Why Bill Clinton Told Me He Supported Same-Sex Marriage (AUDIO)

Two weeks ago, I had a conversation with Bill Clinton about same-sex marriage.

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."

The rest was history.

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.

Comments

[hglassberg]

Yo Mike,

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

[TravisStark]

How brave! Bill Clinton is suddenly in support of same-sex marriage, as an EX-President, and with the knowledge he'll never run for office again. What a statesman.

[aftershock]

Yep, and he's the one who told Kerry not to support it in 2004. I don't believe a word that comes out of Bill Clinton's mouth, period.

[GeneCar]

There is no love lost between Bill Clinton nd Barrack Obama. Bill knows that wherever they have been asked, American voters have rejected same-sex marraige. He must know that to champiaon this cause would plunge Obama's poll ratings, including among conservative Democrats. Cynical.

[S1m0n]

Bill must be delighted to have the opportunity to wash his hands of DOMA and DADT while sticking it to Obama, but that doesn't change the fact that these were Bill's laws, and that he knew they were unjust when he signed them.

[carsntrucks]

Yeah that makes perfect sense...

....except it totally doesn't.

[2Bfair]

Asked to clarify, Bill Clinton said: ""I personally support people doing what they want to do."

News? wink wink

[Hansharriet]

Didn't Clinton come up with the "Don't ask, don't telll" doctrine for the military, when most Western European armies already accepted gays and lesbians without questioning? So now, he saw the light? And he is still slippery in his answer.....How about it, President Obama, can we have your help in removing this Clinton Doctrine from our Military?

[useyourbrain]

Riddle me this, when DOMA comes before the Supreme Court, how will Scalia and the other religionists answer the fact that since many churches, including the Episcopal Church now perform same-gender marriages?

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.

[ObliqueReference]

Clinton also said he supported legalizing cannabis to rolling stone AFTER his second term was over. He'll say what ever will score him points now- but he had years to do something about it and had no interest in these issues what so ever. You got fooled by slick willy once again. Doesn't mean anything.

[JustMyWords]

Actually, if he was going to be lying, I'd think he have been more likely to be lying then than now. "Scoring points" does him no good now - it's not like he's going to be running for office again.

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.

[PinkoPanther]

I've always known that DADT and DOMA had more to do with sneaky Republican wolves in Libertarian sheep clothes... People like Bob Barr, who actually had control over the Senate more than any Democrat did. However, we seem to be repeating history here with Obama... We are being told once again that "there are much bigger issues at stake right now". This argument from "centrist" Democrats holds no water because Congress is capable of passing more than one bill at once. Furthermore, the divisive nature of the issue is all the more reason for "true" Democrats to stand up and identify themselves. Without knowing where a politician stands on these issues, there is no reason for anyone to consider voting for them.

[zola77]

good call on Bob Barr...

[InTheSouth]

People seem to constantly be confusing "holy matrimony" with "marriage". Holy matrimony takes place in a religious context (which is fooie hocus pocus to me anyway). Marriage is the merger of two into one. When I was a child, I remember my mother telling me "Look at that vine, it is married with the fence." It seems that any two objects (or people) who merge and act as one are married. I'm sure there was no religious rite performed for the vine and fence.

[Strepsi]

Your distinction is duly noted. But given that gay people in several states have BOTH -- i.e. they can be religiously blessed into Holy Matrimony in United, Unitarian, Episcopal or Reform Jewish ceremonies; AND they can go to City Hall and be legally civilly married; it only doubles the injustices that these "traditional", "Holy", and legal rites are explicitly discriminated against at the Federal level. Overtly unjust.

[superstition]

Regarding the current President:

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

[WKR]

excellent thread.

[mark oconnor]

For those who want marriage equality it makes no political sense to lambast a retired President for supporting their position.

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.

[seabelly]

Depending on the support of a politician is like playing fetch with a mad dog; sometimes he''ll bring you the stick, and sometimes he'll beat you with it.

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.

[marirose]

On point, Seabelly. As Frederick Douglass said, "... "Let me give you a word of the philosophy of reform. The whole history of the progress of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims, have been born of earnest struggle. The conflict has been exciting, agitating, all-absorbing, and for the time being, putting all other tumults to silence. It must do this or it does nothing. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightening. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters."

"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..."

[tom ellison]

Easy for him to support it now. He's no longer in office or running for office.

[steamboat]

So why was he so non-chalent at best and in-reality an obstacle to it when he was President?

Why are all you folks so 'head in the sand like' to this?

[roger3815]

You mean before he was against it and sold gays down the river?