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

Re: one chain on DOMA

Also, HRC would say she and wjc didn't "support" the passage of doma. Wjc bowed to a veto proof majority and then McCurry dumped on it. On Oct 25, 2015, at 11:00 PM, Maya Harris <mharris@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: Brian, would suggest: - continue to fight to secure (since she's been fighting) - can still get married on... (delete "often") - on background, would add to her SOS record extending benefits to same-sex couples On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 10:46 PM, Brian Fallon <bfallon@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: > On the record: > > HIllary Clinton believes that whatever one's motives were for supporting > the passage of DOMA, they do not justify what was a purely discriminatory > law. It deserved to be overturned by the Supreme Court, as both Secretary > and President Clinton had urged. As President, Hillary Clinton would fight > to continue to secure full and equal rights for LGBT Americans, who, > despite all our progress, can often still get married on a Saturday and > fired on a Monday just because of who they are and who they love. > > On background: > > Hillary Clinton has been very open that her views have evolved over the > years. > > In 2013, she added her voice in support of marriage equality. > > Even before that, as a Senator, she 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, she put LGBT rights on the global agenda and > told the world that “gay rights are human rights and human rights are gay > rights.” > On Oct 25, 2015 9:41 PM, "Robby Mook" <re47@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: > >> Brian can you take a shot at a trimmed down version of what Dominic >> sent? I think this should be short and sweet. >> >> >> >> On Oct 25, 2015, at 9:37 PM, John Podesta <john.podesta@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> We are blowing this people. Chains of 40 emails aren't helping. we need >> to get a statement out that says that no matter what the context 20 years >> ago the law was a discriminatory vestige of a less tolerant era as WJC said >> in his editorial appealing to SCOTUS to overturn it. >> >> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dominic Lowell <dlowell@hillaryclinton.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Everyone I talked to today was in a pretty whipped up state. Based on >>> who reached out to me and what I've seen people express online, the energy >>> is not relegated to just the rabble rouser crowd. There is, IMO, deep >>> discontent out there stemming from what she said on Friday. >>> >>> I recognize I might be in a small minority, but my opinion continues to >>> be that we are better served by addressing this. >>> >>> Just to play it out, though, if we don't respond on this round of >>> stories, what will her answer be if pressed to clarify in future interviews >>> about this? >>> >>> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Brian Fallon <bfallon@hillaryclinton.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Rosen suggested in her email she at least would be satisfied if we >>>> never repeated the theory again. Defer to political on whether others want >>>> something approximating a walkback. >>>> On Oct 25, 2015 9:09 PM, "Kristina Schake" <kschake@hillaryclinton.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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 <bfallon@hillaryclinton.com> >>>>> 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" <re47@hillaryclinton.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Do we need to get back to Huffpo tonight? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 25, 2015, at 8:40 PM, Brian Fallon <bfallon@hillaryclinton.com> >>>>>> 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 < >>>>>> kschake@hillaryclinton.com> 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 < >>>>>> dlowell@hillaryclinton.com> 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 < >>>>>>> arenteria@hillaryclinton.com> 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 < >>>>>>>> kschake@hillaryclinton.com> 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 < >>>>>>>> arenteria@hillaryclinton.com> 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 <tcarrk@hillaryclinton.com> >>>>>>>>> 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:dschwerin@hillaryclinton.com] >>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, October 25, 2015 6:56 PM >>>>>>>>> *To:* Amanda Renteria <arenteria@hillaryclinton.com> >>>>>>>>> *Cc:* Dominic Lowell <dlowell@hillaryclinton.com>; Karen Finney < >>>>>>>>> kfinney@hillaryclinton.com>; Maya Harris < >>>>>>>>> mharris@hillaryclinton.com>; Heather Stone < >>>>>>>>> hstone@hillaryclinton.com>; Robby Mook <re47@hillaryclinton.com>; >>>>>>>>> Jake Sullivan <jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com>; Jennifer Palmieri < >>>>>>>>> jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com>; Brian Fallon < >>>>>>>>> bfallon@hillaryclinton.com>; Kristina Schake < >>>>>>>>> kschake@hillaryclinton.com>; Marlon Marshall < >>>>>>>>> mmarshall@hillaryclinton.com>; Tony Carrk < >>>>>>>>> tcarrk@hillaryclinton.com>; Brynne Craig < >>>>>>>>> bcraig@hillaryclinton.com>; Sally Marx <smarx@hillaryclinton.com>; >>>>>>>>> Teddy Goff <tgoff@hillaryclinton.com>; John Podesta < >>>>>>>>> john.podesta@gmail.com>; Christina Reynolds < >>>>>>>>> creynolds@hillaryclinton.com> >>>>>>>>> *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 < >>>>>>>>> arenteria@hillaryclinton.com> 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 < >>>>>>>>> dschwerin@hillaryclinton.com> 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 < >>>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> *From:* Jennifer Palmieri [mailto:jpalmieri@hillaryclinton.com] >>>>>>>>> *Sent:* Sunday, October 25, 2015 3:46 PM >>>>>>>>> *To:* Brian Fallon <bfallon@hillaryclinton.com>; John Podesta < >>>>>>>>> jp66@hillaryclinton.com>; Robby Mook <re47@hillaryclinton.com>; >>>>>>>>> Kristina Schake <kschake@hillaryclinton.com>; Maya Harris < >>>>>>>>> mharris@hillaryclinton.com>; Jake Sullivan < >>>>>>>>> jsullivan@hillaryclinton.com>; Marlon Marshall < >>>>>>>>> mmarshall@hillaryclinton.com>; Heather Stone < >>>>>>>>> hstone@hillaryclinton.com> >>>>>>>>> *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 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> dlowell@hillaryclinton.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dominic Lowell >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 661.364.5186 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> dlowell@hillaryclinton.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dominic Lowell >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 661.364.5186 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> dlowell@hillaryclinton.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dominic Lowell >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 661.364.5186 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> dlowell@hillaryclinton.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dominic Lowell >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 661.364.5186 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> dlowell@hillaryclinton.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dominic Lowell >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 661.364.5186 >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> dlowell@hillaryclinton.com >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> <HRC DOMA.DOCX> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kristina Schake | Communications >>>>>>>> Hillary for America >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Dominic Lowell >>>>>>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America >>>>>>> 661.364.5186 >>>>>>> dlowell@hillaryclinton.com >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Kristina Schake | Communications >>>>>> Hillary for America >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dominic Lowell >>> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America >>> 661.364.5186 >>> dlowell@hillaryclinton.com >>> >>>