State's Rights is back and just as stinky

In terms of gay issues, the 3 major candidates sound quite a bit alike, with only minor differences. All 3 are for repeal of DADT, all 3 are for civil unions, none of them is to the point of pushing for gay marriage. Here's the difference. Obama and Edwards are for repealing all of DOMA and Hillary wants to repeal all but the clause that says states can ignore the married status of gays acquired in another state. You may be married in Massachusetts, but move to Michigan and you're legal strangers.

On closer look, this isn't minor. So why are so many gays working for Hillary? I've heard it is because they hope to get a lot of influence in Hillary's government. But it also means she can take them for granted without actually producing much in results. She was just in a campaign dustup because she said while Martin Luther King is important, he needed President Johnson to actually get the Civil Rights Laws passed. It seems a President Hillary will not be the corresponding gay champion.

Hillary has been saying gay marriage should be left to the states. And that is the hoary States Rights excuse Republicans used to spout to signal they were all for letting the South remain bigoted. The term has not gotten better with age. Terrance says it this way (emphasis in the original):

In the history of this country, states rights have never been invoked in the service of extending rights and protections to more people, but has always been invoked in the service of restricting the rights of and denying protections to—or restricting rights to and preserving protections for—particular groups of citizens.

Put another way, “states’ rights” has never been a means to advance equality, but has always been a tool for preserving inequality.