Along with the struggles over AIDS and sodomy bans, the 1980s also marked a period that attempted to redefine family. In the New York case of Braschi v. Stahl, Braschi and his partner, Blanchard, had lived together for more than a decade when Blanchard died of AIDS. Upon his death, Braschi was threatened with eviction from his home because only Blanchard’s name was on the lease. The court held that, “the ability to inherit rent-control privileges, which Braschi would have enjoyed if he had been married to Blanchard, ‘should not rest of fictitious legal distinctions or genetic history, but instead should find its foundation in the reality of family life.’” This ruling was extremely monumental as it was the first major step to redefine the family.…show more content… For instance, issues of parenting ability and procreation will become consistent counter arguments used by those opposing marriage equality, and Sullivan already disregards them in 1989. By closing on a note against promiscuity, however, Sullivan is directly targeting the new guard and widening the already substantial gulf between the new guard and old guard. In 1993, the Hawaii Supreme Court made a decision that created a “tectonic shift” in the struggle for marriage equality. The case of Baehr v. Lewin claimed that “blocking the freedom to marry violated gay people’s rights to privacy, equal protection of the law, and due process, as guaranteed by the Hawaii constitution.” The court held that “the plaintiffs were being denied the right to marry because of their sex; therefore, “the law ‘is presumed to be unconstitutional unless it can be shown that the statue’s sex-based classification is justified.’” With their ruling, the Hawaii Supreme Court became the first to rule in favor of gay marriage. Moreover, it justified the old guard approach, indicating a success with the incremental, state by state approach. This success largely parallels the strategies used to desegregate schools, as they began by first succeeding in many lower level…show more content… Vermont, GLAD (the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders) acknowledged the need for a shift in strategy in response to the passage of DOMA. They established a “plan B” that “involved opening up a litigation front in another state – but one carefully chosen and exquisitely executed by a coalition of strategic actors with a clear idea of how not only to win but to defend a victory.” With that plan in mind, they chose the state of Vermont because “Vermont’s Supreme Court had issued a positive ruling in favor of adoptions by gay people in 1994, suggesting it might be open-minded in other gay rights cases. And it was far more difficult to amend Vermont’s constitution than it was Hawaii’s, so a court win would be harder to overturn.” Thus, in the case of Baker v. Vermont, the Vermont Supreme Court held that “gay couples were entitled to the same benefits and protections as married straight ones.” By 2000, Baker led to Vermont becoming the first state to offer gay couples all the same marital rights as straight ones, simply calling the gay unions civil unions and not
