CONNECTICUT’S POSITION ON GAY MARRIAGE

 

 

 

Connecticut is one of only nine states that has not passed legislation concerning the legality of gay marriages.  The other eight states are Oregon, Wyoming, New Mexico, Wisconsin, New York, Rhode Island, Maryland, and New Hampshire.  In contrast, Vermont and California grant gay couples the legal rights of civil unions, Hawaii and New Jersey offer lesser legal protection, and Massachusetts will soon confer legal marriage rights to gay couples.  In this volatile political election year, the Connecticut legislature is carefully navigating the political landmines that surround passage of any legislation in this area.

Younger vs. Older Generation.  Polls across America consistently show that those above age 65 are opposed to gay marriage rights; however, those age 35 and under are generally unopposed to extending the rights of marriage to gay couples.  These polling numbers portend a shift in public perception:  as the older generation dies off, gay couples will eventually achieve legal rights equivalent to marriage.

            In an interesting turn of events, University of Connecticut polls surfaced in mid-February in California as opponents of gay marriages tried to stop the mayor and city government from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples in San Francisco.  Opponents cited polls taken by the Roper Center at the University of Connecticut after the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruled in favor of gay marriage in that state; the Roper Center poll showed that of 900 voters nationwide surveyed, 66 percent opposed same-sex marriage.  On Feb. 14, 2004, San Francisco Superior Court Judge James L. Warren was not swayed by the Roper Center poll or by the opponents’ other arguments.  He refused to issue an emergency injunction preventing San Francisco’s city government from issuing marriage licenses to gay couples.

One reason the Roper Center poll had little impact was that it was largely inconclusive.  The Roper Center poll failed to establish whether the respondents cared enough about the issue, e.g., to give up watching a football game on television to voice their protest.  Political economists refer to this characteristic as intensity of voter preference, and the Roper poll failed to capture how intensely the respondents felt on this issue.  Most polling respondents would not contribute $5 to support an organization opposing gay marriage, nor would they sacrifice watching an afternoon football game on tv to take part in a protest.

Other polls published in Time magazine and USA Today, e.g., a Zogby International poll, show the country is fairly evenly split on a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages.   Of course, our federal constitutional amending process requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress and ratification by three-quarters of the state legislatures. The last major constitutional amendment was ratified in 1971, when the people chose to reduce the voting age from twenty-one to eighteen.  The only major attempt to amend the constitution after that involved the Equal Rights Amendment for women. Congress approved it in 1972, but it fell three states short of passage a decade later. Thus slim majorities for constitutional amendments banning gay marriages in public opinion polls – particularly when those opinions are eroding over time towards greater acceptance of gay households in society – bode ill for the prospects of passing any such constitutional amendment.

A survey conducted in the third week of January by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press showed support for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriages at just 10 percent.  More significantly, the Pew poll showed that only twenty percent of Americans views the marriage amendment as a top domestic priority.  Overall, it ranked next to last among twenty-two "top priorities"––just ahead of the space program.  Given these priorities, it is bizarre that President George Bush would use his State of the Union address to put his political capital behind this ill-fated amendment issue.  "If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process," Bush said.   "Some voters think this [gay marriage ban] is extremely important, but they are a distinct minority," said Scott Keeter, the Pew Center's associate director.  "In the long run, [gay marriages] are going to happen," said Keeter. "All you have to do is look at who is in the demographic pipeline."

San Francisco Next Test Case?  National polls fail to depict the prevailing sentiment of the electorate in given states or municipalities.  The voting electorate of San Francisco is more liberal than the nation as a whole, and the voting electorate of that city probably favors conferring full legal rights and benefits upon gay and lesbian couples – at least for residents of San Francisco.  San Francisco is located within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which is the federal appellate court most likely to grant an equal protection basis upholding San Francisco’s licenses against California state challenge.

            Large gay populations can be found in New York City, Seattle, Atlanta, and Miami.  It would be interesting to see how public polls from those metropolitan areas compare with the states in general, and whether public acceptance of the gay community will translate into public acceptance of legal rights for gay couples joined in partnerships or marriages.  We might see legal challenges arise in these population centers for gay activism before another statewide challenge is mounted of the sort seen in Massachusetts.  One state legislator is already predicting that Connecticut will be the first state to adopt a law allowing gay couples to marry in the state without any order by a court.

            Lawlor and McDonald’s Leadership.  Connecticut has been blessed with calm and restrained leadership on this issue from the two co-chairmen of its legislature’s judiciary committee.  “We have captured the attention of the people of our state," said state Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, one of the co-chairmen.   “This is not about changing laws. . . . This battle in the end is about changing public opinion.”  Gay rights activists in Connecticut won a measure of legal recognition two years ago, when same-sex couples were granted a limited bundle of rights.  Now, led by the coalition called Love Makes a Family, they are lobbying for a change in the state's marriage laws.  Lawlor predicted that Connecticut will become the first state legislature to approve gay marriage without a court order.  Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, the other co-chairman of the judiciary committee, said social conservatives will seize on the issue. McDonald and his partner will soon celebrate their 10-year anniversary.  McDonald hopes that he and his partner will one day be married in Connecticut.

            Sounding Brass, Tinkling Cymbal.  Roman Catholic Bishop Peter Rosazza mocked the notion that "love makes a family," a concept embraced by gay rights activists.  "If it's only love, then what about other relationships?" Rosazza asked, citing a man and two women who might be in a loving relationship. "Once one changes the definition of marriage, where does it stop?"  This is the same tired old line advanced ad nauseum by syndicated columnist George Will to the point that his columns have become as stale as molded breaded:  there goes old George Will again arguing that gay marriage and polygamy have the same basis in the law. 

            The arguments against Rosazza and Will are so obvious they hardly need to be stated.  The state imposes numerous legal constraints on people seeking to get married.   For example, fathers and daughters cannot marry, brothers and sisters cannot marry, first cousins cannot marry.  The state requires people seeking a marriage license to take blood tests to check for sexually transmitted diseases.  Those who test positive cannot marry lawfully until they have an approved course of treatment.  The state prohibits polygamy, and places restrictions on age, mental capacity, and residency requirements for marriage.  All of these constraints on marriage will still be in place and will still be enforced even if the definition of marriage is expanded to allow two men or two women to marry.  A license to marry is a legal document issued by the state, not by a church or religious organization, and arguably it should be available to two qualified citizens of the state without regard to their religious preferences or sexual status.

            Bishop Rosazza and his fellow bishop O’Malley in Boston are not serving their cause well with their mocking comments and stern warnings.  No one wants to hear a stern lecture from a bishop who has no experience with a loving relationship with another person or the unique problems in raising a family.  Instead, these two bishops would do better to follow the advice of their predecessor, the apostle Paul who wrote to the Corinthians, “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.  And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing.”  The bishops comments are adding more harm and injury to a class of people subjected to the most discrimination and persecution in our society today.  Bishops should be examples of people inspired by love; instead these two clerics illustrate “tinkling cymbals” with dogmatic faith, but only love for their heterosexual fellow man. 

            These bishops have just as much right under the First Amendment as anyone else to express their opinions; however, this is an election year.  The gay marriage issue has already been demagogued into the presidential election campaign.  The bishops’ comments seem aimed at voters in Massachusetts and Connecticut, and the Democratic nominee, John Kerry, is Catholic.  Thus, it is possible that the bishop’s comments are designed to put pressure on Democratic legislators, like Kerry, to oppose gay marriage even more than he does already.  Senator Kerry has explained the influence of his religious faith on his political views as follows.  “If you’re a person of faith, as I am, it’s your guidepost, your sort of moral compass, your sustaining force, if you will, in everything you do.”
            Specifically, on the subject of gay marriage, Senator Kerry has frequently said on national television that if the Republicans want to demagogue this issue, then they should deal with the fact that his views are the same as Vice President Dick Cheney’s on this issue.  So what then are the Vice President’s views on gay marriage?

Cheney/Kerry Position.  In a nationally televised debate in 2000 with then Democratic vice presidential candidate, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut, Cheney was asked about gay marriage.  He responded as follows.  “The fact of the matter is, we live in a free society, and freedom means freedom for everybody,” Cheney said. “And I think that means that people should be free to enter into any kind of relationship they want to enter into. It's really no one else's business in terms of trying to regulate or prohibit behavior in that regard.  The next step, then is the question, you ask of, whether or not there ought to be some kind of official sanction, if you will, of the relationship. That matter is regulated by the states. I think different states are likely to come to different conclusions, and that's appropriate. I don't think there should necessarily be a federal policy.”

Since he offered that statement, President Bush advocated a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriages, and Cheney said he would go along with the president, a kind of tepid support.  The real Dick Cheney probably continues to feel it is no one else’s business, and the government ought to stay out of people’s bedrooms and not try to regulate private marital licenses.  Cheney is being advised in this area by his daughter, Mary, who is a lesbian and gay-rights activist in Colorado.  But Dick Cheney the politician knows that he has to adopt the official argot of the campaign to charge up the evangelical supporters in the Republican re-election campaign.  So he has to publicly support a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, even though he can do the math and knows such an amendment would not even pass Congress with a two-thirds majority.

2004 Update.  By the end of 2003, the following states had at least one legislator introduce a bill to legalize gay marriages in that state:  Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Texas,  and Washington.  A bill sponsored by one legislator in no way reflects the will of the majority and it is uncertain which if any of these bills will likely emerge out of committee for further vote by the full legislature.

Also by the end of 2003, bills were introduced to create domestic partnership protections for gay couples in California, Colorado, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, and Rhode Island.  California, like Vermont, offers civil union protection to gay couples, so it is not clear what additional protections, if any, would be offered by the domestic partnerships act.  The other states are still debating the merits of this lesser form of protection for the rights of gay couples.

Thirty-nine states have passed laws defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman and thereby thwarting attempts to seek licenses for gay marriages in their states.  Among the states passing such laws are every state in the old Confederacy of the South.  The same states that once unleashed dogs to attack peaceful Negro civil rights demonstrators are also leading the way in practicing discrimination against gay Americans.  These are also the same states that kept on their books until the very end statutes that forbid White and Black people from marrying.

Nearly every state that voted for George Bush in the 2000 presidential election is among the states trying to ban gay marriages.  Few, if any, of these same states have enacted any form of anti-discrimination statutes to protect gays.  These states seem to be declaring open season within their borders on gay bashing, and that will play out on national tv news about as well as the dogs biting peaceful marchers in the 1960s civil rights era.

© Copyright 2007 by Michael A. S. Guth. All Rights Reserved.  No portion of this article, including this web page, may be copied, retransmitted, reposted, or duplicated in significant portion without the express written permission of Dr. Michael Guth. Users are always welcome to establish links to this web page or to quote from it freely.