Sanders: I was ahead of the curve on gay rights

[kentuck]

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/246370-sanders-i-was-ahead-of-the-curve-on-gay-rights

<snips>
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) said Saturday he has been waiting for the nation to catch up to his support for same-sex marriage.

Sanders’ remarks come a day after Friday’s landmark 5-4 Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide.

He argued he was well ahead of the historic decision, unlike Hillary Clinton, his main rival for the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination.

“Back in 1996, that was a tough vote,” Sanders said of his opposition to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

“Not too many people voted against it, but I did,” he told listeners in Nashua, N.H.

Sanders at the time served in the House of Representatives, which voted 342-67 in favor of DOMA. The Senate voted 85-14 in favor, before former President Bill Clinton signed it into law.

...more at link

[Admiral Loinpresser]

1. Leading from the front! n/t

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. This should definitely be pointed out

Bernie should get the gay vote which is huge.

[Doctor_J]

3. Bernie actually believes in things like equality

Unlike Mrs Clinton, who checks polls before saying anything.

[bigtree]

4. O'Malley one of 15 state and local leaders signing letter to Senate Judiciary Committee

...to repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

Gov. Martin O’Malley, who has pledged to sponsor a same-sex marriage bill in Annapolis next year, is also pushing Congress to repeal a federal law that denies benefits to same-sex partners.

O’Malley, a Democrat, was one of 15 state and local leaders across the nation to sign a letter to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to repeal the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act.

“Tens of thousands of loving and committed gay and lesbian couples have been strengthened because our states recognize their equal right to marry,” the letter read. “These couples work hard, pay taxes and share the same values as other married couples but they are constantly hamstrung in their ability to protect themselves and their families because of the discriminatory” law.

The judiciary committee voted along party lines to approve the repeal, though the legislation faces a difficult path in the Senate where 60 votes are required to overcome filibuster threats. Of the 15 officials who signed the letter, 12 are Democrats, two are independents and one is Republican.


read: http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/2011/11/omalley_signs_letter_on_doma.html

read letter:

Dear Chairman Leahy and Judiciary Committee Members:
As the committee considers the Respect for Marriage Act (S.598), we write as state and local leaders where marriage equality is recognized urging you to end federal discrimination against our citizens. Tens of thousands of loving and committed gay and lesbian couples have been strengthened because our states recognize their equal right to marry.

These couples work hard, pay taxes and share the same values as other married couples but they are constantly hamstrung in their ability to protect themselves and their families because of the discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act. DOMA prevents any of the over 1,100 federal rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage from being afforded to same-sex couples or their families. These include Social Security survivor benefits, federal employee health benefits for spouses, protections against spouses losing their homes in cases of severe medical emergencies, the right to sponsor a foreign born partner for immigration, the guarantee of family and medical leave and the ability to file joint tax returns, among many others.

While we are proud that our states have eased the burdens on families, these provisions of federal law are beyond our purview and Congressional action is required. By denying federal recognition for some of our states’ lawful marriages, DOMA does not just deny married same-sex couples these and other critical rights and benefits. It disrespects our states’ decisions to treat all of our citizens equally, and even requires our states’ governments, when we jointly administer federal programs like Medicaid, to actively discriminate against our own lawfully-married citizens.

We also write because DOMA does more than just hurt gay and lesbian couples – it affects all of our constituents. First and foremost, it hurts the children of same-sex couples, who suffer from the financial instability DOMA creates for their parents. For LGBT youth, DOMA sends a dangerous message that that they cannot be full and equal citizens of their country. DOMA also harms parents and siblings and friends who must step in with financial and emotional support to mitigate these problems.

And perhaps most of all, DOMA is a stain on our common values. The federal government should not be in the business of picking which marriages it likes and which it does not, but that is exactly what DOMA does. We urge you to pass the Respect for Marriage Act and ensure that all families are afforded equal protections and equal dignity.

Sincerely,

Governor Andrew Cuomo
New York

Governor Dannel Malloy
Connecticut

Governor Martin O’Malley
Maryland

Governor Deval Patrick
Massachusetts

Governor Lincoln Chafee
Rhode Island

Governor Peter Shumlin
Vermont

Mayor Thomas Menino
Boston, MA

Mayor Bill Finch
Bridgeport, CT

Mayor Pedro E. Segarra
Hartford, CT

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
Los Angeles, CA

Mayor John DeStefano, Jr.
New Haven, CT

Mayor Michael Bloomberg
New York, NY

Mayor Jerry Sanders
San Diego, CA

Mayor Edwin Lee
San Francisco, CA

Mayor Vincent C. Gray
Washington, DC

[Bluenorthwest]

8. O'Malley is ok, but he's been all over the equality map and pretends otherwise....

"The problem with O’Malley is that he’s had more positions on marriage than all the 2016 hopefuls combined. And after pushing for civil unions right up until 2011, he now wants voters to believe that he’s a pioneer on the issue. What nerve!

Let’s revisit O’Malley’s actual record rather than listen to his calculated amnesia.

In 2004, O’Malley told a Baltimore TV station, “I’m not opposed to civil marriages.” Also that year, he emailed a plaintiff in the state marriage lawsuit that read, “I’m just supporting something I strongly believe in,” referring to marriage equality. But by 2006, O’Malley’s position was shifting and he said, “I was raised to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a fundamental issue of the state’s public policy, and a decision that ultimately should not be made by a single trial court judge.” When confronted by gay activists after issuing that statement, O’Malley disavowed any previous support of marriage equality."
http://www.washingtonblade.com/2015/04/20/omalleys-amnesia-on-marriage/


This is what you don't get with Bernie Sanders, but you get in copious amounts from O'Malley and from Clinton, the parsing and inconsistency, the retractions and hairsplitting, "I was raised to believe marriage is between a man and a woman". None of that bullshit from Bernie.

The Washington Blade is one the leading LGBT papers in the country. Just fyi.

[bigtree]

10. I was also raised to believe marriage was between a man and a woman

...but I acquired my own beliefs as an adult.

Taking that statement out of context is meant to make it appear that's his view as an adult. It's one of the more slippery aspects of this article.

O'Malley didn't display political courage early in his public career on marriage rights, but he eventually allied with the right people in the state and moved forward to supporting and successfully working to advance real and meaningful reform; the eighth state to do so in the nation. That's not insignificant. That's more than just 'ok'. It's a solid record of accomplishment. Walking the walk.

[Egnever]

5. Silly

Doma was in response to a push to make a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. It was repugnant to be sure but far less onerous than a constitutional amendment would have been.

To pretend Hillary was for it when she was not even voting at the time is misleading.

Bill didn't like it and I doubt Hillary did either. Bill went as far as to refuse to be photographed signing it because he found it so distasteful. It was passed with a veto proof majority and while Clinton certainly could have stood against it. He was right in the middle of a re-election campaign. The times then were much different than they are now and picking that fight at that point in his presidency could easily have lead to a single term presidency.

Pretending Doma was something Clinton championed is rewriting history.

I applaud Bernie for taking a principled stand at the time but he is and was safe in Vermont. It wasn't especially brave of him to make that vote.

67 other Dems in the house voted against as well.
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll316.xml

Others who also voted against it in the senate.
Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Feingold (D-WI)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerrey (D-NE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Moseley-Braun (D-IL)
Moynihan (D-NY)
Pell (D-RI)
Robb (D-VA)
Simon (D-IL)
Wyden (D-OR)

I like Bernie but this using this to attack Hillary seems silly to me.

[Bonobo]

6. Bill Clinton's singing statement makes his position pretty clear.

"I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. "

[Egnever]

7. Sure if you ignore everything else going on at the time, and the rest of his statement.

Throughout my life I have strenuously opposed discrimination of any kind, including discrimination against gay and lesbian Americans. I am signing into law H.R. 3396, a bill relating to same-gender marriage, but it is important to note what this legislation does and does not do.

I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages and this legislation is consistent with that position. The Act confirms the right of each state to determine its own policy with respect to same gender marriage and clarifies for purposes of federal law the operative meaning of the terms "marriage" and "spouse".

This legislation does not reach beyond those two provisions. It has no effect on any current federal, state or local anti-discrimination law and does not constrain the right of Congress or any state or locality to enact anti-discrimination laws. I therefore would take this opportunity to urge Congress to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, an act which would extend employment discrimination protections to gays and lesbians in the workplace. This year the Senate considered this legislation contemporaneously with the Act I sign today and failed to pass it by a single vote. I hope that in its next Session Congress will pass it expeditiously.

I also want to make clear to all that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation. Discrimination, violence and intimidation for that reason, as well as others, violate the principle of equal protection under the law and have no place in American society.

Not to mention his support of gays at the time that was far ahead of the nation. He appointed the first openly gay ambassador at a time when the nation was seriously considering a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. He was the first president to openly court the gay comunity. This vote was made as so many are as a wedge issue during election season. To take it out of its context to use as a weapon against someone who clearly was ahead of the times is a gross mischaracterization of the realities of the times.

This I think is a decent article on the times and how this decision came about.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/why-bill-clinton-signed-the-defense-of-marriage-act

The Defense of Marriage Act became law, and President Clinton was reëlected, again with overwhelming support from gay Americans. He was enthusiastically endorsed by the nation’s leading gay political group, the Human Rights Campaign, which had urged him to veto the legislation. They had called DOMA “a Bob Dole for President publicity stunt.” (There was a small dustup during the later stages of the campaign when a Clinton-related committee ran a radio ad in the South, heralding the enactment of the legislation. The ad was quickly pulled.)

Was it realistic to think that a Presidential veto of DOMA would have put Clinton’s reëlection in jeopardy? At the time I thought not. But in 1996 less than thirty per cent of Americans supported gay marriage, and even eight years after that, in 2004, President George W. Bush used gay marriage extremely effectively as a wedge issue against John Kerry, who at the time only supported civil unions. In fact, many believe that it was the Bush campaign’s very strategic placement of anti-gay-marriage state constitutional ballot initiatives throughout moderate and conservative leaning states (like Ohio) which brought out conservative Bush voters and carried the day for him in that election. Could similar tactics have been used with the same effectiveness in 1996? Obviously, we will never know.

[boston bean]

9. They live in a time warp void of history.

Trying to convince people that the law was to prevent a Constitutional Amendment against gay marriage, or that DADT was to actually allow gay and lesbians to serve in the military is like talking to a brick wall.

But good try... maybe it will get some to think...