Apr 13, 2007  |  By: LOU CHIBBARO J  | COMMENTS     

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 ...