I think the title says it all:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ed_737939.html
First he signed DOMA. Now he praises its overturn.
- Guest032516
- 06-26-2013, 11:51 AM
- Yssup Rider
- 06-26-2013, 12:09 PM
Actually, the linked post makes no mention of how and why Clinton signed it into law. Just a blogger's jab with EVERYTHING left to the imagination.
I'd be interested to see more on that story... which of course there will be once the slowboats on the right side of the blogosphere start chirping.
I guess Clinton's great wrong has now been righted by the homo-loving SCOTUS!
Oh, the irony!
I'd be interested to see more on that story... which of course there will be once the slowboats on the right side of the blogosphere start chirping.
I guess Clinton's great wrong has now been righted by the homo-loving SCOTUS!
Oh, the irony!
- Guest032516
- 06-26-2013, 12:12 PM
- Old Dingus
- 06-26-2013, 12:14 PM
Polling data always determines Bill Clinton's deeply held personal opinions and beliefs.
Old Dingus
Old Dingus
- Guest032516
- 06-26-2013, 12:37 PM
Andrew Sullivan pegs that hypocritical prick Clinton in a blogpost entitled "From the Annals of Chutzpah"
Here is the link:
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/...f-chutzpah-28/
Here is the text:
---------------------------------------------
“By overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, the Court recognized that discrimination towards any group holds us all back in our efforts to form a more perfect union. We are also encouraged that marriage equality may soon return to California. We applaud the hard work of the advocates who have fought so relentlessly for this day, and congratulate Edie Windsor on her historic victory,” – former president Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA, insisted it was constitutional at the time, double-crossed the gay activists who originally funded him, ran ads in the South bragging of passing DOMA, doubled the rate of gay discharges from the military and signed the HIV travel ban into law.
---------------------------------------------
I guess he thinks everyone else is just stupid.
Here is the link:
http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2013/...f-chutzpah-28/
Here is the text:
---------------------------------------------
“By overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, the Court recognized that discrimination towards any group holds us all back in our efforts to form a more perfect union. We are also encouraged that marriage equality may soon return to California. We applaud the hard work of the advocates who have fought so relentlessly for this day, and congratulate Edie Windsor on her historic victory,” – former president Bill Clinton, who signed DOMA, insisted it was constitutional at the time, double-crossed the gay activists who originally funded him, ran ads in the South bragging of passing DOMA, doubled the rate of gay discharges from the military and signed the HIV travel ban into law.
---------------------------------------------
I guess he thinks everyone else is just stupid.
- CJ7
- 06-26-2013, 12:38 PM
On Friday, September 20, prior to signing the Defense of Marriage Act, President Clinton released the following statement:
Throughout my life I have strenuously opposed discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans. I am signing into law H.R. 3396, a bill relating to same-gender marriage, but it is important to note what this legislation does and does not do.
I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms "marriage" and "spouse".
This legislation does not reach beyond those two provisions. It has no effect on any current federal, state or local anti-discrimination law and does not constrain the right of Congress or any state or locality to enact anti-discrimination laws. I therefore would take this opportunity to urge Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, an act which would extend employment discrimination protections to gays and lesbians in the workplace. This year the Senate considered this legislation contemporaneously with the Act I sign today and failed to pass it by a single vote. I hope that in its next Session Congress will pass it expeditiously. I also want to make clear to all that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation. Discrimination, violence and intimidation for that reason, as well as others, violate the principle of equal protection under the law and have no place in American society.
-----------------------------
12 U.S. states have adopted same-sex marriage over the past decade, and many other states have adopted legislation specifically intended to prevent same-sex marriages from being performed or recognized within their borders. The landscape has just changed on that front, though: the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which barred federal recognition of same-sex marriages, has been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court; here's the ruling itself. From the NBC News version of the story: "The decision was 5-4, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. “'DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others,' the ruling said. 'The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.'"One major area this affects is tax law; that's one of the salient points in U.S. v. Windsor, the case that drove the court's conclusion. There's more on the story at many major news outlets, and at law-centric sources like SCOTUSblog. The Boston Globe is also live blogging various reactions.
Update: 06/26 16:58 GMT by T : In a separate decision, the court disappointed supporters of California's Proposition 8, a law passed by voter initiative, under which "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The court ruled that the private parties which had taken up the Prop 8 banner did not have standing to do so; as the story says, "The 5-4 decision avoids, for now, a sweeping conclusion on whether same-sex marriage is a constitutional "equal protection" right that would apply to all states."\
----------------------
the 104th Congress 1996, was controlled by Republicans ... both House and Senate
Throughout my life I have strenuously opposed discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans. I am signing into law H.R. 3396, a bill relating to same-gender marriage, but it is important to note what this legislation does and does not do.
I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms "marriage" and "spouse".
This legislation does not reach beyond those two provisions. It has no effect on any current federal, state or local anti-discrimination law and does not constrain the right of Congress or any state or locality to enact anti-discrimination laws. I therefore would take this opportunity to urge Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, an act which would extend employment discrimination protections to gays and lesbians in the workplace. This year the Senate considered this legislation contemporaneously with the Act I sign today and failed to pass it by a single vote. I hope that in its next Session Congress will pass it expeditiously. I also want to make clear to all that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation. Discrimination, violence and intimidation for that reason, as well as others, violate the principle of equal protection under the law and have no place in American society.
-----------------------------
12 U.S. states have adopted same-sex marriage over the past decade, and many other states have adopted legislation specifically intended to prevent same-sex marriages from being performed or recognized within their borders. The landscape has just changed on that front, though: the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which barred federal recognition of same-sex marriages, has been ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court; here's the ruling itself. From the NBC News version of the story: "The decision was 5-4, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy. “'DOMA instructs all federal officials, and indeed all persons with whom same-sex couples interact, including their own children, that their marriage is less worthy than the marriages of others,' the ruling said. 'The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.'"One major area this affects is tax law; that's one of the salient points in U.S. v. Windsor, the case that drove the court's conclusion. There's more on the story at many major news outlets, and at law-centric sources like SCOTUSblog. The Boston Globe is also live blogging various reactions.
Update: 06/26 16:58 GMT by T : In a separate decision, the court disappointed supporters of California's Proposition 8, a law passed by voter initiative, under which "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." The court ruled that the private parties which had taken up the Prop 8 banner did not have standing to do so; as the story says, "The 5-4 decision avoids, for now, a sweeping conclusion on whether same-sex marriage is a constitutional "equal protection" right that would apply to all states."\
----------------------
the 104th Congress 1996, was controlled by Republicans ... both House and Senate
- JD Barleycorn
- 06-26-2013, 01:28 PM
Why do you think Obama "evolved" on gay marriage which he was absolutely against before 2012? Money, gay money for politics and his reelection campaign. I would hate to be so stupid and guillible as the liberal gays (and FuckZup).
- jbravo_123
- 06-26-2013, 01:30 PM
While the SC struck down DOMA, they sidestepped Prop 8 as well, heh.
I'm curious how conservatives can justify supporting DOMA when one of the pillars of their beliefs is also that of individual states' rights.
Yeah every politician who wants to stay in office has to cater to some crowd (and in the future, pretty much cater to whomever will keep them in office). It's nothing new nor surprising.
I'm curious how conservatives can justify supporting DOMA when one of the pillars of their beliefs is also that of individual states' rights.
Yeah every politician who wants to stay in office has to cater to some crowd (and in the future, pretty much cater to whomever will keep them in office). It's nothing new nor surprising.
- CJ7
- 06-26-2013, 02:08 PM
- i'va biggen
- 06-26-2013, 02:11 PM
I think the title says it all:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ed_737939.html
First he signed DOMA. Now he praises its overturn. Originally Posted by ExNYer
Times change people change nothing new here. At that time it was the will of the people's elected officials.
- Jackie S
- 06-26-2013, 03:41 PM
What The SCOTUS actually just said to the Gay community is, "welcome to the world of alimony, community property, child support, and all of the other responsibilities that marriage entails".
You get married, it ain't like shacking up. You just can't walk away.
This will open up an entire new legal industry. Lawyers specializing in gay marriage and gay divorce. Things like who is the primary bread winner, who gets custody of any kids, who pays child support, who will be awarded any alimony if things go bad. Will the gold digger lesbo fem get half of all of the rich bull dyke's estate?
Even gays who choose not to marry run the danger of one filing "common law" if they have lived as a married couple.
It's all legal now.
Yeh, you got the sugar and molasses, now you get the sulphur.
You get married, it ain't like shacking up. You just can't walk away.
This will open up an entire new legal industry. Lawyers specializing in gay marriage and gay divorce. Things like who is the primary bread winner, who gets custody of any kids, who pays child support, who will be awarded any alimony if things go bad. Will the gold digger lesbo fem get half of all of the rich bull dyke's estate?
Even gays who choose not to marry run the danger of one filing "common law" if they have lived as a married couple.
It's all legal now.
Yeh, you got the sugar and molasses, now you get the sulphur.
- jbravo_123
- 06-26-2013, 04:52 PM
What The SCOTUS actually just said to the Gay community is, "welcome to the world of alimony, community property, child support, and all of the other responsibilities that marriage entails".Why would it require special divorce lawyers to litigate gay divorce cases? Most of the issues would be pretty much the same as in heterosexual couples...
You get married, it ain't like shacking up. You just can't walk away.
This will open up an entire new legal industry. Lawyers specializing in gay marriage and gay divorce. Things like who is the primary bread winner, who gets custody of any kids, who pays child support, who will be awarded any alimony if things go bad. Will the gold digger lesbo fem get half of all of the rich bull dyke's estate?
Even gays who choose not to marry run the danger of one filing "common law" if they have lived as a married couple.
It's all legal now.
Yeh, you got the sugar and molasses, now you get the sulphur. Originally Posted by Jackie S
- nwarounder
- 06-26-2013, 05:24 PM
I still can't even figure out who was even for DOMA in the first place? Except for the bible thumpers I can't think of a single group, amazing how much power they (used) to have. Hopefully this is just the beginning of their downfall in government, and legalizing prostitution is next.
- LexusLover
- 06-26-2013, 05:50 PM
Why would it require special divorce lawyers to litigate gay divorce cases? Most of the issues would be pretty much the same as in heterosexual couples... Originally Posted by jbravo_123If children are involved there may be challenges to the legality of adoptions, etc.,
... but I think the greater issue is going to be (and I think that is part of the agenda of the push) the enforcement of typically marital benefits e.g. social security and retirement litigation under ERISA plans .... that were not previously available to many .... the issue and challenge will be to determine if the relationship was one a true "marriage" in all of the sense of the word and meaning or just a bond of convenience so one would qualify for those benefits not previously available .... COBRA coverage for spouses, social security benefits, and retirement benefits, which often include spouses after the death of the other. And then there is the issue of immigration ... right to citizenship and residency from a spouse.
This is not just about the equal right to be bonded in an emotional relationship.
- Old Dingus
- 06-26-2013, 05:58 PM
Beyond the "Bible Thumpers" views that marriage was sacred between a man and a woman, there were a number of "business" and "economic" considerations which clearly underlaid the official positions many took.
Expanding marriage means expanding benefits for married employees. This immediately transfers to a whole universe of people suddenly eligible for insurance as a spouse. From the Insurance company viewpoint (and I admit this argument is stereotyping) it opens up the possibilities of covering twice as many HIV cases and AIDS cases. Not good for business and profits.
Expanding marriage means affecting the laws of inheiritance. It maybe fair and appropriate to us, but it cuts income off from the states.
Expanding benefits means there will be surviving spouses to claim survivorship benefits from the deceased spouse's Social Security benefits. When we consider hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries living another 25 to 30 years or more, that is a sizable number.
Please note these are not my personal opinions, they are facts. It does help explain why the politics were in favor of the DOMA before they turned against it.
Old Dingus
Expanding marriage means expanding benefits for married employees. This immediately transfers to a whole universe of people suddenly eligible for insurance as a spouse. From the Insurance company viewpoint (and I admit this argument is stereotyping) it opens up the possibilities of covering twice as many HIV cases and AIDS cases. Not good for business and profits.
Expanding marriage means affecting the laws of inheiritance. It maybe fair and appropriate to us, but it cuts income off from the states.
Expanding benefits means there will be surviving spouses to claim survivorship benefits from the deceased spouse's Social Security benefits. When we consider hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries living another 25 to 30 years or more, that is a sizable number.
Please note these are not my personal opinions, they are facts. It does help explain why the politics were in favor of the DOMA before they turned against it.
Old Dingus