Why Bill Clinton is apologizing for signing DOMA

"In 1996, I signed the Defense of Marriage Act," says former President Bill Clinton in The Washington Post. DOMA, which prevents federal recognition of same-sex marriage, is up for review at the Supreme Court on March 27, and the justices will have to decide whether the law "is consistent with the principles of a nation that honors freedom, equality, and justice above all," Clinton says. In the 17 years since he signed it, the former president says, "I have come to believe that DOMA is contrary to those principles and, in fact, incompatible with our Constitution." (He's not alone: Read Dana Liebelson's four reasons DOMA was doomed even before Clinton waded in.)

In the middle of Clinton's explanation on why he signed DOMA — times have changed, no states had legalized gay marriage in 1996, he thought it might head off more "draconian" measures like a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage nationwide, only 81 of the 535 members of Congress opposed it — he drops in this "bit of a mea culpa," notes Joel Connelly at the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:

Gay-marriage advocates have been urging Clinton to apologize for signing DOMA for some time, and it's not like his new op-ed signals "a change of heart from the former president," says Margaret Hartmann at New York. Clinton has "been on the record as pro gay marriage for years and was never enthusiastic about the law." So why completely disown DOMA now?

Subscribe to The Week

Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

SUBSCRIBE & SAVE

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.

Sign up

There are the obvious reasons: This is the first time the law has come before the high court, and public opinion really has shifted considerably, even in the year since President Obama embraced gay marriage. And he's not alone: Many of the lawmakers who voted for the law in 1996 want to see DOMA overturned or repealed, too.

Clinton has had 17 years to reverse course, and a year of watching Obama pay no political price for his own evolution. This smacks of "cynicism and lawlessness" — why did he sign a law he thinks is unconstitutional? says Paul Mirengoff at Power Line. "Does he think that one or more of the five Supreme Court justices who may be inclined to uphold DOMA will be moved by this op-ed to switch on the issue?"

The gay community Clinton has courted since his first successful run for the White House certainly considers this step long overdue. "Whether he begins to lead on the issue remains to be seen," says New York's Hartmann, "but at the very least his new stance should make things less awkward when Hillary Clinton whatever Democrat happens to run for president embraces gay marriage in 2016." Politico's Maggie Haberman is thinking along similar lines, tweeting that Clinton's DOMA disavowal "helps lay a predicate for when Hillary ultimately supports gay marriage, which activists expect is coming soonish."

Maybe the why isn't as important as the what, and Clinton turning on DOMA is "a BFD, it seems to me," says Andrew Sullivan at The Dish. He obviously knew it was discriminatory legislation when he signed it, "but it's churlish to cavil." If gay-rights advocates "can forgive Ken Mehlman," George W. Bush's recently un-closeted 2004 campaign manager, "we can surely forgive Bill Clinton. And welcome him to the civil-rights cause of our time."