Two years after approving civil unions, some Connecticut lawmakers are proposing that the state legalize full-fledged same-sex marriage:
The two Democratic leaders of the General Assembly’s judiciary committee say they intend to introduce a bill legalizing gay marriage, even though Gov. M. Jodi Rell has said she would veto such a measure.
“This is obviously not the most important issue [facing] the legislature,” said Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven and one of the co-chairmen of the judiciary committee. But, he added, “this is inevitable.”
Opponents vow to fight it. Brian Brown, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut and one the leading voices against same-sex marriage, called for an amendment to the state Constitution defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Acknowledging that winning legislative approval of such a measure was highly unlikely, he urged a non-binding referendum on the matter.
. . .
Two years ago, the legislature made history by permitting same-sex couples to enter into civil unions. While granting same-sex couples nearly all of the rights and responsibilities available to married couples, civil unions are not recognized by most other states or the federal government. Many gay rights activists view civil unions as an acceptable compromise and say they have helped many couples. But they also view the law as inherently unfair and have failed a lawsuit seeking full-fledged marriage. Senate GOP leader Louis DeLuca of Woodbury rejected the claim that marriage is a civil right. “Isn’t that what civil unions were supposed to address?” he asked during the Family Institute press conference. “Now they want that name as well. As someone whose been married 53 years, I resent it.” But Becca Lazarus, a 12-year-old who lives in Windsor with her two dads, doesn’t see it that way. She said her friends don’t understand why her parents can’t marry. “They don’t understand what a civil union is,” Lazarus said during the Love Makes a Family press conference. “but everyone knows what marriage is.”
Completely leaving aside the matter of whether same-sex couples should be able to marry*, I wonder if it’s wise for marriage-rights advocates to move this quickly. While Connecticut residents might be happy and comfortable with going in just two years from civil unions to marriage, it strikes me as potentially counterproductive for gay rights advocates elsewhere. I’m assuming (not so much assuming as being unable and too lazy to locate the exact numbers) you have a higher number of Americans who support civil unions than gay marriage and I wonder if what’s happening in Connecticut — not even happened, mind you, but simply that some lawmakers are proposing it — makes or might make that margin uneasy about even plain old civil unions.
Add to that is the geographic proximity of the states leading the charge for gay rights — Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey — and I also wonder if that middle ground of people is freaking out that there might be some domino theory of gay marriage going on.
I don’t think it’s the worst thing in the world to see how civil unions work in practice before moving on to something more contentious like full marriage on par with what hets get. If not for those who were initially unsympathetic towards providing legal protections to gay couples then for the people working hard in other places to get civil union laws passed.
*And although I resent that I have to say this because it should be totally unrelated to the matter at hand, I would describe myself as pretty strongly pro-gay marriage.
Now Playing: Episode 361
The Presidential campaign gets nasty while the banking crisis goes international.
Links Mentioned: The coveted Buckley endorsement … and the Brooks non-endorsement … the European banking bailout vs. the U.S. bailout redux … Frank Rich … GM and Chrysler get cozy.
I could not agree with the author of this article more about gay marriage verses gay unions.
Is marriage truly a religious institution?
Maybe I’m just a whiner or overly sensitive, but I feel that I am at times the only gay person that is not comfortable or satisfied by the term “civil union”. To me it feels like a consolation prize given as a means of pacifying gays so they will stop their belly aching about the issue of “marriage”. Whiney or not, I am saddened to see that many gays are willing to accept second class citizenship. Our entire civil rights movement that has been courageously fought by a few is about equal rights. The veil of deception to me is so tissue paper thin, as to clearly be able to see threw it and understand that this ordeal is political. It’s not about doing the right thing, it’s about politics. Even the politicians that are for calling our unions’ marriage are afraid to speak openly about it, with the exception of a few impassioned politicians that have a strong sense of integrity and what is right and what is wrong.
We cannot look to the bible for any answers regarding equal rights. Those laws were written at a different time and for uneducated illiterate people. They were also a very superstitious people that made many of their laws in regards to those superstitions. We therefore cannot be influenced by scripture. We live in a country that has a law of separation between church and state. That’s the wonderful thing about our country.
Somebody please help me understand why marriage by many is considered a religious institution. For the sake of discussion I would like someone to tell me why atheists are then eligible for marriage? It seems to me that heterosexual marriages are afforded just about any opportunity and environment they choose to take their vows even heathens.
They can choose a church marriage, they can get married underwater, on a mountaintop, by a justice of the peace or even by a ship captain. However, the most romantic and holy place I can imagine to pledge ones vows of love and fidelity, is driving through a drive-in chapel in Las Vegas, as one would order a family meal. I’m sorry, I’m only human and I got a bit choked up when mentioning that. I love happy meals. The best part, no one has to even get out of the car, and the best man and woman are provided for one of the most important events in ones life; holy matrimony.
Has it dawned on anyone that the constitution of the United States says very clearly that all people shall be treated as equal? There are no clauses added to that, such as, except gays and African Americans. What was stated in that document then still rings very clear yet today and likely for many years to come. We don’t have to look to awfully far back into our history to find examples of how we ignored the constitution for selfish heterosexual white Anglo-Saxon citizens. It wasn’t until the early part of the nineteenth century before woman were allowed to vote. Not so long before that it slavery was legal. It wasn’t until nearly fifty years ago that African Americans weren’t allowed to marry whites. If we are to learn anything from our countries history we should then know that whenever we veer off from what the beautifully crafted document we call our nations Constitution says, it is eventually changed for reasons of being unfair. Back to my original question, I am hoping someone can give me a valid reason to prevent any two people that love each other from having the right to marry. I have heard some reasons that make no sense to me. One being that if gays were allowed to marry it would have the impact of destroying traditional marriage. We only have to look at the statistics of the success of heterosexual marriages to discover that more than half end up in divorce. Gays did not cause that. Fidelity within marriage has a terrible track record as well. Therefore I would truly like to hear some reasonable argument posed that would make sense why gay marriage ought not to be allowed. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver http://www.aaronjasonsilver.com; Fennville, Mi 49408