April has been an unprecedented period of activity for advances in LGBT causes at the state level.
In New York, Eliot Spitzer became the first governor to submit legislation creating civil marriage equality for all citizens of that state. In a statement released on April 27, Spitzer said, 'This legislation would create equal legal protection and responsibilities for all individuals who seek to marry or have their marriage protected in the State of New York.'
But as the New York Times noted in an editorial, 'If he is going to make a real difference, rather than simply checking off a box to fulfill a campaign promise, he will have to fight for the law vigorously.' There is little indication that he is willing to undertake such a fight.
The New Hampshire legislature has wrapped up passage of civil unions for same-sex partners and sent it to Gov. John Lynch, who has said he would sign it.
What surprised New York Law School professor Arthur Leonard 'is how totally simple-minded the New Hampshire bill is,' and in a good way, he wrote on his blog. The new law is one page long, and is appended to and governed by existing marriage law. He called it 'Good old New England economy and efficiency.'
The state's best-known openly gay person, Episcopal Bishop V. Robinson, told the AP that he and his partner of 18 years, Mark Andrew, 'look forward to taking full advantage of the new law.'
Meanwhile presidential candidates of both parties were scurrying to their respective corners in an attempt to triangulate the issue.
The Democrats all issued statements supporting the legislation, even while affirming their fealty to reserving the term 'marriage' for a man and a woman. They were trying to appease the LGBT community, so influential within the party primaries, without alienating the political center, which is still leery of gay marriage.
The Republicans had their own form of unity—not surprisingly, more to the right—pandering to those active primary voters. Mitt Romney's opposition was a given.
New York Sun blogger Ryan Sager got John McCain to say, 'If I were a citizen of New Hampshire, I would oppose it. … Anything that impinges or impacts the sanctity of the marriage between men and women, I'm opposed to it.'
Rudy Giuliani had previously supported domestic partnerships, but in the heat of the campaign, apparently civil unions go too far. A statement released by his office said, 'In this specific case the law states same sex civil unions are the equivalent of marriage and recognizes same sex unions from outside the states. This goes too far and Mayor Giuliani does not support it.'
Blogger Andrew Sullivan calls it all 'very revealing about where the parties now stand. Remember that when the Republican leadership favored the Federal Marriage Amendment, they said they did not necessarily oppose civil unions. They were lying, of course.
'Christianists are not fighting for the semantics of the word 'marriage,' they are fighting to ensure that gay couples are kept inferior under the law—because, well, they believe our relationships are inferior. Giuliani believes his three marriages qualify him to deny gay couples equality under the law.'
Also during the last week of April, the Oregon legislature passed a comprehensive bill outlawing discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Iowa is in the process of adding similar language to its existing civil rights law.
According to Leonard's tabulations, 'We may be over the top and have a majority of the population living in states that ban sexual orientation discrimination.' And when city ordinances in states without such protections are included, 'we undoubtedly have a clear majority of the population' covered.
