When civil unions were first proposed in Vermont in 2000, they were an important compromise to allow same-sex couples to access some of the protections marriage provides. Though they create a “separate but equal” (and thus still stigmatizing) system for same-sex couples, they are better than no rights at all, and states like Delaware and Illinois should be applauded for recently taking steps to support same-sex families in their states.

However, what was once a compromise is now being used as a weapon in New York and Rhode Island, where clear majorities of voters support marriage equality. These states are unique in that both already recognize out-of-state marriages between same-sex couples performed in Canada or neighboring states like Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Vermont. Same-sex couples in NY and RI already have marriage equality — they just have to go somewhere else to get a certificate. Truly, all these states are debating is whether they want to tap into the marriage license and tourism revenue that same-sex couples are currently taking elsewhere.

Among legislators in both states, the stigma against same-sex couples and their families is still winning, such that the mere idea of civil unions as a “compromise” is holding back the progress of marriage equality. In Rhode Island, House Speaker Gordon Fox (D) withdrew a proposed marriage equality bill and offered a civil unions bill in its place, which gets its first vote today. Marriage equality advocates oppose it because it creates second-class statuses for couples who can already access marriage; opponents say it still goes too far to recognize same-sex couples.

In New York, civil unions are not even on the table, but at least one senator, former Democrat Sen. Mark Grisanti (R), has suggested that he’s voting no on marriage because he thinks civil unions would be a better compromise:

If it were to come up to a vote today, I would vote ‘no’ because of the term ‘marriage’ being in there. Other groups had said to me that, you know, we don’t really care about the term ‘marriage’ as long as we have the 1,324 rights that we’re not allowed to have for married couples, and I agree that they should have those rights.

But perhaps Grisanti (and others?) are listening to decade-old talking points, because the big push for marriage equality is just that: a push for marriage.

In these two states, there is no selling point for “civil unions.” A compromise requires that both sides gain, and same-sex couples have nothing to gain from anything less than the marriages they can already have recognized. The only purpose civil unions would serve would be to designate same-sex couples as “less than” and undeserving of full marriage equality. For New York and Rhode Island, civil unions would be “separate and unequal.”

Former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson’s (R) decision to jump into the Wisconsin Senate race raises the question of Thompson’s position on gay rights, particularly if openly gay Rep. Tammy Baldwin (D) becomes his Democratic challenger. Thompson isn’t known as a firebrand on conservative social issues, but during his failed bid for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination, Thompson said that businesses should be allowed to discriminate against gay people. He immediately walked back his position, citing a broken hearing aide and a need to use the restroom:

Q: Governor Thompson, same theme. If a private employer finds homosexuality immoral, should he be allowed to fire a gay worker?

THOMPSON: I think that is left up to the individual business. I really sincerely believe that that is an issue that business people have to got to make their own determination as to whether or not they should be.

Q: Okay. So the answer’s yes.

THOMPSON: Yes.

Watch the debate and his walk back with HBO’s Bill Maher:

“I’ve been very sick. … I was very sick the day of the debate. I had all of the problems with the flu and bronchitis that you have, including running to the bathroom,” Thompson explained. “I was just hanging on. I could not wait until the debate got off so I could go to the bathroom.”

Wisconsin does not prohibit discrimination based on gender identity or expression, but in 1982, “became the first state to outlaw discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation” in employment. The law was signed by Republican Governor Lee Dreyfus. In 1996, however, did remove language from the GOP platrom “that opposed civil rights protections for those discriminated against because of their ‘sexual preference.’”

When President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder announced in February that the administration would no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court, prominent Republicans were quick to criticize the decision. Mitt Romney called it “an unfortunate mistake,” Newt Gingrich said, “The President is replacing the rule of law with the rule of Obama,” Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) joined 80 other Representatives in cosponsoring a resolution condemning the President, and Mike Huckabee is still using the decision to attack Obama.

But this week, Gov. Scott Walker (R) made the exact same decision in Wisconsin, and now these conservatives are mum. Walker inherited a case from Gov. Jim Doyle (D) defending a 2009 domestic partnership law from a suit claiming it violated the 2006 constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage or “substantially similar” statuses. On Friday, he filed a motion withdrawing from the defense because he believes the registry is unconstitutional. His attorney, Brian Hagedorn, wrote:

If the governor determines that defending a law would be contrary to the state’s constitution, he cannot order the defense of the law because of his oath to support the Wisconsin Constitution. To allow the previous administration’s analysis to bind a subsequent administration would be contrary to what justice requires.

Many conservatives also have criticized law firm King & Spalding for backing out of defending DOMA, promulgating the talking point that “everybody deserves a defense.” Apparently, “everybody” does not include Wisconsin same-sex couples, who depend on domestic partnerships for protections like hospital visitation rights.

If Walker is not violating his duties, then neither was Obama. Anybody who criticized the President should follow through in criticizing Walker for the same decision or apologize for their partisan, anti-gay attacks.