As the president who signed the act into law, I have come to believe that DOMA is ... , in fact, incompatible with our Constitution.
Because Section 3 of the act defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, same-sex couples who are legally married in nine states and the District of Columbia are denied the benefits of more than a thousand federal statutes and programs available to other married couples. Among other things, these couples cannot file their taxes jointly, take unpaid leave to care for a sick or injured spouse or receive equal family health and pension benefits as federal civilian employees. Yet they pay taxes, contribute to their communities and, like all couples, aspire to live in committed, loving relationships, recognized and respected by our laws.
When I signed the bill, I included a statement with the admonition that "enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination." Reading those words today, I know now that, even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, the law is itself discriminatory.
Friday, March 8, 2013
Bill Clinton admits the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and discriminatory
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Former Presidents have zero powers under the constitution.
Former President Clinton is one who would do anything for his own advancement- and it this helps Hillary then I guess we can answer the "qui bono" question.
NOT a valid argument for SSM. Make the case based on principle- not on politics.
Self-serving.
Post a Comment