I’ve always enjoyed New York Times columnist Frank Bruni. In the past few months, however, he has transformed from very good to great — with his writing style really 
distinguishing itself. His latest column, Dear President Clinton, is terrific and needed to be said. According to Bruni:
DOMA, which says that the federal government recognizes only marriages of a man and a woman, is one of the uglier blemishes on your record, an act of indisputable discrimination that codified unequal treatment of gay men and lesbians and, in doing so, validated the views of Americans who see us as lesser people. If our most committed, heartfelt relationships don’t measure up, then neither do we. If how we love is suspect, then so is who we are. No two ways to interpret that. No other conclusion to be drawn.
He also takes Hilary to task:
On Hillary’s watch, the State Department has been more progressive in its treatment of L.G.B.T. employees than before, a development in sync with her proclamation in Geneva late last year that “gay rights are human rights” and that those rights are a priority in American diplomacy. She addressed many of those employees on Wednesday, at an event marking the 20th anniversary of an organization called Gays and Lesbians in Foreign Affairs Agencies, and she implored her audience “to leave this celebration thinking about what more each and every one of you can do” to promote better, fairer treatment of gay people.
Well, she can do more. So can you, President Clinton.
I was sloppy at the start. What I and many others want most from you isn’t really an apology. It’s full membership — and, better yet, leadership — in a movement that’s headed inexorably in the right direction, with or without you.
Thank you Bruni for an amazing piece.
Are you kidding me? The only thing more mediocre than Frank Bruni’s writing is Frank Bruni’s thinking. Jeezy-peezy!
Please! This is just another example of why Bruni’s should have kept his earlier job as a restaurant critic for the Times rather than attempting to wax wise about being gay and gay rights. This really reads like some Obambot’s hit piece left over from the 2007-8 primaries when Team Barack recycled every hyperbolic bit of old news they could to try to demonize Hillary [note correct spelling] out of the nomination. In addition to forgetting/not understanding that while President Clinton could have made a “statement” by refusing to sign the bill [created and introduced by Republican Clinton Hater Bob Barr], IT WOULD HAVE STILL BECOME LAW because it was passed by Congress with a veto proof majority: 85-14 in the Senate, and 342-67 in the House of Representatives.
And, instead of attacking someone long out of office, where’s his demand for an apology from President Obama for DEFENDING DOMA in court for over two years using justifications more homophobic than those used to pass it in the first place? For continuing to ENFORCE a law he now states is unconstitutional even though NOTHING legally requires him to? For an apology for hiding from his 1996 UNEQUIVOCAL support of marriage equality until he was embarrassed into returning to it during his fourth year in office by his Vice President? For STILL asserting that marriage is a “state” issue which means that he believes they have a “right” to ban equality as well as endorse it?
And where’s Bruni’s demand that President Obama apologize for needlessly throwing some 800 more gay service members into the unemployment lines while repeal worked its way through Congress when he had the unequivocal legal right under federal law 10 USC 12305 to freeze discharges in the name of national security—which he, himself, said was weakened by such discharges? Where’s the demand that Mr. Obama apologize for gutting the original repeal bill resulting in the fact that the Pentagon is STILL not treating gays equally IN the military, arbitrarily denying them the protections against harassment and discrimination of the Military Equal Opportunity Program automatically given nongay blacks, women, et al., and arbitrarily denying gay military couples benefits NOT banned by DOMA? Where’s his demand that Obama apologize and order the Pentagon to stop sending bills to gay former service members for repayment of “unearned” monies they “owe” only because they WERE discharged? Where’s his demand that the President apologize and order his DOJ to stop fighting the ACLU class action lawsuit attempting to get discharged gays collectively over $2 million they were denied in earned separation pay simply because they were gay? Where’s his demand that President Obama apologize for letting his DOJ vindictively prosecute DADT protesters with a rarely used federal statute—and order them to stop the ONGONG vindictive prosecution of Dan Choi?
Where’s Bruni’s demand that President Obama apologize for not ordering federal contractors to not discriminate against LGBT employees? Etc. Etc. Etc.
Yes, I think he should. We would not have had to deal with DADT and we would not still be dealing with DOMA were it not for Clinton’s signature on both of those bills.
Would be great if Bill Clinton would step up to the plate and do his best to correct his mistake.
Bruni is right. Clinton signed DOMA for completely political reasons. If not apologize, he should at least speak out agaist this discriminatory and unconstitutional law.
I have a very strong feeling that both JustMee and Michael Bedwell have a shaky grasp of history.
Ummm no, Becky. Baldwell is daed-on with his DOMA analysis.
DOMA was passed by an overwhelming, veto-proof majority.
Once the bill reached the Oval Office, Clinton had three options: a) Sign the bill into law; b) Veto the bill; c) Do nothing. No matter which option he chose, DOMA still would’ve become law.
While DADT and DOMA were incredibly hurtful and discriminatory pieces of legislation, you have no idea how much worse it could’ve been. The poll numbers in support of LGBT equality were startingly low and that Constitutional Amendment that the gay-haters keep talking about probably had its best chance of being ratified during that period in the early 1990s when we had next to zero political power of influence.
All we can do is move forward, which is what we’re doing every single day. Clinton also signed DADT into law. Is anybody still complaining about that now? It’s long gone into the “dustbin of history”, which is the same fate that DOMA is destined for once SCOTUS gets into gear.
Clinton’s actions may have been politically-motivated or a reflection of his own anti-equality views at the time (which are on the record). Or maybe he was against marriage equality but still felt DOMA was a bridge too far.
Whatever the case, it’s downright silly to expect an ex-President to apologize for signing a peice of legislation that would’ve become law anyway 16 years after the fact.
It would be one thing if DOMA reached his desk after passing the House and Senate by razor-thin margins (thus making a veto override impossible). But DOMA had overwhelming bi-partisan support.
Depressing, yes. But Clinton’s fault? No.
Oops. Bedwell*
Clinton did the best he could with what he had. Personally, as odious as I find these pieces of legislation, it has caused to organize and fight back, by which I mean, more and more people were motivated to come out of the closet. I wrote this regarding SCOTUS and the prop. 8/ DOMA cases:
BTW, although many will disagree with me on this, I really don’t want them to mandate marriage equality across the board, even thogh I think it’s the right thing to do and a goal I fervently want to see achieved. But I want to see it achieved from the bottom up, rather than the top down.
There are a number of reasons for this.
1) It gives the religious right yet another issue to exploit for twenty years or so, much as they have exploited abortion since 1971. They use it for fundraising, political power, judiciary packing, electioneering, you name it. They use it for weveyrthing to convince people to vote against their own interests and for the sake of those unknown and unknowable unborn babies. The progressive and moderate wings in this coutnry really don’t need to give them another issue.
2) From the bottom up means that eventual victory will indeed be permanent.
3) It will require that gay people who want marriage, who want this vicious, stupid prejudice to end, will actually have to step up to the plate and come out, to live their lives as openly gay people, to be a part of their communities as gay people, to make that personal/political statement.
I have long maintained that the enemy is not the religious right and the antigay bigots. Ultimately, I don’t think they matter so much. The enemy is, and always has been, their enforcement mechanism– the closet. The closet is what convinces us to oppress ourselves, so they don’t have to dirty their hands doing so, and can spend their time, energy, and resources on other groups.
We’re never going to reach the people who are irretrievably poisoned by hate, by fear, by religious paranoia, by their wholly imaginary superiority, their lust for power and money and dominion, or their own very dark secrets. That’s the definition of irretrievably poisoned. So there is no sense worrying about them.
The only reason we are winning is that more and more gay people are standing up and being counted– to themselves, in their families, churches, communites, and in their political jurisdictions. When we hide, we’re invisible and easy to dismiss as the other. When we stand up, people have to make a choice.
Decent people– and i think the majority of americans are kind, decent people– realize that they can’t vote against people they know, love, and respect. They just can’t. Look at what has happened in so many Christian denominations by the simple facts of people standing up and demanding recognition.
If we want to eradicate this prejudice, not just in our country but in others, then ending the closet is the only path. And ending the closet is the long term goal.
I agree and disagree, Ben.
I disagree because a top-down mandate will CLOSE the conversation, at least as far as the government is concerned. Just like with interracial marriage, sodomy laws, African-American and women’s suffrage…these things, if left up to the states, would probably still be on the books.
I agree because a top-down mandate will most likely be a million-dollar fundraiser for the Christian right.
But EVERYTHING they disagree with is a fundraising tool! Good Lord, they’re STILL campaigning on school prayer and “they’re teaching our kids that they come from monkeys!” Marriage equality is just another one for the list.
That said, I’m a TAD bit more optimistic. As anti-gay as the right-wingers are, I was kinda shocked at how DADT, once it was finally repealed, went out with a whimper; almost like it vanished into thin air!
And look at the elections this year! The “traditional marriage” side pulled every rabbit out of the hat they could, latched on to whoever would push their talking points (innkeepers, county clerks, NFL players, D-list actors), rode the coattails of and attached a fundraiser to every single LGBT controversy they could manufacture (Starbucks, General Mills, Chick-Fil-A, the FRC shooting) packed their rallies and glossy propoganda videos with as many blacks and Latinos as they could find to push their “Same-sex marriage is NOT a civil right!” meme (“See? Here’s a couple of black people who agree with us!”), spent millions and millions of dollars, and traveled across the country from one TV interview to the next, pushing their same talking points over and over and over…and their entire campaign was an epic, epic FAIL on every imaginable level.
The GOP stayed quiet on marriage equality this year, probably because their own party members are voting for it in various states, even if NOM comes along and campaigns AGAINST them (such as they did in New York, where two GOP State Senators lost their seats and were replaced by…pro-gay Democrats…LOL good job, NOM!)
As for the Christian Right, well where the hell were they this year? They managed to come out in droves to vote down marriage equality in Maine back in ’09, and their 60% victory in NC (during a GOP Primary) was supposed to be a huge mandate against marriage equality.
But it’s all sound and fury, if that. NOM’s rallies are notoriously under-attended, and it’s been revealed that NOM has TWO donors supplying 75% of their funding.
If this was a grassroots movement like Maggie and Brian want you to believe it is, then they wouldn’t rely on two people to provide nearly 80% of their funding.
I think as more and more people come out to their families and employers younger and younger, the support for marriage equality is only going to grow, and eventually this will be a non-issue except to the most extreme fringe.
Layne, if it was passed with a veto proof majority there was no reason for Clinton to sign it.