Gay Marriage: February 2007 Archives

I went to the capitol building today for Lobby Day, sponsored by Love Makes a Family. We started off at 10:00 with general information, and listening to a few of the legislators talk about the introduction of the marriage equality bill this year. Rep. Mike Lawlor gave probably the most passionate speech about the inevitability of marriage equality for gay couples. He said that Tuesday night to members of Greater New Haven Young Democrats, but his message this morning to us was the same.

With legislative battles yet to come on the issue of gay marriage in Connecticut, State Rep. Mike Lawlor told members of the Greater New Haven Young Democrats at a downtown gathering Tuesday night that approval of a bill instituting statewide gay marriage is “inevitable.”

Lawlor, who heads the legislature’s Judiciary Committee and represents East Haven, spoke alongside Tom Ude (pictured) of the grassroots advocacy group Love Makes A Family. He made clear his opinion that though gay marriage has again become an issue in Hartford, it need not be, simply for the reason that, one way or another, gay marriage will be a reality. “Either the courts are going to do it, or the legislature’s doing to do it,” he said. (source)

He’s right. Eventually, this will happen. He says it will happen within two years. Yet, Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell has stated that she will veto the bill if it should reach her desk. I recall last time she threatened a veto IF the current civil union bill advocated “marriage”, that she would veto the bill because she is “old fashioned about such things.” Pardon me, but isn’t that a rather lame excuse to put a class of people into second-class status? Shouldn’t you try to remove your own pet prejudices from the equation and see the arguments based on merit, instead of your personal prejudices?

So, my question to Betty Gallo, the lobbyist for Love Makes a Family was simply this... “The Governor has stated that when the marriage equality bill reaches her desk, she will veto the bill. Should we stop by to talk to her?” Betty said that it’s unlikely the Governor would meet with us, which is true, but I thought it might be good for her to hear that we are at least a bit peeved about it.

Well, I decided the Governor was probably not the best use of my time. I stopped by my representative’s office, along with that of my senator. In each case, they were in committee. I left my written statement to both, and left.

The really bizarre thing about the whole experience is that the “other side” - you know, the people who are trying to “protect” marriage from the likes of gay couples, were also having their lobby day today. This was no coincidence. When they heard that Love Makes a Family were doing this today, they scheduled theirs as well on the same day. It was strange to see them react to us. We had these big stickers stuck to our jackets that said,

So, every time I would pass one of them, I’d usually get this glare of contempt. I hissed at them, and moved on (but in a polite way). We were asked to be nice and polite, which I believe is the best thing for everyone. Will my legislator hear or care what I had to say? I’m not sure. I’m told they do care. We’ll see how they vote. One of the things suggested was to invite our legislators over to dinner. My representative is a Republican. Do I serve steak or fish? I’m thinking red meat.

I suppose if I wanted to be really creative, I could serve faggots, a rather bizarre British dish, that sounds rather disgusting to me. But it would probably not be very politically correct to serve that. I mean, how on earth would Miss Manners inform the guests about dinner... “We’ll be having faggots for dinner.”? Yup, that’s a show stopper.

A Michigan appeals court on Friday ruled that public colleges and universities in the state may not offer health insurance or other benefits to the same-sex partners of employees. The ruling said that a state ban on gay marriage, approved by voters in 2004, barred such benefits. [...]

According to the database of the Human Rights Campaign, a national gay rights group, 11 public colleges and universities offer domestic partner benefits: Central Michigan, Eastern Michigan, Grand Valley State, Michigan State, Northern Michigan, Oakland, and Wayne State Universities; Lansing Community College; and the University of Michigan’s campuses at Ann Arbor, Dearborn and Flint. [...]

Mike Cox, the state’s attorney general, vowed to defend the position of the appeals court, which he said was consistent with what the people of Michigan wanted. “I am committed to protecting the will of the people,” he said in a statement. (source)

Well, you didn’t really think they would stop at marriage, did you? This has been their agenda all along. But I no longer get emotionally involved with this (no, I really don’t). I simply want to make a few points and observations.

First, this will also play out in other states who have passed similar amendments. This is only the beginning...

A Michigan appeals court ruling that bans public universities and state and local governments from providing health insurance to partners of gay employees has alarmed gay rights advocates nationwide.

They fear the decision could encourage similar rulings in 17 other states whose bans on gay marriage could be interpreted to prohibit domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples.

Michigan last week became the first state to rule that public employers cannot offer health benefits if the benefits are based on treating same-sex relationships similar to marriage.

“It really is just a matter of time before we start seeing wholesale litigation in this area,” said Carrie Evans, state legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group in Washington.

In Alaska, the only other state to rule on the benefits given to same-sex partners of public employees, the courts ruled the other way, saying it was unconstitutional to deny them.

More than 20 other states have yet to decide how their gay marriage bans apply to same-sex partner benefits.

Dennis Patrick, a professor at Eastern Michigan University, worries that Michigan’s ruling will strip his partner’s health insurance.

The couple have adopted four foster children, one with a developmental disability, and Tom Patrick works part-time so he can care for them.

“If he has to go back to work full-time, that hurts our family. Or we have to pay for health benefits out of pocket, which hurts our family,” Dennis Patrick said. “To me that either demonstrates a lack of understanding of how this can affect our family or other families, or it’s just mean and cruel.” (source)

Second, it’s really quite simple as far as I’m concerned. Michigan Attorney General Cox stated that this is “what the people of Michigan wanted,” even though I would venture to guess that 98% of those people didn’t even read the wording of the amendment. I think it really is very simple. It think there are two things going on; the citizens couldn’t be bothered really studying this issue because for the most part, it doesn’t effect them directly. Therefore, they don’t care about it. Which mean, that it’s basically just mean and cruel.

If this is what they want, let’s give it to them. The effects of this will not happen through anger, but rather through practicality. If you are in Michigan and have a partner, and you lose your ability to have health benefits for that partner, what do you think these people will do?

If you are looking at a position at a Michigan university, would you take the position with this political climate? The majority of straight people, in my experience, at the university level, are turned off by an atmosphere of intolerance.

And if you are a single gay person, who hopes to someday have a partner, would you opt to go to a place where you would not have access to health insurance for that partner? Perhaps you would if it were your only job offer and you were fresh out of graduate school. But, I bet you would eventually leave, where there are better opportunities and a better climate to be creative and open.

This will all happen naturally. In time, Michigan will lose people because of this. And I would venture to say that as I write this, there are people out there who are (were) considering positions at institutions of higher learning in Michigan, who will now go elsewhere.

Let the will of the people be followed and heard. They wanted it, after all. And, let their institutions of higher learning become third rate. And down the road, say 15-20 years, they will realize that they simply aren’t attracting the best people anymore. Then, they will reverse this amendment, and spend the next 30 years trying to get back to where they were before the amendment was passed in the first place.

Sometimes it’s nice to be able to see the future.