaire because Edwards clearly said that he thinks this is an issue for the states.

Not saying anythign pro or anti any candidates position. Just noting that that provision of DOMA is probably unconstitutional. (Not that that means anything, with the SCOTUS we've got)

But, as you say, our SCOTUS would probably determine it wasn't if they ever reviewed DOMA.

The last two Presidents represent the worst aspects of the Baby Boom generation. The former was a hedonist par excellence, while the latter is a recovered drug addict that is now addicted to fundamentalist religion.

:sarcasm:

That's easy. Because she's a triangulating Bush-lite who wants to cozy up to the fundie vote. A corporatist who fully realizes that these sort of distracting "social problems" are just the thing to keep the American people from realizing what the REAL problems are with this country.

In short, she's a fucking sell out who is trying to be all things to all people. Anyone who votes for her in the primary is every bit as deluded as * voters were in '04.

Why doesn't Hillary support the full repeal of the DOMA?

Because publicly stating so would arouse the ire of her handlers, and her corporate masters. After all, as long as they keep bashing "the faggots and dykes", they can continue to run roughshod over the citizens of this country while everyone is "arguing" over the "sanctity" of "marriage". And Ms. Clin-ton is a complicit partner in their evil duplicity, as is quite evident in her refusal to defend the rights of all Americans, homosexual and heterosexual alike.

Flame away, Hill-Shills. I've got more than enough acumen to handily make you all look like the stupid, lemming-esque individuals that you obviously are.

As usual, HRC wants to be all things to all people. Never take a position on anything remotely controversial, never make a stand, never declare yourself. And so far it is working.

I still think most people are just in love with Bill and want him back in the WH. She is riding his coat tails all the way.

'Phil Singer adds, "Sen. Clinton backed the Defense of Marriage Act because it enabled us to fend off right wing attacks...'

That is a weak weak reason. That alone is reason to vote against her. Its called if you believe in something, you fight for it. You don't cave just to fend off attacks from the other side. This party desperately needs fighters.

On edit: I'd love to hear from the IWR defenders on this. Are you getting the picture yet?

This seems to say otherwise (at least for Obama)

http://rodonline.typepad.com/rodonline/2007/05/obama_flipsflop.html