Obama v. Clinton on Gays II

Posted on by

I’m actually getting tired of the “who’s better for the gays” debate on Obama and Clinton. I think they’re actually pretty similar when it comes to gay rights.

There’s an interview in the Blade today with Hillary about gay rights. While Obama thinks DOMA should be completely repealed, Hillary isn’t ready to repeal the section that allows states to ignore what other states say about gay marriage.

Ideally, DOMA should be completely repealed. But I do understand Hillary’s support for keeping the part about state recognition, for now. That section of the law does keep some people from supporting the FMA, because they say that as long as states can do what they want, there’s no need for an amendment banning same-sex marriage nationwide. (Same-sex-marriage states can’t “infect” other states, if one were to put it in so unfortunate a manner.) We don’t live in an ideal world.

Also, as I’ve pointed out before, even though same-sex marriage is an issue that’s very important to me personally, there are so many issues that are more important and will affect many more people, such as health care, foreign policy, and a president’s general ability to lead and/or get things done. Same-sex marriage seems fated to remain a state-by-state issue for the foreseeable future.

Some people talk about Bill Clinton’s signing of DOMA in 1996 and say that it wasn’t his idea, that it was forced on him by the Republicans. It’s true that it wasn’t his idea; but he was safely ahead in the 1996 election (which he wound up winning by 9 points) and he didn’t have to sign it. Unfortunately, this was at the beginning of his triangulation-and-Dick-Morris era. He spent no political capital protecting us.

DOMA might very well be the only thing preventing a constitutional amendment against same-sex marriage right now, but I’ll always be peeved at Bill for signing it.

9 thoughts on “Obama v. Clinton on Gays II”

  1. I’m less scared about the FMA and more about the inevitable Supreme Court ruling regarding state’s being able to ignore the legal status of citizens of other states. What is that, the Equal Protection clause? So, yeah, THAT’S what I worry about more and why we need the Democrats to have the next 8 years to overcome Alito and Roberts.

  2. You probably mean the Full Faith and Credit Clause. It either makes DOMA superfluous or forbids DOMA, depending on your view.

    I worry about the Supreme Court as well. Given the demographics, we probably can’t pick up any liberal votes unless Kennedy retires (unlikely). Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia aren’t going anywhere for a long time. The best we can do is hold the line.

  3. That’s just a horrible thought to contemplate, too. Then agan, Roberts occasionally surprises and seems much less hard line Thomas Scalito, so a really progressive administration could flitter around them.
    And, really, it’s a shame our legislature has been too afraid to address choice rights and further civil rights action, leaving it to courts to set precedent and law.

  4. What is the argument that DOMA is superfluous? I’m unfamiliar with that.

    However, DOMA is unconstitutional on its face – it SAYS that same-sex marriage is an exception to Full Faith and Credit. If Congress can choose to exclude certain statutes from Constitutional provisions, why not house soldiers in private homes, and just say in the enacting statute that it is an exception to the Third Amendment?

    I’d very much like to know how DOMA can be effective without the FFC exception, and how it can be constitutional with it in there.

    Granted, nobody’s going to challenge the FFC exception, because then pressure for the FMA begins again.

  5. Cr0mulence, the argument is that the FFC clause has a public policy exception. The Supreme Court has said that in some instances states don’t have to honor the laws of other states if it violates an important public policy of that state. Some info is here.

  6. I thought the public policy exception was available, on a case by case basis, to the states. It’s a conflict of laws issue, which like all other conflict of laws issues should be weighed by a state court and should consider whether the policy of the forum state is truly in conflict with the policy of the other interested states, and resolve it based on the interests of the states and the interests of the parties involved in the matter.

    To the best of my knowledge, Congress has no constitutional authority to say what state laws do or do not fall under the FFC public policy exception, these issues would be decided by state courts on a case by case basis. This is why I think the FFC exception in DOMA is totally unconstitutional.

  8. does anyone know what Obama or Clinton’s proposals on DOMA/Civil unions will mean for immigration for gays? For example,will it mean a green card holder can sponsor a same sex partner to live and work in the US in the same way as hetero couples?

Comments are closed.