Pro-Family Activist Urges Bi-Partisan Opposition to Conn. Civil Unions
by Allie Martin and Jenni Parker
May 2, 2005
(AgapePress) - The director of a Connecticut pro-family organization says the recent decision by lawmakers in that state to approve civil unions proves that party affiliation makes no difference when it comes to the marriage debate.
Last month, Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell, a Republican, signed a same-sex civil unions bill into law, making her state the second in the nation to legalize civil unions, and the first one to do so without a court mandate. Under the new legislation, homosexual couples will be able to take part in state-sanctioned unions that will give them most of the legal benefits of marriage. (See earlier story)
Brian Brown, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, believes the vote on civil unions in the state proves the need for a new political force in Connecticut -- a force that is not tied to party labels. An encouraging note about the State Legislature's recent action, he says, is that many Democrats voted against the civil unions legislation.
But on the other hand, Brown points out, many Republicans voted for the measure. Those GOP members who did so are not pro-family, he asserts, "and we're going to go after Jodi Rell just as much as we're going to go after some of the Democrats who supported this. Everyone who voted for this made a serious blunder and error."
The pro-family spokesman feels the approval of the civil unions bill demonstrates the need to forge new pro-family alliances that cross traditional boundary lines. "I think we need to stand together in unity -- people of all political persuasions," he says, "regardless of their denomination or their background. We have to be unified in opposing this legislation."
Brown says the Family Institute of Connecticut is working hard to build that sort of unity. "I think what we need is a new political dynamic in this state," he notes. "We're working hand in hand with the Hispanic community, which has historically voted Democratic, to get some good Democrats to primary -- [particularly] those that voted for this legislation; [and we're working] also in the African American community."
State of the (Civil) Union -- Same-Sex 'Marriage' Around the U.S.
While Connecticut has now joined Vermont as the only U.S. states that sanction marriage-like civil unions, California has a comprehensive domestic partners law on the books, which extends to "registered domestic partners" virtually all of the rights and responsibilities of marriage. But even since that law passed in 2003, pro-homosexual activists in California have continued to push for full-blown same-sex marriage rights.
On April 20, 2004, the Assembly Judiciary Committee of the California legislature approved AB 1967, legalizing same-sex marriage; however, the bill failed to pass the full Assembly. And in September 2004, lawsuits challenging California's heterosexual marriage laws were combined in a proceeding before San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer. In a March 14, 2005, decision, the judge found that California's same-sex marriage ban violated the state constitution.
Kramer ruled that California's same-sex marriage ban violated the "basic human right to marry a person of one's choice," and that "No rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners." That ruling has to be affirmed in the appellate process before it can be implemented. The California Supreme Court's final ruling on the matter is expected sometime in 2006.
And in Massachusetts, where homosexual marriage was legalized a year ago at the behest of the state's Supreme Judicial Court, some 5,000 same-sex ceremonies have taken place, even as pro-family forces were mobilizing to oppose the measure and reverse its effects. The highest court in the state will hear a bid today (May 2) to halt further same-sex marriages until the voters can weigh in on the controversy. According to Associated Press reports, a lawsuit filed by executive director C.J. Doyle of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts contends that these marriages interfere with voters' right to participate in the debate on a proposed ban of same-sex marriages in the state's constitution.
In March 2004, the Massachusetts Legislature approved a constitutional amendment that would prohibit same-sex marriage. However, Bay State lawmakers must approve the measure a second time, either this year or next, before it can be placed on the November 2006 ballot for a statewide vote.
