They are just seven little words that when it comes to LGBT rights two Democratic Presidents and a future Democratic President seem are incapable of saying or expressing. President and Secretary Clinton, and President Obama for that matter, need to drop the quasi-papal infallibility notion when it comes to LGBT rights. They need to learn to admit it: THEY WERE WRONG AND SHOULD BE SORRY AND WILLING TO SAY SO.
I'm kind of glad this discussion is being done now rather than next year in hopes that maybe Secretary Clinton will stop with her bullshit excuse on behalf of Bill and herself and admit they made mistakes on LGBT rights and they are sorry. It is really patronizing to many of us who are gay and lived the bigotry they so casually dismiss.
On paper, Don't Ask, Don't Tell was supposed to be an improvement. Things didn't work out that way. The original idea of the policy was sold to the public as Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Pursue. The "Don't Pursue" part got dropped completely. The "Don't Ask" part was routinely ignored and the people doing the asking, often times officers, were never disciplined or similarly kicked out like the gay servicemembers they pressured into telling. On top of that, there are tons of gay servicemembers who were never asked and never told, but were nonetheless kicked out when third parties ratted on them or when often illegal investigations uncovered a servicemember's sexual orientation. In other words, DADT was very much a misnomer. More realistically it was a policy of "Don't Tell, Don't Get Ratted Out, Don't Get Investigated, Don't Write It Down, Don't Act Gay, Don't Give Off a Hint of Being Gay, If We Do Ask if You are Gay, Don't Tell, but if You Don't Tell, We'll Investigate You Anyway and Kick You Out After Disciplining You for Disobeying a Direct Question."
Now you can claim that President Clinton had good intentions and that he was torpedoed by homobigot Democrat Georgia Sen. Sam Nunn and the dishonorable clansman from West Virginia, Sen. Robert Bryd. I can accept, to a limited degree, that as a plausible reason, but the fact is the nation was very evenly divided on the idea in 1992 when Clinton first started running on it and early into his Presidency in 1993. Some polls showed the public favored allowing gays to serve openly, but most, by a relatively small margin, showed a plurality or small majority favored keeping the regulations in place. But this is also an issue where public opinion should matter very little. It was a matter of honesty. This was a campaign promise made to the LGBT community over and over again and at the first sign of trouble, Clinton tucked tail and ran from his promise. They didn't make a stand for their promise. it immediately became about making a compromise that would necessarily be Clinton meeting the bigots more than half way. It was also an issue of morals where one path paints the LGBT community as citizens, family, friends and neighbors while the other sought to make gays out to be sex-crazed nymphomaniacs that would rape every person of the same sex they saw. Trying to split the difference between those two polar opposites with the DADT policy in itself was a moral failing on Clinton's part, it necessarily meant accepting at least in part the vile things being proffered by Nunn, by Colin Powell (who violated DOD policy in wading into the politics of the issue rather than merely giving his objective military recommendation), by Byrd, by Jesse Helms and a host of others.
So, if we accept that President Clinton (and now Secretary Clinton in her defense of her husband) had a plausible reason to go down the path of the DADT policy, does that mean that policy was the right one? You can claim all you want that they believed that in 1993 and 1994, but that's not the question being asked today and the answer that we are being given by the former President and the future president are not honest. The Clintons are saying they were right in 1993 and 2015 and that the change in attitude over the last 20 years is what allows them to be right about both and hence there was no mistake, there was no wrong and no need to apologize. His (and Her) Holiness have spoken ex cathedra. If we accept that stretching of reality, that they were right, doesn't the LGBT community at least deserve a "I'm sorry" for the broken promise and 18 years of continued witchhunts that ended the careers of 13,600+ LGBT servicemembers, often times when the servicemembers had not violated the policy at all? Don't we deserve an "I'm sorry" for not standing their ground and at least putting up some semblance of a fight for the policy change they had promised?
As if DADT wasn't bad enough, President Clinton also gave us DOMA, the D[enial] of Marriage Act (I refused to call it by its misnomer of a name). We're told today that signing DOMA was "a defensive action" meant to prevent a Constitutional Amendment banning marriage equality. The only problem is that there was never that discussion in 1993-96. That wasn't at all how the issue was being framed. The pursuit of marriage equality had already started more than 2 decades before. In the 1970's there were several cases of same sex couple pursuing marriage. There were numerous instances and cases from New York, California, Minnesota, Washington, Kentucky, Colorado and Texas just to name a few. In several cases the couples were at least initially successful in obtaining marriage licenses, though in all cases except one, the licenses were later voided. Those initial, but short lived, victories in the 70's didn't initiate a marriage amendment furor and neither did the Hawai'i Supreme Court's decision in Baehr vs Lewin. The concern wasn't about states being forced to overturn their marriage laws. No, the concern was that Hawai'i overturning its state law would mean other states and the Federal Government would have to recognize those marriages. There was a smug confidence during the period that state laws against same sex marriage were secure and that the Baehr ruling was an aberration whose only threat to other states was the Full Faith and Credit Clause's command that states must accept the public records and judgments of other states. Even Vermont's ruling in Baker v State in 1999 didn't really set the ball in motion on a constitutional amendment because the Vermont Supreme Court relied solely upon state law, a rather unique clause of the Vermont Constitution, as the basis for its ruling. In the eyes of many, there was still a firewall to prevent nationwide marriage equality. It wasn't until the 2003 Goodridge decision by Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court and the subsequent failure in the legislature to submit an anti-equality amendment to the Massachusetts Constitution that the idea of a national "Federal Marriage Amendment" sprang to life.
The notion that the Clinton were trying to preempt action that wouldn't even being contemplated until 7 years after DOMA and 3 years after he left office is beyond extremely dishonest. It is an outright lie, for which they now owe the LGBT community an admission of quilt and an apology. Saying "it was a defensive action" just doesn't hold water as a political excuse for signing DOMA. This political excuse is further compounded by the fact President Clinton now claims he knew DOMA would be declared unconstitutional and that it isn't something he is proud of, which is odd given the existence of a campaign ad the Clinton '96 campaign ran on Christian radio stations in the South touting his signing of DOMA.
Like DADT though, DOMA was a moral test, one that many politicians, Paul Wellstone included, failed miserably. The fact that the climate was different then is hardly an excuse. And aside from marriage, the climate in reality isn't that much different than it is today. When Bill Clinton took office, a supermajority of Americans, 80%, favored employment protections on the basis of sexual orientation. That number reached as high as 89% in polls shortly after Obama took office, but is now actually receding, because you know, God doesn't want gays to have cakes and if True Christians™ have to work with gays, they might get gay cooties or Dog, I mean God, might despite being all knowing, mistakingly believe they approve of gay sex. And from the left side of the equation, you also are surprisingly losing support because there are a growing number of people who cannot conceive that it isn't illegal to discriminated against gays in employment already. The climate in 1993 was supportive of LGBT rights, only more cautious because it was still unusual for people to actually know that someone is gay. People were already accepting the fact they in fact knew gay people, but just didn't know that they were gay because most gays were still closeted. Now that the closet doors of America are systemically being destroyed, people not just know gay people, but they know openly gay people. They are no longer cautious like they were in the 90's. The gay people they knew all along turned out to be their family, friends and neighbors.
What the Clinton fail to comprehend is that if we accept their political excuse as indeed fact, DOMA was an ultimate moral betrayal on par with Scalia's SCOTUS opinion not long ago in a capital case saying basically, "Yeah, we may know you are innocent and didn't kill anyone, but we have to execute you anyway." But that makes no sense given their position on marriage equality until recently was opposition. Remember the uncomfortable Hillary Clinton interview with Terry Gross? So, the Clintons opposed marriage equality, but they signed DOMA as a means of stopping a marriage amendment that opposed marriage equality? And that doesn't need an explanation? Oh, could it be that they secretly supported marriage equality, but politically had to oppose it, but signed DOMA to protect the future possibility of it knowing that DOMA was unconstitutional, but continued to publicly oppose marriage equality after DOMA was finally struck down? Can anyone explain how this isn't umpteenth dimensional Twister? And throughout all that, they were perfect, they were correct, they did nothing wrong, they have no reason to be ashamed, there is nothing for which they should have to apologize.
But this level of triangulation isn't the exclusive province of the Clintons. In June of 2009 when the Obama DOJ filed the now infamous brief in the Smelt case and launched a firestorm for its comparison of marriage equality to ephebophilia and incest, the Obama administration never said "we were wrong" and they never apologized. The closest they came was to say the brief did not meet their standards. Again, the administration acted as though they did nothing wrong, there was no need to apologize and its all the fault of a bunch of oversensitive gay rights activists that you should ignore.
In 2010 when Judge Virginia Phillips issued her ruling in the long delayed Log Cabin Republicans (LCR) vs United States case, she issued a worldwide permanent injunction against 10 U.S.C. § 654, the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law. Not only was DADT officially dead permanently, the case had prove discrimination against gays and lesbians by the Federal government was not just unconstitutional as applied in that particular case, but was unconstitutional on its face. That was a huge deal as it potentially meant that any discrimination by the Federal government on the basis of sexual orientation, not just the discrimination against gays and lesbians in the military, was potentially unconstitutional essentially adding sexual orientation into a protected class under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment's equal protection component on par with at the very least sex if not race, ethnicity and national origin. This was before the election and before any DADT repeal had been passed. At the time, the passage of a DADT repeal looked unlikely. But if the Obama Administration declined to appeal the ruling of the District Court for the Central District of California, DADT would stay dead and there was nothing those opposed to a DADT repeal could do about it. It was the fourth quarter, time winding down and a call by the refs gave the Obama Administration the ball with a lead. Rather than going into victory formation and taking a knee, they decided to call a time out and give the other team a touchdown just so they could try to play hero rather than having the refs' call decide the game. Despite calls from the left to DNR DADT, they brought it back from the dead so their crappy compromise that was no where near a good as the court ruling could be passed and Obama could take the credit for killing DADT. It took another year for them to finally issue the certification that actually repealed the law, which prompted the 9th Circuit to vacate Judge Phillips ruling, erasing perhaps the most important court ruling for LGBT rights since Romer v Evans. Thanks to Obama, the holding of LCR v U.S. does not exist. Because of that and the weak repeal that was passed by Congress, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was still allowed in the armed forces (and in the government in general) even if they could no longer kick you out for being gay. It wasn't until June of this year, 4 years after DADT was repealed and 5 years after the DADT repeal authorization became law that the DOD issued a directive that upgraded the military's non-discrimination regulations to include sexual orientation. And the attitude of the Obama administration is they did everything right. Nothing was done wrong. They have nothing to be ashamed of or to apologize for regarding how the DADT repeal went down. Please ignore the 4 years during which the brass could deny someone a promotion on the basis of someone being gay. Please ignore that discrimination in the federal government on the basis of sexual orientation could have been ensconced by constitutional fiat rather than a merely policy depending on the temperature of the Oval Office.
And finally we come to Obama's correct position against marriage equality, because you know, "God is in the mix." But he totally supports real Civil Unions, not those namby-pamby Civil Unions that treat gays and lesbians like second class citizens, which is why Obama fully supported real Civil Unions for interracial couples. I mean we can't destroy marriage by letting people who've been banned from marrying since before the united States even existed get married. We have to create a new concept that is like totally equal and equally prestigious to marriage but is totally and completely NOT marriage in any way, because you know that's what "equal" is all about. And in 2008 that was the correct position to have. Senator and then President Obama could do no wrong by TEH GAY with his separate, but "equal" civil unions position. Then for four years, the difference between right and wrong became this enormous amorphous cloud of gray, enveloping Obama in a shroud of protection from the rainbow rays fired his direction until Joe Biden used a hammer personally given to him by Charles Darwin to break open the cloud and out emerged Obama. What would he say, had he finally evolved?
Robin Roberts: So Mr. President, are you still opposed to same-sex marriage?
President Obama:
Well-- you know, I have to tell you, as I've said, I've-- I've been going through an evolution on this issue. I've always been adamant that-- gay and lesbian-- Americans should be treated fairly and equally. And that's why in addition to everything we've done in this administration, rolling back Don't Ask, Don't Tell-- so that-- you know, outstanding Americans can serve our country. Whether it's no longer defending the Defense Against Marriage Act, which-- tried to federalize-- what is historically been state law.
I've stood on the side of broader equality for-- the L.G.B.T. community. And I had hesitated on gay marriage-- in part, because I thought civil unions would be sufficient. That that was something that would give people hospital visitation rights and-- other-- elements that we take for granted. And-- I was sensitive to the fact that-- for a lot of people, you know, the-- the word marriage was something that evokes very powerful traditions, religious beliefs, and so forth.
But I have to tell you that over the course of-- several years, as I talk to friends and family and neighbors. When I think about-- members of my own staff who are incredibly committed, in monogamous relationships, same-sex relationships, who are raising kids together. When I think about-- those soldiers or airmen or marines or-- sailors who are out there fighting on my behalf-- and yet, feel constrained, even now that Don't Ask, Don't Tell is gone, because-- they're not able to-- commit themselves in a marriage.
At a certain point, I've just concluded that-- for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that-- I think same-sex couples should be able to get married. Now-- I have to tell you that part of my hesitation on this has also been I didn't want to nationalize the issue. There's a tendency when I weigh in to think suddenly it becomes political and it becomes polarized.
And what you're seeing is, I think, states working through this issue-- in fits and starts, all across the country. Different communities are arriving at different conclusions, at different times. And I think that's a healthy process and a healthy debate. And I continue to believe that this is an issue that is gonna be worked out at the local level, because historically, this has not been a federal issue, what's recognized as a marriage.
So even in 2012, while President Obama personally favored marriage equality, he was opposed to the cases designed to bring marriage equality nationwide, believing individual states should be able to "arriv[e] at different conclusions" without the issue becoming federal. So he switched from one discredited theory of "equality," segregation, to a different discredited theory of "equality," states' rights. Given that marriage is considered a fundamental human right, please Mr. President, tell me how this would be any different than Strom Thrumond announcing he personally thinks that whites and blacks should be able to have sex with each other, co-habitate with each other or even marry each other, but states should be able to decide for themselves the extent to which race-mixers are allowed to exercise their fundamental rights?
When Obama made his pronouncement, the left in this country went into an utter state of orgasmic excitement without fully taking the President's words to their logical conclusion. It was only later, after the election, that the Obama administration made the now subtle-to-their-partisans turn away from states' rights to actually embracing real, full marriage equality. And have we ever heard Obama admit he was wrong or apologize for his prior discriminatory positions on marriage equality? Nope. Like the Clintons, he has had the correct position on marriage all along and has no need to ask for forgiveness.
Seriously, what is so hard about admitting they were wrong? Why isn't it acceptable for them to say "I am sorry?" This dance they are dancing, the Clintons especially now that Secretary Clinton is running for President, is only sowing more seeds of discontent here and likely in the activist community approaching the Sux vs Rox Wars of 2010. Clinton is only reminding people like me of one of the big reasons I didn't like her in 2008. And this is a big deal to me. I didn't vote for Obama either time because of the sheer fecklessness he's shown on LGBT rights. Clinton is pushing me that way again for 2016. Part of being a good leader is being able to look honestly and critically at your own past, admit when you were wrong and demonstrate that you are a better person now, having learned from those mistakes. The fact they can't see or perhaps just admit to themselves, and the country, that they made a mistake in judgment but have now corrected it tells me they have learned nothing and are not the kind of leaders we need or deserve. It is like we have the two rules of sovereign immunity on steroids: Rule #1, the king can commit no wrong; Rule #2, if the king commits a wrong, see Rule #1.
So again, Secretary Clinton, please, Please, PLEASE, drop this bullshit excuse making on LGBT rights and own up to the mistakes you and your husband made. Apologized and then we can all move forward. Until you do, this is going to continue to fester and be a problem every time the subject of LGBT rights is raised. And given the amount of work still remaining on LGBT equality at the Federal level, the subject is either 1) going to come up on its own frequently or 2) LGBT activists are going to hammer your knees on LGBT issues like we did President Obama until you cry uncle. Its your choice, please choose wisely.