Sen.
Hillary
Rodham
Clinton
(D-N.Y.)
told
several
hundred
gay
activists
in
Washington
last
month
that
while
she
supports
civil
unions
instead
of
marriage
for
same-sex
couples,
she
wants
to
“change
laws
and
change
hearts”
to
enable
those
couples
to
enjoy
the
same
rights
and
benefits
that
come
with
marriage.
“It
is
wrong
that
so
many
people
are
unable
to
care
for
those
they
love,
to
leave
them
their
homes
and
belongings,
to
insure
they
can
see
a
doctor,
to
visit
them
in
the
hospital
when
they
are
sick,”
Clinton
said
in
a
March
2
speech
before
the
Human
Rights
Campaign’s
annual
winter
meeting.
“These
are
fundamental
rights
and
we
will
continue
to
push
until
they
are
equally
available,”
she
said.
But
Clinton,
who
is
running
for
president,
and
other
presidential
candidates
who
support
civil
unions
instead
of
gay
marriage,
including
Sen.
Barack
Obama
(D-Ill.),
have
yet
to
say
how
they
would
make
such
rights
and
benefits
available
to
same-sex
couples
under
federal
law.
Legal
experts
note
that
the
federal
government
provides
more
than
1,200
benefits
and
rights
for
married
couples,
including
Social
Security
survivor
benefits
and
joint
tax
filings.
Under
federal
law,
none
of
these
rights
and
benefits
are
available
for
people
in
civil
unions
or
other
forms
of
same-sex
relationships
because
the
existing
law
doesn’t
recognize
such
relationships.
As
far
as
the
federal
government
is
concerned,
members
of
same-sex
relationships
are
classified
as
“unmarried”
or
“single.”
Mark
Agrast,
a
gay
rights
attorney
and
senior
fellow
with
the
Center
for
American
Progress,
said
it
would
take
an
act
of
Congress
authorizing
federal
recognition
of
civil
unions
and
most
likely
the
repeal
of
a
section
of
the
Defense
of
Marriage
Act,
or
DOMA,
to
bring
about
full
federal
rights
and
benefits
for
same-sex
couples
joined
in
civil
unions.
DOMA,
which
Congress
passed
and
President
Bill
Clinton
signed
in
1996,
defines
marriage
under
federal
law
as
a
union
only
between
a
man
and
a
woman.
It
also
allows
states
to
refuse
to
recognize
same-sex
marriages
performed
in
other
states.
Agrast
said
the
part
of
DOMA
that
defines
marriage
as
a
union
between
a
man
and
a
woman
currently
bars
federal
recognition
of
same-sex
couples
married
in
Massachusetts,
the
only
state
with
legalized
gay
marriage.
He
said
courts
might
interpret
the
same
provision
as
preventing
federal
recognition
of
civil
unions.
Civil
unions
granted
in
Vermont,
Connecticut
and
New
Jersey,
the
only
states
so
far
that
have
approved
civil
union
laws,
have
no
validity
in
other
states
and
provide
none
of
the
federal
rights
and
benefits
of
marriage,
Agrast
and
others
have
said.
Same-sex
marriage
supporters
have
speculated
that
what
might
have
to
happen
is
for
some
federal
legislation
to
pass
that
would
allow
the
federal
government
to
recognize
what’s
been
passed
at
the
state
level.
Marriage,
traditionally,
has
been
a
state-sanctioned
institution
and
some
marriage
laws
vary
from
state
to
state
for
opposite-sex
couples.
Federal
legislation
pertaining
to
same-sex
marriages
or
unions
likely
wouldn’t
make
such
unions
available
throughout
the
U.S.,
but
could
put
a
system
in
place
whereby
residents
in
states
that
have
passed
same-sex
marriage
or
civil
unions
would
receive
the
federal
benefits
provided
to
opposite-sex
married
couples.
HRC
and
other
national
gay
advocacy
groups
so
far
have
not
called
on
Congress
to
pass
a
bill
recognizing
civil
unions
or
domestic
partnerships
sanctioned
by
state
laws.
“Though
such
a
bill
would
provide
significant
protections
for
our
community,
it
does
not
constitute
same-sex
marriage,”
said
Allison
Herwitt,
HRC’s
legislative
director.
“Within
our
movement,
there
is
an
acknowledgement
that
only
marriage
constitutes
full
equality
while
civil
unions
are
becoming
a
reality
more
quickly,
causing
advocates
of
equality
to
ask
tough
questions
about
what
position
to
take
on
civil
unions,”
she
said.
Evan
Wolfson,
executive
director
of
the
same-sex
marriage
advocacy
group
Freedom
to
Marry,
said
it
is
far
too
early
for
gay
groups
and
their
allies
to
push
for
a
federal
civil
unions
recognition
bill.
With
the
2008
presidential
election
already
drawing
widespread
publicity,
Wolfson
said
gay
advocacy
groups
and
their
allies
should
be
asking
the
candidates
to
spell
out
what
they
mean
when
they
express
support
for
equal
rights
and
benefits
for
same-sex
couples
through
civil
unions.
“When
they
try
to
do
that,
they
will
realize
that
there
is
only
one
system
for
doing
it
and
that
is
marriage,”
he
said.
“Why
would
we
want
to
create
a
whole
new
system
just
to
keep
gay
people
from
getting
equal
marriage
rights?”
Wolfson
said.
“This
is
not
where
the
discussion
should
be
at
this
time.”
Agrast
said
he,
too,
favors
marriage
over
civil
unions
for
same-sex
couples
but
said
having
federal
recognition
of
civil
unions
as
a
first
step
could
make
a
big
difference
in
the
lives
of
gay
and
lesbian
couples,
who
may
not
see
the
reality
of
marriage
for
a
decade
or
longer.
“The
first
step
would
be
to
have
the
federal
government
defer
to
the
states
in
deciding
whether
civil
unions
or
domestic
partnership
laws
passed
by
those
states
should
be
recognized
for
federal
purposes,”
he
said.
A
new
federal
law
would
be
needed
to
bring
that
about,
he
said.
“If
you
really
support
federalism,
and
that’s
something
our
Republican
friends
say
is
important
to
them,
then
you
...
