ext_13279 ([identity profile] burgundy.livejournal.com) wrote in [personal profile] mouseferatu 2010-04-16 12:45 am (UTC)

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."

Post a comment in response:

This account has disabled anonymous posting.
If you don't have an account you can create one now.
HTML doesn't work in the subject.
More info about formatting