Connecticut, the first state to vote to allow civil unions with all the rights of marriage to gay couples, made it official today as that law went into effect. Undoubtedly, we will see the collapse of heterosexual marriage in that state within months as straight couples stop loving each other or caring for their children, just as we evil gay rights supporters have planned all along (rubbing hands together while cackling).
- Log in to post comments
Why bother calling it a civil union when it has all the rights marriage has attached to it. Just call it what it is, in this case marriage. I thought some of the reasons states were considering civil unions as opposed to marriage had to do with the rights associated with marriage.
Two points.
One, CT is not the first state to vote to allow civil unions with all the rights of marriage to same-sex couples, VT was in 2000. VT's CU law basically said "we'll do CU's but look over here" (pointing to the marriage statutes) for the rights and obligations of the CUed people. I looked at the CU statute at the time. It's marriage by a different name. Somewhat like the Netherlands (and Belgium) had for a few years before they finally figured out that the charade was silly.
Two, CT was the first state to do so without the intervention of the state's judiciary. But, proponents of CUs in CT have acknowledged that the CT law would probably not have gone through but for what occurred in VT and MA at the requirement of those states' judiciaries. One cannot prove that, of course: the CT might have passed the CU legislation regardless of the events in VT and MA, but I doubt it.
I don't know what effect the resignation of the disgraced Republican former governor, John Rowland, on corruption charges had over this. But it may have had some. I lived in CT for a couple of years in the mid 1970s. It's an odd state.
raj wrote:
But Vermont's actions were imposed by the state supreme court. Connecticut was the first state legislature, without any action from the courts, to vote for civil union legislation. For which they deserve enormous credit, I think.
Ed, no dispute. But there was, at the time, a suggestion in VT that the VT state constitution be amended to overturn the VT state SupCt decision. It didn't go anywhere, even though more than a few Democrat state legislators were turned out after having voted for CUs.
What is remarkable here in MA is that, after the first vote on the state constitutional amendment in 2004, all of the legislators who were in favor of same-sex marriage were returned to the legislature, and some who were opposed to same-sex marriage were turned out and replaced by those who favored allowing same-sex marriage.
I believe that I have mentioned the case of State Sen. Marian Walsh here before. She represents a relatively conservative largely Catholic district south of Boston. She was targeted by the Catholic church. The only issue raised by her opponent in her re-election campaign was her vote against the proposed state constitutional amendment. She calmly told her constituents that she voted against it because she believed that it was the right thing to do, and that discrimination was wrong. And she was re-elected in a landslide.
That, plus the fact that Republican Gov. Mitt Romney's attempt to get more Republicans elected to the state legislature failed miserably (net gain--minus 5) despite spending millions, probably suggested to the CT legislators that they wouldn't suffer repercussions if they voted in favor of CUs. It's like putting one's toe in the water. It will probably be marriage in a few years.