Reply #71: You don't understand your #2

[ruggerson]

And when I told you about #1, I explained fully why she feels the way she does. She does not wish to prod states into further passages of individual state DOMA's nor create a political climate where a Federal Const. amendment might be pushed through congress.

As for #2, if the part of DOMA that they both want eliminated is repealed, then the states where there are civil union/marriage laws in effect will automatically be able to get full federal benefits. The only thing a "federal civil unions" bill would accomplish is to reiterate that couples in individual states where marriage or civil unions are legal would then be eligible for federal benefits. The exact same thing would be accomplished by repealing the federal recognition segment of DOMA. States marry and or "civil unionize" couples. The federal government does not. And I can find no place where she has said she is opposed to the idea of a federal civil unions legislation reiterating what the repeal of DOMA would do. If you look at the Human Rights page I provided you, you see that their positions are identical.

And since their positions are pretty much identical, then people go looking for other reasons and clues to differentiate between the two candidates. Which is what has happened in this race.