Connecticut Acts to Recognize Same-Sex Civil Unions

On Wednesday of this past week, the Joint House and Senate Judiciary Committee of the state of Connecticut passed a bill to recognize same-sex civil unions, different from marriage in name only.

Here is a link to the 2 hour-long video, Judiciary Committee Discussion and Vote on Civil Unions

I have spent several hours since Wednesday reviewing and transcribing select portions of the discussion, and will post my thoughts on this over the next several days. To the extent possible I will support all of my statements and conclusions with direct quotes from members of the Committee.

I am exhausted from trying to make sense of what seems to be total confusion and contradiction among the supporters of this legislation. Let me give you just a few preliminary examples.

On the will of the people:

Sen. Andrew McDonald, author of the legislation and co-chair of the Committee, said, "If this bill is passed ... it would in fact be the people saying that we want to provide for the legal protections and the legal rights and the legal responsibilities of committed same-sex partnerships."

However, shortly after this he voted against offering the people of the state of Connecticut an opportunity to vote on this issue. This, even though he had also conceded, "I think that this issue as everybody knows is a divisive issue. It is divisive in many ways and in many parts of our community. It is, in fact, divisive within the gay community. There is not a uniform opinion about which is the right way to go."

I don't think any reasonable person could boast that the people are saying anything; we are divided and will not be given the opportunity to vote on this issue lest the outcome be the same as in those states that acted on referenda this past election.

Rep. John Gerogosian adds in response to those who argue that representatives are obligated to actually represent the will of the majority of citizens in the state of Connecticut, "That's not what America is about, by the way. America's about protecting the rights of the minority against the will of the majority."

On imposing religion versus mandating moral acceptance and legislating private attitudes:

Some of the legislators argued that this is not a religious issue, "Is it [my role as a legislator] to impose my religious beliefs on other people?" asked Sen. Ernest Newton. McDonald said something similar.

Yet, McDonald's rationale for this legislation can be summed up with his story about a couple who had been together a very long time, "That is a relationship that is undeniable and is a relationship that deserves the respect and protection of state law." To the possible objection that all of the protections needed are already available thhrough contracts, McDonald replies, "In the best of circumstances you have to carry around a valise of legal documents with you to justify to the outside world the love that you have in your heart and that is wrong. That is wrong and unacceptable."

His co-chair, Rep. Michael Lawlor, sums up the Committee's action, "From the very start on this issue, I've always said this was really ... not about marriage per se. This was ... about public attitudes and private attitudes towards homosexuality. That is really what is at the heart of this ... That's what it is all about. And recognition of same-sex marriage is the most symbolic acknowledgment that homosexuality simply apprears to be a normally occurring phenomenon in nature."

So, the Committee has scruples about imposing religious beliefs but none about mandating respect and moral justification and legislating private attitudes toward homosexuality as normal and natural. (Note that Lawlor makes no pretense of these "civil unions" being anything other than marriage.)

On guarding the interests of the state in civil marriage:

Many legislators were careful to draw a distinction between civil marriage and religious marriage, but they clearly placed the burden of defining "civil marriage" on those of us who oppose this legislation on religious grounds. McDonald again complained that "many people did not want to struggle with the distinctions [between civil marriage and religious marriage]."

This is a completely invalid ploy. It is incumbent on those who claim civil marriage as their domain to clearly define it. They ought to delineate the qualifications of those eligible for marriage and articulate the basis upon which they have settled on those qulifications. They ridicule those who question why polygamy and incest are disallowed, but have not given any satisfactory answer.

They ought also to identify the state's interest in civil marriage, especially since Sen. Edward Meyer describes this as "an expansion of equal protection benefits" which will be very costly to the state. Same-sex couples will be able to file joint tax returns and get the tax savings of a lower rate, they will be able to prepare wills by which they will inherit from each other tax free, they will be able to take real property from each other without there being any taxation, and so on.

What then are the interests of the state these legislators are so eager to guard? "I love my friends and I want my friends to love who they want to love," says Rep. Toni Walker. Sen. Meyer told the story of a gay couple he knows who exhibit the same love and commitment he and his wife share for each other, "When you have that love and commitment ... the same benefits should be granted."

The legislators seem completely confused as to whether this is a protection of existing rights, an expansion of rights, or an expansion of benefits. The truth is that the 14th amendment already grants equal protection to all Americans. What these legilators are doing is conferring special, valued status on same-sex unions along with financial benefits.

On the discrimination that will be resolved by same-sex civil unions:

"We need to take a look at what we are saying to our children ...,'Some of us can do whatever we want. Some of us are equal. Some of us can live wherever we want, but others can't," says Rep. Toni Walker. I was not aware that homosexuals had no freedom of movement in this country, nor do I understand how civil unions grant them this freedom.

"We go all over the world and we fight wars to bring equality to countries and to allow people to have the right to vote ... but we can't do it here in America." Walker again. "In certain elections numbers of Afro-Americans are turned back for not having the proper i.d., or you know some sort of nonsense," Rep. Ernest Newton. As far as I know, homosexuals already have the right to vote.

On characterizing those who disagree with this action:

"It is time to move into the 21st century," says John Gerogosian.

"Will any bill we pass stop the bigotry and ignorance that's out there? No ... Will there still be people out there who have hatred and bigotry in their heart? Yes there will!" Sen Newton.

In Massachussetts, "the sky didn't fall," Rep. Cameron Staples.

"We do need to commend our colleagues who have gotten from a place of being completely closed-minded ... I look forward to being on the right side of history," Rep. Melissa Olson.

Looking out at the gay and lesbian activists in the room, "I have deep admiration for those of you who have committed yourselves to a course that is directed by reason and supported by principle," Rep. Ryan Barry

As is typical, we who oppose this legislation -- mostly the religious community -- are characterized as closed-minded, hateful, ignorant, bigoted, unprincipled alarmists incapable of rational thought.

Who will protect us from this bigotry? The right to religious faith is an enumerated right in the Constitution, which does deserve respect.

More to come.