First published, in a slightly different form, October 25, 2005, in the Valley News (Vermont/New Hampshire).
Supporters and opponents of gay marriage have a new challenge on their hands. It's called Connecticut.
On Oct. 1, Connecticut became the third state in the nation (along with Vermont and Massachusetts) to offer gay and lesbian couples the same legal rights and responsibilities that states offer straight couples.
Connecticut is the first state to do so without a court order.
And the whole affair has drawn a big yawn.
On that historical Saturday, Connecticut state Rep. Michael Lawlor said, "(T)he big news...is UConn beat Army, not civil unions. The people of Connecticut are comfortable with this."
And that's a problem for same-sex marriage opponents and advocates alike.
For opponents, many realize that it is almost impossible to get political traction by resisting legal protections for gay couples. In Massachusetts, the only state where such protections go by the name "marriage," a majority of residents have made peace with the idea of gay men and lesbians getting hitched. There may yet be a statewide referendum on same-sex marriage, but that vote won't come until 2008, and most observers feel that it will be difficult to persuade voters to take marriage away from the more than 6,000 gay and lesbian couples who, as of this writing, have tied the knot since May 2004.
Meanwhile, in California-a state where over 20,000 gay couples in domestic partnerships have near-parity on a state level with straight couples-opponents of same-sex marriage are thanking Gov. Arnold Schwarzeneggar for vetoing a bill that would have legalized gay marriage. But on the same day of the veto, the governor signed four bills that extend the protections given to gay Californians, and he made clear that he would not support petition drives in his state to roll back the rights and responsibilities California law currently gives gay couples.
So Connecticut is more bad news for same-sex marriage opponents. The news is so bad, in fact, that the organizations that have railed against same-sex marriage in the past-Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council-have said next to nothing about Connecticut. The silence has been deafening.
Equally silent are the supporters of same-sex marriage. Neither of the two major gay advocacy organizations-the Human Rights Campaign and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force-issued a press release celebrating Connecticut's achievement. Because civil unions are not marriage in name, these organizations have kept mum on Connecticut.
But holdouts for the M-word have long overplayed their hand. Marriage is needed, they tell us, because: federal benefits are attached to marriage; states recognize other states' marriages; marriage has social esteem that civil unions do not have.
April 15 showed us all that just because Massachusetts calls a couple married, the IRS doesn't have to. The federal Defense of Marriage Act prevents the federal government from recognizing same-sex marriages, so gay leaders in Massachusetts encouraged couples to check the single box on their federal returns but to write in the margin "Married and proud in MA." So much for federal benefits.
Meanwhile, Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut's attorney general, wrote that "civil unions performed in other states are entitled to full faith and credit in Connecticut (but) out-of-state same-sex marriages have no legal force and effect here." A Vermont couple with a civil union suddenly has better legal footing in Connecticut than does a Massachusetts gay couple. So much for portability.
All that's left, then, is the social esteem argument, which, I admit, I've never understood. Recently I asked my neighbor, a justice of the peace, to recount for us the memorable weddings she has performed. Without missing a beat, she spoke of our ceremony. I scratch my head to imagine what, if anything, we would gain if the town clerk swapped our civil union license for a marriage license. Our family and friends see us as married, as do we.
Which makes Connecticut one more piece of bad news for same-sex marriage supporters. If gay Connecticut couples end up having moving ceremonies in churches and gardens, if they announce their unions in newspapers, if their friends and families see them as married, how will supporters of same-sex marriage win them over?
Perhaps Connecticut isn't even the biggest challenge. Great Britain is inaugurating civil partnerships, a legal category that, according to a Reuters story, gives gay couples "the same property and inheritance rights as married heterosexual couples and entitles them to the same pension, immigration and tax benefits." With as many as 4,500 couples estimated to sign up in the first year alone, opponents and supporters of gay marriage there and here have their work cut out for them: for opponents, how to turn back the tide that is bringing legal rights to gay couples; and supporters, how to convince the world that the only way to confer these rights is through marriage.