Connecticut seems well on its way to being the first state to have a non-court-ordered civil unions law for same-sex couples. The state Senate earlier approved a measure that, somewhat amended, has now passed the state House. The governor is expected to sign the amended bill if the Senate then passes it.
Gay rights folks are happy because it provides a legal mechanism for recognition and protection of their relationships and rights.
Opponents are unhappy, because (they say) it “harms marriage” — noting (with some justice) that it’s just marriage-by-another-name.
On the other hand, opponent are happy because the House inserted an amendment to explicitly identify “marriage” (marriage-by-its-own-name, so to speak) as being between one man and one woman. Thus somehow belying the argument that the civil union law is the same as marriage, since it now, quite clearly, would not be.
Which, in turn, has made gay rights folks unhappy.
I suspect, if both sides are willing to hold onto the parts that make them happy, and not go ballistic over the parts that make them unhappy, that this is something that most on both sides can live with. Which, to my mind, makes it a good law (all to rare a duck these days).
(via Scott)
I think all unions acknowledged by the goverment (and all the rights and responsibilities therein) should be civil unions, and marriages should be religious entities that are performed by and sanctioned by a church. If you get only one and not the other that’s your choice.
If you want to be married, you have to find a church where you fulfill all the requirements. If you want the legal and property rights that the government conveys through its laws, you need a civil union.
It makes no sense to have two legal documents that try to do the same thing, and one is a marriage and one isn’t. They will always look like separate, but equal (and if they actually are, then why have both)?
I certainly agree.