Subject: Re: one chain on DOMA
From: Amanda Renteria <[email-masked]>
To: Kristina Schake <[email-masked]>
Cc: Tony Carrk <[email-masked]>, Dan Schwerin <[email-masked]>, Dominic Lowell <[email-masked]>, Karen Finney <[email-masked]>, Maya Harris <[email-masked]>, Heather Stone <[email-masked]>, Robby Mook <[email-masked]>, Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>, Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>, Brian Fallon <[email-masked]>, Marlon Marshall <[email-masked]>, Brynne Craig <[email-masked]>, Sally Marx <[email-masked]>, Teddy Goff <
Date: Sun, 25 Oct 2015 19:45:28 -0400

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-masked]>
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-masked]> 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-masked]> 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-masked]]
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 25, 2015 6:56 PM
> *To:* Amanda Renteria <[email-masked]>
> *Cc:* Dominic Lowell <[email-masked]>; Karen Finney <
> [email-masked]>; Maya Harris <[email-masked]>;
> Heather Stone <[email-masked]>; Robby Mook <
> [email-masked]>; Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>;
> Jennifer Palmieri <[email-masked]>; Brian Fallon <
> [email-masked]>; Kristina Schake <[email-masked]>;
> Marlon Marshall <[email-masked]>; Tony Carrk <
> [email-masked]>; Brynne Craig <[email-masked]>;
> Sally Marx <[email-masked]>; Teddy Goff <
> [email-masked]>; John Podesta <[email-masked]>;
> Christina Reynolds <[email-masked]>
> *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-masked]>
> 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-masked]>
> 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-masked]>
> 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-masked]>
> 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-masked]>
> 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-masked]>
> 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-masked]>
> 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-masked]> wrote:
>
> +Amanda's work account.
>
>
>
> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Maya Harris <[email-masked]>
> 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-masked]> wrote:
>
> + JP's personal email
>
> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dominic Lowell <[email-masked]>
> 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-masked]>
> 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-masked]>
> 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-masked]>
> wrote:
>
> Looping in Kate. She is going to get it scheduled.
>
> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Dominic Lowell <[email-masked]>
> wrote:
>
> All times are good for me.
>
> On Sunday, October 25, 2015, Heather Stone <[email-masked]>
> 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-masked]> 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-masked]>
> 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-masked]
> <[email-masked]>]
> *Sent:* Sunday, October 25, 2015 3:46 PM
> *To:* Brian Fallon <[email-masked]>; John Podesta <
> [email-masked]>; Robby Mook <[email-masked]>; Kristina
> Schake <[email-masked]>; Maya Harris <
> [email-masked]>; Jake Sullivan <[email-masked]>;
> Marlon Marshall <[email-masked]>; Heather Stone <
> [email-masked]>
> *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-masked]
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dominic Lowell
>
> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America
>
> 661.364.5186
>
> [email-masked]
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dominic Lowell
>
> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America
>
> 661.364.5186
>
> [email-masked]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dominic Lowell
>
> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America
>
> 661.364.5186
>
> [email-masked]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dominic Lowell
>
> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America
>
> 661.364.5186
>
> [email-masked]
>
>
>
>
>
> --
>
> Dominic Lowell
>
> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America
>
> 661.364.5186
>
> [email-masked]
>
>
>
> <HRC DOMA.DOCX>
>
>

-- 

Kristina Schake | Communications
Hillary for America