Holly Cairns said...
You might know I support 'Civil Unions' (and the asking for civil unions instead of for marriage)
But you should have a look at Sara's court shopping et. al comment on this:
www dot mnprogressiveproject dot com/diary/2417/creating-chaos-through-bush-v-gore
Maybe this is old thought to you, but I found it really interesting! Here's part of it:
How this applies to Gay Civil Rights and Marriage, I am not all that sure. That vote came pretty close in California, and if the coalition were stronger, a little bigger, with a better electorial strategy, I think it could win in a few years. I suspect courts will, in much of the country, fall into line if perhaps ten states do either Civil Unions or Marriage -- in general the constitution tends to protect contracts entered into in one state being valid in all other states (full faith and credit clause) -- one normally doesn't have to get divorced or re-married every time one crosses state lines. Marriage is reserved to the states, but it is also a contract with all sorts of joint property implications. So my guess is when 8-10 states establish statutes protecting single sex marriage or civil unions, the Federal Courts will take up the issue and make it Universal. Ditto for Adoption -- one doesn't unadopt kids because you move from state to state. In this respect the work ahead for the Gay-Lesbian community is significantly different from what we faced in the Civil Rights movement days, American Apartheid had many many more facets that required litigation initially, and then legislation, and then more litigation and then more legislation. Remember it was a whole economic system, that in effect legitimized a form of bondage. (Sharecropping). Took about 40-50 years if you start counting with the 1936 Anti-Lynching effort, which is where I date the beginning of the modern American Civil Rights Movement.
Holly Cairns said...
Oh yeah, and the Gay Rights Law is really the Worker, Retiree and Employer Recovery Act of 2008... which allows employees to designate beneficiaries other than the normal beneficiary "spouse".
While it does sound like a step in the right direction for same sex partnerships, it goes pretty far to call it a 'gay rights law'.
I think Gay Patriot makes a reasonable point. Under Clinton, we got DADT and DOMA. Bush signed this bill. President Bush has deserved criticism from gays. When he does the right thing, he should be thanked.