Re: one chain on DOMA

podesta-emails 4,332 words email

V12 P17 P19 V11 V16

-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- mQQBBGBjDtIBH6DJa80zDBgR+VqlYGaXu5bEJg9HEgAtJeCLuThdhXfl5Zs32RyB I1QjIlttvngepHQozmglBDmi2FZ4S+wWhZv10bZCoyXPIPwwq6TylwPv8+buxuff B6tYil3VAB9XKGPyPjKrlXn1fz76VMpuTOs7OGYR8xDidw9EHfBvmb+sQyrU1FOW aPHxba5lK6hAo/KYFpTnimsmsz0Cvo1sZAV/EFIkfagiGTL2J/NhINfGPScpj8LB bYelVN/NU4c6Ws1ivWbfcGvqU4lymoJgJo/l9HiV6X2bdVyuB24O3xeyhTnD7laf epykwxODVfAt4qLC3J478MSSmTXS8zMumaQMNR1tUUYtHCJC0xAKbsFukzbfoRDv m2zFCCVxeYHvByxstuzg0SurlPyuiFiy2cENek5+W8Sjt95nEiQ4suBldswpz1Kv n71t7vd7zst49xxExB+tD+vmY7GXIds43Rb05dqksQuo2yCeuCbY5RBiMHX3d4nU 041jHBsv5wY24j0N6bpAsm/s0T0Mt7IO6UaN33I712oPlclTweYTAesW3jDpeQ7A ioi0CMjWZnRpUxorcFmzL/Cc/fPqgAtnAL5GIUuEOqUf8AlKmzsKcnKZ7L2d8mxG QqN16nlAiUuUpchQNMr+tAa1L5S1uK/fu6thVlSSk7KMQyJfVpwLy6068a1WmNj4 yxo9HaSeQNXh3cui+61qb9wlrkwlaiouw9+bpCmR0V8+XpWma/D/TEz9tg5vkfNo eG4t+FUQ7QgrrvIkDNFcRyTUO9cJHB+kcp2NgCcpCwan3wnuzKka9AWFAitpoAwx L6BX0L8kg/LzRPhkQnMOrj/tuu9hZrui4woqURhWLiYi2aZe7WCkuoqR/qMGP6qP EQRcvndTWkQo6K9BdCH4ZjRqcGbY1wFt/qgAxhi+uSo2IWiM1fRI4eRCGifpBtYK Dw44W9uPAu4cgVnAUzESEeW0bft5XXxAqpvyMBIdv3YqfVfOElZdKbteEu4YuOao FLpbk4ajCxO4Fzc9AugJ8iQOAoaekJWA7TjWJ6CbJe8w3thpznP0w6jNG8ZleZ6a jHckyGlx5wzQTRLVT5+wK6edFlxKmSd93jkLWWCbrc0Dsa39OkSTDmZPoZgKGRhp Yc0C4jePYreTGI6p7/H3AFv84o0fjHt5fn4GpT1Xgfg+1X/wmIv7iNQtljCjAqhD 6XN+QiOAYAloAym8lOm9zOoCDv1TSDpmeyeP0rNV95OozsmFAUaKSUcUFBUfq9FL uyr+rJZQw2DPfq2wE75PtOyJiZH7zljCh12fp5yrNx6L7HSqwwuG7vGO4f0ltYOZ dPKzaEhCOO7o108RexdNABEBAAG0Rldpa2lMZWFrcyBFZGl0b3JpYWwgT2ZmaWNl IEhpZ2ggU2VjdXJpdHkgQ29tbXVuaWNhdGlvbiBLZXkgKDIwMjEtMjAyNCmJBDEE EwEKACcFAmBjDtICGwMFCQWjmoAFCwkIBwMFFQoJCAsFFgIDAQACHgECF4AACgkQ nG3NFyg+RUzRbh+eMSKgMYOdoz70u4RKTvev4KyqCAlwji+1RomnW7qsAK+l1s6b ugOhOs8zYv2ZSy6lv5JgWITRZogvB69JP94+Juphol6LIImC9X3P/bcBLw7VCdNA mP0XQ4OlleLZWXUEW9EqR4QyM0RkPMoxXObfRgtGHKIkjZYXyGhUOd7MxRM8DBzN yieFf3CjZNADQnNBk/ZWRdJrpq8J1W0dNKI7IUW2yCyfdgnPAkX/lyIqw4ht5UxF VGrva3PoepPir0TeKP3M0BMxpsxYSVOdwcsnkMzMlQ7TOJlsEdtKQwxjV6a1vH+t k4TpR4aG8fS7ZtGzxcxPylhndiiRVwdYitr5nKeBP69aWH9uLcpIzplXm4DcusUc Bo8KHz+qlIjs03k8hRfqYhUGB96nK6TJ0xS7tN83WUFQXk29fWkXjQSp1Z5dNCcT sWQBTxWxwYyEI8iGErH2xnok3HTyMItdCGEVBBhGOs1uCHX3W3yW2CooWLC/8Pia qgss3V7m4SHSfl4pDeZJcAPiH3Fm00wlGUslVSziatXW3499f2QdSyNDw6Qc+chK hUFflmAaavtpTqXPk+Lzvtw5SSW+iRGmEQICKzD2chpy05mW5v6QUy+G29nchGDD rrfpId2Gy1VoyBx8FAto4+6BOWVijrOj9Boz7098huotDQgNoEnidvVdsqP+P1RR QJekr97idAV28i7iEOLd99d6qI5xRqc3/QsV+y2ZnnyKB10uQNVPLgUkQljqN0wP XmdVer+0X+aeTHUd1d64fcc6M0cpYefNNRCsTsgbnWD+x0rjS9RMo+Uosy41+IxJ 6qIBhNrMK6fEmQoZG3qTRPYYrDoaJdDJERN2E5yLxP2SPI0rWNjMSoPEA/gk5L91 m6bToM/0VkEJNJkpxU5fq5834s3PleW39ZdpI0HpBDGeEypo/t9oGDY3Pd7JrMOF zOTohxTyu4w2Ql7jgs+7KbO9PH0Fx5dTDmDq66jKIkkC7DI0QtMQclnmWWtn14BS KTSZoZekWESVYhORwmPEf32EPiC9t8zDRglXzPGmJAPISSQz+Cc9o1ipoSIkoCCh 2MWoSbn3KFA53vgsYd0vS/+Nw5aUksSleorFns2yFgp/w5Ygv0D007k6u3DqyRLB W5y6tJLvbC1ME7jCBoLW6nFEVxgDo727pqOpMVjGGx5zcEokPIRDMkW/lXjw+fTy c6misESDCAWbgzniG/iyt77Kz711unpOhw5aemI9LpOq17AiIbjzSZYt6b1Aq7Wr aB+C1yws2ivIl9ZYK911A1m69yuUg0DPK+uyL7Z86XC7hI8B0IY1MM/MbmFiDo6H dkfwUckE74sxxeJrFZKkBbkEAQRgYw7SAR+gvktRnaUrj/84Pu0oYVe49nPEcy/7 5Fs6LvAwAj+JcAQPW3uy7D7fuGFEQguasfRrhWY5R87+g5ria6qQT2/Sf19Tpngs d0Dd9DJ1MMTaA1pc5F7PQgoOVKo68fDXfjr76n1NchfCzQbozS1HoM8ys3WnKAw+ Neae9oymp2t9FB3B+To4nsvsOM9KM06ZfBILO9NtzbWhzaAyWwSrMOFFJfpyxZAQ 8VbucNDHkPJjhxuafreC9q2f316RlwdS+XjDggRY6xD77fHtzYea04UWuZidc5zL VpsuZR1nObXOgE+4s8LU5p6fo7jL0CRxvfFnDhSQg2Z617flsdjYAJ2JR4apg3Es G46xWl8xf7t227/0nXaCIMJI7g09FeOOsfCmBaf/ebfiXXnQbK2zCbbDYXbrYgw6 ESkSTt940lHtynnVmQBvZqSXY93MeKjSaQk1VKyobngqaDAIIzHxNCR941McGD7F qHHM2YMTgi6XXaDThNC6u5msI1l/24PPvrxkJxjPSGsNlCbXL2wqaDgrP6LvCP9O uooR9dVRxaZXcKQjeVGxrcRtoTSSyZimfjEercwi9RKHt42O5akPsXaOzeVjmvD9 EB5jrKBe/aAOHgHJEIgJhUNARJ9+dXm7GofpvtN/5RE6qlx11QGvoENHIgawGjGX Jy5oyRBS+e+KHcgVqbmV9bvIXdwiC4BDGxkXtjc75hTaGhnDpu69+Cq016cfsh+0 XaRnHRdh0SZfcYdEqqjn9CTILfNuiEpZm6hYOlrfgYQe1I13rgrnSV+EfVCOLF4L P9ejcf3eCvNhIhEjsBNEUDOFAA6J5+YqZvFYtjk3efpM2jCg6XTLZWaI8kCuADMu yrQxGrM8yIGvBndrlmmljUqlc8/Nq9rcLVFDsVqb9wOZjrCIJ7GEUD6bRuolmRPE SLrpP5mDS+wetdhLn5ME1e9JeVkiSVSFIGsumZTNUaT0a90L4yNj5gBE40dvFplW 7TLeNE/ewDQk5LiIrfWuTUn3CqpjIOXxsZFLjieNgofX1nSeLjy3tnJwuTYQlVJO 3CbqH1k6cOIvE9XShnnuxmiSoav4uZIXnLZFQRT9v8UPIuedp7TO8Vjl0xRTajCL PdTk21e7fYriax62IssYcsbbo5G5auEdPO04H/+v/hxmRsGIr3XYvSi4ZWXKASxy a/jHFu9zEqmy0EBzFzpmSx+FrzpMKPkoU7RbxzMgZwIYEBk66Hh6gxllL0JmWjV0 iqmJMtOERE4NgYgumQT3dTxKuFtywmFxBTe80BhGlfUbjBtiSrULq59np4ztwlRT wDEAVDoZbN57aEXhQ8jjF2RlHtqGXhFMrg9fALHaRQARAQABiQQZBBgBCgAPBQJg Yw7SAhsMBQkFo5qAAAoJEJxtzRcoPkVMdigfoK4oBYoxVoWUBCUekCg/alVGyEHa ekvFmd3LYSKX/WklAY7cAgL/1UlLIFXbq9jpGXJUmLZBkzXkOylF9FIXNNTFAmBM 3TRjfPv91D8EhrHJW0SlECN+riBLtfIQV9Y1BUlQthxFPtB1G1fGrv4XR9Y4TsRj VSo78cNMQY6/89Kc00ip7tdLeFUHtKcJs+5EfDQgagf8pSfF/TWnYZOMN2mAPRRf fh3SkFXeuM7PU/X0B6FJNXefGJbmfJBOXFbaSRnkacTOE9caftRKN1LHBAr8/RPk pc9p6y9RBc/+6rLuLRZpn2W3m3kwzb4scDtHHFXXQBNC1ytrqdwxU7kcaJEPOFfC XIdKfXw9AQll620qPFmVIPH5qfoZzjk4iTH06Yiq7PI4OgDis6bZKHKyyzFisOkh DXiTuuDnzgcu0U4gzL+bkxJ2QRdiyZdKJJMswbm5JDpX6PLsrzPmN314lKIHQx3t NNXkbfHL/PxuoUtWLKg7/I3PNnOgNnDqCgqpHJuhU1AZeIkvewHsYu+urT67tnpJ AK1Z4CgRxpgbYA4YEV1rWVAPHX1u1okcg85rc5FHK8zh46zQY1wzUTWubAcxqp9K 1IqjXDDkMgIX2Z2fOA1plJSwugUCbFjn4sbT0t0YuiEFMPMB42ZCjcCyA1yysfAd DYAmSer1bq47tyTFQwP+2ZnvW/9p3yJ4oYWzwMzadR3T0K4sgXRC2Us9nPL9k2K5 TRwZ07wE2CyMpUv+hZ4ja13A/1ynJZDZGKys+pmBNrO6abxTGohM8LIWjS+YBPIq trxh8jxzgLazKvMGmaA6KaOGwS8vhfPfxZsu2TJaRPrZMa/HpZ2aEHwxXRy4nm9G Kx1eFNJO6Ues5T7KlRtl8gflI5wZCCD/4T5rto3SfG0s0jr3iAVb3NCn9Q73kiph PSwHuRxcm+hWNszjJg3/W+Fr8fdXAh5i0JzMNscuFAQNHgfhLigenq+BpCnZzXya 01kqX24AdoSIbH++vvgE0Bjj6mzuRrH5VJ1Qg9nQ+yMjBWZADljtp3CARUbNkiIg tUJ8IJHCGVwXZBqY4qeJc3h/RiwWM2UIFfBZ+E06QPznmVLSkwvvop3zkr4eYNez cIKUju8vRdW6sxaaxC/GECDlP0Wo6lH0uChpE3NJ1daoXIeymajmYxNt+drz7+pd jMqjDtNA2rgUrjptUgJK8ZLdOQ4WCrPY5pP9ZXAO7+mK7S3u9CTywSJmQpypd8hv 8Bu8jKZdoxOJXxj8CphK951eNOLYxTOxBUNB8J2lgKbmLIyPvBvbS1l1lCM5oHlw WXGlp70pspj3kaX4mOiFaWMKHhOLb+er8yh8jspM184= =5a6T -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK----- I agree with not issuing a statement - it doesn't help us. In terms of the huffington post how strongly do we feel we even need to be in the story? Are we under strong pressure to walk back? Sent from my iPhone On Oct 25, 2015, at 9:05 PM, Brian Fallon <[email protected]> wrote: Yes, if we want to be in the story. Keep in mind: the story will suck regardless. But I would just say we should use it as the vehicle for giving a statement that reads as a walkback, even as HRC will never approve a true walkback, and then we circulate the story to our LGBT friends so they see that both they humbled us with a bad story and we highlight our statement giving a win-win walkback, and we move on. On Oct 25, 2015 9:01 PM, "Robby Mook" <[email protected]> wrote: > Do we need to get back to Huffpo tonight? > > > > On Oct 25, 2015, at 8:40 PM, Brian Fallon <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Here is what we have: Huffington post is doing a story tomorrow "fact > checking" the idea that there was a push for a constitutional amendment in > 1996, as HRC claimed was true. The piece will essentially say there was > not, and will quote Rosen's tweet and Evan Wolfson saying this was not true > and was hardly a basis for DOMA to be signed by WJC. > > Xochitl has also gotten an inquiry from the Blade. > > In addition to this, Socarides tells us he heard from NYT on this, though > the campaign has not, so we do not know what he is referring to. I would > not be surptised, however, if activists we're pitching this. > > All that said, I do not think a statement from HRC is warranted simply > based on these inquiries. Indeed, I think a statement from her likely > attracts more coverage than just these inquiries and also could give the > appearance that we are responding to Bernie at JJ, rather than clarifying > our own remarks to Maddow. I missed the beginning of tbe conf call this > afternoon on thia, but i had assumed we were preparing an HRC statement > less for HuffPo and more because that is what political thought was needed > to quell the LGBT backlash. > > If that is not the case, then for my purposes, I would just propose a > spokesman statement that accounts for Dan's point (that she will not > disavow her theory about the constitutional amendment) but also addresses > the community's outrage over the idea that we might be trying to justify > support for the law in 96 by saying something like, "Regardless of the > differing motives that led to the passage of DOMA, none were justifiable > since, as both Hillary and President clinton have said, the law was clearly > discriminatory." > I'm not sure anyone has asked. We would put it out there. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Oct 25, 2015, at 7:53 PM, Kristina Schake <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Sorry to be late to this but what outlets have made the statement request > and what is the deadline? > > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 7:46 PM, Dominic Lowell < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Amanda and I tried to address Tony and Dan's points -- as well as Karen >> who pointed out the context is bigger than just Maddow -- while taking into >> account the concerns of our cabinet. Below is what we landed on. Appreciate >> feedback. >> >> ** >> >> On Friday, and in many instances previously, I was asked about my >> position on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). I appreciate that people >> have differing views of the DOMA situation [other word?] in 1996. The >> environment for gays and lesbians was different then and there were >> struggles about the best paths to take. That is common in all social change >> movements. I have been very open that my own views have evolved over the >> years. >> >> I hope the important thing is that we are now moving forward toward >> justice, together. >> In 2013, I added my voice in support of marriage equality “personally and >> as a matter of policy and law.” As I said then, LGBT Americans are full >> and equal citizens and they deserve the full and equal rights of >> citizenship. Like so many others, my personal views have been shaped over >> time by people I have known and loved, by my experience representing our >> nation on the world stage, my devotion to law and human rights, and the >> guiding principles of my faith. That’s why, as a Senator, I pushed for laws >> that would extend protections to the LGBT community in the workplace and >> that would make violence towards LGBT individuals a hate crime. And as >> Secretary of State, I put LGBT rights on the global agenda and told the >> world that “gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay rights.” >> In my speech last night in Iowa, I didn’t look back to the America of the >> past, I looked forward to the America we need to build together. I pledged >> to fight for LGBT Americans who, despite all our progress, in many places >> can still get married on Saturday and fired on Monday just because of who >> they are and who they love. In this campaign and as President, I will keep >> fighting for equality and opportunity for every American. >> >> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Amanda Renteria < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> The hope is to squash the story bc it's not going away. >>> Sent from my iPhone >>> >>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 7:35 PM, Kristina Schake <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> What do we actually have to do here? I'm not sure a statement will help >>> us. Do we need to response to the Huffington Post? Is that the main >>> request? >>> >>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 7:04 PM, Amanda Renteria < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> What about broadening the perspectives at that time? >>>> Acknowledging there were a lot of diff views vs she was wrong. ? >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:57 PM, Tony Carrk <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> And also for awareness for everyone to have, attached are HRC’s >>>> comments on DOMA Carter from my team put together. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Dan Schwerin [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> *Sent:* Sunday, October 25, 2015 6:56 PM >>>> *To:* Amanda Renteria <[email protected]> >>>> *Cc:* Dominic Lowell <[email protected]>; Karen Finney < >>>> [email protected]>; Maya Harris <[email protected]>; >>>> Heather Stone <[email protected]>; Robby Mook < >>>> [email protected]>; Jake Sullivan <[email protected]>; >>>> Jennifer Palmieri <[email protected]>; Brian Fallon < >>>> [email protected]>; Kristina Schake < >>>> [email protected]>; Marlon Marshall < >>>> [email protected]>; Tony Carrk <[email protected]>; >>>> Brynne Craig <[email protected]>; Sally Marx < >>>> [email protected]>; Teddy Goff <[email protected]>; John >>>> Podesta <[email protected]>; Christina Reynolds < >>>> [email protected]> >>>> *Subject:* Re: one chain on DOMA >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I think everyone agrees we shouldn't restate her argument. Question is >>>> whether she's going to agree to explicitly disavow it. And I doubt it. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:53 PM, Amanda Renteria < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> There is no way we have friends to back us up on her interpretation. >>>> This is a major problem if we revisit her argument like this. It's better >>>> to do nothing than to re-state this although she is going to get a question >>>> again. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Working w Dominic now. >>>> >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:34 PM, Dan Schwerin <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I'm not saying double down or ever say it again. I'm just saying that >>>> she's not going to want to say she was wrong about that, given she and her >>>> husband believe it and have repeated it many times. Better to reiterate >>>> evolution, opposition to DOMA when court considered it, and forward looking >>>> stance. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:28 PM, Dominic Lowell <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Jumping on a call with the kitchen cabinet now to give them an update. >>>> Will turn to this ASAP. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The most recent Blade article has Elizabeth Birch quoted as saying >>>> there was no amendment threat in 1996. Hilary Rosen has already tweeted the >>>> same. I'll ask on the call, but my sense is that there aren't many friends >>>> who will back us up on the point. That's why I'm urging us to back off as >>>> much as we can there. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> More soon. >>>> >>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dan Schwerin <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> I'd welcome specific edits. I'm fine not mentioning WJC if that's >>>> problematic, but my two cents is that you're not going to get her to >>>> disavow her explanation about the constitutional amendment and this >>>> exercise will be most effective if it provides some context and then goes >>>> on offense. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:15 PM, Karen Finney <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> If the criticism is that she has said before and reiterated on Friday >>>> then hit by Bernie yesterday is t that the context? >>>> >>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:00 PM, Dominic Lowell <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Sorry, on phone so focused more on overall thoughts than line edits. >>>> Can call you directly if any of this is unclear. Sending to all so people >>>> can react, push back, etc. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I originally flagged HRC's Maddow remarks as potentially problematic in >>>> part because her wording closely linked her to two unfavorable policies of >>>> the past even as no one in the community was asking her to "own" them. >>>> Given that, my recommendation would be to make this statement about just >>>> her, her evolution, and her record -- not bring in WJC. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Relatedly, if we release a statement tonight, it will very clearly be >>>> in response to the Maddow interview. To the extent we can, I advocate for >>>> owning that so that we can clean this up completely, rightly position her >>>> as a champion of LGBT issues, and make sure we move on from any discussion >>>> of looming amendments or her being involved in passing either DADT or DOMA. >>>> Without getting into the weeds, can we say that the broader point is that >>>> the country is in a different place now on LGBT issues -- and thank >>>> goodness it is -- and that she's so happy each policy has been placed in >>>> the dustbin of history? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Last thought: I have raised this a few times to a smaller number of >>>> people on this thread but will flag this for the larger group as well. At >>>> Keene State College, she specifically cited friends playing a part in her >>>> evolution, which we echo here. That's fine, IMO, and quite believable. But >>>> if I were a reporter and wanted to keep the evolution story alive, I would >>>> start asking which friends she was talking to and ask us to provide them. >>>> Not a problem per se, but I think it is worth flagging now so we aren't >>>> caught by surprise later. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dan Schwerin <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> This is a little long, but see what you think. Tried to 1) place this >>>> in a context of 'asked and answered,' 2) point to how they've both >>>> forthrightly explained their evolution, 3) cite her positive LGBT record, >>>> 4) get in a little dig at Sanders for being so backwards looking. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> STATEMENT >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In 2013, when the Supreme Court was considering whether to uphold the >>>> Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), Bill and I explained publicly how and why >>>> we became strong supporters of marriage equality. Bill, who signed DOMA >>>> nearly twenty years ago after an overwhelming vote in Congress, called the >>>> law a discriminatory vestige of a less tolerant America and urged the Court >>>> to strike it down. I added my voice in support of marriage equality >>>> “personally and as a matter of policy and law.” As I said then, LGBT >>>> Americans are full and equal citizens and they deserve the full and equal >>>> rights of citizenship. Like so many others, my personal views have been >>>> shaped over time by people I have known and loved, by my experience >>>> representing our nation on the world stage, my devotion to law and human >>>> rights, and the guiding principles of my faith. That’s why, as a Senator, >>>> I pushed for laws that would extend protections to the LGBT community in >>>> the workplace and that would make violence towards LGBT individuals a hate >>>> crime. And as Secretary of State, I put LGBT rights on the global agenda >>>> and told the world that “gay rights are human rights and human rights are >>>> gay rights.” In my speech last night in Iowa, I didn’t look back to the >>>> America of the past, I looked forward to the America we need to build >>>> together. I pledged to fight for LGBT Americans who, despite all our >>>> progress, in many places can still get married on Saturday and fired on >>>> Monday just because of who they are and who they love. In this campaign >>>> and as President, I will keep fighting for equality and opportunity for >>>> every American. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 4:03 PM, Dominic Lowell < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> +Amanda's work account. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Maya Harris <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> From Richard: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Since I was asked on Friday about the Defense of Marriage Act in an >>>> interview on MSNBC, I've checked with people who were involved then to make >>>> sure I had all my facts right. It turns out I was mistaken and the effort >>>> to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage came some >>>> years later. The larger point I was trying to make about DOMA, however, is >>>> still true. It was neither proposed nor supported by anyone in the Clinton >>>> administration at the time. It was an effort by the Republicans in Congress >>>> to distract attention from the real issues facing the country by using gay >>>> marriage, which had very little support then, as a wedge issue in the >>>> election. The legislation passed by overwhelming veto-proof margins in both >>>> houses of Congress and President Clinton signed it with serious >>>> reservations he expressed at the time. Luckily the country has evolved way >>>> beyond this in the last 20 years and most Americans, including the Supreme >>>> Court, now embrace LGBT equality. We are a better country for it. Although >>>> there is much work that remains, and I'm eager to help advance the day when >>>> we are all truly equal. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 4:51 PM, Dominic Lowell < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> + JP's personal email >>>> >>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dominic Lowell <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Here is what Gautam put together to be helpful: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "I'm not my husband. I understand why he believed that was the right >>>> thing to do at the time, but obviously I wish it had gone differently. >>>> Look, we've all come along way since the 90s and I'm proud to have been a >>>> part of an Administration that has made it possible for gay troops to serve >>>> openly and loving gay couples to get married. I'm also proud of MY record >>>> as Secretary of State. I think the community knows I will be the ally they >>>> deserve." >>>> >>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dan Schwerin <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> This WJC op-Ed may be helpful: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bill-clinton-its-time-to-overturn-doma/2013/03/07/fc184408-8747-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html >>>> >>>> >>>> Bill Clinton: It’s time to overturn DOMA >>>> >>>> *The writer is the 42nd president of the United States.* >>>> >>>> *I*n 1996, I signed the Defense of Marriage Act. Although that was >>>> only 17 years ago, it was a very different time. In no state in the union >>>> was same-sex marriage recognized, much less available as a legal right, but >>>> some were moving in that direction. Washington, as a result, was swirling >>>> with all manner of possible responses, some quite draconian. As a >>>> bipartisan group of former senators stated in their March 1 amicus brief to >>>> the Supreme Court, many supporters of the bill known as DOMA believed that >>>> its passage “would defuse a movement to enact a constitutional amendment >>>> banning gay marriage, which would have ended the debate for a generation or >>>> more.” It was under these circumstances that DOMA came to my desk, opposed >>>> by only 81 of the 535 members of Congress. >>>> >>>> On March 27, DOMA will come before the Supreme Court >>>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2012/12/07/the-supreme-court-takes-up-doma/>, >>>> 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. 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. >>>> >>>> Because Section 3 of the act defines marriage as being between a man >>>> and a woman, same-sex couples who are legally married in nine states and >>>> the District of Columbia are denied the benefits of more than a thousand >>>> federal statutes and programs available to other married couples. Among >>>> other things, these couples cannot file their taxes jointly, take unpaid >>>> leave to care for a sick or injured spouse or receive equal family health >>>> and pension benefits as federal civilian employees. Yet they pay taxes, >>>> contribute to their communities and, like all couples, aspire to live in >>>> committed, loving relationships, recognized and respected by our laws. >>>> >>>> When I signed the bill, I included a statement >>>> <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/user/scotts/ftp/wpaf2mc/clinton.html> with >>>> the admonition that “enactment of this legislation should not, despite the >>>> fierce and at times divisive rhetoric surrounding it, be understood to >>>> provide an excuse for discrimination.” 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. >>>> >>>> We are still a young country, and many of our landmark civil rights >>>> decisions are fresh enough that the voices of their champions still echo, >>>> even as the world that preceded them becomes less and less familiar. We >>>> have yet to celebrate the centennial of the 19th Amendment, but a society >>>> that denied women the vote would seem to us now not unusual or >>>> old-fashioned but alien. I believe that in 2013 DOMA and opposition to >>>> marriage equality are vestiges of just such an unfamiliar society. >>>> >>>> Americans have been at this sort of a crossroads often enough to >>>> recognize the right path. We understand that, while our laws may at times >>>> lag behind our best natures, in the end they catch up to our core values. >>>> One hundred fifty years ago, in the midst of the Civil War, President >>>> Abraham Lincoln concluded a message to Congress by posing the very question >>>> we face today: “It is not ‘Can any of us imagine better?’ but ‘Can we >>>> all do better <http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29503>?’ >>>> ” >>>> >>>> The answer is of course and always yes. In that spirit, I join with the >>>> Obama administration, the petitioner Edith Windsor >>>> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/edie-windsors-fight-for-same-sex-marriage-rights-continues-even-after-partners-death/2012/07/19/gJQARguhwW_story.html>, >>>> and the many other dedicated men and women who have engaged in this >>>> struggle for decades in urging the Supreme Court to overturn the Defense of >>>> Marriage Act. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 4:19 PM, Kate Offerdahl < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi all - we are going to do 4:30. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Those here at the Hilton can take the call from the staff room. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Call-In: 718-441-3763, no pin >>>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 4:14 PM, Heather Stone <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Looping in Kate. She is going to get it scheduled. >>>> >>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dominic Lowell <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> All times are good for me. >>>> >>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Heather Stone <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Sounds like tony can do 4:15? Can others? If not I could do anytime >>>> before 5:15 or after 6. >>>> >>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Robby Mook <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Adding Dominic. >>>> >>>> Agree--let's get our people on a call and push back >>>> >>>> I'm also tied up for next few hours @ finance stuff. But let's get this >>>> moving. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 3:48 PM, Jake Sullivan < >>>> [email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Adding Tony, who recalls this from ’08 when she made a similar >>>> argument. We did not turn up much to support idea that alternative was a >>>> constitutional amendment. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Also adding Schwerin. I think we should pull her statements around the >>>> time she embraced marriage equality and place greatest emphasis on the fact >>>> that she fully acknowledges that she evolved. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I’m on calls next two hours but Maya has my proxy. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Jennifer Palmieri [mailto:[email protected]] >>>> *Sent:* Sunday, October 25, 2015 3:46 PM >>>> *To:* Brian Fallon <[email protected]>; John Podesta < >>>> [email protected]>; Robby Mook <[email protected]>; >>>> Kristina Schake <[email protected]>; Maya Harris < >>>> [email protected]>; Jake Sullivan < >>>> [email protected]>; Marlon Marshall < >>>> [email protected]>; Heather Stone <[email protected] >>>> > >>>> *Subject:* one chain on DOMA >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Think all of us are getting incoming from friends in LGBT community >>>> about DOMA comments. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> HuffPo has reached out to us. I heard from Socarides that NYT was >>>> doing something. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I have no understanding of the issue – but clear this has a head of >>>> steam. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Brian can put a statement out, but policy and political need to tell us >>>> what you want us to do. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I would suggest a conference call with relevant parties for how we are >>>> going to handle all around – press, groups, politics. I have a bad >>>> schedule for rest of day and may not be able to be on such a call but >>>> don’t think I am needed. We just need guidance and then on political end >>>> think we need a plan for how to hose down anxious friends. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Dominic Lowell >>>> >>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America >>>> >>>> 661.364.5186 >>>> >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Dominic Lowell >>>> >>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America >>>> >>>> 661.364.5186 >>>> >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Dominic Lowell >>>> >>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America >>>> >>>> 661.364.5186 >>>> >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Dominic Lowell >>>> >>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America >>>> >>>> 661.364.5186 >>>> >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Dominic Lowell >>>> >>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America >>>> >>>> 661.364.5186 >>>> >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Dominic Lowell >>>> >>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America >>>> >>>> 661.364.5186 >>>> >>>> [email protected] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> <HRC DOMA.DOCX> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> >>> >>> Kristina Schake | Communications >>> Hillary for America >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Dominic Lowell >> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America >> 661.364.5186 >> [email protected] >> >> > > > -- > > > > Kristina Schake | Communications > Hillary for America > > >