They are currently debating a proposed ammendment that defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Connecticut's current statues, I believe, are deliberately ambiguous on this issue. Proponents of the bill claim that this ammendment is completely unnecessary, "gratuitous" according to Lawlor, because that is already the law in Connecticut.
But their vociferousness in opposing a reiteration of what they claim is clear is enough to cast suspicion on their arguments. Lawlor does not want current ambiguity cleared up.
Addition:
Here is a copy of the current statute in Connecticut defining marriage:
Sec.45a-727a. State policy re best interests of child; public policy re marriage. The General Assembly finds that:
(4) It is further found that the current public policy of the state of Connecticut is now limited to a marriage between a man and a woman.
This is clearly time-bound. The current policy as of 5 years ago. Now as of 5 years ago. It's very reasonable for representatives to suspect that the current civil-unions bill will make this statement even more ambiguous than it already is, especially since it says that "wherever in the general statutes ... the term 'marriage' is used or defined, a civil union shall be included in such use or definition."
For Lawlor to make his "just trust me" argument is completely disingenuous.
Opponents of the ammendment have labeled it "offensive" and "insulting", and proponents "extremist." Kind of puts the lie to their claim that it's not needed because it just restates existing state law. Do they regard existing law as extremist?
5:35 pm The ammendment passed 80-67. May make passage of the underlying bill more likely. Some who spoke in favor of it thought it made the bill more palatable.
5:40 pm Current speaker is saying that this is a debate between science and religion. A vote for same-sex civil unions is a vote for science. Perhaps asexual reproduction among hydras and yeast is the new paradigm for marriage. Because an amoeba splits we need civil unions. What conclusion do we draw from reptilian cannibalism? (Sorry, it's hard not to get at least a little sarcastic.) In general, I've been impressed with the debate in the House.
6:25 pm Rep. Klarides. Relative who married outside the Greek Orthodox faith rejected by family. Apparently, the view that marriage is just between a man and a woman is equivalent.
6:41 pm Starting to see celebration among proponents of the bill. They obviously think that all obstacles to this bill have been eliminated as a result of passing the DOMA-lite ammendment.
6:47 Current speaker is asking questions about custody and support implications of bill. He is also arguing that state employees who enter into civil unions will get greater benefits than those who are married. He has raised a series of unintended consequences of the bill.
Finally, someone who asserts that this is sneaky. Ought to address the issue of same-sex marriage, not civil unions. ... Also takes offense at the stories of violent, physical gay bashing, as though everyone who opposes same-sex civil unions is liable to physically assault gays and as though passing this bill will stop all gay bashing.
7:05 pm Can inmates in a prison enter into a civil union with each other?
If churches rent out their facilities for public use, they will be compelled to permit performance of same-sex civil unions in their facilities. Ammendment to protect religious organizations being offered. Lawlor is opposed! Remember this is the man who wants to legislate private attitudes about homosexuality. Says religious organizations shouldn't be exempt from honoring and respecting same-sex civil unions.
The ammendment was overwhelmingly rejected. Religious organizations are compelled recognize, honor, and respect same-sex civil unions!
7:30 Lesbian representative announces that she will vote against the bill because of addition of DOMA-lite ammendment.
8:02 One of the repeated arguments for the bill is that it is necessary to bring order into an area that requires it. The status of adopted children of same-sex couples is often not clear, for example, in those cases where same-sex couples split up. At the same time, those who make this argument characterize their previous votes as progressive.
So, the logic is this: "We've created chaos with all our previous votes on this issue. Now we need to clean up the mess we made." Real compelling argument.
8:11 Brendan Sharkey basically on an anti-Catholic rant. Opposition to the bill all based on fear and ignorance. Claims that "many" Christian denominations are favoring the bill. I doubt it. The UCC only had 4 people show up at their press conference.
8:31 The bill passed 85 to 63.
No comments:
Post a Comment