After my initial moment of !!, I am now cynically wondering if this isn't a defensive maneuver of some sort. He has been very clear that he does not support gay marriage (or at least, not using the m-word.) If they can address some of the issues that are most blatantly unfair about marriage discrimination, then they can say, "see, you can still visit your partner [or whatever other thing] without being married, so will you get off our backs."
It's not that I think this is a bad thing, or that he shouldn't have done it. But saying "you cannot limit visitors to legal relatives if that means excluding a same-sex partner" is a paltry substitute for "you have to recognize same-sex partners as legal relatives."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-04-16 12:45 am (UTC)It's not that I think this is a bad thing, or that he shouldn't have done it. But saying "you cannot limit visitors to legal relatives if that means excluding a same-sex partner" is a paltry substitute for "you have to recognize same-sex partners as legal relatives."