Dems who backed DOMA laud its end

[American]

Dems who backed DOMA laud its end - David Nather - POLITICO.com

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act “a great, historic day for equality in America.”

He went on: “The idea that allowing two loving, committed people to marry would have a negative impact on anyone else, or on our nation as a whole, has always struck me as absurd.”

Pretty strong words from a guy who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act.

But Reid isn’t the only one. There was a long line of prominent Democrats Wednesday who all queued up to applaud the Supreme Court for striking down DOMA — even though they voted for it when it passed in 1996.

Even Bill Clinton — who signed the bill into law — heralded the court’s decision.

“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,” Clinton said in a statement also signed by Hillary Clinton.

Virtually all of the Democrats say, “move on, nothing to see here” — they dropped their support for DOMA years ago. But the Supreme Court ruling allowed them to blast their words of praise to the world without a hint of regret over DOMA — or even an acknowledgment that they had any role in making it the law of the land.

Like Sen. Chuck Schumer, who declared that “the Supreme Court did the right thing here and helps us understand that the march to equality in America is unstoppable.” He voted for DOMA as a House member in 1996.

The purpose of this thread is to point out the hypocrisy of those who are hailing it but voted for it in 1996.

Defense of Marriage Act (1996; 104th Congress H.R. 3396) - GovTrack.us

See who voted for or against it in 1996. Only 14 senators voted against it, and only 67 representatives (24 others didn't vote or voted 'present') voted against it.

 

[justabubba]

same thing with don't ask don't tell
sometimes the law is changed incrementally, as society's views change incrementally

 

[American]

same thing with don't ask don't tell
sometimes the law is changed incrementally, as society's views change incrementally

Maybe, but own up to it.

 

[Sarcogito]

Maybe, but own up to it.

I agree with that. People's views change over the course of decades. But if you played a part in passing law you feel is unjust, as you said, own up to it. I actually find it refreshing when a politician says the words "I was wrong".

 

[ttwtt78640]

Their positions seem to have simply "evolved".

What is being omitted from the discussion is how the federal gov't attained a power (defining marriage) not granted to it by the constitution by simply asserting that it had now had such a power. This was done when establishing a national speed limit, and demanding that states expand Medicaid eligibility and for many other "unfunded mandates". The sad part is that many such laws are allowed to stand until someone is willing to spend enough time and money to get the SCOTUS to demand showing just what constitutional basis allowed for the new federal power.

 

[American]

Their positions seem to have simply "evolved".

What is being omitted from the discussion is how the federal gov't attained a power (defining marriage) not granted to it by the constitution by simply asserting that it had now had such a power. This was done when establishing a national speed limit, and demanding that states expand Medicaid eligibility and for many other "unfunded mandates". The sad part is that many such laws are allowed to stand until someone is willing to spend enough time and money to get the SCOTUS to demand showing just what constitutional basis allowed for the new federal power.

Yeah well there's that, but frankly I don't mind that as long as it's sincere; and not for political expediency.

 

[hfd]

Yeah well there's that, but frankly I don't mind that as long as it's sincere; and not for political expediency.

Every thing done in DC is for political expediency. Welcome to the 21st century. We no longer need Presidents, representatives or state legislatures. We are ruled by an Oligarchy. The one in DC clothed in black robes. The Constitution, and all other facets of our life, are determined correct on not by that Oligarchy. Franklin was farsighted.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yeah well there's that, but frankly I don't mind that as long as it's sincere; and not for political expediency.

The actions of any elected representative are later subject to the approval of those represented unless there are term limits involved - Obama thus has no such limits. That is the only recourse that the public has, short of the SCOTUS keeping them within the, ever widening, constitutional boundaries.

 

[WCH]

same thing with don't ask don't tell
sometimes the law is changed incrementally, as society's views change incrementally

Especially when you're made to feel guilty by the constant bombardment from activist groups.

 

[Carleen]

Dems who backed DOMA laud its end - David Nather - POLITICO.com



The purpose of this thread is to point out the hypocrisy of those who are hailing it but voted for it in 1996.

Defense of Marriage Act (1996; 104th Congress H.R. 3396) - GovTrack.us

See who voted for or against it in 1996. Only 14 senators voted against it, and only 67 representatives (24 others didn't vote or voted 'present') voted against it.

It is not hypocrisy . People are evolving and understanding that homosexuality is real. And as more and more people accept the inevitable you will see more and more states change their views on same sex marriage. I am sure that in every ethnic group and every political group there are LGBT people and they deserve the same rights as anyone else. We are all one people. And it is great that my cousin and his partner now have the same rights.

 

[hfd]

Especially when you're made to feel guilty by the constant bombardment from activist groups.

That is the staple of the left. Nikita was correct.

 

[justabubba]

That is the staple of the left. Nikita was correct.

don't think so
unless by buried you mean buried by the bull**** of the reich wing

 

[WCH]

don't think so
unless by buried you mean buried by the bull**** of the reich wing

Seriously, with all that's come forth lately?

Which party would that be again?

 

[hfd]

don't think so
unless by buried you mean buried by the bull**** of the reich wing

A typical example.

 

[Middleground]

Maybe, but own up to it.

Jeepers, American... that was 17 years ago, LOL. Views change!!!

 

[tererun]

Especially when you're made to feel guilty by the constant bombardment from activist groups.

First, it was prevented by activist groups, so you would be a hypocrite for whining about that. Second, it is supposed to be the representatives who go to congress to represent their people. If the people change their mind then the reps should also change their mind. however, that one is a little irrelevant as the courts should not represent just the majority opinion but also the protection of the minority.

But keep up the complaining, because hypocrisy has never gotten in the way of a good WAHHHHH fest.

 

[tererun]

That is the staple of the left. Nikita was correct.

Yeah, because there are no right wing activist groups as the IRS found out when absolutely no right wing propaganda activist groups applied for tax free status because they simply do not exist, ever. If you want one side to have the courage to admit it's actions you might want to actually admit you have the activist groups you bitch about. Now please go take this insanity back to your NRA and family activist group meetings.

 

[americanwoman]

It is not hypocrisy . People are evolving and understanding that homosexuality is real. And as more and more people accept the inevitable you will see more and more states change their views on same sex marriage. I am sure that in every ethnic group and every political group there are LGBT people and they deserve the same rights as anyone else. We are all one people. And it is great that my cousin and his partner now have the same rights.

It's hard to say though with these politicians. Are they really evolving and will they admit they were wrong or is it just being on the right side of what they think their voters want from them?

And I'm happy for your cousin, as you said we are all one.

 

[Deuce]

Especially when you're made to feel guilty by the constant bombardment from activist groups.

If your beliefs are so absolute, you wont feel guilty at all.

But you should feel guilt for opposing some else's right to do something that doesn't affect you or anyone else in any way.

 

[humbolt]

Jeepers, American... that was 17 years ago, LOL. Views change!!!

Views do change, but the territory remains the same.

 

[Blue_State]

Just another maneuver to win a vote.

 

[Deuce]

Just another maneuver to win a vote.

The easiest thing to do is ascribe negative motivations to other people.

 

[Blue_State]

The easiest thing to do is ascribe negative motivations to other people.

I am for the SC ruling and wish it went further.

With that said, I truly do not believe our politicians. I don't believe they have any other motivation than status quo. I also believe they vote whatever way the wind is blowing that day.

 

[roguenuke]

I personally feel that some very prominent Democrats that actually supported same sex marriage or at least did not feel that DOMA was right or even constitutional at the time felt that DOMA was the best option for the mindset in the 90s. There was just too much opposition to same sex marriage. It was the right thing to do to prevent a Constitutional Amendment from being shoved through on the feelings of the time that would have been little different than Prohibition. It would have been repealed within 30 or 40 years after being enacted when public opinion swung to the other side. But this also gave the option of allowing the Court a chance to strike this down or for it to simply be repealed (which was at least attempted a couple of times before) without requiring a Constitutional Amendment to change. It actually worked well for states' rights and individual rights, no matter how many feel how wrong it was or how hypocritical it is/was for those who signed/supported it in the past to oppose it now.

DOMA was wrong, but for the time, it was the lesser of two evils. Now that there is no significant support for a Constitutional Amendment (which is the proof that such an Amendment would have been foolish back then), it is no longer needed and needed to go away.

 

[Carleen]

It's hard to say though with these politicians. Are they really evolving and will they admit they were wrong or is it just being on the right side of what they think their voters want from them?

And I'm happy for your cousin, as you said we are all one.

You bring up a good point, but I remain optimistic and give them the benefit of the doubt on this issue.