Subject: Re: one chain on DOMA
From: Amanda Renteria <[email-masked]>
To: Kristina Schake <[email-masked]>
Cc: Dominic Lowell <[email-masked]>, Tony Carrk <[email-masked]>, Dan Schwerin <[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 20:02:51 -0400

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-masked]>
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-masked]>
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-masked]>
> 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-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]]
>>> *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
>>
>>
>>
>
> --
> Dominic Lowell
> LGBT Outreach Director | Hillary for America
> 661.364.5186
> [email-masked]
>
>

-- 

Kristina Schake | Communications
Hillary for America