This email has also been verified by Google DKIM 2048-bit RSA key

Re: one chain on DOMA

Agree w Schake and that's what we just heard from kitchen cabinet as well. Sent from my iPhone On Oct 25, 2015, at 6:43 PM, Kristina Schake <kschake@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: Sorry to miss the call. I talked to Chad who said he isn't sure what she said is totally incorrect, it is what WJC uses to talk about the decision, but it is very contested. He doesn't think it helps us to explain it. Better to say it was wrong in 1994 and wrong today, she's glad so many did so much to tear it down and now we have to focus on the battles ahead. He suggested she deliver a speech on equality building on what she said at HRC a few weeks ago and go beyond what anyone has said. He thinks we need to get out of the 90s narrative. On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Dominic Lowell <dlowell@hillaryclinton.com> 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 <dschwerin@hillaryclinton.com> > 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 <kfinney@hillaryclinton.com> >> 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 <dlowell@hillaryclinton.com> >> 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 <dschwerin@hillaryclinton.com> >> 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 < >>> dlowell@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: >>> >>>> +Amanda's work account. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Maya Harris <mharris@hillaryclinton.com> >>>> 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 < >>>>> dlowell@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> + JP's personal email >>>>>> >>>>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dominic Lowell < >>>>>> dlowell@hillaryclinton.com> 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 < >>>>>>> dschwerin@hillaryclinton.com> 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 < >>>>>>>> kofferdahl@hillaryclinton.com> 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 < >>>>>>>> hstone@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Looping in Kate. She is going to get it scheduled. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dominic Lowell < >>>>>>>> dlowell@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> All times are good for me. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Heather Stone < >>>>>>>>> hstone@hillaryclinton.com> 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 <re47@hillaryclinton.com> >>>>>>>>>> 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 < >>>>>>>>>>> jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com> 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. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> * -- Kristina Schake | Communications Hillary for America