Civil Unions, Civil Discourse
Bad? Brilliant?
You can rate this post.
Register or login now and
tell us what you think.
Yesterday, Connecticut became the third state to grant same-sex relationships the same rights as heterosexual relationships. Excitingly, we were the first state to do so without a directive from the courts. The bill passed without much rancor through both chambers in Hartford, and Republican Gov. Jodi Rell signed it into law. There's still work to be done: the final version contained language added by the House that defined marriage as a union between a man and a woman. Nonetheless, today I am proud of my adopted home state, for once leading the nation in something other than poorest cities or highest per capita wealth.

Starting today, same-sex couples in Connecticut will enjoy the same rights to make medical decisions for each other, file taxes jointly, and raise their children together that straight couples have long enjoyed. But the outcome isn't the only part of this story that's important. The fact that the policy came out of the political branches and not the judiciary is a crucial part of the story. Already, it's clear that the arguments of opponents seem a lot weaker when positioned against a decision made by the people's representatives. They can't whine about "judicial activism," so they must instead react in a way that's far healthier for our democracy-- by promising to hold politicians accountable for their votes at the next election.

Amidst all the recent controversy about "moral" issues and judicial independence at the federal level, it's great to see the political branches of my state government pre-empting that whole, nasty debate here. I believe that our constitutional tradition of gender equality jurisprudence demands the recognition of marriage between any two consenting adults. But I also understand that judicial decisions aren't made in a vacuum, and that sometimes (remember Roe?) the articulation of a valid constitutional right can do more damage than good for a progressive cause. That's why I hope other states follow Hartford's lead and legislate civil union rights, so that the courts don't have to.

(And yes, I'm back, having handed in my senior essay just an hour ago. It may or may not have been about highly similar issues to those discussed in this post.)

Reader Comments

Comments are closed for this post.

  
Although in favor of Gay marriage...
By Dan420Beals Apr 22nd 2005 at 12:08 am EDT
I agree with the right for two men to marry, but
the right to raise a child? I think you are only
taking into account adult’s rights. A child
being raise by two men, or women, is unfair. For
one the child will lack a father or mother. Also,
the child’s life in school at a young age
would be horrible. The things other children will
say could lead the child into a world of mental
turmoil. Marriage is enough for now. Wait for
people to be more understanding before you drag
children into this mess.
Slippery slope
By billypilgrim782001 Apr 27th 2005 at 12:59 pm EDT
Your points are valid, but you're still starting down a slippery slope.

Ideally, a kid has a mother and a father. So if an unmarried woman gets pregnant, should she be required to put the baby up for adoption?

Kids with Down's Syndrome have a lot of trouble with their peers in school. Should they be required to go to separate schools?

What about black kids in mostly white schools?

Besides, most kids that are up for adoption are in less-than-ideal situations. Having loving, stable, same-sex parents would be better than jumping from foster home to foster home.
  
Campus Progress

Please remember that Campus Progress' terms of use do not allow promoting or endorsing any particular political party or candidate for office. Posts or comments that do this will be deleted.

Campus Progress