From the New Haven Independent:
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.Through a combination of past years’ legislative initiatives and grassroots efforts carried out by groups like Love Makes A Family, Lawlor said, it’s the case that in Connecticut today, “every right, every obligation, every benefit accrued from marriage” is conferred to same-sex partners through civil unions. That situation that leaves him convinced that the two are the same under the law—same except in name, that is, a distinction which he said amounts to “separate but equal” status reminiscent of segregation.“Now we need to talk about why civil unions aren’t good enough,” he said. Civil unions’ establishment has led to a “big hodgepodge of conflicting laws that would disappear overnight” if civil unions became truly synonymous with marriage, a realization that Lawlor said many people have come to. Since the bill mandating civil unions passed, he said, none of the lawmakers who supported it have been voted out of office. Opposition, even among most religious groups, has largely subsided, something that he gives Love Makes A Family lots of credit for.
I think Lawlor is right. Perhaps Rell should reconsider that veto.
Gombeski, Christopher. “Lawlor Calls Gay Marriage “Inevitable”". New Haven Independent. 2/21/07
35 responses so far ↓
If and when Gay Marriage passes the Statehouse, Rell will reconsider and decide not to veto the legislation. Nothing bad has resulted from the Civil Union legislation, nor will anything bad occur if we allow gays to use the word “marriage”.
Jodi earned big kudos for quickly signing the CU law into effect. All the good will would disappear in a heartbeat if she circumvented the will of our Legislature via executive veto. The downside to such an act would be enormous.
Honestly, Lawlor is correct. With the majority of young adults having such different views towards accepting homosexuality, it is just a matter of time. Why not just allow gays the “m” word to go along with the benefits the 2005 law granted them? Certainly it would be much better than arguing this issue ad nauseum.
I also think gay marriage is inevitable, but that they don’t all have to marry Gary. (Check your title.)
Jeez Mike, you beat me to it.
I was going to say that I didn’t even know Gary was seeing anyone.
(Sorry CGG, I couldn’t help myself)
So many jokes about Gary, so little time…
This is why I shouldn’t post right before dinner. I was in a hurry. It’s fixed now.
Was anyone in Hartford today at the Love Makes a Family event (or the other one)? I was at the LOB briefly today and there was a sea of people with Equality stickers (including what looked like a Catholic Priest, but turned out that he was Episcopalian)…
Keep in mind that the only reason that Rell was willing to sign the civil union legislation was because marriage was also defined as being between a man and a woman.
A large majority of Connecticut residents do not support marriage for homosexuals. Why is the legislature trying to pass this law?
The legislators have more important issues to deal with. And, at a minimum, they should focus on issues which are not so divisive and which are also supported by their constituents.
Nutmeg_con–
You do notice how Dick Cheney has grown so silent on this issue? Oops, that’s right. He’s got a gay daughter.
Now I know your solution would be for Mary Cheney to just find some guy and marry him, contrary to her nature, (imagine being that lucky guy!). Or maybe you think she should live out her life as a lonely spinster?
Honestly gay people have existed in society since time immemorial. From a public policy position, you have made almost no argument as to why your position is better than LMAF’s.
I mean honestly, half the whackos at the FIC like to believe homosexuality can be “cured”. The other half think gay marriage will lead to the legalization of polygamy and bestiality, or the end of civilization! LOL.
Finally, and for the record, it would have been publicly near impossible, in the 60’s, to have found state majorities in favor of the repeal of miscegenation laws. But aren’t you glad to live in a socoety where Tiger Woods can marry a blonde without it being a big deal?
yes – but the real solution would be for the government to get out of the marriage business all together.. and leave it up to the religious world.
Just allow me to play devil’s advocate here:
..hmm so what’s next? the state condoning multiple partners? and why not if they are all in love with each other an committed to one another.. if they cannot marry then what makes that any less discriminatory?
Canada’s wrestling with that now..
If government is going to be involved here then they have to draw the lines somewhere..no? Mixing races, mixing genders, what about mixing species? Some people are really committed to their German Shepherds. (and I am not joking) For crying out loud people leave their entire estates to their animals too.
Like I said.. unless a line is drawn somewhere, then government just ought to extract itself from the whole issue. because inevitably it can be proven that someone is getting discriminated against.
So do we draw the line somewhere? and when you draw the line do you understand that someone will lose out .. tell me why 3 guys and 2 girls can’t all be married in one whole love makes a family scenario? what makes prohibiting that any less discriminatory?
Republican–
I wish I could agree with you that Mary Cheney is a step down the road to freak-dom.
But Pesonally, I’m all for lasting monogamous relationships, straight or gay. How does Mary Cheney feel when you link her life partnership to polygamy? (Which is pretty much turned a blind eye to by an incredibly GOP-leaning Utah.)
TrueBlueCT, it is always a mistake for Democrats to mention Mary Cheney. Democrats always appear to be at their worst when they mention her (just review the various debates during the last seven years).
Dick Cheney has not been so silent. His views are very clear and there is no need for him to discuss this issue every day.
I never said that every homosexual should marry a person of the opposite sex. And I never said that homosexuals should be lonely. And I never said that homosexuals have only existed in recent times.
Once marriage has been redefined to allow for one homosexual to marry another homosexual, it is very reasonable to expect that the next question to deal with is whether or not three people who love each other and want to marry each other should be allowed to. What “rule” should prevent polygamy but allow for two homosexuals to marry each other? Hint: there is no such rule.
A key issue about people of different races being allowed to marry is that a person has no control over his/her race. A person is not born as a homosexual — a person DECIDES whether or not to be a homosexual.
Once marriage has been redefined to allow for one homosexual to marry another homosexual, it is very reasonable to expect that the next question to deal with is whether or not three people who love each other and want to marry each other should be allowed to.
AND THE GOATS. OMG THAT’S NEXT.
that’s the dumbest argument I’ve heard today.. but it’s still early. I’m sure you’ll come up with something else.
Cheney has a kid.. call me old fashioned, but I think it’s nice if two happy committed people are married if they have children. I know Dick Cheney WISHES his daughter would meet a guy who would ‘convert’ her… but it won’t happen.
He’s a dick and yes hes been pretty damn silent about thie whole issue, publicly. I’m sure if you dig you could find him spewing his piehole somewhere.. but lately he’s kept it shut. Wish he would do that re:foreign policy, the world would be a better place.
A person is not born as a homosexual — a person DECIDES whether or not to be a homosexual.
Thanks for your piercing insight into people you so clearly understand on an intimate level. On your inspiration, I think I’ll be viscerally attracted to men today! Then I’ll simply will myself to fall in love with one of them. Why didn’t I think of this clever and stylish lifestyle choice long ago? It would make my life so much easier in countless ways.
Put it to referendum. Let both sides air their arguments. Let the people decide.
A referendum on gay marriage in 2007 would be close, and would most likely fail. A referendum in 2017, however, would pass.
So what’s your point? Maybe a referendum in 2007 would pass, maybe not. In 2017–who knows.
Seems to me that granting marital status to homosexuals would be a major shift in public policy and a major shift in understanding of natural law that has been in place for millenia. A shift that should not be taken by judicial or legislative fiat.
Who says that two people of the same sex that would enter into a civil contract defined by statute as marriage would have to be homosexual?
I hate slipperly slope arguments. They can only work if you are unable to draw a distinction between Situation A and Situation B. In this case, I think there are pretty clear lines between gay marriage, polygamy and beastiality. (Although those arguments give a pretty clear insight into the mind of the person making them. If you can’t draw a distinction between gay marriage and beastiality, that says a lot about how you view homosexuality.) We let two human beings get married in this country. In fact, we think it’s a wonderful thing if they do. If Man A wants to marry Woman A, we think it’s great. If Woman B wants to marry Woman A we say “You can’t. Because you’re a woman.”
Maybe that’s the difference between our positions, Rightyright. I simply don’t see it as a huge deal, and I don’t think that things will really be all that different after gay marriage is allowed than they are now. That’s certainly the case in MA.
In any event, I think that either a referendum or legislative action is the way that gay marriage should come to pass. I have no problem with the legislature acting on this, they are our elected representatives for this reason.
No–marriage has been understood, for millenia, as between a man and woman. Their is a slippery slope when you suddenly redefine natural law.
Look at Northern Europe, which is at the forefront of these changes. They are suffering from dramatically lower birthrates, they are on track to lose population, marriage is on the decline. Society suffers many unintended consequences when it radically changes it’s basic belief structure.
Smae sex marriage leads to lower birthrates??? Wow!!!!!
A referendum on gay marriage in 2007 would be close, and would most likely fail. A referendum in 2017, however, would pass.
I don’t know if you can simply extrapolate the 2017 results. There’s the issue of demographics. Who’s having kids, who’s immigrating, and who’s dying? For instance, in ten years, Hispanics will almost certainly comprise a larger segment of the population in Connecticut, due to both net migration and fertility. As a group, they do not seem to be very supportive of gay marriage (there’s no gay marriage in Mexico or elsewhere in Latin America, for instance). There are other groups growing and shrinking in size, and these also have to be taken into account.
As far as the “slippery slope” argument is concerned, I’m never a big advocate of that point. It’s sort of like saying if we allow a 55 mph speed limit, eventually that’ll open the doors for speed limits to be revised down and down until all speed limits are 5 mph.
However, I think there is one potential danger for allowing gay marriage. Would it weaken the institution of marriage, which for about the last 3,000 years has usually (but not always) been defined as being between one man and one woman? Would some heterosexuals be less likely to marry if the institution were no longer what it has been for the past few millennia? I’m not asking if it would make YOU less likely to get married, but would some people simply decide to forego marriage? Would this be a good thing for society? Would some people no longer view marriage the same way they do now, and have more children out of wedlock? Since non-married parents break up much more frequently than married couples with children, might this not lead to single parent families?
In the Netherlands, there are about 1,000 gay marriages per year. The Netherlands has a population of almost 16.5 million. In contrast, Connecticut has a population of about 3.4 million. Thus, if Nutmeggers are into gay marriage as much as the Dutch, that would equate to about 205 gay marriages per year in the state. I’m not sure how many gay marriages among foreigners there are in the Netherlands, nor am I sure how many gays from other states would try to get married here, even if neither were a resident.
Rightyright,
Population decline is a natural feature of post-industrial societies. Japan suffers from this, too, as does Russia.
Well-same sex couples certainly don’t pro-create. But that’s not the point.
The point is that suddenly altering societal norms leads to societal malaise.
China and India have been trying to reduce their populations for a while now. Perhaps China should dump it’s one child policy and legalize gay marriage instead!
Oh please, homosexuality has been around for centuries and it’s here to stay and allowing same sex marriage won’t promote more of it.
a couple of quick google links on the origins of homosexualtiy for anyone just remotely intellectually curious:
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/narth/homorig.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality
All right.. let’s get real here..
The fact of the matter here is that Stanback and Co. at Love Makes a Family are really only pushing this to gain standing in a federal court in order to challenge Bill Clinton’s DOMA.
Civil Union here in CT already gives them the rights they need.. by getting “marriage” here they gain no more rights than what they currently enjoy. Ms. Stanback has even admitted that publicly. This is just another step in the scheme of a bigger picture in which CT is just another chess piece.
Like it or not the overall picture is one of slippery slope because polygamy will be the next issue. It already is elsewhere. It just is.
The sad part is that this has had some very unfortunate unintended consequences with regard to religious freedom since really good institutions like Catholic Charities have had to close their doors to providing things like adoption.
This is precisely why government should not be involved in these sorts of issues.
And Genghis.. in this case I don’t solely want my representatives voting on this simply because too much special interest lobbying money has bought their elections to begin with. You know it and so do I. Many of the folks elected did not even run on the issue of gay marriage to begin with. It’s only fair to have the population at large vote on this one. It is just too big and too important for the boys and girls under the gold dome to vote on by themselves.
Hey folks,
Nothing can prevent a gay couple from living together. They do.
Nothing can prevent a gay couple from having and raising a child. They do.
Why, then, shouldn’t the couple be allowed to marry—to vow to commit their lives to one another until death do they part—with all the legal responsibilities that go along with that?
If you believe in the sanctity of marriage, then you would want this couple to be legally married.
When I was a kid in the 70s, an interracial couple would make people stare and evoke racial slurs. Some people are still uptight about interracial marriage. Most people got over it. With gay marriage, it’s the same thing. Get over it already.
Hey, if you’ll want to put the idea of a contract for marriage between same-sex couples up for a general vote, how about doing the same on Rell’s proposed budget, too.
How about doing it for everything? And there is the reason that the legislature won’t pass a bill calling for a non-binding referendum…
>>How about doing it for everything?
Direct Democracy?
Parts of the south might still have Whites Only lunch counters for starters.
Total majority rule results in total tyranny for the minority – ask any smoker.
>>there is the reason that the legislature won’t pass a bill calling for a non-binding referendum…
Darn right.
As it regards Gays, what if via a such a referendum they LOST their current Civil Union status.
The original framers were pretty bright, eh?
The original framers were pretty bright, eh? a lot brighter than the Republicans in the CT General Assembly, that’s for sure!!!!
I don’t solely want my representatives voting on this simply because too much special interest lobbying money has bought their elections to begin with. You know it and so do I. Many of the folks elected did not even run on the issue of gay marriage to begin with. It’s only fair to have the population at large vote on this one. It is just too big and too important for the boys and girls under the gold dome to vote on by themselves.
I would think that, in the event of a statewide referendum, MASSIVE national special interest money would flow into this state on both sides for advertising and GOTV efforts. If that’s your concern, we’re better off letting the state legislators decide this one.
And Rightyright, I don’t think we’re “suddenly altering social norms.” These norms have been around for a long time – we’re just letting the government acknowledge them. But if you see homosexuality as “going against natural law” well, there’s probably not much anyone can say to convince you that this is a good idea.
Why does same sex marriage have to be about sexual orientation? I thought it was about rights and responsibilities granted in a government sanctioned partnership called marriage not about sex. Although I do know a few guys who have always thought their wives had a greater responsibility to recognize their right to sex.
You must log in to post a comment.