Connecticut House ok's civil union legislation, heads to State Senate...

One half of of the CT General Assembly has crafted and approved legislation to recognize "civil unions" between gay couples. Before sending it on to the Senate, however, a provision was added (to the bill that originated in the Senate) to emphasize that the State does not consider civil unions to be the same as marriage.

"The House bill sends an unambiguous message about our commitment to fight discrimination, promote civil rights and preserve the traditional institution of marriage," [Governor Jodi] Rell, a Republican, said in a written statement.

Several Democrats in the legislature, however, objected to the added language:

Rep. Art Feltman, D-Hartford, an openly gay legislator, said the amendment was an insult. He said civil unions were "separate and unequal" to marriage, and drew comparisons to the black quest for civil rights in the 1950s and 1960s.

"This is analogous to me as if we were to be given a seat on the bus, but at the back of the bus; or to sit at the lunch counter, but on a separate side of the counter," he said. "But I understand societal evolution is slow and gradual."

The problem is that Rep. Feltman doesn't understand that recognition of marriage is not a right, it is a privilege granted by the State government which has the Constitutional authority to define the institution. And a State government must be answerable to the majority will of the governed. The analogy to being able to sit at a lunch counter or ride a bus is specious, at best. Feltman also says that societal evolution is slow and gradual. "Evolution" is not the word I would use, but he is correct in the idea that societal change is slow and gradual. This is something most gay rights activists fail to understand. If they had the patience to try and convince society of the merits of their argument over an extended period of time, they might have more popular success. But they want gay marriage and they want it now.

Connecticut is on it's way to becoming the third State to pass civil union legislation, after Vermont and Massachusetts. The additional language addressing the marriage issue notwithstanding, there is no guaranty that the State courts will not rule - as did the MA courts - that not recognizing gay marriage is "unconstitutional". And the 20 States that have amended their constitutions to ban gay marriage have to hold out hope that the Federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) will not be overturned by the Supreme Court.

The possibility of either of these scenarios is why I support an Amendment to the U.S. Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. The Amendment would allow States, at their discretion, to recognize or not recognize civil unions and to set the parameters for them - all with the consent of the majority of its citizens. And the issue of gay marriage would then be taken out of the realm of the judiciary for good.

I personally don't have a problem with allowing homosexual couples to share some of the legal rights as married couples - such as property rights, filing joint tax returns and shared health benefits. But the agenda that is driving this will not stop until those pursuing it have achieved nothing short of full and equal recognition of gay marriage, enforced in every single State. The Federal Marriage Amendment would put a stop to that while giving homosexual couples the legal rights that gay activists claim to be are fighting for.

If those pushing this bill now withdraw their support because of the additional marriage language, it will be proof that they only ever considered this a first step in the fight for legalization of same-sex marriage.

Posted by: Gary at 11:30 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 643 words, total size 4 kb.