OPINION - Shields and Gerson 6/26/2015

"Shields and Gerson on Supreme Court’s gay marriage and Obamacare decisions" PBS NewsHour 6/26/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson join Hari Sreenivasan to discuss the week’s news, including the historic Supreme Court overturning state bans on same-sex marriage, the Court’s ruling preserving the Affordable Care Act and the growing movement to remove the Confederate flag symbols from public spaces in South Carolina.

HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour):  And to the analysis of Shields and Gerson. That’s syndicated columnist Mark Shields and Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson.

The first topic is going to be a total shocker, gay marriage.  We have talked about it a little bit.  The country struggled with it for quite some time.

Does legal acceptance mean cultural acceptance?

MARK SHIELDS, syndicated columnist:  Yes.

HARI SREENIVASAN:  All right.  That was the shortest answer…

MARK SHIELDS:  No, I really — I really do think this has been moving.

Unlike Roe v. Wade, where, quite frankly, 40 years later, opinions are still frozen, as it was moving toward a legislative solution, which is always the ideal in a democracy, that you can do it by popular vote and so forth, I don’t think there’s any question that the momentum behind the support for same-sex marriage, for equity was just exponential.

It went from 40 percent just five-and-a-half years ago of Americans to 60 percent now, 70 percent of men under the age of 49 — 49 — 18 to 49, 70 percent of women.  It’s just — it’s incredible.  So, I think that this just accelerates it and seals it.

HARI SREENIVASAN:  Michael Gerson, we heard someone from the Heritage Foundation earlier on in the program say that this conversation is not over, that this could be long-lasting.

MICHAEL GERSON, Washington Post:  Well, I think I agree with Mark on this.  This has moved unbelievably swiftly.

Seven years ago this summer in August, the current President of the United States said that he believed that marriage was a sacred woman of a man — a sacred union of a man and woman, seven years ago.  That viewpoint has now been declared illegal as a basis for law in all 50 states, in seven years.  I don’t know any precedent for that.  That’s pretty extraordinary.

If you step back a little bit, there are some broad cultural reasons for this, not just the court.  But there’s really the strategy of coming out, in which more Americans now know people who are gay, which I think has changed and humanized this debate in many ways, change in sexual mores that you see in Hollywood and other places that have taken place over the last few decades, and a change in strategy in the courts, really going — wanting to join a bourgeois institution, marriage, and making a conservative argument to people like Andrew Sullivan and Jon Rauch, making conservative arguments for stability and commitment.

This was an argument that appealed to Middle America.  And it is the argument that won in this court today.

SUPREME COURT - Gay Marriage

IMHO:  As my readers may ascertain from past post on this subject...

• Same-sex (gay) marriage is a Human Right, the right of personal relationships between any consenting adults
• It IS a matter of Equal Rights under the law
• Protection from having ANY religious-based belief being imposed on others by using the law of the land

"Supreme Court considers whether it’s time for nationwide same-sex marriage" PBS NewsHour 4/28/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Today the Supreme Court tackled a highly anticipated and historic case that could set the definition of marriage in the U.S.  The justices heard arguments on whether all states must allow same-sex marriage, and if not, whether states must recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere.  Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal joins Judy Woodruff to discuss what happened in court.

JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  It was a historic day at the Supreme Court, at stake, the definition of marriage.

Justices split the issue into two questions:  Must every state permit same-sex marriage?  And, if not, do states have to recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere?

Protesters from both sides of the debate crowded outside the court building in Washington this morning.

Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal was there and she joins us now.

MARCIA COYLE, The National Law Journal:  Hi, Judy.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  So, Marcia, big day at the court. Knowing that, what is it, 36 of the states…

MARCIA COYLE:  Plus the District of Columbia.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  … already declare same-sex marriage legal, what were the petitioners today asking the court to decide?

MARCIA COYLE:  Well, basically, they’re laying claim to the 14th Amendment’s guarantees of equal protection and due process of law.

They’re saying that the court has recognized that there is a fundamental right to marry, and under the 14th Amendment, they have been — they deserve to be part and to participate in that fundamental right.

The states that still do ban same-sex marriage, they claim, are excluding them from that fundamental right to marry.  It was a packed courtroom, Judy, and the arguments were fast-paced and intense.  And I hope anybody who is interested will listen to the full audio and read the transcript.

(Full Audio and Transcripts) Obergefell v. Hodges; Docket Number: 14-556-Question-1, Docket Number: 14-556-Question-2

GAY MARRIAGE - Businesses That Refuse Services

"Why some wedding businesses say ‘I don’t’ to gay couples" PBS NewsHour 1/21/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In Colorado, a baker’s decision to turn a gay couple away rather than make them a wedding cake has sparked a civil rights legal battle.  In fact, as the number of states allowing same-sex marriages increases, so too has the number of business owners refusing to provide wedding services for religious reasons.  Hari Sreenivasan reports.

HARI SREENIVASAN (NewsHour):  Colorado baker Jack Phillips estimates he’s made 5,000 wedding cakes since he opened his shop, Masterpiece Cakes, 20 years ago.

JACK PHILLIPS, Owner, Masterpiece Cakeshop:  I just like everything about the baking business.  With a wedding, I get to know the bride, I get to know the groom, if I can, you know, as much of the personalities and things that I can.

HARI SREENIVASAN:  And while his portfolio of wedding cakes is vast, there’s one cake the baker refuses to bake.  Phillips will not make a cake for a same-sex marriage.

JACK PHILLIPS:  It’s a cake that I just don’t do because of my Christian faith.

HARI SREENIVASAN:  A deeply religious man, Jack Phillips says he will bake birthday cakes, cupcakes, and a variety of other sweets for same-sex couples, not just a wedding cake.

JACK PHILLIPS:  I actually feel like I’m taking part in the wedding.  Part of me goes to the reception.  And in this case, that part of me doesn’t want to be represented in a ceremony that I believe is unbiblical.

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 1/16/2015

"Shields and Brooks on same-sex right to marry, Romney run resistance" PBS NewsHour 1/16/2015

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including the Supreme Court’s move to consider same-sex marriage, next steps for Republican congressional leaders, emerging GOP candidates for the next presidential race, plus thoughts on the NewsHour’s decision to not show the post-attack cover of Charlie Hebdo.

GAY MARRIAGE - Michigan Judge's Ruling

"Judge:  Michigan must recognize 300-plus gay marriages" by JEFF KAROUB (AP), Seattle Pi 1/15/2015

A federal judge ruled Thursday that Michigan must recognize hundreds of same-sex marriages performed during a brief window last year.

U.S. District Judge Mark Goldsmith wrote that the unions are valid, but stayed the decision for 21 days pending any appeal by the state.

A different federal judge struck down the state's gay marriage ban on March 21.  More than 300 same-sex couples in four counties got married the next day, before an appeals court suspended the decision and blocked additional marriages.

Michigan has refused to recognize those marriages, which affects health insurance and the ability of same-sex couples to jointly adopt children.  Goldsmith said those who married "acquired a status that state officials may not ignore absent some compelling interest."

"In these circumstances, what the state has joined together, it may not put asunder," Goldsmith wrote.

State Attorney General Bill Schuette said in a statement that his office is reviewing the ruling, and added that "the sooner the United States Supreme Court makes a decision on this issue the better it will be for Michigan and America."

The U.S. Supreme Court could decide Friday whether it will put Michigan's same-sex marriage case on its calendar in time to be argued and decided by late June.  Until now, the court has managed both to avoid settling the issue for the nation as a whole.  In the meantime, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of states that allow same-sex couples to marry.  Last week, Florida became the 36th state to issue licenses for same-sex unions.

The Michigan chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, which filed a lawsuit on behalf of eight couples, said the ruling is "a victory for marriage equality."

OPINION - Shields and Brooks 10/10/2014

"Shields and Brooks on same-sex marriage sea change, politics of Ebola prevention" PBS NewsHour 10/10/2014

Excerpts

SUMMARY:  Syndicated columnist Mark Shields and New York Times columnist David Brooks join Judy Woodruff to discuss the week’s news, including the Supreme Court decision not to hear cases on gay marriage bans, criticism for the government’s handling of and response to the Ebola epidemic, plus a tribute to former White House press secretary and gun control activist James Brady.
----
JUDY WOODRUFF (NewsHour):  Just quickly, one other issue the court rule on, or made itself — declared itself on this week, Mark, was voter identification.  They basically said that they blocked — they blocked a tighter voter I.D. law in the state of Wisconsin.

So are we — do you have a sense that this makes a difference, that other states will be reluctant to pass these laws because of what the court does?

MARK SHIELDS:  I’m not sure.  This is such an aberration from American history, if you think of it.  Only white male property owners over the age of 21 could vote when this country began.  It eventually expanded to all males and even nonwhites and then eventually to women.

And, you know, then in 1965, Judy, the Voting Rights Act came and said that the federal government has a responsibility to make sure that everybody can vote.  And 96 percent of Republican senators voted for the Voting Rights Act, only 73 percent of Democrats.

I mean, it was a great Lincoln issue.  And what happened in 2010, when the Republicans swept all these statehouses and state legislatures, they did two things in shorthand.  They made it easier to buy a gun and tougher to vote.  And this week, the Government Accountability Office, nonpartisan research, found that, in a study of voter I.D. laws, that it actually lowered the turnout in Tennessee and Kansas, two states studied, among minority voters and younger voters.

And I hate to say it, but that was the objective of those people who pushed it.

JUDY WOODRUFF:  What effect do you see on the…

(CROSSTALK)

DAVID BROOKS:  Yes.  I confess I was persuaded by that study.

I had assumed, looking especially at the national election results, that it had this backfiring effect, that the voter I.D. laws had so mobilized especially African-American voters that they had swamped, that it was actually harmful.  And I think a lot of people believed that after the 2012 — or 2012, 2008 election.

But the GAO support — study suggests that it actually did suppress votes.  The other thing the GAO study said, which I think is the key to a lot of this — and I oppose these laws — is that the assertion that there’s a lot of fraud out there is just not true.  There’s scattered fraud.  But the idea that there is systemic fraud that you need the picture I.D.s to combat is just not out there.

Nobody has ever been able to find it.  And so it does lead to the worst assertions of why the people — these laws are being passed.

GAY MARRIAGE - Supreme Court Delivers a Win

aka "Equal Rights Wins Again"

"Supreme Court clears way for same-sex weddings in at least five more states – Part 1" PBS NewsHour 10/6/2014

GWEN IFILL (NewsHour):  The Supreme Court opened for business today and immediately ruled out a major decision on gay marriage.   Instead, without comment, the justices refused to hear cases from five states.  Within hours, same-sex weddings were under way in Virginia, with the path now clear for ceremonies to begin in the other states as well.

MAN:  I hereby declare you legally married.

GWEN IFILL:  For gay couples in Utah who married in a 17-day window of legality last December, the high court’s move came as a happy surprise.

PEGGY TOMSIC, Lawyer for plaintiffs:  It means my marriage is going to be legal, and my second parent adoption for my son can go through.  And I think what it also means is it will be very difficult to put the toothpaste back in the tube…

(LAUGHTER)

PEGGY TOMSIC:  … if anybody decides to try to deny rights which they shouldn’t under the Constitution.

GWEN IFILL:  The court’s action immediately allowed weddings in five states Virginia, Indiana, Wisconsin, Oklahoma, and Utah.  All had appealed lower court rulings against gay marriage bans.

Six other states are bound by those same rulings, and couples there will ultimately be able to marry as well.  They will join 19 other states and the District of Columbia, where gay marriage is already legal.

Utah Governor Gary Herbert said today he’s still opposed, but the fight is essentially is over.

GOV. GARY HERBERT, (R) Utah:  I do personally believe that it is a state right issue.   I believed that in the past and believe it today.   But people have different points of view and different opinions.  But right now, it’s a matter of standing down so there’s no more expense.

GWEN IFILL:  The road to legalizing gay marriage has been a long one, from civil unions to actual marriages, starting in Massachusetts in 2004.  That evolution came amid a sea change in public opinion.   Polling since 1996 has shown an upward tick in support for same-sex marriage, and for the past four years, it’s been over 50 percent.

Two years ago, President Obama weighed in.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:  At a certain point, I have just concluded that, for me personally, it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.

GWEN IFILL:  And last year, gay rights advocates celebrated as the Supreme Court struck down part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

We will get a full analysis of the impact of today’s Supreme Court action, including voices on either side of the gay marriage question, right after the news summary.

"What’s next in the legal battle over same-sex marriage? – Part 2" PBS NewsHour 10/6/2014

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Why did the Supreme Court refuse to hear appeals on same-sex marriage, and what does it mean for the future of this issue?  Gwen Ifill sits down with Marcia Coyle of The National Law Journal for closer look at the court’s surprise decision, plus debate on its significance from Austin Nimocks of Alliance Defending Freedom and Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry.

GAY MARRIAGE - And Now There Are 14, New Jersey

"What's next in the nationwide struggle over same-sex marriage?" PBS Newshour 10/21/2013

Excerpt

RAY SUAREZ (Newshour):  Same-sex couples married by Newark Mayor and senator-elect Cory Booker in the Garden State were met with some welcome news as they exchanged nuptials.  Gov. Chris Christie's move, dropping the appeal, makes New Jersey the 14th state to allow gay marriage, along with the District of Columbia; 35 states have laws or constitutional amendments in place to restrict same-sex marriage.

Joining me now to outline what's happening is David Crary.  He reports on social issues and policies as a national writer at the Associated Press.

IRS - Same-Sex Couples Entitled to File Joint Federal Returns

"IRS Says Same-Sex Couples Entitled to Same Tax Benefits as Straight Couples" PBS Newshour 8/29/2013

Excerpt

JUDY WOODRUFF (Newshour):  And we look at new rules on same-sex marriage and the equality of tax benefits.  The issue has long been an important and practical concern in the financial lives of many couples.

Today, the Treasury Department and the IRS announced that legally married same-sex couples can file joint returns and will receive the same tax benefits as straight couples, no matter where they live in the U.S.  The change comes as the federal government continues to implement this summer's Supreme Court ruling that struck down the federal Defense of Marriage Act.

Brian Moulton is the legal director for Human Rights Campaign.  The group works on behalf of civil rights matters of importance to the LGBT community.

GAY MARRIAGE - Look at the 'State of the Union'

Pun intended.

"States Grapple With Same-Sex Marriage Rulings Via Bills, Ballots and the Bench" PBS Newshour 8/20/2013

Excerpt

RAY SUAREZ (Newshour):  The June decisions on the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8 didn't end the debate over gay marriage.  The issue is still on the docket in courthouses in New Jersey, Pennsylvania and elsewhere, up for debate in state legislatures, and on the ballot.

For an update, we turn to John Eastman, a Chapman University Law School professor and chairman of board of the National Organization for Marriage, and James Esseks, the director of the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender and AIDS Project at the American Civil Liberties Union.

James Esseks, did the twin decisions of the Supreme Court on DOMA and Prop 8 change the legal strategy, change the landscape that faces both pro-legalization and anti-legalization forces?

JAMES ESSEKS, American Civil Liberties Union:  Well, it didn't change the doctrine or the strategy.

What it does -- but it reinforces what we're already doing.  That is, we have gotten to the place we're at right now, which is 13 states plus the District of Columbia, that allow same-sex couples the freedom to marry, through three different means.

We have got it through some court decisions.  A bunch of state legislatures, seven state legislatures passed those bills.  And then the people voted for the freedom to marry last fall at the ballot in three states.  And our way forward is really more of the same.  We're going to go to the state legislatures.  We're going to go to the ballot and where appropriate we're going to go to court.

OPINION - Gay Marriage Post SCUS Decision

The Rachel Maddow Show
MSNBC 7/24/2013

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

SUPREME COURT - Wins for Equal Rights, Gay Marriage

"Gay Rights Advocates Score Supreme Court Victories on Same-Sex Marriage" PBS Newshour 6/26/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Supreme Court struck down a key part of the Defense of Marriage Act, entitling same-sex couples to federal benefits.  They also ruled that defenders of California's gay marriage ban did not have the right to appeal lower rulings striking down Proposition 8.  Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal joins Gwen Ifill.

"How Does Court's Decisions on Gay Marriage Impact State and U.S. Law?" PBS Newshour 6/26/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  What are the legal implications of the Supreme Court's decisions on the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8?  Jeffrey Brown gets two views on the impact of the court's rulings from Austin Nimocks of the Alliance Defending Freedom and Mary Bonauto of Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders.

OPINION - Skim-Mild Marriage, Gay Equality

"Marriage milk revisited" By Will Femia, Maddow Blog 6/26/2013

Today's victories for marriage equality still leave a lot of work for activists at the state level, but Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg's metaphorical milk just got a lot richer.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

AMERICA - New U.S. Survey Shows 92% LGBT Acceptance, Also California's Prop-8

"Though Acceptance for Gay Americans Is Growing, Discrimination Persists" PBS Newshour 6/13/2013

Excerpt

RAY SUAREZ (Newshour):  A new survey provides one of the largest and most complex portraits of what life is like today for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender Americans.  The sweeping survey conducted by the Pew Research Center spanned topics including political views, social stigmas and the difficulties of coming out.

It finds growing acceptance in the U.S. of the LGBT community; 92 percent of those surveyed said they agreed with that.  Yet 53 percent of gay Americans say there is still discrimination.  The survey was done just weeks before the Supreme Court decision and was released during Pride Month.

A short time ago, President Obama spoke at a Pride Month event at the White House about those changing attitudes.

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA:  From Minnesota to Maryland, from the United States Senate to the NBA, it's clear we're reaching a turning point.

We have -- we have become not just more accepting.  We have become more loving as a country and as a people.  Heart and minds change with time.  Laws do, too.

Change like that isn't something that starts here in Washington, but it's something that has the power that Washington has a great deal of difficulty resisting over time.

RAY SUAREZ:  For more on all this, we turn to Paul Taylor, executive vice president of the Pew Research Center and co-author of the LGBT survey, and Gary Gates, distinguished scholar at the Williams center at UCLA and co-author of the "Gay and Lesbian Atlas."

"California Prepares for Fallout as High Court Ruling on Prop. 8 Nears" PBS Newshour 6/13/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  In San Francisco, city employees are preparing for a rush of same-sex marriage applications in case the Supreme Court strikes down Proposition 8, which banned marriage for anyone except between a man and a woman.  Spencer Michels looks at the history of California's fight on same-sex marriage and previews the court's decision.

OPINION - Now All of New England Allows Gay Marriage

"Rhode Island bends the arc towards justice" by Steve Benen, Maddow Blog 5/3/2013

And then there were 10.

Overcoming years of resistance, Rhode Island on Thursday became the 10th state in the country and the last in New England to approve same-sex marriage.

The measure passed a final vote in the legislature in the afternoon.  Just before 7 p.m., Gov. Lincoln Chafee, an independent who had long advocated for its passage, signed it into law in a jubilant ceremony on the steps of the Statehouse in Providence, where hundreds of people, including many state and local officials, joined the celebration.

Rhode Island was New England's sole holdout for many years -- the legislative efforts began in earnest in 1997 -- but this year, thanks in part to an aggressive push from Chafee, who discussed his efforts on the show last night, the support for equal marriage rights was simply too strong.

Once the law goes into effect in August, all seven Northeastern states -- New York and all of New England -- will permit same-sex couples to legally marry.  Along with Iowa, Maryland, and the state of Washington, we've reached the point at which one fifth of the states are now on board with marriage equality.

And the list isn't done.  Efforts are also well underway in Delaware, Illinois, and Minnesota.

An enormous amount of blood, sweat, and tears were necessary to get us to this point, and it's heartening to see milestones become more routine.  It wasn't long ago when equal marriage rights in the United States were considered a dream -- a point Americans might someday reach, but a goal on a distant horizon.  The early breakthroughs came largely through the judicial process, not the legislative one, with elected officials and voters too reluctant to advance the cause.

But with remarkable speed, victories have become far less elusive, and successes are coming through legislatures and ballot referenda.  The arc of the moral universe is long, and slowly but surely, it's clearly bending toward justice.

AMERICA - Religion and the Law, Gay Marriage

Religious practice or belief is an INDIVIDUAL's Constitutionally protected right.  It is NOT a right of ANY religious group to use the law to impose their beliefs on any other citizen.

"Faith and Morality Play Major Roles in Debate on Gay Marriage" PBS Newshour 3/28/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  Aspects of religion and morality have been used as the basis for arguments by both sides of the debate on same-sex marriage.  Ray Suarez talks with Michael Schuenemeyer, minister for the United Church of Christ, and Richard Langer, a minister with the Evangelical Free Church of America, to learn how they've approached the topic.

COMMENT:  The anti-gay side presented by Richard Langer in the context of Civil Rights is wrong.

There is no law that REQUIRES marriage to be preformed by any religion.  Religious organizations can continue to not perform gay marriages.

But religious organizations CANNOT prevent a state from performing gay marriages.

SUPREME COURT - On DOMA and Gay Couples

"Supreme Court Considers Legality of Denying Benefits to Married Same-Sex Couples" PBS Newshour 3/27/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Supreme Court took up whether same-sex couples should get the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples.  Kwame Holman offers history on the Defense of Marriage Act and reactions from outside the court.  Ray Suarez talks to National Law Journal's Marcia Coyle, who helps compare proceedings on both same-sex marriage cases.

OPINION - Supreme Court and Gay Marriage

The Rachel Maddow Show
MSNBC 3/27/2012

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

SUPREME COURT - California's Prop-8 Ban on Gay Marriage

"High Court Hears Challenge to Same-Sex Marriage Ban" PBS Newshour 3/26/2013

Excerpt

SUMMARY:  The Supreme Court considered the constitutionality of California's Proposition 8, a ballot measure that bans same-sex marriage.  Kwame Holman reports on reactions from supporters on both sides of the debate.  Judy Woodruff talks to Marcia Coyle of the National Law Journal, who analyzes the arguments inside the courtroom.

Significant exchange

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS:  If same-sex couples have every other right, it's just about the label.

THEODORE OLSON, Former U.S. Solicitor General:  The label marriage means something.  Even our opponents ...

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS:  Sure.

If you tell -- if you tell a child that somebody has to be their friend, I suppose you can force the child to say, this is my friend.  But it changes the definition of what it means to be a friend.  And that is, it seems to me, what supporters of Proposition 8 are saying here.  You're taking -- all you're interested in is the label, and you insist on changing the definition of the label.

COMMENT:  This IS an issue of Equal Rights (equal treatment under the law), part of our U.S. Constitution.

Banning gay marriage is in the same context as WAS banning women's right to vote.  Banning equal treatment under the law because of one's gender.

DOMA - President Bill Clinton, A Journey of Change

"Now in Defense of Gay Marriage, Bill Clinton" by PETER BAKER, New York Times 3/25/2013

Excerpt

He had just flown across the country after an exhausting campaign day in Oregon and South Dakota, landing at the White House after dark.  But President Bill Clinton still had more business before bed. He picked up a pen and scrawled out his name, turning a bill into law.

It was 10 minutes before 1 a.m. on Saturday, Sept. 21, 1996, and there were no cameras, no ceremony.  The witching-hour timing bespoke both political calculation and personal angst.  With his signature, federal law now defined marriage as the union of a man and woman.  Mr. Clinton considered it a gay-baiting measure, but was unwilling to risk re-election by vetoing it.

For nearly 17 years since, that middle-of-the-night moment has haunted Mr. Clinton, the source of tension with friends, advisers and gay rights supporters.  He tried to explain, defend and justify.  He asked for understanding.  Then he inched away from it bit by bit. Finally this month, he disavowed the Defense of Marriage Act entirely, urging that the law be overturned by the Supreme Court, which takes up the matter on Wednesday on the second of two days of arguments devoted to same-sex marriage issues.

Rarely has a former president declared that an action he took in office violated the Constitution.  But Mr. Clinton’s journey from signing the Defense of Marriage Act to repudiating it mirrors larger changes in society as same-sex marriage has gone from a fringe idea to one with a majority.

“President Clinton has evolved on this issue just like every American has evolved,” said Chad Griffin, who worked as a junior press aide in Mr. Clinton’s White House and now heads the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s most prominent gay rights organization.

Not every American has evolved in the same way Mr. Clinton has.  A sizable proportion of Americans still oppose same-sex marriage, and to them Mr. Clinton’s turnabout is a betrayal of sorts.  But neither supporters nor opponents find it entirely surprising since both sides assumed the former president had actually signed the bill out of politics rather than principle.

AND THE CHANGE:

"It’s time to overturn DOMA" By Bill Clinton, Washington Post 3/7/2013

In 1996, I signed the Defense of Marriage Act.  Although that was only 17 years ago, it was a very different time.  In no state in the union was same-sex marriage recognized, much less available as a legal right, but some were moving in that direction.  Washington, as a result, was swirling with all manner of possible responses, some quite draconian.  As a bipartisan group of former senators stated in their March 1 amicus brief to the Supreme Court, many supporters of the bill known as DOMA believed that its passage “would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or more.”  It was under these circumstances that DOMA came to my desk, opposed by only 81 of the 535 members of Congress.

On March 27, DOMA will come before the Supreme Court, and the justices must decide whether it is consistent with the principles of a nation that honors freedom, equality and justice above all, and is therefore constitutional.  As the president who signed the act into law, I have come to believe that DOMA is contrary to those principles and, 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.  It should be overturned.

We are still a young country, and many of our landmark civil rights decisions are fresh enough that the voices of their champions still echo, even as the world that preceded them becomes less and less familiar.  We have yet to celebrate the centennial of the 19th Amendment, but a society that denied women the vote would seem to us now not unusual or old-fashioned but alien.  I believe that in 2013 DOMA and opposition to marriage equality are vestiges of just such an unfamiliar society.

Americans have been at this sort of a crossroads often enough to recognize the right path.  We understand that, while our laws may at times lag behind our best natures, in the end they catch up to our core values.  One hundred fifty years ago, in the midst of the Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln concluded a message to Congress by posing the very question we face today:  “It is not ‘Can any of us imagine better?’ but ‘Can we all do better?’?”

The answer is of course and always yes.  In that spirit, I join with the Obama administration, the petitioner Edith Windsor, and the many other dedicated men and women who have engaged in this struggle for decades in urging the Supreme Court to overturn the Defense of Marriage Act.