Patterico's Pontifications


Bill Clinton: Three Cheers for the Decision That Said I Am a Homophobe!

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 9:30 pm

Anthony Kennedy says those responsible for DOMA had the “purpose” to “disparage and to injure” same-sex couples:

The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.

Bill Clinton signed DOMA. Therefore, Anthony Kennedy says Bill Clinton’s purpose was to disparage and to injure same-sex couples.

Bill Clinton praises the decision that labels him a bigot.

In my mind’s eye, I see Clinton clapping with that ^&%$ eating grin and saying hyuk hyuk!

28 Responses to “Bill Clinton: Three Cheers for the Decision That Said I Am a Homophobe!”

  1. Consistency is not a politician’s friend. I’m sure he didn’t mean it in when he signed DOMA.

    Former Conservative (6e026c)

  2. Clinton’s finger-in-the-wind Presidency makes him immune to worries about inconsistency. He’s popular because it is the closest we have ever come to have an administration run by Gallup polling.

    JVW (23867e)

  3. People forget that the reason DOMA was passed by substantial majorities in both the House and Senate was to forestall the gay activist legal strategy of forced recognition of gay marriage by judicial fiat in states which had not approved it and at the federal level as a result of actions by individual states.

    Kennedy having the gall to label the preservation of federalism no legitimate purpose as well as calling the beliefs of virtually all the world’s major religions bigoted and hateful does not speak well of the man’s scholarship or tolerance.

    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  4. Maybe he considers homophobe a compliment.

    Then again, he comes from the land where the definition of “virgin” is an eight-year old girl who can run faster than her father and brothers.

    Michael Ejercito (2e0217)

  5. Anthony Kennedy says those responsible for DOMA had the “purpose” to “disparage and to injure” same-sex couples:

    Based on the following, Tony, while they may not deserve to be disparaged and injured, they also sure as heck don’t deserved to be hugged. But that’s assuming you’re a decent, compassionate, caring person. If you are, you should be very uneasy about the effects noted below. The self-esteem and happiness of the adults you want to assist may ratchet up, but that may not be the case with a large number of children who wander into the picture., Mark Regnerus, June 11, 2012:

    Not far beneath all the debate about marriage equality remains a longstanding concern about children. Parents and advocates of all stripes wonder, and some worry, whether the children of gay and lesbian parents will turn out “different.” Different in significant ways, not just odd or unique ones.

    [T]he conventional wisdom has been that there are “no differences” of note in the child outcomes of gay and lesbian parents. The phrase has appeared in dozens of studies, reports, depositions, and articles—and in countless email and Facebook debates—since then.

    [But] instead of relying on small samples, or the challenges of discerning sexual orientation of household residents using census data, my colleagues and I randomly screened over 15,000 Americans aged 18-39 and asked them if their biological mother or father ever had a romantic relationship with a member of the same sex. I realize that one same-sex relationship does not a lesbian make, necessarily. But our research team was less concerned with the complicated politics of sexual identity than with same-sex behavior.

    Even after including controls for age, race, gender, and things like being bullied as a youth, or the gay-friendliness of the state in which they live, such respondents were more apt to report being unemployed, less healthy, more depressed, more likely to have cheated on a spouse or partner, smoke more pot, had trouble with the law, report more male and female sex partners, more sexual victimization, and were more likely to reflect negatively on their childhood family life, among other things.

    Why such dramatic differences? I can only speculate, since the data are not poised to pinpoint causes. One notable theme among the adult children of same-sex parents, however, is household instability, and plenty of it. The children of fathers who have had same-sex relationships fare a bit better, but they seldom reported living with their father for very long, and never with his partner for more than three years.

    28 percent of the adult children of women who’ve had same-sex relationships are currently unemployed, compared to 8 percent of those from married mom-and-dad families. Forty percent of the former admit to having had an affair while married or cohabiting, compared to 13 percent of the latter. Nineteen percent of the former said they were currently or recently in psychotherapy for problems connected with anxiety, depression, or relationships, compared with 8 percent of the latter. And those are just three of the 25 differences I noted.

    The young-adult children of women in lesbian relationships reported the highest incidence of time spent in foster care (at 14 percent of total, compared to 2 percent among the rest of the sample). Forty percent spent time living with their grandparents (compared to 10 percent of the rest); 19 percent spent time living on their own before age 18 (compared to 4 percent among everyone else). In fact, less than 2 percent of all respondents who said their mother had a same-sex relationship reported living with their mother and her partner for all 18 years of their childhood.

    I wish researchers would do a study on why a large percentage of the GLBT crowd is of the left, if that liberalism in and by itself is innate or genetic, and how much flaky liberalism — more than just homosexuality per se — is actually the root of the problem.

    Mark (67e579)

  6. I wish researchers would do a study on why a large percentage of the GLBT crowd is of the left, if that liberalism in and by itself is innate or genetic, and how much flaky liberalism — more than just homosexuality per se — is actually the root of the problem.

    Asking academics to research the potential negative effects of flaky liberalism is like asking pigs to research new ways of preparing bacon.

    JVW (23867e)

  7. To the best of my knowledge, this IS a first: a president praising the Supreme Court for overturning a law that he signed into existence.

    Icy (bf16ac)

  8. Hardly surprising: President Clinton also signed welfare reform into law in 1996 . . . the year he was up for re-election. His one and only goal was to win re-election.

    The Dana who never voted for Bill Clinton (3e4784)

  9. His Democrats’ one and only goal was is to win re-election.

    Pious Agnostic (20c167)

  10. You don’t think Bob Dole’s primary goal was to be elected?

    Ian G. (bd7302)

  11. The world barely exists for some people and Clinton is one of them. He probably has a very close connection to his mother, Chelsea and Hillary, but the rest is the scenery outside the side windows of a car traveling down the highway. It’s a transcendent state of sorts.

    nk (875f57)

  12. We all agree the IRS should be abolished via some flavor of flat tax. DOMA was primarily a tax bill in support of an evil regime.

    So the Senate GOP finds its 2014 battle cry.

    Today’s GOP: Too stupid to live in any era.

    gary gulrud (dd7d4e)

  13. Speaking of “phobias,” I’m reminded of the racial kind, referring to Bill Clinton reportedly using the “N” word in casual, private conversations, merely to describe black activists he didn’t care for (unlike that woman with the cooking show recently in the news, who described an incident decades ago, when a black assailant held a gun up to her head). Or the phobia on display with the following well-known leftist (who has been an ongoing spokesman for Capitol One credit cards), merely due to a reporter claiming that inappropriate text messaging by the actor’s wife had occurred during a funeral. Next came a pair of tweets [from Alec Baldwin] tinged with gay slurs.

    “(I’d) put my foot up your f—king ass, George Stark, but I’m sure you’d dig it too much,” Baldwin wrote.

    “I’m gonna find you, George Stark, you toxic little queen, and I’m gonna f—k…you…up.”

    I’m reminded of another incident not long ago in LA, of the son of Sean Penn, another one of those notorious liberals of Hollywood, spouting off the “N” word towards a paparazzi (who was black).

    The left apparently inculcates plenty of phobias.

    Mark (67e579)

  14. Shorter “Ian” – tu toque SQUIRREL

    JD (0819f1)

  15. I think what bothers me here in the intellectual dishonesty. To be sure, people change their minds about things. But if you do so in a fashion that makes you “one of the cool kids,” it kind of makes me doubt you were serious about that change.

    And the MSM is so blatantly unfair. People on the Left who opposed DOMA and now support it are “evolving” and “constantly thinking.” People on the Right who change their minds are “flip-floppers” and “attempting to curry favor.”

    To be sure, Clinton can change his mind. But he and his wife both (not to mention Harry Reid and a host of others) are on video supporting DOMA, and opposing gay marriage. Yet we don’t see that footage, do we? Nor is that footage played in front of them, and then asked when precisely their minds changed? I know that for BHO, it wasn’t twenty years. More like, what, two?

    And that should make genuine supporters of SSM angry, and distrustful. After all, what is to stop these folks from changing their minds again?

    Simon Jester (f5785f)

  16. Team R needs to make restoring DOMA a focus of the 2016 campaign I think

    cause of for the justice and the opprobrium and also the melancholy and such

    it needs to be a Top Priority for so America and also costco bean dip and I need to remember to bring C batteries to work today cause of the kit-cat clock came in

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  17. Mr. Feets – Team R needs to adopt the hateful and bigoted eliminationist rhetoric of the left you have patiently been teaching us here on this family website so we too can pretend to be soldiers in the fight for liberty and equality against the godless power hungry socialists and anti-Americans who are attempting to suppress our speech, take away our rights and fundamentally change America for the worse because we can all learn from your staunch conservative example and it would be fun.


    daleyrocks (bf33e9)

  18. You don’t think Bob Dole’s primary goal was to be elected?
    Comment by Ian G. (bd7302) — 6/28/2013 @ 5:21 am

    — What major, long-held political belief did Dole compromise for the sake of trying to be elected?

    Icy (9edb97)

  19. i am the staunchest one

    freedom is my watchword and individual liberty is my north star

    i gaze off into the west sometimes, pensively

    and I love me a good bean dip

    happyfeet (8ce051)

  20. Remember, you are all hateful bigots for daring to have the exact same position on same sex marriage as President Obama until March 2012.

    SPQR (768505)

  21. same sex marriage is more and more the status quo wherever you go in America

    it’s cause of how people aren’t predgydissed no mores

    happyfeet (c60db2)

  22. Pat:

    Just a heads up; I call upon you in vain — along with several other conservatives; you’re in good company! — in this post on Big Lizards: the Kennedy Konundrum ( — for some reason, your system won’t let me post it as a proper link).

    I support Kennedy and attack Roberts.


    Dafydd the Hair Splitter (763797)

  23. That’s what I thought too, Dafydd. Windsor is Tenth Amendment. The balancing test, however, is scary. “Yes, we recognize your right but it is outweighed by the governmental interest” is always hanging over every decision.

    nk (875f57)

  24. And the recent 9th Circuit opinion, gives the lie to that.

    narciso (3fec35)

  25. If we’re going to want progress on gay rights, we’re going to be seeing a lot of people having been wrong and now being right. Worth it, in my book.

    daniel (6e9bc1)

  26. It appears that Senator Leahy got his amendment after all, courtesy of the Supreme Court, and it is effective even without the bill..

    As you may recall, Sen. Leahy wanted to amend the Senate immigration bill to treat same-sex couples the same way as opposite sex couples. Democrats did not want it in the bill saying this would kill it.

    They eventually got senator Lindsey Graham to speak openly against it saying you got me on immigration but you don’t have me on this.

    The decision said that all marriages did not have to be recognized in immigration law. They could investigate whether they were “real”

    But it seems like because DOMA is gone, any marriage legal in any state (or country) is legal for purposes of immigration law, unless there is some special provision saying otherwise, although word may not have filtered down to the bureaucracy.

    Green Cards and Marriage Equality – NYTImes June 26 online

    Sammy Finkelman (6f9f42)

Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.4008 secs.