On Wednesday, a Connecticut judge ruled that the state’s denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples does not violate the state constitution, because Connecticut’s civil unions law already provides all the rights and protections of marriage. The decision is here (it’s a PDF of a fax, but it’s the only copy I could find).
The plaintiffs made five arguments why civil unions are not good enough under the state constitution:
(1) marriage is a fundamental right,
(2) civil unions are a lesser status than marriage,
(3) civil unions are a form of “separate-but-equal” segregation,
(4) the term “civil union” lacks recognition and acceptance in common parlance, and
(5) civil unions are not recognized by other states.
Regarding these arguments, the judge found that
(1) it is the set of legal rights, not the traditional title of “marriage,” that is important, and “[n]ostalgia for past traditions ought not be an impediment to the current acknowledgment of basic civil rights”;
(2) there is nothing inherently insulting about the term “civil unions,” the term is “properly descriptive of the type of legal institution to which it applies,” and “offensiveness is largely in the eye of the beholder”;
(3) the “separate-but-equal” cases do not apply, because, unlike here, the separation in those cases was tangible and observable, and the “rhetorical separation of marriage vs. civil union” is not enough to invoke an equal protection or due process analysis;
(4) the fact that people may be ignorant of the civil-union law does not amount to a constitutional harm, and the plaintiffs would have to explain their status to people whether they were in a same-sex civil union or a same-sex marriage;
(5) while it’s true that other states don’t recognize civil unions, they don’t recognize same-sex marriage, either, and anyway, that’s the fault of those states, not the fault of Connecticut.
The parties are going to appeal.
As much as I hate to say it, a lot of that decision makes sense to me. However, regarding point 1, if the court is saying that civil unions and marriage are identical in all ways but “nostalgia” for terminology, couldn’t that argument also be used IN FAVOUR of marriage equality? What I mean is, if you have two terms that can be defined in the same way, are not those two terms synonyms? What’s to stop the state of CT from then saying “Well, here is the list of rights and responsibilities that we offer. Whether you call it ‘marriage’ or call it a ‘civil union’ is up to you. We do not care, nor do we differentiate or discriminate based on your personal choice of terminology.”
Those darn activist judges in New York. Connecticut. Nebraska. Tennessee. Arizona. Etc.
Yea, I kind of agree with the CT judge.
Calling it “marriage” is not a necessity for me, as long as I get the same rights and priveledges. Let the Church goers fight for their “marriage,” I’ll have a nice, cold, dry civil union, thank you!
The concept of Marriage carries far more weight in contemporary society than civil unions, domestic partnerships, or any other contract the state or its courts throw at our feet. Accept no imitations of marriage.
While a few courts in a few enlightned provinces might see fit to protect our (basic human) right to marry another, it’s the populaces of these states that matter. Any state can give us any right, like the ability to vote anonymously or trade on Sunday, but without the court of public opinion on our side then we’ve ultimately won nothing. Rights are born of community desire, not documents.
Any social class that wishes to truly and honestly realize its civil rights need to first win the hearts of their neighbors by means of reason (campaigning) and social struggle (e.g., Ghandi/MLK). The reasoning of a court means absolutely nothing, ultimately, if the people won’t enforce it or do not desire it.
If we’re going to rely upon the courts for our rights, then our community is building a house of cards of civil rights.
RealPolitik_America: American society’s civil rights are actually built upon mutual consent, and nothing more.
rob@egoz.org