This diary is a couple months late. For that, I apologize.
Back in October, 2015, the issue of why Bill Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) arose. Hillary Clinton claimed that there was talk of a constitutional amendment, and that he signed the Act to preclude a constitutional amendment from being passed, which is funny, because I’m gay, 43, have been political my entire adult life, and I can’t remember any talk (aside from pipe-dream talk) about a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage at that time. We couldn’t even pass an amendment banning the burning of the U.S. flag, so an amendment banning same-sex marriage was out of the question. A political unreality.
I thought to myself, “That’s a weird defense. She could have said a lot of things. She could have taken the easiest route out of this issue, which is to say ‘I disagreed with my husband. He was wrong. He has since changed his mind.’” That would have been the easiest thing to do, and no one would have said anything more about it.
Instead, she claimed the Republicans were talking—seriously—about a constitutional amendment. This puzzled me, until I realized she wasn’t talking to LGBT people in her statement. You see, as is often the case with queer politics, she was a straight person talking to other straight people about gay people. Actual gay people were left out of the equation completely. She was “straightsplaining” her position. Her audience were intended to be other straight people. LGBT people old enough to remember—and there are a lot of us—would likely call her on it—but it wouldn’t matter.
At the time, I had not really made up my mind about whether I would vote for Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. I was leaning towards Sanders until the first debate, and Clinton changed my mind in that first debate. She did very well, in fact—props to her. Then this erupted, and I remembered why I do not like either of the Clintons—they will sell LGBT rights down the river and, worse, lie about it later if they have to.
