Don’t get married or else! Oh, not you good heterosexual couples who tend to divorce half the time (and I should know having had 2 divorces myself). No, the people who are being told not to marry if they value their lives just happen to be in love with someone of the same gender:
Openly gay Episcopal Bishop Gene Robinson of New Hampshire will enter an official civil union with his partner of 20 years, Mark Andrew, in June. Robinson’s 2003 consecration as bishop caused a serious rupture that continues to grow in the worldwide Anglican Communion, of which the Episcopal Church is the U.S. branch.
Robinson, who has received death threats, said he wants to get formally partnered to protect Andrew before going to August’s Anglican Communion Lambeth Conference in England. The gathering of some 800 bishops from around the globe happens only once a decade.
I know the story is a little old (almost a month now) but it’s the first time I’ve seen it. But then so is this story, the one where a Democratic President signed a bill into to law that refused legal recognition to gay marriages by the federal government regardless of what state law provides. Sure, it’s a story that’s 12 years old, but today seemed like a good day to remind people of its consequences for Gay and Lesbian people in America. You see, Hillary Clinton thinks the Defense Of Marriage Act, which her husband signed into law as part of his triangulating 1996 election campaign strategy, and which specifically permits states to refuse recognition of lawful gay marriages, is still a defensible position to take in June, 2008:
(cont.)
Clinton’s spokesman points me to the text of her actual questionnaire . . . in which she distances herself from a central plank of DOMA — its bar on the federal recognition of same-sex marriages — but not from the portion which allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.
So this is a central, but not total, repudiation of the act.
“I support repealing the provision of DOMA that may prohibit the federal government from providing benefits to people in states that recognize same sex marriage. I strongly support ensuring people in stable, long-term same sex relationships have full equality of benefits, rights, and responsibilities,” she writes. […]
So she’s for gay marriage, she’s just not for requiring states that don’t have it to recognize gay marriages sanctioned in states that do. How very convenient of her. As Boy from Troy remarks about her sudden flip flop “clarification” of her position on the Defense of Marriage Act:
I had grown some respect for Democratic Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton yesterday when I read that in a survey for the Human Rights Campaign, she had repudiated her support for the Defense of Marriage Act and was now opposed. It would take a pair to disagree with a policy signed into law by your husband!
But it looks like defending her own marriage is more important that standing up for the equal rights of all Americans to marry, as the New York Senator is backtracking, telling The Politico that in her own responses to HRC, “she distances herself from a central plank of DOMA — its bar on the federal recognition of same-sex marriages — but not from the portion which allows states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.”
Her campaign flack then gives this tortured explanation: “Sen. Clinton backed the Defense of Marriage Act because it enabled us to fend off right wing attacks like the Federal Marriage Amendment by keeping marriage as the purview of the states. She believes DOMA served an important purpose in that respect. Marriage should be left up to the states.”
Clinton’s husband, William Jefferson, signed the Defense of Marriage Act whilst seeking re-election in 1996. The Federal Marriage Amendment was pushed by his successor, George Walker Bush when he sought re-election in 2004. It was quite prescient then of the then-First Lady, Hillary Clinton, to know what would be happening eight years in the future.
Oh, and by the way, this is an immigrants rights issue also. You see, because of DOMA, gay immigrants cannot get married anywhere in the United States, because they aren’t citizens of any state:
But the real topping on the equality cake for immigrants in same-sex relationships with an American or a permanent resident is missing. The missing ingredient is federal recognition.
In 1996, President Bill Clinton signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA. The bill defines marriage for federal purposes as being only that between a man and a woman. This automatically precludes any immigration benefits from marriage, be it in California or Massachusetts.
This means that no matter what states do, immigrants will never be able to obtain family-based legal status through their same-sex spouses, at least not until the Defense of Marriage Act is hopefully overturned. Immigration is a federal matter. Actually, marriage may be the cold air that collapses any hopes a gay immigrant may have to stay in the United States with his or her partner.
See, in America you can be a mail order bride who never meets her spouse until her wedding day, get married to some schlep who paid for you, and achieve legal resident status. And your marriage is considered perfectly legitimate in the eyes of the federal government and every state in the union. But if you are gay and an immigrant legal or otherwise? Too bad baby. You ain’t good enough for our America, where no matter how much you love your partner, you aren’t legally allowed to marry him or her.
But hey, Hillary and Bill saved you from something far worse, so get over it already. At least we don’t execute you for the crime of sodomy like they do in Iran.
By the way for those of you curious about Obama’s position on DOMA, here it is from a letter he wrote in 2004 while campaigning for his Senate seat:
For the record, I opposed [the Defense of Marriage Act] in 1996. It should be repealed and I will vote for its repeal on the Senate floor. I will also oppose any proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to ban gays and lesbians from marrying. This is an effort to demonize people for political advantage, and should be resisted. …
When Members of Congress passed DOMA, they were not interested in strengthening family values or protecting civil liberties. They were only interested in perpetuating division and affirming a wedge issue. … Despite my own feelings about an abhorrent law, the realities of modern politics persist. While the repeal of DOMA is essential, the unfortunate truth is that it is unlikely with Mr. Bush in the White House and Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress.
And here he is again, in an appearance on Meet the Press with Tim Russert in Novemebr, 2007:
For my entire career in public life, I have brought the message of GLBT equality to skeptical audiences as well as friendly ones. No other leading candidate in the race for the Presidency has demonstrated the same commitment to the principle of full equality.
I support the full and unqualified repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act. While some say we should repeal only part of the law, I believe we should get rid of that statute altogether. Federal law should not discriminate in any way against gay and lesbian couples.
All you gay and lesbian Clinton supporters, make of that what you will.
