Well, the Defense of Marriage Act is used by LGBT activists to argue that we don’t need to take proactive action. They argue DOMA is the law and conservatives are over-reacting, don’t need to take action, unless something “unexpected” happens judicially. While, on the other hand, LGBT activists pursue legal cases to force the “unexpected”.

Yep, Deja Vu—and then on Tuesday they’ll insist that DOMA is actually unconstitutional.

This clip, the appearance on Charlie Rose and the Chris Wallace interview from 2006 illustrate Pres. Clinton so well - weasel word your way through an answer, bringing up enough opposing points of view to give the illusion of a thoughtful response and then get indignant when asked for your straight forward position.

interesting...he’s in his usual form. he didn’t answer and when the male student voiced that, it was ignored altogether. yep, texex, you are spot on.

Slick Willie rides again.

the snarkster

I actually think he has a point: if the DOMA were repealed by a liberal Democrat Congress, there would not only be huge backlash at the ballot box, but the number of state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage would skyrocket.  He (and probably Hillary, despite her rhetoric) know that this would be harmful to the gay lobby’s efforts--just as Massachusetts’s rush to marry gays (instead of settled for civil unions) was nationwide a disaster for the gay marriage effort.  Cut Willie a little slack: he understands exactly what repealing DOMA would mean--better than the gays do.

It is extremely disturbing to navigate over to Stand Firm and see not only the new design, but also Bill Clinton prominently featured.

I almost choked on my dinner.

Clinton’s description is classic incrementalism.  He advises that they should take what they can get without provoking an over-reaction.  I suspect he thinks the courts will eventually impose a universal solution anyway.  The DOMA is an illusion which exists only at the behest of five judges on the Supreme Court.  And given the increasing primacy of autonomy as a basis of law, it will not last long.

Autonomy is anathema to traditional marriage, for marriage is intended to constrain.  It is designed to restrict options; to force individuals to act in the interests of others.  It is an external standard that is imposed, and includes both implicit obligations and responsibilities.  Of course, these are the very features of marriage which so offend the autonomy of man.  Naturally, these are the facets of marriage that come under attack.  Our modern culture seeks to establish the alternate idea that only self-imposed constraints are valid.  It demands the freedom to fashion any relationship according to any conditions subject only to mutual agreement.  But civilization cannot be sustained by this principle.  It will result in ruthlessly self-centered relationships, for man is ruthlessly self-centered. 

This is the danger in gay marriage - not that it makes a word ambiguous, but that it makes all relationships self-defined.  How the DOMA will stop this progression, I do not understand.  The culture at large has largely accepted the idea that autonomy is the basis of morality.  Once that connection is made, legitimized homosexual relationships will soon follow.  And so will civilizational dissolution.  The first is simply a symptom of the second.

carl

I completely agree with you, Carl.
I agree with RomeAnglican, except I don’t think Clinton’s concern is for a backlash hurting the goals of the Gay Lobby, but rather the backlash hurting the Democrats chances of winning elections, a consequence of which would be to hurt the agenda of the Gay Lobby.

He is a master politician.  He is operating in the real world rather than the ideologically-driven one.  He is not ideologically-driven, he’s a master politician.  Hillary is obviously more liberal on the topic than he is and perhaps is more ideologically-driven than he is. 

He articulates Hillary’s point of view, but it’s clear it’s not his own.  I find this video fascinating as an insight to their own partnership and political differences. 

bb

He is not ideologically-driven, he’s a master politician.

I fully concur!! This particular special interest group is expendable, they can count the lobby will not cross line, but identification too close can cost too many votes from the swing vote. The young lady obviously has passionate views but missing probably one of the most honest statements “slick Willy’ has ever made. Politics is mostly about power not ideology.

Gee, Bill Clinton as a pundit on marriage! I’m sure Gen Flowers, Monica Lewinski, and a host of other women he’s violated (not to mention his wife) would have some choice comments regarding that!