I couldn't agree more with Evan Wolfson's advice to Barack Obama about what he needs to say at his speech to the Human Rights Campaign this weekend.
Well, maybe a little. Evan thinks that Obama needs to make the moral case against exclusion of gay couples from the law. He follows David Mixner's lead, saying that Obama needs to explicitly oppose Maine's attempt to override the legislature's decision to support same-sex marriage.
Amen to that.
But he also follows the mainstream media's obsessive focus only on the east coast of this country, and completely leaves out what's happening in Washington.
In fact, opposition to Washington's Referendum 71 fits more comfortably into Obama's current position on gay equality. R-71 grants same-sex couples only domestic partnership benefits, not marriage - which is exactly what Obama is already on the record supporting. Given that, his silence on Washington's election is already inexplicable, and should be remedied. After all, if R-71 passes, gay couples in Washington will have no legal recognition of their relationships - no rights - at all. That makes Washington a good starting point for Obama's remarks.
But I agree with Evan that Obama needs to go beyond that bare support for qualified equality, and support the real thing. That is what is at stake in Maine. Washington's Equality Lite is a political compromise that is better than no equality at all. But in Maine, they have true equality on the ballot. Mixner is exactly right that Obama's hedged rhetoric was used against us -- against Obama -- in California, and will be used the same way in Maine. Only he can prevent that from happening.
5 Comments for “Evan forgot about Washington — Obama shouldn’t”
posted by John Howard on
Obama should make the case for an interim pragmatic solution that gives same-sex couples equal protections but rolls back same-sex marriage in the US until the public has had time to consider the issue of Postgenderism and same-sex conception. It is far too early to declare that people should have equal procreation rights with someone of the same sex. We should enact the Egg and Sperm Civil Union Compromise right now, and then let the discussion focus on whether same-sex couples should have equal procreation rights or not. If we decide to repeal the Egg and Sperm law and allow use of modified genes for same-sex conception, then we should not let any states withhold marriage licenses from same-sex couples. And if we don’t decide to repeal the Egg and Sperm law, then we will finally be able to reap the benefits of preserving equality and equal conception rights for all.
posted by Mihai Bucur on
If R-71 passes, it is not the case that same-sex couples will have no legal recognition of their relationships. Since 2007, Washington already has a domestic partnership scheme which provide some rights to same-sex couples. R-71 will merely roll back the latest expansion made to those rights, which extended to domestic partners all of the state-level rights of marriage.
posted by Truly Scrumptious on
Mihai Bucur is correct, there will still be domestic partnership laws on the books here in Washington state but the most recent expansion will be rescinded.
Who is David Link and why doesnt he get his facts in order?
posted by David Link on
Mihai and TS, you are both exactly right, and I have no one to blame for this clear error but myself.
posted by Charles on
Just to clarify, if R-71 passes, same-sex couples WILL have increased partnership rights. If it is rejected, those rights will be rolled back. Approve R-71.