April 21, 2005
A MODEL FOR BLUE STATES:
Conn. approves gay civil unions: Advocates and opponents criticize compromise law (Sarah Schweitzer, April 21, 2005, Boston Globe)
Connecticut became the second state in the nation yesterday to create civil unions for gays and lesbians. The move disappointed some gay-rights activists who had hoped to see the state follow Massachusetts' lead in creating same-sex marriage and angered some conservatives who said the measure was a step in the direction of gay nuptials.The legislation was approved by a wide margin in the Senate and enacted swiftly by Governor M. Jodi Rell, a Republican, late yesterday afternoon. [...]
The Connecticut legislation is similar to Vermont's and extends all the rights and benefits of marriage to same-sex couples, except for the right to marry. An amendment to the legislation defines marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The additional language was inserted to make the bill amenable to conservative lawmakers.
Connecticut's civil unions will not be recognized by the federal government and will carry no weight in the 49 other states, including Vermont.
If we're going to tolerate homosexuality some kind of institutionalized contractual obligation will be adopted in at least the Blue states. One like this which makes clear that it's an inferior institution is probably the best that can be hoped. Posted by Orrin Judd at April 21, 2005 8:11 AM
And, of course, it was actually adopted by the political branches without a judicial gun to their head.
Posted by: David Cohen at April 21, 2005 8:50 AMSmall difference between a gun to your head and half a dozen guys in flashy suits walking into your office carrying violin cases.
Posted by: Random Lawyer at April 21, 2005 8:55 AMI will defer to the above lawyers, but until someone can explain a significant diference it looks to me like approval of gay marriage and is in fact gay marriage, otherwise the writer of the article would have stated how it was different.
We can now look forward to brother/sister, father/daughter, multiple partner civil unions (which likewise in common parlance will be know as marriage)
Posted by: h-man at April 21, 2005 10:29 AMOwnership of the term "marriage" is the fight here. Going all the way (so to speak) like Massachusetts did in effect rips the term completely away from the Church and gives full title to the State, while Connecticut's option preserves marriage in the traditional religous meaning, while giving property rights and shared benefits to the non-traditional unions that liberals get so worked up about.
Civil unions are de facto marriages as far as the rights offered by the state in question, but it's not completely in-your-face in terms of demanding people submit to the state's authority over God in deciding what a marriage is, which is how the action in Massachusetts feels to so many people.
Posted by: John at April 21, 2005 10:41 AM
John above is right. The fight is over the ownership of the word "marriage." It would be an easy thing for us all to give up the term, marriage, as it applies to a legal contract.
Why not go continental? All couples who wish to enter into a legal contract to declare their love for each other and vow to live out their lives together must have a civil ceremony at city hall first and then go on to religious or secular marriage ceremonies and celebrations as desired.
This is the best solution and changes very little except that the clergy and their various holy books are limited to ruling on matters spiritual and kept out of legal contracts.
Posted by: erp at April 21, 2005 1:40 PMThe difference is that the people of Connecticut can now vote for the legislature and governor, or vote against them. No one gets to vote for Margaret Marshall.
I'm still in favor of getting the government out of the marriage business.
Posted by: David Cohen at April 21, 2005 2:13 PM