They should push for more even as they have to make compromises along the way. It’s a third way of look ing at things that’s not the extreme of either positions often advocated. Call it the by whatever means necessary strategy. Those states where marriage has converted from civil unions happened because of people saying civil unions are not good enough. They did not happen from people saying civil uinons are good enough.

That I gree with. This, however:

For instance, you bring up right wing attacks in 2004 as a basis for claiming that marriage or nothing advocates are the problem when in fact those acts were a coordinated effort by the national GOP to get out the fundie vote.

My point was that there’s every indication that amendments that attempt to go beyond marriage and prohibit civil unions and domestic partnership benefits are more likely to fail, and that when fighting those initiatives funding should have been prioritized accordingly, taking into account demographics, of course, as well as other factors (likelihood of success, current availability of marriage, etc.). There was absolutely no legitimate reason to prioritize Oregon over Michigan in 2004, for example, but that is precisely what HRC and other national groups did, despite early polling indicating that MI’s more draconian amendment would be easier to defeat. As Arizona’s 2006 and 2008 campaigns illustrate, this can make a real difference.

There is no magic solution (as you seem to think) to this issue other than continuing to fight for what you can get but not accepting the baseline that conservatives retreat to once they lose.

Where did I say that there was a magical solution? There isn’t; but because of a failure of strategic vision, at least in part, we have marriage amendments that go far beyond marriage, and those constitutional amendments are next to impossible to overturn.

I am certain it says the former (push for what we can get but also don’t settle), but adds let’s not scold those pushing for more than whatever is the latest new baseline. These people pushing for full equality are part of the processes that moves us forward.

Hence, my defense of them from the commentor who choose to use the black civil rights struggle under a misguided belief that blacks were willing to just settle simply because the battle proved long. No one should wait to push. They should push for more even as they have to make compromises along the way. It’s a third way of look ing at things that’s not the extreme of either positions often advocated. Call it the by whatever means necessary strategy.

Those states where marriage has converted from civil unions happened because of people saying civil unions are not good enough. They did not happen from people saying civil uinons are good enough.

You also incorrectly apply prior historical examples in your arguments. For instance, you bring up right wing attacks in 2004 as a basis for claiming that marriage or nothing advocates are the problem when in fact those acts were a coordinated effort by the national GOP to get out the fundie vote.

In other words, they had little to nothing to do with marriage equality people, and in fact, in states like Virginia they blocked all rights including contracts between gays regardless of laws already on the book and amendments. Indeed, much of that history is a result of right wing attacks on any effort to obtain legal legitimacy. There is no magic solution (as you seem to think) to this issue other than continuing to fight for what you can get but not accepting the baseline that conservatives retreat to once they lose. And, yes, histotrically, they do lose, but you have to undestand how it is that this is occurs. It occurs through a series of battles that does not accept the status quo as the final result.

Your snark misses the historical reality that the black civil right’s movement was a long battle with many victories and setbacks along the way. Blacks did celebrate when we got the vote even though states tossed up more barriers to continue our disfranchisement (poll tax, grandfather clause, “literacy” test). The fantasy that the black struggle began and ended in a tiny period of time is shallow and misses the lessons of that civil rights struggle. Lessons we should apply to our current struggle for full LGBT rights.

In the meantime, the whole West Coast has “everything-but-name” rights for same-sex couples. It’s not the end of the fight, but it’s a great start.

Yay.

Which means the 5,000 domestic partners who’ve registered since 2007 will ultimately enjoy all the rights and privileges of straight married types, but don’t get to use The M Word.

When they registered, they weren’t registering for “all the rights and privileges” (you left out the corollary, “obligations and responsibilities and liabilities”), just for those that were offered. This retroactive application is irresponsible of the Washington legislature (CA had a similar problem with its incremental approach to domestic partnerships). The couples should have an opportunity to “opt-in,” but if this bill actually forces them into new arrangements that they didn’t originally sign up for it will create a host of problems.