Creative, Persuasive and Disciplined
Looking Back on DOMA
03/28/13 03:49 PM
As the Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a look back at the original debate reminds me of the swift change of public opinion on this issue. During the original passage of DOMA in 1996, I was working for Senator Barbara Boxer as her state director. DOMA passed the U.S. Senate by an overwhelming margin, 85 - 14 and was signed into law by President Clinton on September 21, 1996, just a few weeks before he was re-elected. Progressive Senators such as Tom Harkin, Christopher Dodd, Patty Murray, Pat Leahy and even Paul Wellstone voted for it. Vice President Joe Biden voted for DOMA.
I'm proud that Senators Boxer and Feinstein were two of the No votes that day. The other 12 courageous souls were: Akaka, Feingold, Inouye, Kennedy, Kerrey, Kerry, Moseley-Braun, Moynihan, Pell, Robb, Simon, Wyden.
At the time, polls showed that only 38% of Californians supported marriage equality. And in 2000, that public opinion was reaffirmed through the passage of Proposition 22. Although Senator Boxer did not yet support marriage equality, she spoke out against DOMA repeatedly.
Here are a few snippets of what Senator Boxer had to say on the floor of the Senate during the debate:
"On the Defense of Marriage Act, I want to point out once again that this act, in my opinion, has nothing to do with defending marriage. As one who has been married for many years to the same person, I can truly say if we want to defend marriage, we should be discussing ways that truly help lift the strains and stresses on marriage. We all know what those are. We all know the financial strains and stresses on marriage.
"As a matter of fact, when I heard that we were going to be discussing a bill called the Defense of Marriage Act, I was looking forward to seeing what it was because I honestly thought because it is called the Defense of Marriage Act that it would be doing something to help us defend marriage in this country. One in two marriages does end in divorce in this country, and in many cases they are tragic endings--tragic for the partners, tragic for the children, tragic for the extended families--and there are things that we could do, such things as paycheck security, Mr. President. Such things as pension security."
"So, to me, this is ugly politics. To me, it is about dividing us instead of bringing us together. To me, it is about scapegoating. To me, it is a diversion from what we should be doing. Why don't we use this time to pass President Clinton's college tax breaks, to ease the stress on our families today? Now, that would be defending marriage. That would be defending marriage."
I'm proud that Senators Boxer and Feinstein were two of the No votes that day. The other 12 courageous souls were: Akaka, Feingold, Inouye, Kennedy, Kerrey, Kerry, Moseley-Braun, Moynihan, Pell, Robb, Simon, Wyden.
At the time, polls showed that only 38% of Californians supported marriage equality. And in 2000, that public opinion was reaffirmed through the passage of Proposition 22. Although Senator Boxer did not yet support marriage equality, she spoke out against DOMA repeatedly.
Here are a few snippets of what Senator Boxer had to say on the floor of the Senate during the debate:
"On the Defense of Marriage Act, I want to point out once again that this act, in my opinion, has nothing to do with defending marriage. As one who has been married for many years to the same person, I can truly say if we want to defend marriage, we should be discussing ways that truly help lift the strains and stresses on marriage. We all know what those are. We all know the financial strains and stresses on marriage.
"As a matter of fact, when I heard that we were going to be discussing a bill called the Defense of Marriage Act, I was looking forward to seeing what it was because I honestly thought because it is called the Defense of Marriage Act that it would be doing something to help us defend marriage in this country. One in two marriages does end in divorce in this country, and in many cases they are tragic endings--tragic for the partners, tragic for the children, tragic for the extended families--and there are things that we could do, such things as paycheck security, Mr. President. Such things as pension security."
"So, to me, this is ugly politics. To me, it is about dividing us instead of bringing us together. To me, it is about scapegoating. To me, it is a diversion from what we should be doing. Why don't we use this time to pass President Clinton's college tax breaks, to ease the stress on our families today? Now, that would be defending marriage. That would be defending marriage."
