News


Clintons called out for signing the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996

New York Times’ columnist thinks it’s time they apologize


Hillary and Bill Clinton
Hillary and Bill Clinton
Photo by Google Images

Guinness PubFinder Ad

In Sunday’s op-ed for the New York Times, columnist Frank Bruni takes up issue with Bill and Hillary Clinton and their role in passing the Defense of Marriage act in 1996 during Clinton’s presidency.

The Defense of Marriage Act, DOMA, defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman only, and bars same-sex couples from receiving the same benefits that a heterosexual couple can receive through marriage.

Not surprisingly, DOMA has come under legal attack. Several court cases, Bruni points out, have ruled that it contradicts the Constitution’s equal-protection clause. The Supreme Court is in the midst of deciding which plan of action to take, but Bruni hopes that they will end up dismantling it altogether.

DOMA has a renewed sense of controversy with the current debate about same-sex marriage and whether or not it should be legalized in the United States. President Obama made history earlier this year when he was the first president ever to publically step out and say that he supports same-sex marriage. Still, DOMA exists.

Columnist Bruni takes up that issue with the Clintons, who are at the helm of the Democratic Party, saying that they should be taking a more active role regarding the same-sex marriage debate. With Obama’s clear support for it earlier this year, same-sex marriage is no longer an issue that can be skirted around.

Rumors are swirling about Hillary Clinton making a run for the presidential bid in 2016, especially with her stepping down from her role as Secretary of State this year. Bruni writes, “It’s past time, and it’s almost time for Hillary, who is about to step down as secretary of state, to catch up with other cabinet members and President Obama and make her presumed support for same-sex marriage explicit, which she has never done.”

Bruni goes on to say that it is a “shame” that both Hillary and Bill have “been on the sidelines” on this hot topic in recent times. Their influence is undeniable and powerful, says Bruni.

“What a shame, given that no two people have been larger in the Democratic Party over the last quarter-century and given the party’s deserved pride in its embrace of same-sex marriage now. The two of you should be a more integral part of that pride. You should be at the very epicenter of this. It’s strange and it’s sad that you’re not.”

Bruni does, however, point out that in 2009 Bill Clinton “said that DOMA should be wiped off the books and you endorsed same-sex marriage, getting out ahead of many Democrats who still had elections to worry about and weren’t yet seeing, in polls, as much public support for same-sex marriage as they wanted to see.”

However, it’s Clinton’s followup that frustrates Bruni. “But your comments since then have been sparse and succinct: no more than a written statement in favor of the 2011 bill to legalize same-sex marriage in New York, your home since you left the White House, and a recorded phone message urging North Carolinians last spring not to adopt a ban on same-sex marriage in their state Constitution, which they did anyway."


Nster.com


28 Comments

See all comments

Bigots? Clintons vote which ever way the wind is blowng on thier backs! Liar and a Traitoer, good Piair!
eiriamach is on the money about you anglo-norman. bigots don't get to complain they're being called bigots. that's how it works, see?
eiriamach- your getting carried away with yourself son.
The level of discourse on the site is truly abysmal!
anglo-norman thinks he/she has to "call for genocide" before deserving the label "bigot"?? No, just calling for discrimination against gays and lesbians under civil law (concerning marriage) is sufficient. Just like the organized ultra-conservative Catholic Defenders, anglo-norman thinks we are stupid enough to believe that they can lobby against equal rights and still believe in the equal worth of the people they try to deprive of equal rights. Don't be ridiculous: if you really believe gays and lesbians are equal to everyone else in the eyes of God and your eyes, then you'll advocate their equal treatment under the law-- the LAW-- no one is calling for your Church to provide wedding ceremonies for them. You can protest as much as you like that you're not a bigot, but your words say otherwise, and we all have equal freedom of speech to point that out. I'd like to know: where are the Defenders of Catholic "doctrine" (about all of us being equally sons and daughters of God)? Why aren't THEY correcting the heterosexism in norman's, kaydog's, mairint's, and reynelda's words? Isn't it a sin, like all bigotry?
The name of marriage bill that President Clinton signed is somewhat misleading. DOMA should have been DONMA (Defence of Natural Marriage Act) betweeen one man and one woman. The family is the cornerstone of any society, and such family consists of parents and their children, not homosexual couples of any partnerships.
Stop whining kaydog1, no one's buying your nonsense. You can disagree with legal equality for gays but you can be accurately described as an irrational bigot for doing so. If you don't like being named and shamed don't needlessly and pointlessly discriminate.
Norman, don't you know that anyone who doesn't agree with the "Liberals" is automatically a 'bigot' and a 'homophobe'? I'm actually rather surprised that they didn't also paint you as a 'racist', as well. Libs will NOT tolerate anyone who does not agree with them.
I an only expressing my right of specch on these issues. I am not calling for a genocide of Gay people. I was called a bigot for being honest in my opinion which was wrong. I wish Gay people all the best in life but I disagree with Gay marriage & adoption as is my right.
You're free to express irrational animus against gay people (divinely inspired or not) but you can't do it and then complain you're being called a bigot, anglo-norman. Freedom of speech has nothing to do with deciding to hate or disparage other people for no rational reason.
Eschetic- I am not religious as surely my earlier posts would have made that clear to you. I am not a bigot for stating my opinion on Gay marriage & Adoption. It is called freedom of speech.
hollabackgurl may BE "sad," but she speaks simple sensible truth. anglo-norman merely spouts extremely sad, not to mention dated bigoty - even if based in his own sincere religious superstition, it is not supported by ANY reputable studies of the needs of a stable society or child welfare in a diverse society.
hollabackgurl- SAD
I don't believe that bigots should marry or adopt children, since they're going to do more harm than gay or straight couples.
I don't believe people of the same sex should marry or adopt children.




Log into IrishCentral with your Facebook account


or sign-in directly

E-Mail:
Password:
 Remember me Forgot my password
Not a member? Register Now!
print this article Print
email this articleE-mail