Posted on 10/27/2015 12:12:17 PM PDT by PROCON
Bernie Sanders says that Hillary Clinton’s explanation of her husband’s decision as president to sign legislation banning same-sex marriage is bogus. And he has a point.
At issue is the Defense of Marriage Act, which passed Congress with overwhelming bipartisan majorities at the height of the 1996 presidential campaign, when Bill Clinton was seeking a second term. It’s now a relic of history, thanks to a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year, but the fact that Bill Clinton signed it in the first place has long infuriated gay rights supporters.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.com ...
The lavender mafia and its media butt buddies hadn't brainwashed the sheeple enough yet.
Would Clinton have lost to Bob Dole in '96 had he voted against DOMA?
I say yes, which just proves that with Clintons and the rest of the 'rat party, the ends justify the means.
Well that's easy. To bleed off the pressure for a Constitutional Amendment which would have fixed the problem once and for all.
Bill Clinton did it to preserve the ability to keep pushing homosexual crap in the future. A constitutional amendment would have seriously hurt such liberal future efforts.
Nowadays, (after decades of media propaganda on the issue) the will isn't there.
When you’re right, you’re right.
Bill and Hillary Clinton share the same core belief - whatever will keep them in power.
"It’s now a relic of history, thanks to a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year,"
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
Regardless that the corrupt media, including Obama guard dog Fx News, wants everybody to think that the Supreme Court decided that DOMA was unconstitutional, please consider the following. The Supreme Court actually properly ruled that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional, Section 2 evidently still in effect.
DOMA:
This Act may be cited as the “Defense of Marriage Act”.
No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship.
In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.
Section 3 of DOMA defined marriage as traditional one man, one woman marriage. And while many patriots undoubtedly supported Section 3, the problem is that the states have never delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to define marriage, marriage a 10th Amendment-protected state power issue. In other words, low-information federal lawmakers unthinkingly stole 10th Amendment-protected state power to regulate marriage, probably to win votes, when they drafted DOMA’s Section 3.
As previously mentioned, Section 2 of DOMA is evidently still in effect. Section 2 is Congress’s clarification that the states don’t have to recognize gay marriages from other states. This law is reasonably based on Congress’s constitutional “Full Faith and Credit” powers of Section 1 of Article IV. That section gives Congress the power to regulate the effect of one state’s records in the other states.
Also, DOMA is also arguably another example showing how the corrupt, post-17th Amendment ratification Senate fails to protect the states which the Founding States had established the Senate to do. In this case, regardless that Section 2 is reasonably constitutional imo, the Senate should have killed DOMA because of Section 3.
The ill-conceived 17th Amendment needs to disappear, and corrupt senators who actually hurt the states that they’re supposed to be protecting by passing unconstitutional bills for political gain along with it.
Sanders has a point. I would NEVER expect the Clintons take a stand based on principles.
They have none, except self promotion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.