In Connecticut, the Hartford Courant reports in "Tactic
May Stall Bid For Civil Unions" that:
Connecticut appeared poised this year to become the first state to approve civil unions for same-sex couples without the threat of court intervention. But now the chances of passage have greatly dimmed as the result of a controversial decision by an influential gay rights group. Love Makes a Family began telling legislative allies Wednesday it is launching an all-or-nothing campaign for a same-sex marriage law.
It is a decision that puts the group at odds with legislative supporters, some of whom see Connecticut on the threshold of extending an important civil right.
Are gay-marriage activists right to oppose civil unions, even if they confer all the state benefits of marriage? How about statewide domestic partnership bills, as in California, that might offer many but not all spousal rights?
The Courant story also reports:
Rep. Cameron Staples, D-New Haven, said civil unions have picked up significant bipartisan support in the last two years, including an unexpected endorsement from one of the legislature's leading conservatives, House Minority Leader Robert Ward, R-North Branford. "We have a real opportunity to pass a civil union bill this year with all the rights of marriage. The position taken by Love Makes a Family puts that at risk," Staples said. "I was disappointed."
Love Makes a Family, a coalition of groups backing equal marriage rights for same-sex couples, always set marriage as its goal. What's new, legislators said, is the all-or-nothing strategy....
In a sense, this debate could be looked at as Vermont vs. Massachusetts. In the former, a comprehensive civil unions law was passed following a court order that gays be given equivalent rights; in the latter, the state's highest court ordered that gays be granted full marriage equality. The Massachusetts' ruling, however, unleashed a backlash that led many states to pass constitutional amendments barring both same-sex marriage and (in many instances) civil unions, and gave momentum to a federal constitutional amendment that would do the same.
In neither Vermont nor Massachusetts, let's note, do same-sex couples receive federal recognition or spousal rights. However, in an interesting development, this week Wal-Mart (one of the nation's largest employers) expanded its definition of "immediate family" to include an employee's same-sex partner in states that recognize either domestic partnerships and civil unions. Once again, private employers go where government fears to tread.
Given how deeply conservative and fearful the nation is on the issue of marriage - even Kerry-voting Oregon voted overwhelmingly to ban gay marriage - supporting civil unions as an initial step doesn't seem imprudent (how's that for a definitive position!). As noted before, the Netherlands and Belgium both began with civil-union-like partnerships; after people became comfortable with them, it was easier to then grant gays full marriage access.
(Newly posted on this site, John Corvino further makes a case for civil unions.)
Canada, of course, looks like it may skip the civil unions phase and go straight (so to speak) to same-sex marriage. But the U.S. is most certainly not Canada, and one reason Canada may grant marriage rights is to further poke its nose at the U.S.
In Connecticut, if it turns out that the civil unions bill on
the verge of passing is pulled for lack of gay activists' support,
and if no marriage bill is subsequently passed (and I believe it
very unlikely one would be), it will stand as a lesson for others
facing the same choice elsewhere.