Edwards Would Repeal DOMA. Clinton Would Not Repeal DOMA.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20071219/NATION/47646269/1002

Edwards would repeal gay 'discriminatory' laws
By Joseph Curl
December 19, 2007

Democrat John Edwards said yesterday that as president he would repeal laws that discriminate against homosexuals. (Associated Press)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LEBANON, N.H. — John Edwards said yesterday that if elected president, he would try to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton, and do away with the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the U.S. military.After a star-studded campaign event in this small town's opera house, the former North Carolina senator said the law known as DOMA is "discriminatory."


"I think we should get rid of DOMA; I think DOMA was a mistake from the beginning, and discriminatory, and so I will do everything in my power as president to do that," the Democratic candidate said in a three-minute meeting with reporters.Asked by The Washington Times why the act is discriminatory, he bristled, then said: "I think it's discriminatory against gay and lesbian couples, that's what's discriminatory about it."

DOMA stipulates that no state "shall be required" to recognize a marriage between persons of the same sex, even if the "marriage" is recognized in another state. The act also defines the word "marriage" as "only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife." When he followed with "I would end 'don't ask, don't tell,' " the policy that prevents homosexuals in the military from disclosing their sexual orientation, he received whoops and cheers. That policy also was approved by Mr. Clinton, a Democrat, in 1993.

http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071224/FRONTPAGE/712240340

Clinton's argument against a full repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act was in part a political one. The law staved off a Republican attempt to completely bar same-sex marriage, she said. "It may be something that in a few years is no longer necessary. . . . But right now I think it helps to prevent this from becoming another mean-spirited effort to enshrine discrimination in the Constitution."

It is not yet time to repeal DOMA. Maybe later.

or
Are you kidding?

Either you believe every American citizen has the same rights, or you don't. Saying couple A can get married, but couple B can't, creates "second class citizens" and that's wrong. And that's exactly how the issue should be framed, so the right wing nutjobs can't bring freakish misinterpretations of the Bible into it.

discriminates against an entire group of people who have done nothing WRONG. They choose a lifestyle and are prohibited from equal rights and it is wrong.

OMFG.

Without discrimination? I do.

tell me the PC way to phrase my unequivocable support for ALL people of ALL genders to marry whomever they chose and I will reword. My apologies if my phrasing has offended.

I'm sure you know exactly the proper terms, but choose not to use them.

I happened to be talking to my ex. We were together for more than a decade but broke up in 1984 and remain close friends. She is a law professor and teaches in the area of discrimination. We discussed the movement (including DOMA) in its historical context and as we lived it.

Both of us were threatened with job loss more than once and our house was egged and vehicles vandalized for our activism on this issue. The 70s and 80s were scary times to be out front on this issue in a small college town in the southwest. I don't recommend it.

I read your (and other's) posts to her and she was totally crackin' up that someone/anyone would think I needed to have equal and human rights of any stripe explained to me.

A little discrimination never hurt anybody. :sarcasm:

We can try challenging it in the courts but I'm not so confident that will work with Roberts and Alito now on the bench. It may have been pretty much irrelevant in the 90's since no states had legalized same-sex marriages but it is relevant now.

maybe we should take them back from those other people, too, while we're at it. It's just not time.

Those gheys need to stay in the closet, where we can keep an eye on 'em. EVEN THIS GUY THINKS SO

People were saying "it's not TIME" in the 1960's....well then, MAKE it time!

That's news.

She was always ahead of him on that one. If so, good for John.

What's Richardson saying on this one, if anything? I know he's signed non discrimination laws in New Mexico, but that wasn't marriage related, from my memory.

with the idea of Gay marriage.

Asked by The Washington Times why the act is discriminatory, he bristled, then said: "I think it's discriminatory against gay and lesbian couples, that's what's discriminatory about it."

but he also said that he was personally uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage, although his wife and daughter feel differently.

but from the HRC debate, he is struggling to put aside his personal uncomfortableness so he can sort out what the right thing to do is. It's why Obama lost my support and Edwards gained it - their personal positions were essentially the same (as is Hillary Clinton's) but it was clear to me from their extended answers that Edwards position was not a static position - but one he was actively continuing to evaluate. This is movement in the right direction, as I suspected would happen.

it is to me when someone has to stuggle to put aside personal uncomfortableness on this issue. John Edwards should either grow up or shut up his mouth, and not litter the air with feelings like that.

There is a significant difference between a level of personal discomfort and a principled stand on civil rights. In fact, the person who acknowledges discomfort but supports the rights might be even more to be admired, because it indicates that person has to have spent time considering what it means. To confront your own prejudices and overcome them, putting principle ahead of prejudice, is admirable.

is a really reputable source.

Sounds like Hillary did the research on the bill and came to a decision about it. Sounds like this other fella didn't do any research at all. Makes him look a bit superficial don't ya think?

Unbelivable. Although maybe not, considering her SC co-chairs voted to enshrine it in the SC Constitution, and that doesn't bother her either.

Hillary isn't going to change anything that Bill put into law. Not DOMA. Not NAFTA. Not "Don't Ask, Don't Tell", etc.

That law backfired cause a lot of people are outed for spiteful reasons, even non-gays (all a woman has to do is say no to some guy and she's labled a lesbian!)

Besides, I think while gay marriage is still a hot topic, gays in the military no longer is.

are the relevant and practical sections which have to do with equal rights, and the first section has only to do with a word (which is then left up to states to decide), I have zero problems with Hillary's stance right now -- unless you wanna see a backlash of votes going into the GE --she's making the smart move.

gays (I even hate that word).. defend the rights of ALL people to legally spend their lives with the person of their choice.

and defends those rights FEDERALLY.

I would encourage you to actually read DOMA and see what repealing sections 2 & 3 will do to it.

and believe we choose it as a lifestyle choice?

and I'm supposed to think you know more about DOMA then I do?

:rofl:

I like when he insinuated I'm against same-sex marriage. That'll be news to my wife, Haruka.

an argument where there is none.

Weird.

I'm just commenting on them.

As a gay man, the thing that I fear the most is a constitutional amendment, which, if passed would be impossible to overturn for centuries.

Hillary proves once again to be the grownup in the room, and this queer lady supports her candidacy.

However, jumping to conclusions by our political children just seems like so much more fun.

You don't stand up when it's important, when the issue is actual legislation that matters. But you will use gays for political mudslinging. Sick and disgusting.

Hillary is not a diva. She's just another calculating politician. Get over her already.

an ill-informed idiot --so I guess we are even.

The issue IS legislation --read DOMA --instead of being an ignorant boob.

Read what HRC will repeal --which she actually CAN get repealed--as opposed to empty promises by the other two pipe-dreamers.

Hillary has been a staunch defender of GLBT rights for decades --she's not new to this show like Edwards and Obama --and I TRUST her to get done what needs to be done.

Bill already proved he will throw gays under the bus with his recommendations to oppose gay marriage back in 2004. They do not give a shit about anything except votes and power. Wake the hell up.

you didn't read the linked article and are completely unfamiliar with Clinton's position on DOMA.

and your blindness to story after story after story that prove what we're all saying about them is true.

She Is Not A Diva. Whatever that diva fascination is, she doesn't deserve it. She isn't it. She's not a survivor. She's nobody's "girl". She doesn't "go". She's a calculating politician, that's it, that's all. Find a real shero.

more mis-informed blathering from somebody who has probably never even read DOMA.

expect the homophobes to come out full force- as they did in 2004 with all the state referendums. And yes, there are a lot of them.

Last time I checked, it's up to Congress to repeal laws.



Unless this is Venezuela.




:hide:

That's not a decree.

Where does it say he intends to rule by decree?

"John Edwards said yesterday that if elected president, he would try to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton, and do away with the ban on homosexuals serving openly in the U.S. military."

Any normal intelligent person knows that means putting a repeal of the DOMA before congress. It's more than your girl is doing by defending it.

I don't 100% agree with her reasoning, although I understand it, but she certainly hasn't defended it. And, she's comfortable enough with gays and their "lifestyle" to march in Gay Pride parades.

John Edwards takes a principled stance to help the gay community of America, while Clinton sits back and waffles with her finger in the wind. How typical.

unless you support Clinton, so I'm bowing out.

the authority to make laws. i do not believe any President will have the personal authority to repeal laws either. Even with a Democratic congress.

and it seems to me that Hillary is the only candidate that realizes she can't make promises that she won't know if she can keep until she sees the complexion of the Congress.

Repealing sections 2 & 3 should be easy enough to do, as it allows room for states rights issues AND keeps nasty shit like constitutional bans of same-sex marriage off the table.

Unless people want the GOP to use DOMA as a wedge issue??

Does Edwards' support of repealing DOMA equal supporting gay marriage? I'm sorry to be dense, but sometimes I don't feel sure he's saying what he's saying. Yes, he supports gay marriage now? Or, no, something else.

That isn't snark against Edwards. I don't dislike him.

DU and other sites. He covers all the talking points he knows we want to hear, and people are so blind and gullible that they'll believe him, despite his record.

Congress to act; then, when they approve a bill, he can sign it. I believe that is what Edwards is saying.