Skip to main content

View Diary: Bill Clinton, signer of DOMA, says it's 'incompatible with our Constitution' (127 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't get the argument (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Jay C

    What, then, changed in 2002-03 such that constitutional amendments (federal and state) were suddenly seen as needed?

    •  My guess is that it was the prospect of states (0+ / 0-)

      adopting and extending the "civil union" law that had been adopted by Vermont in July 2000, perhaps coupled with the republican recapture of the Senate.

      Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

      "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
      -- Saul Alinsky

      by Seneca Doane on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 11:52:58 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  But even on the state level ... (0+ / 0-)

        .... you didn't have states copying Hawaii and amending their constitutions to forbid judicial recognition of marriage equality. Even in the nuttiest of states, that came later.  

        I just don't think you're right. Occam's Razor: they voted for it because they supported it (or were afraid not to) on policy grounds, not because of a down-the-road threat of federal constitutional amendment.

        •  Down the road? (0+ / 0-)

          It was the NEXT EXIT!

          Anyway, political grounds ("we'll get hammered in November and my God this might breathe life into Bob Dole" are different from policy grounds.

          Plaintiffs' Employment Law Attorney (harassment, discrimination, retaliation, whistleblowing, wage & hour, &c.) in North Orange County, CA.

          "I love this goddamn country, and we're going to take it back."
          -- Saul Alinsky

          by Seneca Doane on Fri Mar 08, 2013 at 12:33:54 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site