Which part?

Bill Clinton, signer of DOMA, says it's 'incompatible with our Constitution'

At the time he signed it DOMA was just another Clinton sellout to the conservatives proving, among so many other things, that neither he nor they had any real interest in that document.

Likewise his current reversal, predicated as it is on a hilariously phony understanding of what constitutionality actually is.

Bill Clinton: It’s time to overturn DOMA

The link above is to his piece in The Washington Post, q.v.

Look at how he says one decides what is constitutional.

On March 27, DOMA will come before the Supreme Court, 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.

No recourse to the text is required.

And that is why the brief argument he provides to show DOMA is really unconstitutional does not cite or appeal to anything in the Constitution.

Instead, he cites a few details of DOMA and one or two related facts and then declares it is discriminatory.

That is all he does to convince us that DOMA is not "consistent with the principles of a nation that honors freedom, equality and justice above all.”

And that is all he does to convince us it is unconstitutional.

No knowledge of the US Constitution is required to make this call.

Not for a liberal.

And, frankly, probably not for a conservative, either.

What frauds all these politicians are.

And what frauds these wretched fakers have made of the government and the constitution, themselves, from the moment they were born.