Comments Subscribe to Personal Liberty News Feed Subscribe to Personal Liberty

Bill Clinton Urges Supreme Court To Reverse Federal Man-Woman Marriage Act He Signed In 1996

March 11, 2013 by  

Bill Clinton Urges Supreme Court To Reverse Federal Man-Woman Marriage Act He Signed In 1996

In a Thursday opinion piece published in The Washington Post, former Democratic President Bill Clinton called on the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) he signed into law 17 years ago.

The Act decreed there would be no Federal protection for any State or political subset in the States whose governments might decide to recognize marriage as a union between same-sex partners. In other words, the Act didn’t ban gay marriage, but it guaranteed that any such marriage ordained by cities, counties and States would be purely civil in nature and that it wouldn’t be recognized by other States or by the Federal government. It secured, for gay “spouses,” the legal protections and obligations afforded anybody who’s going steady.

The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments on two cases dealing with same-sex marriage later this month, and could possibly overturn all or part of the Act. Such a move wouldn’t legalize same-sex marriage, but it would hit the reset button for States where same-sex marriage has been legalized since DOMA passed in 1996. And it’s unclear whether it would automatically validate the marriages of those who’ve already been married under State same-sex marriage laws.

Clinton argued that States’ recent efforts to recognize same-sex marriage reflect the conflicts of a very different Nation, both in law and in culture, than the America of the mid-90s:

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…[M]any 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…

…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.

The 42nd President isn’t the first voice from the political Left to send a message to the Supreme Court before it hears the two cases. The Administration of President Barack Obama filed an amicus brief last month repudiating the present lack of government benefits for same-sex partners. And the 44th President — yes, that’s Obama — had a few things to say on the topic at his second inaugural in January.

Ben Bullard

Reconciling the concept of individual sovereignty with conscientious participation in the modern American political process is a continuing preoccupation for staff writer Ben Bullard. A former community newspaper writer, Bullard has closely observed the manner in which well-meaning small-town politicians and policy makers often accept, unthinkingly, their increasingly marginal role in shaping the quality of their own lives, as well as those of the people whom they serve. He argues that American public policy is plagued by inscrutable and corrupt motives on a national scale, a fundamental problem which individuals, families and communities must strive to solve. This, he argues, can be achieved only as Americans rediscover the principal role each citizen plays in enriching the welfare of our Republic.

Facebook Conversations

Join the Discussion:
View Comments to “Bill Clinton Urges Supreme Court To Reverse Federal Man-Woman Marriage Act He Signed In 1996”

Comment Policy: We encourage an open discussion with a wide range of viewpoints, even extreme ones, but we will not tolerate racism, profanity or slanderous comments toward the author(s) or comment participants. Make your case passionately, but civilly. Please don't stoop to name calling. We use filters for spam protection. If your comment does not appear, it is likely because it violates the above policy or contains links or language typical of spam. We reserve the right to remove comments at our discretion.

Is there news related to personal liberty happening in your area? Contact us at

  • http://Hotmail Jack

    I always believed he was a scumbag.

    • Toy

      No, he used M’s dress!

      • Robert Smith

        Don’t the Cardinals wear dresses?


    • chocopot

      Billy Boy is just showing the world he is still the whore he has always been. I wonder how much Obummer paid him to do this?

      • JimJones

        You think Obama paid off Clinton? Wow what a magical fairy land you live in. I swear conservatives are the biggest enemy of freedom and liberty, when you talk about all your conditional freedoms. I know it’s wrong, but I wish you all would take a long walk off a short pier so those of us that want real freedom, and real liberty for ALL can get things done.

  • Donna ZmcCoy

    Typical Liberal wishy washy.
    Changes his mind to suit popularity and Obamas agenda.

    • Daveh234

      Seems that the Republicans/conservatives are doing the same thing. No difference. Popularity is what wins. The will of the people has shifted, too. Is that Democracy?

    • DavidL

      I agree, Donna. Anyone who has evolved from “barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen” is just a liberal wuss.

      • JON

        I agree. We don’t want people to be liberal wusses. Only men should be the bread winners in the family. Woman should stay at home in the kitchen, bake all day long while wearing their pearls. Women shouldn’t even have the right to vote. To do the opposite is to be one of those darned “Progressives”. And who wants progress…like advanced medicine, wireless technology, good road & bridges, great education. That would just be silly!

  • Richard E Sinclair

    Bill confirms his disregard for the marriage of a man and woman.
    The Supreme Court should consider this and the fact he was impeached
    for his disregard of his marriage and refuse his request. The man
    has very little character.

    • Robert Smith

      Hmmmm, can we look at drug addled Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, and a bunch of other right wingers…


  • Gillysrooms in Australia

    i dont understand how your courts can change Laws passed by members of your parliament. why have a parliament at all.?

    • Robert Smith

      Because if Congress passes something that is un-Constitutional then things can be balanced. No matter how big a majority might want slavery back, it ain’t gonna happen because it would be overturned.

      Denying some folks the ability to marry the person they choose without cause (age and incest for example) is discrimination.


    • DavidL

      Marbury vs. Madison.

      • Robert Smith

        “With the Marbury decision, the Court took on the authority to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional if those acts exceeded the powers granted by the Constitution. Perhaps more importantly, however, the Court established itself as the arbiter of the Constitution, a role it has taken on ever since. It is because of this role that the Court was able to greatly expand people’s civil liberties throughout the twentieth century.”

        Read more:

  • securityman

    he is trying to help obummer,again. if you look at the way his marriage went you can see why he has no respect for marriage the way the LORD intended it.

  • Tom McRay

    No person has any God given right to practice
    sexual perversion. Neither should they have a
    lawful right . There is nothing natural about homo
    Sexuality. The thought of it is as naturally repugnant as eating ones own feces! Public
    discussion of homosexual acts is too gross to
    be tolerated by society. They are not gay ; they are perverted! Clinton is wrong again .

    • JON

      What in the hell are you talking about? If that is what you think and believe, you are the one with the perverted mind. Did you learn all that bulls**t on the internet or are you speaking from experience? The great thing about marriage, no matter which two people it is [man+woman, woman+woman, man+man] no one needs YOUR damn permission to do so! Cool, huh?

      • Karolyn

        Right, Jon. We have the God-given right to do anything we want to do, actually. Live and let live!

    • Robert

      God’s Holy Bible calls sex between same sex people “abusers of themselves with mankind”. The US Constitution does not give special rights to these people. It gives all people of the United States the same rights and politician or beaucrat or judge who attemps to do give special rights to the “abusers of themselves of mankind” are to be removed from office or position.

    • eddie47d

      You seem to be the one who is repugnant in equating it “with eating ones own feces”. If you don’t like homosexuality then don’t accept it in your own personal life. Be happy being single or married to a woman but stop going out of your way to make others unhappy. Since about 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce you should concentrate on improving those relationships instead of using homosexuality for excuses.

    • Robert Smith

      Tom says: “No person has any God given right to practice
      sexual perversion.”

      So? Who cares? Not everyone believes in your brutal god so suck it up and admit that this is America where we don’t have a Talaban to tell us what to do.

      Oh wait a minute… You are willing to take freedom in America in the name of your god. How are you different from the Taliban?

      Don’t answer that until you figure out some excuse for church bombings, lynchings, abortion clinic bombings and shootings in the name of your brutal god.


  • James Smith

    How much money for the proven again and again liar will this bring Bill Clinton? I never had sex with this woman. Ejackulation does not count.

  • Whats it Matter

    I guess Mr. Clinton has spoken to God about this, because to my knowledge the Bible hasn’t changed the meaning of the word marriage. God does give all of us the right to choose our path in life, but calling two men or two women a marriage is wrong. So pick your own path, but leave God’s “marriage” out of it. I don’t think our constitution or Bill of Rights has changed, so why the Supreme Court challenge? I guess it’s a great way to keep those votes coming in. Based on the thinking of these two I would expect to see the Supreme Court rule; in the interest of justice, “any two people sharing a home should receive the same benefits as a married couple”. I don’t think they would consider law based on who you have sex with as the bases for law change, or would they? Maybe some are just trying to take “god” out of the picture of law, as they are when they decided they can make laws against our inalienable right to bear arms, which the constitution does not give them the right to do. If the Supreme Court is going to take personal opinion from one or two people, shouldn’t they be taking all American’s personal opinions when deciding what the constitution allows or dis-allows? Last time I checked it was called the vote of the people and in this case, the people have already spoken.

    • eddie47d

      That’s a tricky thing claiming “the vote of the people”. Obama won yet look at the disagreements and false claims against him. DOMA wasn’t even necessary for the simple reason heterosexual couples could get married like they have for hundreds of years. That didn’t change so why enact a law that was irrelevant to that fact. DOMA had less to do with the sanctity of marriage than the hatred towards homosexuals. Everyone should be allowed to enjoy their married life whether homosexual or heterosexual, Christian or non-Christian.

    • Dee

      I agree with you 100%……..what is wrong with our country today is simply …they have taking GOD out of everything needed, they have enored the BIBLE and soon our LORD will be here to fixed it…people need to fear the LORD and up hold HIS word!!!

      • Robert Smith

        Oh goody, how’s ’bout we offer virgins like Sodom did his daughters? Oops they weren’t after he screwed them after drinking the magic wine that obliterated his reasoning but allowed him to still screw his kids.

        Some bible you got there.


  • BillT

    Just another step with the Cintons to insure a victory for Hillary in 2016

  • Justcallme Bub

    Once the they do this it will be open season on the Christians because they will come after them from every angle, persecution will enhance against the church. The Gay agenda will force their way into the churches or send them to jail for no compliance to their Gay cause

    • eddie47d

      Gays should definitely respect Christian values just as Christians should leave gays alone and respect their values as human beings. Persecution is a two way street and gays have been persecuted for thousands of years. Religion whether Christian or Muslim have been the ones doing the persecuting.

    • Karolyn

      Oh, so there are no gay Christians? A dear friend of mine is a gay conservative. They do go to church, you know; and there are churches that even grant them the right to be priests (Episcopalians). Live and let live.

    • Robert Smith

      “Once the they do this it will be open season on the Christians because they will come after them from every angle, persecution will enhance against the church. ”

      Lowis Black drew the best picture. A bunch of gays are coming down the street in their black sheets and black shiny pumps. They break the door down and enter the house of straight folks…

      Then they go to the dining room and rearrange the silverware and exit.


  • Fred

    Why is it that we are redefining marriage. By definition in dictionaries, until recently, marriage has been “The formal union of a man and a wonman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.” Why aren’t they just fighting for equal rights under the law. It seems this is another one of those in your face arguments that seeks to punish those who have moral objections or disagree.

  • alpha-lemming

    Prime example of the continuing bastardization of the language. Marriage is a “Rite” and not a “Right”…. and it would behoove you look up the differences in meaning. I (& most small “c” conservative/Constituionalists I know) have no problem with life-long partners receiving tax percs, stream-lined inheritance bennies, end of life visitation etc.. This was the grand compromise called “civil unions” which granted all those things…. at which point the lefties cried “separate but equal isn’t equal…. you have to call us married”. The only logical conclusion???… it has NOTHING to do with equality and the entire exercise is solely for the purpose of granting wierdos the illusion of normalcy and acceptance.

    For those of you who choose to “die on the hill of church/state separation”… seems to me the church had purview over the “Rite of Marriage” before the state did… sooo… are you going to remain consistent and maintain the state has no business in the marriage business???? Seeing how big government IS your religion (do I detect a dichotomy/conflict of interest here???)… I’m not going to hold my breath. FYI…. for the sake of continuity and equal justice…. hetero couples married outside the church should be relegated to civil unions as well.

  • Thomas the Doubter

    If big little boys would have “grown up” and learnt that their importance is not measured only by “what they own”, then the institution of marriage may never have been required.

    If fathers would teach their daughters true self respect, and then recognize that every woman is somebody’s daughter, the state of marriage would evolve into an powerful way of living, not an institution the government licenses, taxes, manipulates at will, or tosses into the political arena every once in a while to direct one’s attention away from much more important issues.

    If marriage is so sacrosanct, how is it possible that it has come into a state of debate, wherein a group of society that essential lives and acts with no consideration of the natural propagation of the species, can find a foot-hold at the debaters table.

    I guess the stupidity that I am griping about is the concept that people needed something of a higher authority to tell them how they should behave, how to form a reasonable relationship with the opposite sex, then let the conditions and qualifications of that relationship fall under the governing and therefore bureaucratic hands, of the powers that be, only then to have the institution become a political arena.

    If you believe men of god instituted marriage, how dare you give over to the authority of the government, the control, and methodologies, of the same.

    If you don’t believe men of god instituted marriage, find another word for whatever you want to define the relationship you think you are in. A civil union can exist and not be a marriage (most are), while a marriage can also exist and not be a civil union.

    A relationship that requires the ratification of anyone other than the parties involved is not much of relationship to begin with.

    I don’t need a licence to breath, but following the twisted thought processes society has allowed to occur, and continually entertains, it won’t be too soon before we will.

    Bill Clinton had his chance to be honourable and do the right thing, he didn’t; whatever he does now is just so much bs.

  • Whats it Matter

    The real problem here is that everyone thinks they have the answer for everyone else. If your an American and believe in “freedom and justice for all”, why are we debating the right of marriage for government benefits? If we are all equal under the law, why does any one group get more or different benefits than another? All persons should have the same benefits as an individual. Take our tax laws for example, if we are all equal, why is the benefits different, why are we split into different groups? Every person should get the same tax breaks and pay the same percentage in taxes. If you have a child in your home you should get a tax break for that child by one of the two that produced it or adopted it, or split the break and give half to each parent or guardian. Why do any of our laws favor one group or another? Why do Home Owners get more tax breaks than Renters? Why do Corporations get more write offs than a small business? If all of this was the same for all we wouldn’t be so divide as Americans. Maybe its time to go back to freedom and justice for all, as long as your freedom doesn’t do harm to anyone else. Maybe the first law of the land should have been that everyone must love others as they love themselves. If this was the case everything else would be simple. Maybe it’s time we stop making laws that divide us and start making laws that join us together as Americans under the belief that our constitution doesn’t need to change with age, we need to change, keeping our Constitution as the supreme law of the land and we need to go back to the true values of what it stands for. The same rights, liberties, freedoms and justice for Everyone. Debating what someone does in their home or bedroom should have no place in the benefits that a person does or does not receive. As for marriage, it’s defined in the Bible and shouldn’t be changed, nor should any church be forced to perform that service for someone that does not belong to their church. As for those that don’t belong or go to the states for their union, give it any name you like, but don’t change the meaning of the word marriage disrespecting those that do follow the Bible. Change the benefit laws and leave the Bible to the people that wish to follow it and believe in it to their freedom of religion as written.

  • podunk

    Has anyone wondered how we reached a point of sanctifying homosexual “MARRIAGE” without ever bothering to figure out why it has been called an abomination since the beginning of time. Homosexuality is a death offense crime in the muslim world and a serious sin in other religions!
    Abomination describes a society that sanctifies homosexuality as synonymous with marriage without ever defining characteristics of homosexuality. Can it be discussed without mentioning Freud and fecalism? Can anyone describe it without crossing the line into obscenity, perversion, hepatitis, AIDS, and endless other deadly realities? Government (FDA, etc.) destroys millions of pounds of food supplies suspected of fecal exposure, because of lethal health risks. The same health risks plus the deadly AIDS virus are heightened with homosexual activity. Why they are doing it is irrelevant to anything. The issue is the fact that government officials are encouraging homosexuality to the point of glorification and sanctification, knowing full well the human and social malaise they incite! Officials engaged in risking and destroying our country are not preserving and protecting it! Hold them accountable to their oath!

    Individual freedom within our Constitution is a long treasured covenant that we are losing. We can give anything we own to anyone who wants it, engage in co-ownership, and live with anyone who will live with us, essentially as we see fit. As such, there is no justification to desecrate and pervert the centuries old definition of marriage to “free” a person who is already free!!
    This war is almost lost because Christians, Jews, and countless others of faith can’t “lower themselves” to utter the defining acts of homosexuality. Loving to “sodomize” doesn’t define it! We’ve already bought that argument as “love”. Force those government officers who advocate the change, to define the acts in writing and utterance… in detailed statute! If we can’t handle what it is, then our noses and our children’s noses will be rubbed in it until there is no morality! It begins with swapping ends, and ends in never – never land. Collectively, they’ll make the case for you, if you are a person of true faith. Maybe we’ll absorb enough to realize why homosexuality is and has been an “abomination” – something feared and avoided since the beginning of time.
    As moral fiber dies, so goes our culture & nation. So it is, our once vibrant, wealthy, and free individual nation is rapidly becoming an Obamanation, where all one has to do is push the jackass or rhinoceros lever and become a compromised obamanator!

    • Karolyn

      I’ve known oldere gay people who have been together for many years and do not even have sex. Why does it always have to be about sex? Why can’t two people (or even three) who love each other marry because they LOVE each other. You speak of personal liberty. Well, that’s personal liberty. It has nothing to do with you.

      • pissed of & liberal

        Well Karolyn it has been my experiense that when a conservitive talks about freedom and liberty they’re talking about THEY’RE freedom and THEY’RE liberty which usally envolves blocking someone elses freedom and liberty.

  • Anis Maximus

    Barry Soetero apparently is homosexual. Read about him and his suck/butt buddy Rahm Emmanuel in on line texts re: Chicago nightclub Mans Country. (Nothing like the smell of stool to turn you on).

  • Snub noze

    Clinton pushing for homo rights!? Next he’ll be pushing bestiality rights. This will finally and comfortably legitimize his effing the blond pig,

  • Ed Mello

    Ed Mello from Massachusetts. Supreme Court by any means change the Defense of Marriage Act one bid. This is America a God Based Country. It time we start putting God back where he belongs. Now the leaders who think they are God. Please do what is right for America and their religious based beliefs.

  • worldwatchman

    Notice it’s always the democrat or the RINO who legalize or want to legalize the perversion in America. One day…..they’ll answer for it.


Sign Up For Personal Liberty Digest™!

PL Badge

Welcome to,
America's #1 Source for Libertarian News!

To join our group of freedom-loving individuals and to get alerts as well as late-breaking conservative news from Personal Liberty Digest™...

Privacy PolicyYou can opt out at any time. We protect your information like a mother hen. We will not sell or rent your email address to anyone for any reason.