It didn't adhere to traditional interview guidelines, and it certainly wasn't under the most professional of circumstances. But what transpired between us can serve as an important lesson: that in a new era of citizen journalism, regular people can make not only headlines, but a palpable difference in advancing the causes for which they are passionate. For me, that cause is equal marriage rights for LGBT couples. And by a combination of assertiveness and dumb luck, I may have pushed the national dialogue a bit farther along on the "arch of history" we've been hearing a lot about lately.
As an amateur (and budding) journalist, I've learned to keep my digital recorder with me whenever there's a chance that I might happen across a story. So naturally, I had my device in tow while attending the Campus Progress National Conference in Washington, D.C., on July 8.
Former President Bill Clinton gave the conference's keynote address, and while his anecdotes about Haitian children were for the most part entertaining and poignant, I couldn't shake a hankering for something a bit more news-worthy. He didn't take questions after the speech, so I decided I'd go try to ask him one myself.
Clinton had commented a month or so prior that his position on same-sex marriage was "evolving," and I thought it might be worth a shot to follow up on the current status of his thought processes. As the former president made his way along the rope line, shaking hands and posing for hurried photos, I asked him if he would commit his support for same-sex marriage.
"I'm basically in support," he said into my recorder. "I don't think any state should be suffering, and I think all these states that do it should do it. It's not a federal question. I don't think the Congress --"
I interrupted, "But personally -- personally do you support it?"
"Yeah," he replied, with a modest degree of conviction.
And with that, I knew a story was in the making. But just to be absolutely sure, I asked him again: "President Clinton, you personally support same sex marriage?"
"I personally support people doing what they want to do," he said, chuckling a bit. "I think that if people -- I think it's wrong for someone to stop someone else from doing that. That's what I think."
Listen to the audio here:
The implications of this revelation are far-reaching, and may well represent the "tipping point" in terms of public opinion on the issue of same-sex marriage. Bill Clinton has always made a concerted effort to situate himself firmly in the center of American politics; it was how he governed as president, much to the chagrin of both the right and the left, and it's how he's conducted himself since leaving office. That the most prominent moderate politician in the country has pledged his support would itself be enough of an indication that being in favor of same-sex marriage is now a mainstream, somewhat uncontroversial position. But there is deeper significance.
It was Bill Clinton who forever tarred his legacy on LGBT issues by signing the radically discriminatory Defense of Marriage Act in 1996; he even campaigned on the legislation as part of his reelection bid. It was Bill Clinton's relentless pursuit of the "middle-ground" that we now have to thank for the denial of over 1,000 federal benefits to same-sex couples whose relationships have been legally consecrated by the states of Massachusetts, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, Maine, and New Hampshire. It was Bill Clinton who said that his opposition to same-sex marriage "was not being reviewed or reconsidered."
And now, Bill Clinton supports same-sex marriage; personally, at that. Does this constitute a seismic shift? I'd say so.
Over the past week, many in the blogosphere have been hesitant to accept that the former president has had a genuine change of heart. The reversal, they have claimed, reeks of the same political opportunism and calculation that seemed to characterize much of his presidency. And indeed, Clinton's endorsement was tepid, its motivation inscrutable. He voiced it only when pressed at an off-the-cuff student event, and in the aftermath has offered no official comment or statement (despite my repeated requests).
But let's look at this with some perspective. We now have an American president for the first time publicly acknowledging his support for same sex-marriage, which even a few short years ago would have been unthinkable. And by saying that he did not believe the issue was a "federal question," Clinton has essentially disavowed the Defense of Marriage Act, which for the first time made the issue... a federal question. Now the author of the legislation, Bob Barr, the signer of the legislation, Bill Clinton, and the current president, Barack Obama, have all repudiated it. Everyone reading this should contact their members of Congress, and urge them to also support its repeal.
Evan Wolfson, executive director of the Freedom to Marry coalition, recently suggested to me a strategy that would unquestionably be effective in eliciting endorsements from elected officials whom we suspect might personally favor same-sex marriage, but lack the political will to say so publicly:
"Will you," we should ask them, "join the voices who have spoken up even in the past few weeks, ranging from Dick Cheney, to Bill Clinton, including the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Education Association, and the Episcopal Church?"
That's powerful, and demonstrates that it's now time to start thinking of same-sex marriage as an issue that is not only politically tenable, but commonplace.
"Bill Clinton is in good and diverse company," Wolfson added. "His voice is welcome, and he should raise it clearly and more often." Here's to hoping that Clinton's press office will be pressured into finally issuing an official statement.
And to anyone who might decry this revelation as irrelevant or inconsequential, look no further than last Thursday's White House press briefing, during which Robert Gibbs was pressed by ABC's Jake Tapper about President Obama's position on same-sex marriage in light of the Clinton reversal.
"I don't know if the president has seen it," Gibbs said. Rest assured that he has now. And soon enough, his position will too "evolve."
So let's continue this "ripple effect" by getting our elected officials on the record, just as I did two weeks ago. Anybody can do it, and it makes a big difference.
You censored our comment on gay divorce. How come? So many legal issues yet to be resolved in this critical arena...Property rights, custody, etc. etc. Who gives whom alimony. These issues aren't going to go away, Mike. Let's face them head on, together, as a team. Of, if not, at least give us the chance to put these issues on the table.
Yours faithfully,
The Playdo Institute
Handel Glassberg, President
....except it totally doesn't.
News? wink wink
The Constitution prohibits the government from endorsing, promoting or preventing a religion from it's religious practices. Since opponents of same gender marriage have said that allowing such marriages would deny religions their right to practice their religion, wouldn't enforcement of DOMA and any of the anti-same gender marriage amendments in States be held null and void?
I hope that the Prop 8 case that will come before the Courts will add that question to the Justices. By prohibiting same gender marriages they are directly interfering with a religious rite.
I think that we're now having an opportunity to see more of the real Bill Clinton and his actual opinions, not just the carefully managed version that you get with all politicians.
I suggest reading these:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/13/obama-once-supported-same_n_157656.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gabriel-rotello/obamas-gay-marriage-flip_b_158009.html
and then this, carefully:
http://www.americablog.com/2009/06/obama-justice-department-defends-doma.html
and finally:
http://open.salon.com/blog/john_mortimer_esq/2009/06/19/obama_doma_treachery_betrayal_and_invidious_gay_jim_crow
If Clinton is now an ally in the equality debate that is good news for LGBTs since there is benefit in strengthening community members and allies who respect the office of the president.
If it feels too personal to feel good about President Clinton's change of heart there are other people out there who are allies to hang out with.
Clinton styled himself as a Great Reformer. He entered office determined to issue his own emancipation proclamation, with LGBT servicepeople reaping the benefit of his historic, presidential largesse. Sadly, about a second after he felt the first whispering cut of the rightwing backlash, he backtracked, threw in the towel and gave us Don't Ask Don't Tell instead. Later, when the House and Senate turned republican, he threw the whole LGBT community onto the fire - and so the Defense of Marriage Act was born.
Now we have Obama. No better than Clinton, so far. He had Prop 8 proponent Rick Warren to pray him into office. When we balked, he ignored us. And now months have passed and the Obama administration is defending Clinton's DOMA. And DADT stands strong, even though LBGT service people's decorated military careers are ruined pointlessly and tragically day after day .
Know this: words are meaningless; action is everything. We fight for ourselves. We can depend on no one. If Clinton says he's for us, shake his hand, say thanks, wash up afterwards. Ditto for Obama. No celebrity political endorsement will do the job for us. We have to fight. Fight the republicans and democrats alike. They are the problem, not the solution.
"This struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, and it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will..."
Why are all you folks so 'head in the sand like' to this?