President Obama’s Accomplishments for Transgender Americans

[Stephe]

The Defense of Marriage Act was signed into Law by President Bill Clinton on 21 Sep 1996.

It had passed the House on 12 July 1996, on a vote of 342-67.
(224-1 Republican; 118-65 Democrat; 0-1 Independent)
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll316.xml

It passed the Senate on 10 Sep 1996, a vote of 85-14.
(53-0 Republican; 32-14 Democrat)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00280

Of those voting in favor of DOMA was Joe Biden, Democrat of Delaware.
The Democrats had sufficient strength in the Senate (47 Senators) to have filibustered the bill, had they chosen to.

They chose not to. The fact of the matter is that the Democrat Party and the Democrat President supported DOMA in overwhelming numbers.

Why didn't the Democrats and Mr. Obama repeal DOMA when they had the power to do so?

Thanks for making my point, 1 republican voted against it, the sole gay republican in office. In the house ~25% of the dems voted against it and ~30% in the senate. And that was almost 15 years ago. You also left out this was drafted and brought to the table by a republican.

Today most of those dems now say that was a mistake and wouldn't vote for it. The republicans would vote 100% to keep this if it came up for a vote tomorrow. The whole party totally supports DOMA, so... it's in our best interest to support our persecutors? Oh yeah, in case they win, they might them become sympathetic, build bridges and all that.

And in case you didn't notice, Mr Obama was handed a country on fire and spiraling into a depression by the past administration. He might been a little busy trying to keep the country from burning to the ground and got ZERO help from the other party. Their whole goal in the last 4 years was to make him look bad by blocking anything positive they could.

Sorry but I don't see a group of elected officials trying to make the president look bad, so they can get their party back in the white house as "looking out for us".

[Snowpaw]

The Defense of Marriage Act was signed into Law by President Bill Clinton on 21 Sep 1996.

It had passed the House on 12 July 1996, on a vote of 342-67.
(224-1 Republican; 118-65 Democrat; 0-1 Independent)
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1996/roll316.xml

It passed the Senate on 10 Sep 1996, a vote of 85-14.
(53-0 Republican; 32-14 Democrat)
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=104&session=2&vote=00280

Of those voting in favor of DOMA was Joe Biden, Democrat of Delaware.
The Democrats had sufficient strength in the Senate (47 Senators) to have filibustered the bill, had they chosen to.

They chose not to. The fact of the matter is that the Democrat Party and the Democrat President supported DOMA in overwhelming numbers.

Why didn't the Democrats and Mr. Obama repeal DOMA when they had the power to do so?

Yeah yeah and democrats up until the 50's or 60's were the people who held back the civil rights then. Here's the thing, things change. It's a slow process but things certainly do change.

Edit: I'll be nice :O

[Hikari]

While I agree with most of those sentiments, not ALL republicans are really socially conservative, the tea party is a loud and powerful minority in the party, and the neocons still have a fair bit of clout but, there are a great deal of people who feel they have no choice but to be republican because of thier fiscal views, and the lack of effectiveness of third parties.

I disagree economicly and socially with republicans, but let's not try to paint them as some homogeneous entity because they are not.

[suzifrommd]

I disagree economicly and socially with republicans, but let's not try to paint them as some homogeneous entity because they are not.

Well their supporters certainly aren't. But the Republicans in government seem all to cleave pretty faithfully to the party line.

[Jamie D]

The administration is maintaining that DOMA is unconstitutional and will not defend it in court or enforce it.

Federal courts have agreed, so there is no need to repeal it.

To be precise, the Administration maintains one section of the law is unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court precedents include Nelson v Baker, which the lower, activists courts have tried to creatively differentiate.  It remains to be seen what the current Court will do.

The issue, however, is largely a political one, which I believe needs a political solution.

[Snowpaw]

Honestly I think I am just gonna pull the ol' agree to disagree thing here. I will concur that right now neither side looks good and focus too much on these single minded issues. If both sides would also focus on job creation etc it might give more of a clear view. *peace sign*

I just dun wanna argue. This place be my comfort zone and I like that <3

[Jamie D]

Thanks for making my point, 1 republican voted against it, the sole gay republican in office. In the house ~25% of the dems voted against it and ~30% in the senate. And that was almost 15 years ago. You also left out this was drafted and brought to the table by a republican.

Today most of those dems now say that was a mistake and wouldn't vote for it. The republicans would vote 100% to keep this if it came up for a vote tomorrow. The whole party totally supports DOMA, so... it's in our best interest to support our persecutors? Oh yeah, in case they win, they might them become sympathetic, build bridges and all that.

And in case you didn't notice, Mr Obama was handed a country on fire and spiraling into a depression by the past administration. He might been a little busy trying to keep the country from burning to the ground and got ZERO help from the other party. Their whole goal in the last 4 years was to make him look bad by blocking anything positive they could.

Sorry but I don't see a group of elected officials trying to make the president look bad, so they can get their party back in the white house as "looking out for us".

You made the point earlier the Rep. Bob Barr was the "author" of the bill.  More correctly, he was the "principal sponsor," and he had numerous "co-sponsors," as this PBS Newshour transcript shows:

On Capitol Hill, nearly 60 House Republicans and 60 Democrats have introduced a bill called the Defense of Marriage Act. It does not specifically outlaw same-sex marriages, but it defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, and says that states don't have to recognize gay marriages performed and recognized elsewhere.

If "most of those dems" thought it was a mistake, then why, when they were in complete control, did they fail to repeal it?

Actions speak louder than words.

[Jamie D]

I don't quite understand what you are getting at Jamie d, Sure they haven't accomplished a great deal, but a great many of thier political opponents actively want to roll back what little progress there has been...

I guess I am trying to ask what you want to accomplish by always attacking the democratic record on LGBT issues, as best I can tell it is the only game in town, seems like them throwing us a bone, even if there is no meat on it, is a good thing.

Edit also in 1996, the entire culture was way different that was a very long time ago, maybe the CPUSA would have voted against it. It really the culture in this nation has changed a great deal since then.

I, for one, don't like being used as a pawn in political games.  Nor do I like being thrown table scraps.

We all want to substantive progress.  Sometimes that requires "out of the box" thinking.

Consider the old adage, "Only Nixon could go to China."

[Hikari]

No one wants to be used as a pawn and neither are we content with table scraps but, I also think that we would prefer table scraps to nothing. Basically, if not voting for the democrats what solution could one possibly provide? Something, still seems better than nothing to this girl.

[Snowpaw]

No one wants to be used as a pawn and neither are we content with table scraps but, I also think that we would prefer table scraps to nothing. Basically, if not voting for the democrats what solution could one possibly provide? Something, still seems better than nothing to this girl.

This might work as a ulterior solution :3

[Stephe]

This is where I bow out of any discussion, when people start yelling at me in giant bold face caps. *sigh*

[edit] The post I was talking about was later edited....

[Shana A]

Reminder:

10. Bashing or flaming of any individuals or groups is not acceptable behavior on this web site and will not be tolerated in the slightest for any reason.

This also applies to member's affiliations with any political party they choose.

Please keep discussion to the original topic; legislative accomplishments of Pres Obama as they relate to transgender community.

Zythyra - News Admin