Hillary Clinton tries to rewrite history

Dear Friends,

Hillary Clinton was interviewed on The Rachel Maddow Show last week (here).  During that interview, she said that passing DOMA was a defensive move to stop a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.

I think what my husband believed -- and there was certainly evidence to support it -- is that there was enough political momentum to amend the Constitution of the United States of America and that there had to be some way to stop that.  In a lot of ways, DOMA was a line that was drawn that was to prevent going further.

I think it is great that Bill and Hillary Clinton's views have changed on gay marriage over the years, and that they now recognize that DOMA was a big mistake.  What I do not understand is why Secretary Clinton refuses to simply say it was a mistake, and now I am a huge supporter of gay rights including the right to marry and the right to not be fired for being gay.

The Huffington Post has a great article on the subject (here), entitled, "Sorry, Hillary, Gay Rights Advocates Say Bernie Is Right On DOMA History, Bill Clinton signed the law primarily because of politics, the record shows."  The article includes the following paragraphs:

"It's ridiculous. There was no threat in the immediate vicinity of 1996 of a constitutional amendment. It came four years later," said Elizabeth Birch, who was executive director of the Human Rights Campaign from 1995 to 2004. "It may be that she needs to revisit the facts of what happened."
Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom to Marry, said, "It is not accurate to explain DOMA as motivated by an attempt to forestall a constitutional amendment. There was no such serious effort in 1996." At the time, Wolfson was an attorney with Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund.

I should note that there is a post on the Daily Kos (here), entitled "Sorry Bernie: DOMA Really Was A Defensive Action Against A Possible Constitutional Amendment".  This post uses statements from 2013 to support its contention.  Here is the response to this argument from the Huffington Post article.

The only material testimony HuffPost found that a constitutional amendment was the "greater damage" that some DOMA supporters feared came many years after President Clinton left office. In a March 2013 amicus brief arguing the illegality of DOMA, several senators referenced the vote as something that some lawmakers felt "would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or more."

The Huffington Post article provides this comment from Hillary Clinton's campaign:

"Whatever the context that led to the passage of DOMA nearly two decades ago, Hillary Clinton believes the law was discriminatory and both she and President Clinton urged that it be overturned," said spokesman Brian Fallon. "As President, Hillary Clinton will continue to fight to secure full and equal rights for LGBT Americans who, despite all our progress, can still get married on a Saturday and fired on a Monday just because of who they are and who they love."

You will note that the statement does not actually say that Secretary Clinton was wrong when she said it was to stop a constitutional amendment, it simply says ignore what she said and focus on what she believes now.  It would be great if Secretary Clinton would just come right out and admit when she has made a mistake and when her views have evolved.  Unfortunately, instead of doing that she tries to rewrite history to make herself look good.  She would be much more trustworthy if she would just acknowledge her mistakes, she is, after all human like the rest of us.

At a fundraiser many years ago for Paul Wellstone, a young woman approached him and confronted him on his lack of support for gay marriage.  I remember his perfect response clearly today, "I am just not there.  Help me to understand."  He then listened and talked to her for several minutes with an obviously open and honest mind.  Paul Wellstone voted for DOMA and subsequently agonized about his vote.  By 2002, he had a 100% rating from the Human Rights Campaign.  He did not try to rewrite history, he listened, learned, evolved and acknowledged change.  We need more politicians like Paul Wellstone.

Thanks for reading and please comment,
The Unabashed Liberal