Civil Unions in Connecticut
This year, Connecticut had before it to bills to defend marriage and prevent gay couples from achieving marriage. Both bills died. The legislature also had before it a bill to give full marriage to gay couples. I, along with other organizations, such as Love Makes a Family, supported that bill.
The bill was amended to not allow for “marriage” for same sex couples. I didn’t support that, and neither did Love Makes a Family. We all told the legislators that anything less than full marriage equates to second-class citizenship. It would also give us little hope for challenging the Federal Government in supporting something they don’t already support, a civil union.
The argument could easily be made that it would be cost prohibitive to support a separate set of laws for marriage and civil unions on the Federal level, just for the sake of keeping the label marriage from gay couples. I don’t think the government would do that.
I’ve also said that I would never sign up for a second-class status. In other words, if civil unions do become the law of Connecticut, which seems likely this year, I would not register for it because I feel that my marriage to Kent is worth more than that. I made these opinions very clear on commenting on an article What are we fighting for? over on the Republic of T.
But, am I sabotaging our hope of obtaining full marriage by doing this - by not signing up for a civil union? I told the legislator who authored it that I would have nothing to do with second class status. That’s a principle that I stand by. As I states in my comments on the Republic of T.:
The problem is, civil unions (at least from the one state - Vermont - has one), are a dead end. Once they are in place, there is little incentive for the state to revisit this red hot issue anytime soon. Vermont hasn’t, and it has no plans to reopen the issue of equality for gay couples in Vermont. They dealt with the issue with civil unions and at the end of the day, can pat themselves on the back for giving gay couples “equality”. The problem is, it’s not equality.
I have always agreed with Love Makes a Family on this issue. In the testimony before the Judiciary Committee, they did not support the civil union bill and wanted it killed, saying that nothing less than marriage is not equal.
But then, yesterday, I got this letter from Love Makes a Family:
The legislative process has many twists and turns, and LMF will spend the coming weeks and months making the case to legislators that it is not too late to push for full equality. If legislators can get all the way to civil union, why withhold marriage?
The bottom line is that now that the marriage equality bill has been amended into a civil union bill, LMF will not work against it.
We recognize that our membership is united in its support for marriage, but has different views on civil union as a path to marriage. Let us remain united in asking ALL our legislators to stand strong for marriage.
So, it would appear that Love Makes a Family are also pragmatists in this issue.
If there are few who sign up for civil unions, I can see some legislators next year (when the gay marriage bill will supposedly be introduced), who never wanted civil unions in the first place, making the argument that there is no need of them since very few couples signed up for them in the first place.
Also, Kent and I are going through the process of drafting a will, power of attorney, and all the rest. Many of those needs would be enforced and enhanced by the civil union law. Do we hold out on principle, and risk it backfiring? Or, do we sign up for them, take what they have to offer, and hope next year for true equality in the form of a real marriage bill? Also, on an emotional level, if we get a civil union, and later, when the gay marriage bill is passed, how will we feel about our marriage when our civil union is transfered to a marriage? That’s seems kind of like not even having a marriage in the first place.
I want to be able to go to my Town Clerk and apply for a marriage license, not one for gay couples verses the “normal” ones. They should all be the same.
I don’t know. Perhaps I should be a pragmatist as well and take what I can, but everything in my being tells me this is wrong. At the central core of what I am as a human being, is the desire to have fairness and equality. I hate inequality, but I guess at this point, I have to try to be more flexible.
5 Comments
Leave a comment
Skye,
I completely agree with you. In fact, assuming that the civil union bill becomes law, which looks very likely since Governor Rell has stated that she supports the bill, we have decided that, even though it would give us many of the rights (but not all) of marriage at the state level, I consider the bill to be a gratuitous effort to appease us by throwing us a bone. I find that very insulting.
There will be many gay couples who will opt to take whatever they can get, even though it is a second class status. My feeling is that it would send a much louder message if no one signed up for the civil union registry when it's made available. When it is made available, I intend to write a letter to the Hartford Courant explaining exactly why we have opted not to be treated as, or acknowledge, a second class status in terms of marriage.
I will, of course, also be sending a letter with that message to Representative Lawlor, and my representative.
Admittedly, there is a danger here. The danger is that some legislators, who do not want us to have any recognition, could take the lack of interest in obtaining the rights they have bestowed us via this civil union bill, and try to make the case that since we opted not to sign up for the civil union bill, that the bill was never needed in the first place.
To me, that's a risk that we must take. I am unwilling to bargain with equality, for myself, or anyone else. Equality means equality, and nothing less.
I was also very surprised at the turn of events...that LMF would not work against civil unions.
I have made the decision to personally not settle for this in my own relationship of many years..because as close as they want to make this to marriage - its' not...not one of those senators or representatives would trade their marriage for a civil union. there can be no federal benefits, etc...just amazing.
i am often frustrated that this is even a discussion. but...it seems people are afraid on both sides - the legislators are afraid to lose their job...and the activists are afraid to be too bold. neither makes for an adequate resolution.
Robin,
Everything you said, I agree with. It's frustrating for me because I do understand what gay couples want, but I want them to have the real thing, and not settle for something that's not got the protection of marriage.
Let's say that Kent and I get a "civil union" when it becomes available. If they even give us a certificate for it (we may only sign our name to a register), it would presumably say "Civil Union Certificate" or something along those lines. Later, if we get full marriage, maybe they would give use a new certificate that said "Marriage Certificate". What does that mean for the Civil Union? That day would be very special for us, just as it is for heterosexual couples who get married. Most every straight married couple I know can point to the date of their marriage.
So what do we do? Do we remember the day that we got our civil union certificate as our marriage day, or do we remember the day the civil union was transfered over to a full marriage? What date do we actually tell ourselves, and others?
I don't know... it all seems very degrading to the relationship in so many ways. And I might point out, that interracial couples never had to go through this. There were states who would not allow them to get married, but it was marriage or nothing.
Darrell,
You are absolutely right, we have procrastinated terribly on the power of attorney and the wills. In fact, our lawyer called us just last week. I'm working on it this week and we should have it wrapped up very soon. And sometimes, nagging is good! :)
I don't want to nag, but you're dragging your feet on that power of attorney and wills. For now that's the best protection you have. Get with it! Believe me, I know !
It is a tricky one to generate a baby bear situation - kind of dammed it you do and dammed if you don't... if not enough people take up civil unions then folk will say "Oh look - why bother with gay marriage when they can't even do civil unions"... if too many people take up civil unions then it is "Gee - those gays are real happy with their fake marriage... let's leave it there"...
Over in the UK, sure we have Civil Partnership coming into effect in December, but the whole marriage thang is squarely off the table, and that's not surprising having a de facto Catholoic Prime Minister.
Sounds trivial, but I want to be able to introduce my partner as my husband, not my partner, however official - perhaps if the word "partner" hadn't been depreciated into meaning any couple who live together for more than an afternoon, I might feel different...