Connecticut Approves Civil Union

[Blackadar]

Connecticut approves same-sex civil unions
State is first to back unions without court influence
Thursday, April 21, 2005 Posted: 8:39 AM EDT (1239 GMT)

Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell signs the bill into law.

HARTFORD, Connecticut (AP) -- Connecticut on Wednesday became the second state to offer civil unions to gay couples -- and the first to do so without being forced by the courts.

About an hour after the state Senate sent her the legislation, Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell signed into law a bill that will afford same-sex couples in Connecticut many of the rights and privileges of married couples.

"The vote we cast today will reverberate around the country and it will send a wave of hope to many people, to thousands of people across the country," said Sen. Andrew McDonald, who is gay.

The state House passed the measure last week but amended it to define marriage under Connecticut law as between one man and one woman. The Senate approved the amended bill Wednesday 26-8. The law takes effect October 1.

"I have said all along that I believe in no discrimination of any kind, and I think that this bill accomplishes that, while at the same time preserving the traditional language that a marriage is between a man and a woman," Rell said.

Vermont is the only other state to allow civil unions. Massachusetts allows gay couples to marry. But those changes came about after same-sex couples won court battles.

Last summer, seven same-sex couples sued in Connecticut after being denied marriage licenses; the case has not been resolved.

Roman Catholics and other activists plan a big rally Sunday in opposition to the bill.

Marie Hilliard, executive director of the Connecticut Catholic Conference, said the civil union proposal "got more legs than we ever hoped it would get." About 44 percent of the state's 3 million residents are Roman Catholic.

Brian Brown, head of the Family Institute of Connecticut, said his group intends to keep the issue squarely before the public.

"Our mission will be to let every person know in the state of Connecticut which lawmakers voted to redefine marriage, and which lawmakers voted to protect marriage," he said.

Anne Stanback, executive director of Loves Makes a Family, said her group would probably begin talking to lawmakers about gay marriage -- though she acknowledged it's not likely the issue will be taken up next session.

"As important as the rights are, this is not yet equality," she said.
-------------------------------------

Interesting...signed by a Republican Gov., too.

Here's what I don't understand: "Our mission will be to let every person know in the state of Connecticut which lawmakers voted to redefine marriage, and which lawmakers voted to protect marriage,"

I don't get it. I don't feel that my marriage is in any way "threatened" or needs to be "protected" because gays can have civil unions. How does that impact my 12 year marriage with my wife? Can someone explain this to me?

[finkenst]

hmm. my initial thought is marriage is still defined as between one man and one woman...

[st.cronin]

Connecticut is 44% Catholic? No way. That's gotta be a misprint.

[Flasch186]

hmm. my initial thought is marriage is still defined as between one man and one woman...

By whom? The Bible....doesnt apply to state licenses (or shouldnt anyways)

Im sure Bubba and Jon will have the same rhetoric to say about this one (no offense intended - mine is the same as its always been too)

[Marmel]

That marriage define as part wsas pretty much needed to get this to pass through the votes. Certain people felt that by adding that, it would eliminate any future possibility of gays being allow to marry in CT. Originally the gay groups here would not support this, but I think they smartened (is that a word?) up and realized they would get this or nothing at all, so they lended their support and it passed pretty easily.

One small step I suppose. Glad to see my state did something right.

[JeeberD]

Good for Connecticut...

[Fritz]

If that is what the folks in conneticut want, just don't expect it to be honored in other states.

[finkenst]

By whom? The Bible....doesnt apply to state licenses (or shouldnt anyways)

Im sure Bubba and Jon will have the same rhetoric to say about this one (no offense intended - mine is the same as its always been too)
no worries, flasch....

I was more along the lines of this quote by the governor: "I have said all along that I believe in no discrimination of any kind, and I think that this bill accomplishes that, while at the same time preserving the traditional language that a marriage is between a man and a woman."

[Sharpieman]

I've always supported Civil Unions because the whole issue of civil unions for gay couples is a civil rights issue. Marriage on the other hand is more of a religious issue, in which governments shouldn't get involved. Sadly, many of the language used links civil unions and marriage as one in the same. Hopefully, state governments will start to change this and have these two things separate. Its a healthy comprimise.

[NoMyths]

And yet marriage didn't begin as a religious issue...

[Jon]

The article is a little misleading. New Jersey allows domestic partnerships, which are essentially civil unions, and honors those that are honored in other states. If I remember correctly, there wasn't court influence there either. The difference in N.J. is that the domestic partnership applies to homosexual couples and unmarried heterosexual couples above the age of 62. BUT, if you are entered in a domestic partnership and civil union recognized in another state, then N.J. recognizes it as well.

[ThunderingHERD]

Marriage on the other hand is more of a religious issue, in which governments shouldn't get involved.

Agreed. If one wishes to define marriage as a religious matter, then no marriage should be recognized by the government. If not, then allow <i>all</i> people their civil rights, and don't use religion as a basis for any political arguments.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

I don't understand this bill. What does it do? It gives same sex couples the same rights as married folks, correct? Then why not allow them to get married? Either allow same sex couples to marry, or don't. Don't come up with this hybrid "civil union" or "domestic pasrtnerships" category. That just reeks of separate but equal treatment.

[Suicane75]

I prefer Civil Union, I don't wanna have to decide if i'm the Bride or the Groom.

[sabotai]

Score one for the good guys.

[Fritz]

saboti is looking to score in a civil union

[dawgfan]

It's probably too late to do so, but I'd prefer to see states redefine what they license as being "civil unions" and leave the term "marriage" to the churches.

I understand Farrah's point about "seperate but equal", but it doesn't bother me that much. Basically Conneticut is allowing gay marriage but they're throwing a bone to the religious conservatives by not calling it "marriage". I suspect that most gay couples will be OK with this, though I'm sure some will still argue it's not enough. From a practicality standpoint, I think it's great progress and smart politics.

[Subby]

Marriage is about love and respect and commitment.

Not gender.

[Huckleberry]

1. This is so ridiculous. Using laws to define words. That's what a dictionary is for. If you're going to let them have a civil union, then let them marry. But I guess it makes some insecure heteros feel better that they can't actually be "married" even though they have sex with each other and get tax breaks just the same.

2. As a heterosexual married man, I would feel discriminated against. Why exactly should gay people be allowed to have a civil union while I can't?

3. You're damn right gay marriages don't threaten my marriage. The entire idea that marriage needs to be protected from gays while hetero divorce rates are so astronomical and people act like divorce is no big deal is comical.

[SirFozzie]

Interesting to see Spain ok'd gay marriage. definitely going to be an interesting battle between the Church and the Spaish government

[Franklinnoble]

Whatever. I'm not going to change anyone's mind. This is a stupid idea. Marriage is defined as one man and one woman - all the way back to Adam and Eve. Believe what you want, but don't expect me to be cool with it.

[Crapshoot]

Whatever. I'm not going to change anyone's mind. This is a stupid idea. Marriage is defined as one man and one woman - all the way back to Adam and Eve. Believe what you want, but don't expect me to be cool with it.

Shockingly, bad fiction passes as fact again. Not that expecting you to understand that marriage is not a Christian tenent, or that it existed in various forms before Christianity, is purposeful- you're willfully ignorant.

[sabotai]

Marriage is defined as one man and one woman - all the way back to Adam and Eve.

I don't remember the part of the Bible where Adam and Eve got married...

[dawgfan]

1. This is so ridiculous. Using laws to define words. That's what a dictionary is for. If you're going to let them have a civil union, then let them marry. But I guess it makes some insecure heteros feel better that they can't actually be "married" even though they have sex with each other and get tax breaks just the same.

2. As a heterosexual married man, I would feel discriminated against. Why exactly should gay people be allowed to have a civil union while I can't?

3. You're damn right gay marriages don't threaten my marriage. The entire idea that marriage needs to be protected from gays while hetero divorce rates are so astronomical and people act like divorce is no big deal is comical.

Indeed - I agree. However, I think it's still a great political gain for gay-rights. If the churches want to argue over the definition of the word "marriage", fine, but the gay couples are still gaining the same benefits as their mixed-gender married counterparts.

The reason I favor all marriages being defined by states as "civil unions" is that it takes much of the religious component out of the whole gay marriage debate. For my part, I really wouldn't care if I got a "civil union" license instead of a "marriage license" from the state. I'm not terribly likely to feel a need to have church approval for my marriage anyway. I'd still call it a marriage, and I suspect most gay couples in Conneticut will call their civil unions a marriage themselves.

If a doctrinaire religious-type wants to argue over the definition of the word "marriage", fine by me - doesn't matter how I feel about it.

[SackAttack]

Fritz: Wouldn't "full faith and credit" apply?

Huckleberry: I don't think you're going to see too many people challenge this one under the equal protection clause, frankly. Gay couples are likely to say "Well, it's a start, let's keep what we've won and keep pushing for marriage rights."

As for heterosexual couples, I can't really see a reason why they might prefer a civil union over marriage, unless "community property" wouldn't apply. If you could get all the privileges of marriage without worrying about losing your assets in the event things go sour, I could see heterosexuals press for that.

I could also see heterosexuals who support gay marriage challenging civil unions under equal protection, if for no other reason than to force the issue, but that's more political resistance than personal benefit.

[Huckleberry]

I could also see heterosexuals who support gay marriage challenging civil unions under equal protection, if for no other reason than to force the issue, but that's more political resistance than personal benefit.
Now you're getting it. :D

If I lived in Connecticut I would sue immediately, requesting the ability to enter into a civil union with my wife. I would cite the Equal Protection Clause. The government is currently sexually discriminating against me in that state. A civil union is nothing but a social contract between 3 parties, the two members of the couple and the State of Connecticut. They are violating Equal Protection by allowing me to enter into that social contract only if the 3rd party to the contract is male and not allowing it if that 3rd party is female.

This is the same reason I support gay marriage. Philosophically I oppose it. Society, and therefore government, has only one true reason to promote marriage and that's reproduction and the stability it affords the children that result. Children, obviously, can't result from a gay marriage. Therefore there is no incentive for the government to promote, condone, or recognize such an instituion.

However, the Constitution is what it is. I can't support the violation of the Equal Protection clause. I also think it's rubbish to use the Constitution of the United States to define a word. Marriage is a state matter. Call it civil unions or whatever, but full faith and credit requires that it be recognized in another state.

To be honest, I'm as close to on the fence on this one as is possible. It will cost the government revenue to recognize gay civil unions. Lost revenue for no benefit to the government. But in the end, I can't fathom a reasonable way to afford all groups the equal protection I feel they do deserve while reserving governmental recognition of marriages/civil unions to only male/female situations.

[Jon]

The constitution does not require full faith and credit 100% of the time. If a state does not recognize as a valid part of its power, then it does not have to recognize a marriage. Common law marriage, for example, does not have to be recognized in a state that does not permit common law marriage. Nor must a state recognize a marriage that is against its public policy, such as the marriage of certain types of cousins. Like almost every part of the law, full faith and credit is not that clear-cut of an issue.

[Franklinnoble]

Shockingly, bad fiction passes as fact again. Not that expecting you to understand that marriage is not a Christian tenent, or that it existed in various forms before Christianity, is purposeful- you're willfully ignorant.
I read the Bible as fact. Mock me if you will. I don't have to answer to you or anyone else on this planet about it. I believe you to be willfully ignorant, but I'm not throwing personal insults your way over it.

[Subby]

I don't remember the part of the Bible where Adam and Eve got married...
PWNED!

;)

[Crapshoot]

I read the Bible as fact. Mock me if you will. I don't have to answer to you or anyone else on this planet about it. I believe you to be willfully ignorant, but I'm not throwing personal insults your way over it.

Cute. I mock you because you want biblical law to be law for all others. What you choose to do is your life - when you use that source as a justification for banning anyone else's right to a relationship - well, you've put your source on a pedestal to be examined. No one is telling you that your or your church has to recognize gay marriage- what they are telling you is that you can't deny others based on that bigoted belief.

[flere-imsaho]

Whatever. I'm not going to change anyone's mind. This is a stupid idea. Marriage is defined as one man and one woman - all the way back to Adam and Eve. Believe what you want, but don't expect me to be cool with it.

I'm not a Bible scholar by any means, but didn't numerous men in the Old Testament (I'm thinking Jacob in particular, but also possibly Noah) have multiple wives?

[flere-imsaho]

I read the Bible as fact. Mock me if you will. I don't have to answer to you or anyone else on this planet about it. I believe you to be willfully ignorant, but I'm not throwing personal insults your way over it.

Do you also believe in stoning for adulterers & all of the other proscribed penalties for "misbehavior" outlined in the Bible?

[Marmel]

The concept of marriage is at least twice as old as Christianity. The original purpose of marriage was twofold. First it was to give a man's children legitimacy as the heir and second it was to mark the woman as the man's property. Obviously, the purpose of marriage has changed and not until the Middle Age was love even a part of the equation. The church defined marriage the way they wanted to, but that doesn't mean they put a patent on the concept. Unfortunately, the Christian definition of marriage is what the US goverment uses. Its just my opinion, but it is simply outrageous that some people would want to fight against giving two people who love each other and want to commit to each other full recognition and rights. Yet some of these same people see no problem with making plans for their 3rd wedding.


As an aside, besides the major benefits of marriage (taxes, inheritance, medical decisions, etc...) I often see the everyday effects it can have. I work in insurance and we charge more premium to a lesbian couple simply because they are not eligible for a Multicar discount since the vehicles are not owned by a married couple. Yes, the company can make the decision to offer the same discount, but it has to be filed with the state...lots of red tape, etc... I felt like I was treating this extremely nice couple like some second class citizens. I am sure gay couples are affected by many other things of this sort and I greatly sympathize.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Society, and therefore government, has only one true reason to promote marriage and that's reproduction and the stability it affords the children that result. Children, obviously, can't result from a gay marriage. Therefore there is no incentive for the government to promote, condone, or recognize such an instituion.
I've been round and round with this reasoning before on here. While I understand the reasoning, it just doesn't fully work to draw a line between homosexual and heterosexual marriages. Homosexual couples can have children. Adoption is one option. Another option is artificial insemination, either one member of a lesbian couple being artificially inseminated by a male donor, or woman being artificially inseminated with a guy man's sperm and carrying the fetus to term. After you take care of the reproduction aspect of it, the fact that a child has two loving, caring parents is much more important than the sex of those parents.

On the flip side, using that reasoning would mean that the government should not recognize the union between a sterile heterosexual couple. Shooting blanks? Sorry, can't get married. Wife's barren? Sorry, no. Got your testicles blown off in the war? That's a shame, son. Thanks for your service in our armed forces, but I am afraid our government can't condone or recognize your marriage to your girlfriend who's been waiting patiently at home. We only promote and recognize marriages that can lead to more children.

[Schmidty]

If one wishes to define marriage as a religious matter, then no marriage should be recognized by the government. If not, then allow <i>all</i> people their civil rights, and don't use religion as a basis for any political arguments.

Spot on.

My personal religious beliefs should have nothing to do with what two citizens (who pay taxes, vote, etc.) decide to do with regard to love, marriage and sharing their lives together legally. To prevent people to do so is unconstitutional and wrong. It's discrimination as much as keeping blacks at the back of the bus was.

Good job, CT.

[Huckleberry]

Dammit. I typed up a response. It was reasoned and thought-out. Little long. Lost it to a cookie monster.

Short version:

Gay people don't breed. Government's only justifiable interest in promoting marriage is the breeding of its citizens. If you want to talk about the government getting out of the business of marriage altogether, I'm open to that.

Also, you have a point about sterile couples. But requesting medical history of marriage applicants is clearly an entirely different level of intrusion than noting the respective sexes of each member of the couple. One requires some level of "intrusion" into a citizen's medical history. The other is obvious.

In summary, I'm still only in favor of gay marriages because of Equal Protection.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Spot on.

My personal religious beliefs should have nothing to do with what two citizens (who pay taxes, vote, etc.) decide to do with regard to love, marriage and sharing their lives together legally. To prevent people to do so is unconstitutional and wrong. It's discrimination as much as keeping blacks at the back of the bus was.

Good job, CT.
Well said, Sparty!

[Crapshoot]

Dammit. I typed up a response. It was reasoned and thought-out. Little long. Lost it to a cookie monster.

Short version:

Gay people don't breed. Government's only justifiable interest in promoting marriage is the breeding of its citizens. If you want to talk about the government getting out of the business of marriage altogether, I'm open to that.

.

I do. How I do.

As to your side point, we have heterosexual couples who choose not to have kids. I understand the justification for governments to promote child-rearing, but I doubt that tax breaks are a consideration for anyone. Government doesnt really have any business in determining marriage.

[dawgfan]

Also, you have a point about sterile couples. But requesting medical history of marriage applicants is clearly an entirely different level of intrusion than noting the respective sexes of each member of the couple. One requires some level of "intrusion" into a citizen's medical history. The other is obvious.

In summary, I'm still only in favor of gay marriages because of Equal Protection.

Just for the sake of argument, it's pretty obvious when an older couple marry that kids are not in the cards and no more of an intrusion than noting the respective sexes of each member of the couple.

[st.cronin]

There is an argument against gay marriage; there is no real argument for not allowing same sex partnerships equal benefits.

Marriage in our society is something that is mostly performed as a religious ceremony; so the arguments against gay marriage are theological, not societal. Proponents of gay marriage who lobby for a strictly secular view of marriage are either delusional or being intentionally obtuse.

[Schmidty]

Marriage is not just about sex. As a married man, I can DEFINITELY attest to that.:)

[Crapshoot]

There is an argument against gay marriage; there is no real argument for not allowing same sex partnerships equal benefits.

Marriage in our society is something that is mostly performed as a religious ceremony; so the arguments against gay marriage are theological, not societal. Proponents of gay marriage who lobby for a strictly secular view of marriage are either delusional or being intentionally obtuse.

Yes, much as proponents of civil rights were. Societal acceptance of stupidity in no way limits the stupidity of it. The point is that theological arguements against gay marriage have no place in civil law.

[st.cronin]

Yes, much as proponents of civil rights were. Societal acceptance of stupidity in no way limits the stupidity of it. The point is that theological arguements against gay marriage have no place in civil law.

Using a water fountain I suppose could be a religious ceremony in some Zen sense, but otherwise you are wrong; most marriages are explicitly religious ceremonies, with overt references to God. Whatever marriage was or was not 1000 or 10,000 years ago means nothing, but if you don't start the discussion with an acknowledgement that what you are talking about is a religious ceremony, you are not talking about anything. It's exactly like some Unitarian saying the Catholics are stupid for not ordaining women as priests.

And anyway, my point was that denying same sex unions the same benefits is CLEARLY wrong; it's all how you frame the question, though, which these events in Connecticut clearly show.

[Blackadar]

but if you don't start the discussion with an acknowledgement that what you are talking about is a religious ceremony, you are not talking about anything.

That blanket statement is false. My wife and I have been married for 12 years. We got married by a JOP. It was, in no way, a relgious ceremony. So when I talk about our marriage, religion has nothing to do with it.

Care to try again?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Using a water fountain I suppose could be a religious ceremony in some Zen sense, but otherwise you are wrong; most marriages are explicitly religious ceremonies, with overt references to God. Whatever marriage was or was not 1000 or 10,000 years ago means nothing, but if you don't start the discussion with an acknowledgement that what you are talking about is a religious ceremony, you are not talking about anything. It's exactly like some Unitarian saying the Catholics are stupid for not ordaining women as priests.

And anyway, my point was that denying same sex unions the same benefits is CLEARLY wrong; it's all how you frame the question, though, which these events in Connecticut clearly show.
The "ceremony" of a marriage, the pomp and circumstance, with the readings from the bible or poems and all of that, yes, they are religious ceremonies. But other than in the eyes of whatever church you belong to or in the eyes of whatever god you worship that "ceremony" doesn't mean jack in the eyes of the law. It's the state that actually grants the couple the marriage license which legally binds them, in the eyes of the law, as man & wife. There is no mention of god. No ceremony. Nada. It's very administrative.

In Europe, for example, most people have the "civil" ceremony (which is typically quite short) directly before the religious ceremony. In the US, some folks just get married at city hall, though most have the legal/civil aspect of the marriage sown-up quite quietly, because, let's be honest, who wants to see people sign a contract?

[st.cronin]

That blanket statement is false. My wife and I have been married for 12 years. We got married by a JOP. It was, in no way, a relgious ceremony. So when I talk about our marriage, religion has nothing to do with it.

Care to try again?

That's fine; I'm not saying this or that is wrong, I'm trying to explain why it's a tough sell for America, unless you couch it in this careful language. For the vast majority of Americans, marriage is a religious ceremony. Talking about marriage as a secular institution will get you nowhere in terms of votes.

[ISiddiqui]

Way to go Connecticut! That's a great sign.

[RendeR]

Lets see now, thats two states (I could be missing someone, MA and CT) that do not discriminate against a group of people based on political pressure from right wing religious representatives and at least 10 which in the last election period actually voted discrimination INTO their state constitutions.


Civils Rights are till down by 8 with another 32 left to decide their paths.

Religion has no place in law. At least not in this nation. Those that think is SHOULD, I wish would move elsewhere and leave the rest of us alone.