Former President Bill Clinton took his biggest step yet in distancing himself from the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act that bears his signature, writing in today’s Washington Post that the Supreme Court should strike down DOMA.
“On March 27, DOMA will come before the Supreme Court, and the justices must decide whether it is consistent with the principles of a nation that honors freedom, equality and justice above all, and is therefore constitutional,” Clinton writes. “As the president who signed the act into law, I have come to believe that DOMA is contrary to those principles and, in fact, incompatible with our Constitution.”
Clinton’s 623-word column is his most direct admonishment of DOMA since he signed the discriminatory ban on federal recognition of same-sex marriage into law shortly after midnight, Sept. 21, 1996.
As Clinton writes in his column today, those were “very different times.” It was not popular to oppose DOMA in 1996. Congress approved the bill overwhelmingly with only 14 Democrats voting against the bill in the Senate. Although the act was largely meaningless at first, that changed as the fight for marriage equality expanded. When Massachusetts became the first state to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004, those couples were denied more than 1,000 benefits enjoyed by married straight couples because of DOMA.
In a statement released one day before signing DOMA into law, Clinton hinted at his qualms with the bill and avowed his opposition to discrimination.
“I also want to make clear to all that the enactment of this legislation should not, despite the fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to provide an excuse for discrimination, violence or intimidation against any person on the basis of sexual orientation,” Clinton said.
Noting that statement in his column today, Clinton writes, “Reading those words today, I know now that, even worse than providing an excuse for discrimination, the law is itself discriminatory. It should be overturned.”
“He knew it then of course too,” responded Andrew Sullivan in a blog post last night. “But it’s churlish to cavil. If we can forgive Ken Mehlman, we can surely forgive Bill Clinton. And welcome him to the civil rights cause of our time.”
While Clinton’s column has already been praised by advocates, including Human Rights Campaign President Chad Griffin and Freedom to Marry President Evan Wolfson, the question remains as to whether it is too little too late. Indeed, Clinton’s brief explanation as to why he signed DOMA — “Although that was only 17 years ago, it was a very different time.” — will no doubt continue to irk some who believe the former president has never fully taken responsibility for his role in DOMA’s history.
Although Clinton has disavowed DOMA before and expressed his support for marriage equality, some have questioned why the former president and pillar of the modern Democratic Party has been “seemingly in the wings.” Clinton made no mention of DOMA in his thousand-page memoir, My Life, as Frank Rich noted in New York magazine in February 2012.
“Where’s your apology for signing the Defense of Marriage Act?” asked New York Times columnist Frank Bruni in an open letter to Clinton published in December.
In a piece published today by The New Yorker, Richard Socarides, who advised Clinton on gay and lesbian civil rights issues when DOMA was signed, cites a Clinton associate who says Clinton’s decision to write the column was his own and he did so longhand on a legal pad.
Although the column is not an apology, according to Socarides, it is still a remarkable step by a former president to urge the nation’s highest court to strike down a law that bears his signature.
“It’s all a matter of perspective,” Socarides wrote in an email to Metro Weekly. “Some will focus on the positive impact his efforts now will have; others will focus on the damage done.”
Today’s column also places a focus on Hillary Clinton, who remains silent from the discussion of marriage equality. Hillary Clinton was serving as secretary of state — a post in which domestic policy is traditionally not discussed — when the Obama administration stopped defending DOMA in court and top administration members, including President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, announced their support for marriage equality. Clinton’s last day as secretary of state was Feb. 1.
With Obergefell at risk and 32 states poised to restrict same-sex marriage, LGBTQ advocates push to enshrine protections at the state level.
By Maximilian Sandefer
August 6, 2025
On June 22, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a landmark decision with Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization. Abortion rights were now no longer guaranteed nationwide as the issue was left up to the states. This shock reversal of over 49 years of precedent left reproductive rights activists scrambling as anti-choice state laws stemming from as far back as 1864 were revived and reinstituted.
As people's ability to access to reproductive care dwindled in conservative-led states, activists also found their footing. The 2024 election saw abortion rights ballot measures win in seven out of ten states. As we navigate a landscape where it will likely be a long time before we see any form of successful federal legislation protecting a woman's right to choose, state-by-state activism seems to be the driving force behind change.
A new Pew Research Center survey finds that 59% of LGBTQ U.S. adults under age 50 who have never been married say they want to marry someday -- nearly the same as the 63% of non-LGBTQ adults who do. About 12% of each group say they never want to marry, while more than one-quarter are unsure of their future marriage plans.
By age, younger Americans who have never been married are more eager to wed than older peers, who are less certain and more doubtful about ever marrying.
Among those aged 18 to 29 who have never married, 67% of LGBTQ adults and 73% of non-LGBTQ adults say they want to marry someday. By contrast, just 48% of LGBTQ adults and 49% of non-LGBTQ adults aged 30 to 49 say the same, with nearly one-third in each group unsure.
The former Kentucky clerk -- and anti-LGBTQ culture warrior -- who went to jail rather than issue licenses to same-sex couples is now targeting the landmark 2015 ruling.
A decade after catapulting to right-wing stardom, Kim Davis -- the former Rowan County, Kentucky county clerk who chose jail over issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples -- has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn its landmark 2015 decision that legalized marriage equality nationwide.
Represented by the anti-LGBTQ Liberty Counsel, Davis has formally asked the nation’s highest court to strip away the right of same-sex couples to marry.
A Mike Huckabee acolyte and four-time married fundamentalist zealot, Davis rose to fame in 2015 when she refused to issue marriage licenses to any couple -- gay or straight -- after the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision struck down all state-level bans on same-sex marriage, including Kentucky’s. Ordered to comply, she instead spent six days in jail for contempt of court.
These are challenging times for news organizations. And yet it’s crucial we stay active and provide vital resources and information to both our local readers and the world. So won’t you please take a moment and consider supporting Metro Weekly with a membership? For as little as $5 a month, you can help ensure Metro Weekly magazine and MetroWeekly.com remain free, viable resources as we provide the best, most diverse, culturally-resonant LGBTQ coverage in both the D.C. region and around the world. Memberships come with exclusive perks and discounts, your own personal digital delivery of each week’s magazine (and an archive), access to our Member's Lounge when it launches this fall, and exclusive members-only items like Metro Weekly Membership Mugs and Tote Bags! Check out all our membership levels here and please join us today!
