It appears that Connecticut is on the verge of passing a bill that allows civil unions for gay couples in that state. It would be the first state to do so without any judicial order requiring it. The AP reports that the state Senate took up the bill today and Democratic leaders say they have the votes to pass the bill. Republicans have been trying to amend the bill, but losing the votes on those amendments:
Some GOP senators attempted to amend the bill to specially define marriage in Connecticut as being between one man and one woman. The effort failed on a 23-13 vote. Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican who said she supports the concept of civil unions, repeated Wednesday she prefers such language in the bill.Another Republican amendment requiring a nonbinding public referendum this November on civil unions failed 27-9.
Democrats, who control the Senate, said they believe there are enough votes to pass the underlying bill, which would extend all rights and privileges of marriage in Connecticut. If it passes, it would then move on to the House of Representatives, also controlled by Democrats.
The wording of civil unions is important, especially to Gov. Rell, whose signature is required for the bill to become law. As the Washington Post noted a few days ago, this is an important component for getting this bill passed:
The origins of the Connecticut civil unions initiative can be found in a 2003 bill that would have offered certain limited domestic partnership benefits to gay couples. It died in the judiciary committee, but in the intervening years advocates continued to push their cause.This year a bill that would have extended full marriage rights to same-sex couples was amended to provide for civil unions instead. That move was initially opposed by gay advocacy groups, which aim for nothing short of full marriage rights, and by opponents of same-sex marriage, who consider it equivalent to extending marriage rights but more likely to pass.
Ann Stanback, president of the Connecticut chapter of the gay rights advocacy group Love Makes a Family, initially argued that the bill would enshrine a lesser status for gay couples into law and leave legislators satisfied that a compromise had been reached.
But as the bill gained momentum, she said, she had changed her view because lawmakers made clear that granting civil unions would not halt the push toward to same-sex marriage.
Gay rights advocates, in my view, should have been behind this from the beginning. Regardless of what you call it, it is vital to have a state law requiring equal protection for gay relationships that is passed by popular vote rather than by judicial fiat. It may not be rational to think that having the same thing under a different name should make such a difference, but in reality it makes a huge one. Too much change too fast inevitably triggers a reaction, rational or otherwise. We have to think long term enough to accept a process that leads inevitably to full protection but perhaps not immediately. It doesn't mean you have to stop advocating for more, but get behind the incremental change that will allow those in the middle to get used to the idea. The inevitable result will be a weakening of opposition, and before long gay marriage will just be seen as no big deal. The recently heated opposition to gay marriage is happening for one reason and one reason only - because our side is winning the long-term battle. It is that success that is triggering the opposition. If we can point to successful passage of civil unions around the country, and to the positive effects it will have, we will see that opposition erode further.
Update: The bill passed the state Senate by a vote of 27-9, more than enough to override a veto if that happens. It moves on to the state House now.
- Log in to post comments
I'm for gay rights, and it always amazed me that there were some gays who opposed the concept of a civil union that was (legally) the same as marriage, simply with a diffrent name.
A rose by any other name...
You know Enigma, as a gay man I was right with you UNTIL the debate got so heated last year. Once I realized there were many straight people who only cared about the word "marriage" and not the rights it conveyed - they were fine with legal gay relationships, just don't call them marriage. All that does is enshrine the myth of heterosexual superiority, and that is when I changed my mind and began advocating for full "marriage" - name and all.
Don't get me wrong, I am thrilled with the civil union debate and (please God) legislation in CT, but I think the gay groups in that state did the right thing. They pushed for marriage and then accepted the compromise - so they retain their high ground to continue pushing for marriage.
I firmly believe civil unions will lead to actual "marriage" for gay people, but I don't want to see gay groups accepting civil unions as a way to assure certain straight people that "marriage" will never occur for gays.
I guess it comes down to the actual textual material. Of the important "marriage" based legal constructs, how many are considered equal to "union" based? Do civil unions protect spousal immunities from providing testimony and evidence? Do civil unions provide the necessary inheritance of benefits from pensions, retirement funds, annuity life insurance, etc?? Will someone in a civil union be able to garner full head of household/ filing jointly tax forms?? There are many places in our society, where legal precedents have incorporated the word and concept marriage into matters economic. It will take much time to insure that "union" stand in an equitable way.
If I were in the legislature I would certainly vote in favor of anything that moved gays and lesbians substantially toward marriage, but I would also make it clear that I viewed the measure only as a stepping stone to something more.
I am overjoyed that Connecticut is approving this measure without a court order forcing them to do so. It is a tremendous victory for our side, and to complain about it not being a total victory seems bad grace at this point.
I'm for gay rights, and it always amazed me that there were some gays who opposed the concept of a civil union that was (legally) the same as marriage, simply with a diffrent name.
Remember the adage "separate but equal is inherently unequal"? One might seriously wonder why (some) straight people want to deny gay people the right to call their relationships "marriage." Is it because they want to the state to consider relationships of same sex couples to be less "worthy" than relationships of opposite sex couples? That's the only explanation that I can come up with. (Actually, under the 1st amendment, they can't deny them that right, but the state would consider it differently. They can call the relationships whatever they want. Freedom of speech, you know.)
On the other hand, it cannot be denied that this in Connecticut is a significant step. A significant first step. The Netherlands and Belgium started with "separate but equal" and ended up considering that to be a silly distinction--and provided "marriage" to same sex couples. That was not imposed by judicial fiat. In Canada, after the courts ruled that the government had to provide equal rights to same-sex couples--this was a number of years ago--the government set up a separate "civil unions"-like regime that same-sex couples could go for. Opposite-sex couples could, too, and they went after that in droves. But the courts in Canada ruled that the "separate but equal" wasn't equal, and the government appears to have caved.
BTW, regarding Canada, it was hilarious--almost reminiscent of the adage from the Vietnam War that "they had to destroy the village in order to save it." Politicians in Canada almost destroyed "marriage" in order to "save it from gay people." Since opposite sex couples were more and more opting for the civil unions instead of "marriage."
It is significant that Connecticut is doing this without being required to do so by their judiciary, but it is highly unlikely that they would be doing so were it not for the decisions of the VT and MA judiciary.