a public defender

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

The House has just defeated an amendment to exempt religious businesses and employers (as defined by the Federal Code) from the civil unions bill by a 92-56 vote.

The debate on the civil unions bill [bill text] is ongoing right now in the House and a vote is expected later this evening. However, in some surprising (to me) news, an amendment defining marriage was added to the bill and passed in the House by a vote of 80-67. This is the same amendment that was the cause of AG Blumenthal’s letter to Gov. Rell regarding whether this bill would expand the definition of marriage. Now that this amendment has been added to the bill, Gov. Rell is not expected to oppose the passing of the bill itself.

I’m really surprised that this amendment passed and I don’t think it will hold up under Constitutional scrutiny. The California court considered the same issue recently and held that California’s [anti] same-sex law was in violation of the Equal Protection clause. I still haven’t changed my stance that this is not an issue worth debating, yet, given the extensive coverage and the attendance at the public hearings, it is obvious that it is a hot topic issue to many, many people.

Live streaming video of the House debate is available on the web, from CT-N’s website. Click on "Live Stream-1". It certainly is a debate worth watching, if for nothing else but a sociological perspective.

Gov. Rell anounced Tuesday that she will sign a civil union bill only if it includes language that marriage is between a man and a woman only.

“If the attorney general in any way equivocates, is unclear or indicates that the bill would allow gay marriage, then I will ask the House to pass an amendment specifically prohibiting gay marriage and defining marriage as solely between one man and one woman,” Rell said. “Such an amendment will be required in order for me to sign the bill.”

As the House debates the civil union bill today, the question will become whether to include that amendment in the bill. The Senate resoundingly said no, in a lopsided 3 to 1 vote last week.

“To many people, the label is important,” [House Minority Leader] Ward said. “It’s important to me.”

Ward said the amendment would not deny any rights to same-sex couples, but it would assure some legislators and their constituents that Connecticut retains a traditional definition of marriage as it offers recognition of gay couples.

Attorney General Blumenthal provided a legal opinion to Gov. Rell before she made her announcement. The opinion says that same-sex marriages are prohibited under CT law. It would be interesting to see if that opinion also included an analysis of equal protection law and whether including such an amendment would violate equal protection. I think it does and such an amendment wouldn’t last very long. The vote is today, so stay tuned.

The Senate has approved the civil union bill by a vote of 27-9 today. There is no timetable for a vote in House yet, but expect it to happen by early next week. The bill is expected to pass in the House, thereby making CT the first state in the country to pass legislation on the issue without court intervention. Massachusetts has same-sex marriage legislation and Vermont has civil unions.

CT’s civil union bill is up for debate and possibly a vote today. The Hartford Courant has a long, long piece today about various people’s views on same-sex marriage and civil union.

I still don’t see what all the damn fuss is about. If you’re not gay, or are not at reasonable risk of "becoming" gay, then you have no business in this bill. How is a gay couple marrying or being joined in a civil union going to affect your own marriage? It simply is not. Why, then, is a significant portion of the state’s population and an even larger percentage of the national population against this? Seriously, I’m asking - leave comments.

I thought the country had settled on the notion of "equality for all", especially after the civil rights movement.

Additionally, this is going to be a busy week in the legal world. On top of the civil union bill (updates of which I will try to provide - work permitting), there is the Michael Ross competency hearing, slated for tomorrow and friday. There will be heavy posting on that.

Finally, from one captain to another - this is how we do it.

The Finance Committee today approved the Civil Unions bill [text] and it has now moved over to the Senate for debate and a vote. S. B. 963 could be scheduled for debate on the floor as early as next week.

The bill itself seems pretty straightforward and given the overwhelming support for it in the various committees, it seems that there is a strong chance that this bill will be enacted into law. If this does happen, Connecticut would be the second state in the country authorizing civil unions.

The one thing to keep any eye out for is Gov. Rell’s position on this bill.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell has endorsed the concept of civil unions, though she said last week she would like the bill amended to define marriage as between a man and a woman. Rell has not said failure to adopt such an amendment would provoke a veto.

Realistically, I don’t think she will insist too much on having that provision as part of the bill. Not only is there a large amount of support for this bill, but there is also some support for a same-sex marriage bill.

WaPo reports that a trial judge in California has ruled that a statute banning same-sex marriages is unconstitutional. [registration required]. The judge compared " it to archaic laws that once blocked interracial marriage and promoted ’separate but equal’ segregation." When this case makes it’s way to the California Supreme Court - and it will - CA might become the second state in the country to legally require same-sex marriages (MA being the first).

The issue is

whether Family Code section 300, which provides that a marriage in this state is a union between a man and a woman, and Family Code section 308.5, which provides that only a marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California, violate California’s Constitution.

The judge ruled that the cases could be decided based on the equal protection argument. The court applies strict scrutiny to the issue and concludes that there is no legitimate governmental interest. Despite that, the Court engages in an analysis of the statutes under both the rational basis test and the strict scrutiny test. The Court writes:

Further, this court concludes that under either the rational basis test or the strict scrutiny test, Family Code sections 300 and 308.5 fail to meet constitutional muster. Accordingly, in the interest of a full analysis of the issues, each test will be applied.

The state raises two rational legitimate purposes:

1. Opposite sex marriage is so deeply rooted in the state’s culture and history that the courts should not redefine it to what it has never been.

2. It’s tradition and California has provided a remedy: virtually all the protections of a man/woman marriage and yet protecting the definition of marriage.

The court dismisses both. The court explains

In this context, the existence of marriage-like rights without marriage actually cuts against the existence of a rational government interest for denying marriage to same-sex couples…. [these rights belie] any argument that the State would have a legitimate interest in denying marriage in order to preclude same-sex couples from acquiring some marital right that might somehow be inappropriate for them to have.

The idea that marriage-like rights without marriage is adequate smacks of a concept long rejected by the courts: separate but equal.

The court then moves on to strict scrutiny. The state argues that there is no suspect classification and no discrimination because the sections apply  equally to both genders and thus neither gender is segregated for discriminatory treatment. (Ed note: Hah!). The court likens these arguments to those in cases dealing with anti-miscegenation laws. The court relies on Perez v. Sharp, 32 Cal 2d. 711 and Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1. (we reject the notion that the mere ‘equal application’ of a statute containing racial classifications is enough to remove the classifications from the Fourteenth Amendment’s proscription of all individual racial discriminations….")

In addition, the court finds that the Family Code sections violate a fundamental right: the right to marry. Thus,  the court applies strict scrutiny:

In its rational basis analysis, this court has determined that the State’s two rationales do not constitute a legitimate governmental interest… It is axiomatic that such rationales could not therefore constitute a compelling state interest.

The court finally acknowledges that other states have considered this issue under a due process analysis and an analysis of the state interest in procreation.

The full decision can be read here. [pdf required]

In what might be a smart move, Senate Minority Leader Louis DeLuca (R) is proposing a referendum on same-sex marriage in the state. The judiciary committee has already voted favorably on a civil unions bill.

As I’ve already state on numerous ocassions, I have no problems with civil unions and/or same-sex marriages. It does not affect my life in any way and therefore I have no stake/say in it.

If CT does indeed enact a civil union or same-sex marriage bill, it will be only the second state in the country to do so. Then I will have one more reason to stay here. Call me a liberal.

The CT legislature’s judiciary committee is  holding a hearing on recognizing civil unions for same-sex couples today. Besides the obvious conservative opponents, there will also be opposition from a surprising group: the gay rights establishment. They say they are opposed to civil unions because they will settle for nothing less than same-sex marriage legislation.

For the past year or so, I have been dumbfounded by this particular debate. I see this as the weakest of the ‘hot-topic’ issues in our society today (others being the death penalty, abortion, social security). I do not understand what the hubbub is all about. Two men or two women marrying affects my life as much as Paris Hilton’s dog marrying Nicole Ritchie’s parrot.

I’m straight. Looking at gay men getting married isn’t going to make me not want to marry. It isn’t going to make me turn gay, much less want to marry a gay man. It simply does not affect my life. Opponents argue that marriage is defined as ‘between a man and a woman’.

Sure it is. But the question is by whom is it so defined? The meaning attributed to words can change over the course of time, with changing social mores. Undoubtedly, society’s perception of homosexuality is changing. I don’t even see it as a debate about marriage. I see it as a debate about the freedom of choice. If they choose to marry their loved one, who am I to say otherwise?

If you want to paint it as a religious no-no, then the argument against same-sex opponents becomes stronger. One of the great pillars of this society is the freedom of religion. If your religion prohibits you from "being" gay, then don’t be! That belief should in no manner be imposed onto someone who doesn’t subscribe to it.

As Jon Stewart put it, if you see a man having sex with a pinata, will that make you want to have sex with a pinata too? No. So why is homosexuality any different? I ask any and every one of you: How does same-sex marriage affect your individual life? I venture to say that the answer for all is the same (unless you’re gay): It doesn’t.

It’s a non-issue.