Skip to comments.Bill Clinton says anti-gay marriage law he signed should be overturned
Posted on 03/07/2013 9:37:43 PM PST by Olog-hai
Former President Bill Clinton, who in 1996 signed into law an act defining marriage as between a man and woman, said on Thursday the measure was unconstitutional and should be overturned by the Supreme Court.
Noting that the Supreme Court will hear arguments on March 27 challenging the constitutionality of DOMA, Clinton wrote the justices must decide whether it is consistent with the principles of a nation that honors freedom, equality and justice above all, and is therefore constitutional. As the president who signed the act into law, I have come to believe that DOMA is contrary to those principles and in fact, incompatible with our Constitution.
(Excerpt) Read more at reuters.com ...
Have Rand Paul ask Bill Clinton if he signed any OTHER unconstitutional laws.
The man lives with a woman reputed to be partnered with Huma. He isn’t new to “alternative lifestyle” arrangements.
DOMA simpley says that the individual states have the right to recognize or not recognize faggot “marriage” as they see fit, right? Where on earth does the Constitution say the feds can take over that power from the states?
Clinton and principles don’t belong in the same universe.
Nothing like an ex-President sticking his nose into private States votes. Seems to be an epidemic these days though.
I’d guess that most of these folks believe in National laws rather than State laws - ie. in total disregard of the Constitution!
Is his signing this an impeachable offense?
The Defense of Marriage Act also says that, for all purposes of federal law, that marriage is a man and a woman, regardless of how any states define marriage.
I don’t get how there is any constitutional violation regarding defining marriage for purposes of legal benefits, etc. based on marital status. But then again, I’m not liberal, so don’t have the unique insights that liberals have. (sarcasm)
Isn’t DOMA also “anti-polygamist?” I guess ol’ Bill wants to add to his stable of ladies....
Yes. After posting, I researched further and found this out. It's a good law. Funny how the impeached Sink Masturbator now says it's "unconstitutional", but apparently didn't think so when he signed the bill into law.
"I woulda vetoed at the time if I realized it was unconstitutional, shucks, I missed the fine print cuz I was busy gettin' served by Monica. Give a guy a break!"
As the wind blows so blows a wish washy Clinton.
It’s a little like the anti-sodomy law in the military, When it was repealed, bestiality became legal.
so, pretty much this means Hillary is running for prezzy..
Old Bill always has his finger in the wind, and can blow any way it tells him to.
Maybe I shouldn’t use the word blow and Clinton in the same sentence.
When that law was passed, homosexual marriage was not a liberal cause. The vote in Congress was overwhelming. Check the roll call vote, and you would be surprised to see that liberals such as Chuck Schumer, Joe Lieberman, Tom Harkin, Pat Leahy, voted for it.
Only 17 years ago, liberals could say that marriage was a man and a woman. Now if you say that, liberals call you a bigot and Neanderthal. Its funny how these liberals are given a pass on their support of this hated (by gay activists) law.
Would love to ask Bill Clinton follow up questions. If this law is so obviously unconstitutional, then why in the sam hill did he sign it?
“If this law is so obviously unconstitutional, then why in the sam hill did he sign it?”
“With federal lawmakers then debating various responses, “some quite draconian,” many supporters of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, believed its passage would defuse moves to push for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, Clinton wrote.”
Now his lips are moving, but whatever the reason or actual effect I would say that the possibility of a national amendment is now remote. There might be some truth to it, but of course the biggest factor are the number of voters who accepted ‘gay marriage’ at the time. Doma was 96 I think, the first state amendments were in 98, Hawaai and Alaska. The first gay marriage state was Mass. in 2004.
Why should the high Court listen to an impeached perjeror who lost his law license in his own state?
That’s presuming no bias on the part of said Court.
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.