• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dems who backed DOMA laud its end

It's hard to say though with these politicians. Are they really evolving and will they admit they were wrong or is it just being on the right side of what they think their voters want from them?

And I'm happy for your cousin, as you said we are all one.

Certainly many cater to their voters. In fact, I'd say Obama was one who was iffy on SSM when he was first elected, and now seems to be on the bandwagon. No doubt he was playing the trend rather than fighting for what he believed to be right.
 
Dems who backed DOMA laud its end - David Nather - POLITICO.com



The purpose of this thread is to point out the hypocrisy of those who are hailing it but voted for it in 1996.

Defense of Marriage Act (1996; 104th Congress H.R. 3396) - GovTrack.us

See who voted for or against it in 1996. Only 14 senators voted against it, and only 67 representatives (24 others didn't vote or voted 'present') voted against it.

Democrats by and large don't really stick to their principles

Or anyone in Congress for that matter so this is rather unsuprising
 
The purpose of this thread is to point out the hypocrisy of those who are hailing it but voted for it in 1996.
While I'm sure both cases were politically motivated, what does it say about a person when they think another can never change their opinions over the course of nearly 20 years?
Jeepers, American... that was 17 years ago, LOL. Views change!!!

Not in politics. Americans want politicians who never change their views, and actually criticize those who do. Heck, Bush and Obama both ran re-election campaigns against their opponent for being flip floppers.

It's almost sad how much Americans don't want people to grow as individuals.
 
The worst part of it is that most of the Democrats who voted for the DOMA didn't really believe in it, they voted for it out of cowardice and political ambition.
 
The worst part of it is that most of the Democrats who voted for the DOMA didn't really believe in it, they voted for it out of cowardice and political ambition.

Some voted on it in an effort to avoid a Federal Marriage Amendment. That may not be the most noble decision, nor the most honest, but it still was better than getting an FMA put into place.
 
The worst part of it is that most of the Democrats who voted for the DOMA didn't really believe in it, they voted for it out of cowardice and political ambition.
Likely, but that is the nature of politics, is it not?
 
Dems who backed DOMA laud its end - David Nather - POLITICO.com



The purpose of this thread is to point out the hypocrisy of those who are hailing it but voted for it in 1996.

Defense of Marriage Act (1996; 104th Congress H.R. 3396) - GovTrack.us

See who voted for or against it in 1996. Only 14 senators voted against it, and only 67 representatives (24 others didn't vote or voted 'present') voted against it.

So over 17 years people cannot change their opinion in the face of more information, changing social values and lots of research? Do you realize just how stupid that is?
 
I personally feel that some very prominent Democrats that actually supported same sex marriage or at least did not feel that DOMA was right or even constitutional at the time felt that DOMA was the best option for the mindset in the 90s. There was just too much opposition to same sex marriage. It was the right thing to do to prevent a Constitutional Amendment from being shoved through on the feelings of the time that would have been little different than Prohibition. It would have been repealed within 30 or 40 years after being enacted when public opinion swung to the other side. But this also gave the option of allowing the Court a chance to strike this down or for it to simply be repealed (which was at least attempted a couple of times before) without requiring a Constitutional Amendment to change. It actually worked well for states' rights and individual rights, no matter how many feel how wrong it was or how hypocritical it is/was for those who signed/supported it in the past to oppose it now.

DOMA was wrong, but for the time, it was the lesser of two evils. Now that there is no significant support for a Constitutional Amendment (which is the proof that such an Amendment would have been foolish back then), it is no longer needed and needed to go away.

On the other hand, this post makes some excellent points.
 
Just another maneuver to win a vote.

Winning the votes of a relatively small portion of the population who mostly already vote democrat is a high priority, yes...
 
Huh??? Please elaborate.
Social issues remain as they have ever been. The views change in society, but the pendulum swings both ways. We tend to view these things on a generational basis, but history has no such restriction. You will find those who quote Biblical scripture here, and that expresses a view rendered some 2,000 years ago. It was an issue that long ago. It will likely remain one for a long time to come regardless of a court ruling and the ones that will surely follow. It's not an opinion one way or another. Just an observation.
 
Winning the votes of a relatively small portion of the population who mostly already vote democrat is a high priority, yes...

So what did you call it when they voted and passed an act against them?
 
So what did you call it when they voted and passed an act against them?

I called it a bad move when they did it. Not because of how it would effect votes though, but because I opposed the bill.

My point in this is that over time, most every one's positions on issues evolve. If you show me a person who votes exactly the same on bills today as 17 years ago, and I will show you a brain dead moron. A position changing over time is not hypocrisy, especially one where societal views have shifted dramatically and research on the topic is vastly increased.
 
Politicians who are honest enough to change their minds about issues when confronted with new facts and their effect on real people -- somehow that bothers conservatives.

Perfect teabaggery!
 
I called it a bad move when they did it. Not because of how it would effect votes though, but because I opposed the bill.

My point in this is that over time, most every one's positions on issues evolve. If you show me a person who votes exactly the same on bills today as 17 years ago, and I will show you a brain dead moron. A position changing over time is not hypocrisy, especially one where societal views have shifted dramatically and research on the topic is vastly increased.

It was a bad move.

People should change their point of view as issues evolve.

I don't believe politicians change their point of view as issues evolve. They change their point of view as their donors point of view evolves.
 
I personally feel that some very prominent Democrats that actually supported same sex marriage or at least did not feel that DOMA was right or even constitutional at the time felt that DOMA was the best option for the mindset in the 90s. There was just too much opposition to same sex marriage. It was the right thing to do to prevent a Constitutional Amendment from being shoved through on the feelings of the time that would have been little different than Prohibition. It would have been repealed within 30 or 40 years after being enacted when public opinion swung to the other side. But this also gave the option of allowing the Court a chance to strike this down or for it to simply be repealed (which was at least attempted a couple of times before) without requiring a Constitutional Amendment to change. It actually worked well for states' rights and individual rights, no matter how many feel how wrong it was or how hypocritical it is/was for those who signed/supported it in the past to oppose it now.

DOMA was wrong, but for the time, it was the lesser of two evils. Now that there is no significant support for a Constitutional Amendment (which is the proof that such an Amendment would have been foolish back then), it is no longer needed and needed to go away.

One thing that is overlooked is that in 1996, ENDA was also voted on in the Senate on the same day. It was expected that DOMA would pass, but that ENDA would as well, thus "balancing" things.

ENDA lost by one vote 49 - 50 and was never taken up in the house.

ENDA was supposed to give cover to Democrats who politically had to vote for DOMA.
 
Politicians who are honest enough to change their minds about issues when confronted with new facts and their effect on real people -- somehow that bothers conservatives.

Perfect teabaggery!

No doubt you would know good teabagging when you see it.
 
One thing that is overlooked is that in 1996, ENDA was also voted on in the Senate on the same day. It was expected that DOMA would pass, but that ENDA would as well, thus "balancing" things.

ENDA lost by one vote 49 - 50 and was never taken up in the house.

ENDA was supposed to give cover to Democrats who politically had to vote for DOMA.

I actually didn't know that but that makes sense. (I was 15 when DOMA was voted on.)
 
Politicians who are honest enough to change their minds about issues when confronted with new facts and their effect on real people -- somehow that bothers conservatives.
In fairness, that very nature of conservatism is to not be quick to change.
 
Yeah well there's that, but frankly I don't mind that as long as it's sincere; and not for political expediency.

I fear that most political decisions are based completely on political expediency. Few of these people are sincere about anything except getting reelected.
 
Back
Top Bottom