Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Monday, February 27, 2012

Required Reading: Frank Rich on Historic Victories in the Struggle for Gay Marriage and the Forgotten History of Liberal Opposition to Gay Civil Equality

Posted by on Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 8:18 AM

Frank Rich unpacks the recent history of the struggle for full civil equality for gays and lesbians and reminds us that many of our most prominent friends and allies... very recently weren't:

Bill Clinton has also worked hard to spin and skate away from his history on gay issues. His presidential record looks good only when contrasted with the literally lethal passivity of Ronald Reagan, who didn’t think AIDS warranted a speech until 1987, six years into the epidemic and his presidency. Reagan is a very low bar, and that lets Clinton off the hook for a legacy that’s had a far more lasting and egregious impact than any failings, youthful or otherwise, of Andrew Cuomo. Clinton knows it, too. In his thousand-page memoir, My Life, he somehow didn’t find the space to so much as mention the Defense of Marriage Act. While “don’t ask, don’t tell” can be rationalized (by some) as a bungled rookie effort at compromise during his early months in office, DOMA is indefensible. Though now deemed unconstitutional by the Obama Justice Department—and, last week, by a Bush-­appointed federal judge in California—it is still in full force.

The bill was strictly a right-wing political ploy cooked up for the year of Clinton’s re-election campaign. It had no other justification. In the spring of 1996, same-sex marriage wasn’t legal anywhere in the country or a top-tier cause for many gay leaders; it was solely in play in a slow-moving court case in Hawaii. But fear and demonization of gay men was off the charts: In 1995, a record 50,877 Americans with AIDS died—a one-year count rivaling the 58,000 Americans lost in the entire Vietnam War. The Christian Coalition, under the Machiavellian guidance of the yet-to-be-disgraced Ralph Reed, saw an opening to exploit homophobia to galvanize a Republican base unenthusiastic about Bob Dole. In a consummate display of bad taste, Clinton announced that he would sign DOMA that spring just two days after the Supreme Court, in a rare national victory for gay rights, struck down a Colorado constitutional amendment that had barred anti-discrimination laws benefiting gay men and lesbians. In the months to come, Clinton’s stand on DOMA gave political permission to many nominally liberal Democrats to join Rick Santorum, Jesse Helms, and Larry Craig in voting for the bill that September—among them Charles Schumer (then in the House) and the senators Joe Biden, Tom Harkin, Frank Lautenberg, Patrick Leahy, Joe ­Lieberman, Carl Levin, Barbara Mikulski, Patty Murray, and Harry Reid. Only fourteen senators, also Democrats, had the courage to vote against it....

Andrew Cuomo has traveled far from the late seventies—as so many of us have—and so has Bill Clinton from the nineties. The former president came out for same-sex marriage in 2009. But words are cheap. Clinton’s lip service might actually mean something if he spent his own current financial and political capital to help undo the second-class citizenship for gay Americans that was codified on his watch. Whatever his good works overseas, it’s past time for the entrepreneur of the Clinton Global Initiative to phone home—and to galvanize the liberal Democrats who followed his lead in ratifying DOMA, many of them still in office.

In fairness to Bill Clinton: he reportedly made calls to Democrats in the Maryland state legislature asking them to vote for that state's marriage equality bill, which passed last week. But he can and should do more to make amends for DOMA.

Now go read the whole thing.

 

Comments (24) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
This article comes across as just static to me. Are we supposed to hate Clinton and Cuomo for changing to the right side over the past two decades? While ignoring the fact that the right wing has become even more oppositional than they were in the mid 90s?

I just can't get Rich's argument that he decades old mistakes of liberals are one of the biggest obstacle to gay rights now.
Posted by RDM on February 27, 2012 at 8:37 AM
2
And you, Dan, can and should do more to make amends for your endorsement of the Iraq war, right?

It's nice that you've repudiated that stance, of course, but if we're to hold you to the standard you're holding Clinton to, then it looks like you need to put more time and money and public advocacy into antiwar efforts.

I know you're sick and tired of people bringing this up, and consider it a dead issue. That's your prerogative. But you can't ask everyone else to just forget it ever happened, can you?
Posted by robotslave on February 27, 2012 at 8:40 AM
Vince 3
It's always easy to take the side of bullies but courageous to stand up to them. That's Bill Clinton specifically and Democrats generally.
Posted by Vince on February 27, 2012 at 8:55 AM
Sargon Bighorn 4
Read about it? Many of us lived it.
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on February 27, 2012 at 9:04 AM
giffy 5
Just what we need! More left wing navel gazing!

Yup, it took some people a while to come around on gay rights. Just like it took a while for some people to come around on civil rights. And while tales of rich white people coming to like poor black one can score you some Oscars, its not terribly relevant politically.

I just don't see the point of making new allies go through some kind of public absolution or reminding people that they once were in opposition. All it accomplishes is making people who were once opposed less likely to come out in support.

How about just welcoming the fact that more and more people are getting on board?

Posted by giffy on February 27, 2012 at 9:04 AM
Karla Canadian 6
@2 - could Dan send soldiers to their deaths? No? Then it isn't the same.

So, no, I wouldn't hold a sex advice columnist to the same standard as the PRESIDENT.

Not the same. Grow up.
Posted by Karla Canadian on February 27, 2012 at 9:14 AM
7
What a shock: politicians will do unseemly stuff to get elected. Do I wish Clinton had opposed DOMA? Yes. Am I glad he was re-elected instead of Bob Dole? Fuck yes. More and more people are coming out in favor of marriage equality each day, what on earth is the point in saying "why did it take you so long?"
Posted by Catastrophe on February 27, 2012 at 9:42 AM
rob! 8
You can't know where you're going unless you know where you came from, those who ignore history are condemned to repeat it, blah blah blah. There's plenty of room for "navel gazing;" it's not like our collective mental capacity is being stretched to the limit trying to make the world a better place every day.

People in their twenties now don't remember much of the mid-90's. I remember sighing when DOMA was passed and signed but not dwelling on it because I was convinced it was something Clinton had to do strategically. Besides, we were making really good progress on all kinds of anti-discrimination laws and company policies.

Fast-forward 20 years and I grind my teeth about DOMA every damn day. When you're underwater, a fart bubble looks like salvation.
Posted by rob! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZBdUceCL5U on February 27, 2012 at 9:45 AM
gloomy gus 9
@8, brilliantly put.
Posted by gloomy gus on February 27, 2012 at 9:49 AM
Fortunate 10
The problem is that no matter how unsupported the democrat is, they are pretty much always better on gay issues than the republican even if they don't address them at all. If a democrat says nothing on gay issues he or she is still miles ahead of the republicans who want to strip all our rights and make it OK for states to throw us in jail for being gay.

They know they don't have to give us even a bone.

During Clinton's second run it was clear he was going to win but I voted for a third party candidate just because after both DADT and DOMA I couldn't stomach voting for him. I'm glad he has changed his tune, but what he should be doing is being very vocal about denouncing his own policy. He should say, loud and clear, that DOMA was wrong and that he wishes he had never accepted it in the first place.

Posted by Fortunate on February 27, 2012 at 9:57 AM
11
@4 Exactly. Those of us who lived through this know what it means to have it spelled out for all to see. Bravo to Frank Rich, who is obviously liberated to tell all he saw now that he is no longer at the Times.
Posted by Crepuscular on February 27, 2012 at 10:05 AM
12
Boy, politicians are so political.
Posted by Mr. J on February 27, 2012 at 10:34 AM
undead ayn rand 13
@5: "Just what we need! More left wing navel gazing!"

How about not allowing the politicians to rewrite history over and over again in the name of "legacy"?

This same bullshit is how Ron Paul has convinced most of America that Civil Rights legislation is unnecessary and we should revert to 1960s segregation and remove every single Federal protection for women, minorities, gays, etc.

"How about just welcoming the fact that more and more people are getting on board?"

How about we do both? Not write falsehoods into the history books and acknowledge the complicity of the Clintonian model? Acknowledge the horrible decisions made for America and how right wing our "left" is?

Appealing to centrism is NEVER how we've gotten anywhere.
Posted by undead ayn rand on February 27, 2012 at 10:36 AM
giffy 14
@13 What's the falsehood here? Not making a big deal about your mistakes is not the same as lying about them. Plus Clinton's memoirs are not the only record of the period and people do understand that memoirs are not an objective history.

Telling the history of the gay rights struggle, warts and all, is a good thing, as is pointing out the shitty arguments that underlie DOMA and demanding our current politicians repeal it. Hounding people over their past mistakes on gay rights is not.

Leave such things to Mars Hill.
Posted by giffy on February 27, 2012 at 11:03 AM
Matt from Denver 15
@ 6, I wouldn't distinguish between one influential public figure and other quite so much.

The point @ 2 is valid, and if it's to be criticized, the idea that Dan isn't actually crafting policy isn't the way to do it. Influential public figures helped persuade people to support the war, and ultimately it was public support that made it possible.

Now, the ACTUAL difference between Dan's support for the Iraq War and Clinton's support for DOMA is that Clinton was likely acting on politics, not convictions. Dan, I know, was sincere in his belief that invading Iraq was the right thing to do, and he has since been sincere in repudiating his former stance.

But Clinton? A politician - any politician - doesn't get the benefit of the doubt. If they begin and push for a policy, it may be rooted in personal conviction, but when they support something like DOMA, which did not originate with the Clinton administration, it's politics. DOMA and various anti-marriage equality legislation and amendments were quite popular in the 90s and early 2000s, and Democrats went along with it so they wouldn't lose elections. They're on board now because popular opinion has swung the other way.

It's a much safer bet to say that he was doing the politically expedient thing in the 90s, then to assume that he believed he was doing the right thing in supporting DOMA. He might be sincere now - why not? He has nothing to lose. But Democratic support for marriage equality is still, at best, lukewarm nationally.
Posted by Matt from Denver on February 27, 2012 at 11:23 AM
giffy 16
DOMA also passed with a veto proof majority. Had Clinton vetoed it, the veto would have been overturned and we would still have DOMA and possibly President Bob Dole.
Posted by giffy on February 27, 2012 at 11:27 AM
17
Keep looking for improvements. Clinton was not as good a president as he could have been. But he was a better choice than the alternatives.

So forgive him for not being perfect. But do not forget.

And now, get involved. It's easy to complain. It's hard to work towards a goal. Work towards the NEXT option being even more of an improvement.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on February 27, 2012 at 12:27 PM
TLjr 18
What 17 said. Plenty of work in elections to come. And good for Patty Murray for seeing the light...and for all the work that so many have done to make her current position much less politically risky for her.
Posted by TLjr on February 27, 2012 at 5:19 PM
19
As much as I agree that Clinton was thinking about himself when he signed that piece of shit, DOMA, it may have been what has kept us from a Constitutional amendment (and therefore, long run, done more good than bad). DADT was pointless though, that's true.
Posted by JudT on February 27, 2012 at 6:33 PM
TLjr 20
DADT was the result of a lot of things, including Clinton's overreach and miscalculation. But the main responsibility goes to the Senate Dems, who made it clear they weren't going to allow full repeal of the gay ban.

Of course, Sam Nunn and George Mitchell were hardly liberals. Neither for that matter was Bill Clinton.

I'll give Clinton modest credit for doing what he could with the situation. Nunn was practically gleeful in his invocation of his credentials as a military expert as he helped pass DADT. I hope the sonofabitch rots in hell.
Posted by TLjr on February 27, 2012 at 9:19 PM
21
At the time DADT was perceived as a massive liberalization and really upset anti-gay forces, because it made it illegal to point-blank confirm your suspicions about a fellow soldier. Being gay in the army went from "completely illegal and subject to witchhunts" to "technically illegal, but allowed if you keep your head down and your mouth shut." Now, that isn't right, or justice, but the latter is obviously preferable to the former and paved the way to current situation. Sometimes these things take time, and legislation that appeared highly progressive at the time (or as progressive as was possible to pass in the current climate) ages into an ugly relic. That doesn't make it retroactively a mistake for anyone to have supported it.

DOMA, as someone has already pointed out, had a veto-proof majority and a lot of arbitrary ginned-up GOP attention on it. Refusing to sign it would've accomplished nothing for gay rights and given Clinton a chance to shoot himself in the foot on a national stage--that was part of WHY they tried to pass it, when there was no pressing reason. That national climate of freaking out over gay marriage didn't come out of nowhere--it was *created* by the GOP to put Clinton in a corner.
Posted by Hindsight... on February 28, 2012 at 12:24 AM
22
I suppose once the war is over it will be good to write on its history. Once slavery was gone, it became OK to look at the (for today's standards) bigotted opinions of Abraham Lincoln.

But I agree with those who say: win the war now before you start fighting about the behavior of those who, now, for all intents and purposes, are on your side.

Nobody's life is clean. I was a homophobe 30 years ago. I no longer am. Am I alone?
Posted by ankylosaur on February 28, 2012 at 5:54 AM
OutInBumF 23
@22- Hell, 30 years ago *I* was a homophobe, and I was/am a homo!
I lived through the '90's and remember the atmosphere around both DOMA and DADT. DOMA was crap from the get-go; DADT was an improvement over the kick 'em right out policy it replaced. Clinton was rail-roaded then, just as Obama has been rail-roaded on health care reform and other progressive policies today.
We get what we can at the time, then work for improvement or reform later as times change. DOMA is now going to hoist them all by their own petard; the very concept of it is repugnant both morally and legally. Bit by bit, the populace is coming around to the notion we have little choice in our sexual orientation, and it's *that* that's making all the difference between the '90's and now.
Posted by OutInBumF on February 28, 2012 at 1:08 PM
GymGoth 24
Can we be a little honest here when it comes to marriage equality? I remember sneaking my first gay magazines in my teens (1980s) and almost all gay activists, particularly on the left, were admantly opposed to anything like gay marriage.

They argued that it was wrong for gays (men in particular) to seek to copy the "straight" lifestyle. We were supposed to embrace the bath house and cruising culture over any kind of coupling and playing house. I remember how upset this made me. Andrew Sullivan was one of the few that argued marriage as a far away dream and he was treated hatefully by all other gay activists.

Funny how life changes, doesn't it?
Posted by GymGoth on February 28, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy