POLITICO: Democrats Who Backed DOMA Now Laud Its End.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid called Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling striking down the Defense of Marriage Act “a great, historic day for equality in America.”
He went on: “The idea that allowing two loving, committed people to marry would have a negative impact on anyone else, or on our nation as a whole, has always struck me as absurd.”
Pretty strong words from a guy who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. . . .
Even Bill Clinton — who signed the bill into law — heralded the court’s decision.
“By overturning the Defense of Marriage Act, the Court recognized that discrimination towards any group holds us all back in our efforts to form a more perfect union,” Clinton said in a statement also signed by Hillary Clinton.
Virtually all of the Democrats say, “move on, nothing to see here” — they dropped their support for DOMA years ago. But the Supreme Court ruling allowed them to blast their words of praise to the world without a hint of regret over DOMA — or even an acknowledgment that they had any role in making it the law of the land.
Like Sen. Chuck Schumer, who declared that “the Supreme Court did the right thing here and helps us understand that the march to equality in America is unstoppable.” He voted for DOMA as a House member in 1996.
So did Sen. Dick Durbin, who said the ruling “reaffirmed a founding principle of our nation: equal justice under the law.”
And what about Patrick Leahy, who was ready to put the immigration bill at risk over an amendment to let same-sex couples sponsor immigrant spouses to get their green cards — and who declared that the ruling “confirms my belief that the Constitution protects the rights of all Americans”?
He voted for DOMA in the Senate, too.
They’ve got plenty of company in the club. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer cheered on the Supreme Court even though he voted for DOMA. So did Rep. Rosa DeLauro, who’s rarely, if ever, accused of being a moderate Democrat. And so did Sens. Ben Cardin and Robert Menendez, both of whom were in the House when they voted for the law.
It was opportunism then, and it’s opportunism now. Both times wrapped in self-righteous moralism, as opportunism in Washington generally is.