From
the AP:
The [Connecticut] legislature's Judiciary Committee approved a bill that would allow same-sex couples to enter into civil unions.... Gay rights advocates oppose civil unions, which give gay and lesbian couples the same rights as married heterosexual couples. Gay rights activists say civil unions would make same-sex couples second-class citizens in Connecticut.... If civil unions are approved, Connecticut would be the first state to voluntarily create such a system.
I don't think it's much of a stretch to think that if actual gay people were polled, instead of the activist vanguard, they'd favor having civil unions now as opposed to not having civil unions and maybe sometime in the future getting marriage.
Of course, getting civil unions legislatively would not only make it more likely that Connecticut gays would eventually get marriage, but send a strong signal to the nation that gays can advance through the democratic process, rather than relying on unpopular judicial fiats. And there would be little chance of legislative action engendering the kind of backlash that's followed judicial decrees in Hawaii and elsewhere, leading to marriage-banning constitutional amendments.
Meanwhile, the U.K. prepares for civil partnerships (which the press is referring to as "civil unions," the same term used for city hall marriages), and gay couples are starting to announce their upcoming unions in the Times of London. If it were New London, Connecticut, instead of London, England, gay activists would be protesting.
Interestingly, the Times of London annoucement states that
"After their civil union, Mr O'Connor and Dr Jones will have their
partnership blessed at an Anglican church." Just like Prince
Charles and Camilla!