|
Changing From Civil Union To Marriage (News Times)
Monday, March 30, 2009
By: Ken Dixon
HARTFORD -- The General Assembly's Judiciary Committee on Monday afternoon voted 30-10 to codify last October's landmark state Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage. If approved by the Senate, then the House and signed into law by the governor, the legislation would create a transition period for those
same-sex couples who joined together in civil unions.
Couples could either end those existing unions or automatically become
married under state law. The bill would also delete references in existing
state law to marriage being solely a relationship between a man and a women.
"This legislation is crafted with an eye toward conforming our state law to
the mandate of the Connecticut Supreme Court," Sen. Andrew J. McDonald,
D-Stamford, co-chairman of the committee, referring to the October 10
decision in Kerrigan & Mock v. the Connecticut Department of Health.
"It was emphatic, by the Supreme Court that denying marriage equality to
same-sex couples is unconstitutional in the state of Connecticut," McDonald
said. "Unfortunately many of our statutes still contain that language that
would offend the mandate of the Kerrigan court."
The legislation was approved after a three-hour committee debate over the
separation of church and state.
Attempts by Rep. Bruce V. Morris, D-Norwalk, to amend the bill to allow
religious organizations or affiliated groups, such as the Catholic-related
Knights of Columbus, the discretion to reject their facilities as locations
for same-sex marriages, were rejected by the committee's Democratic
majority.
But the committee unanimously approved a one-sentence amendment from Rep.
Arthur J. O'Neill, R-Southbury, the committee's ranking member that would
exempt churches from hosting marriage ceremonies in violation of their
religious beliefs.
O'Neill, in an interview after the committee meeting, said his idea for
editing Morris's amendment came to him during the debate. When he offered it
up, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle embraced it with relief.
"The amendment makes very clear that there's no possibility that you can
insist that a church or a related school controlled by a church, perform
your wedding," O'Neill said.
Anne Stanback, president of Love Makes a Family, the coalition of gay-rights
activists who won the landmark Kerrigan court case last fall, said same-sex
couples never wanted to force themselves on churches that would be
uncomfortable performing marriages.
"I thought it was a wonderful balance between respecting religious freedom
and respecting the decision in Kerrigan," Stanback said in an interview
after the vote. "In my opinion what that did was make everyone comfortable."
Existing state law allows religious leaders to avoid uniting gay couples in
marriage. The proposed law would extend that exemption to religious
organizations, including churches, mosques and synagogues.
McDonald, in an interview after the vote, praised O'Neill for coming up with
concise language to protect religious organizations, after Morris's bill was
too broadly crafted and criticized as potentially discriminatory against gay
families.
But Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of
Connecticut, said his organization will continue to oppose the legislation.
"We're not at all happy with what came out of the Judiciary Committee,"
Wolfgang said. "Essentially it's business as usual for the Judiciary
Committee." He said McDonald and his co-chairman, Rep. Michael P. Lawlor,
D-East Haven are continuing an "attack on religious liberty." He called the
amendment weak.
"It only goes to whether same-sex wedding ceremonies will be performed in
church structures or church-related associations," Wolfgang said. "What
about Knights of Columbus halls? What about receptions? What about employee
benefits for people who work for the Knights of Columbus or Catholic
charities if they don't want to validate same-sex marriages?" Wolfgang said
he supported Morris's proposal, which was defeated 20-16.
Morris said he didn't want religious organizations to be forced to host
marriage ceremonies of same-sex couples if it offends their religious
tenets. He said there would always be other location options for marriages
and wedding receptions.
But many committee members were concerned that it would give religious
groups broad discretion to discriminate against homosexuals in a variety of
activities, including daycare and scholarships.
Opposition to Morris's amendment was led by Rep. William Tong, D-Stamford.
"I share the proponent's deep concern about protecting religious liberty in
this state and country," Tong said.
"When we venture into making distinctions between one group or another,
we've got to do so very carefully," Tong said. "We're talking about the
Supreme Court of the state of Connecticut issuing a constitutional mandate."
|
|
|
