Connecticut and California Consider Same-Sex
Legislation
By Laura Kiritsy
While California Assemblyman Paul Koretz shelved a bill to offer civil
unions to same-sex couples in that state last week, closer to home,
Connecticut's state Legislature set the stage to consider legalizing either gay
marriage or civil unions for same-sex couples there. Though the developments in
Connecticut appear to be more promising than the fate of California's
legislation, Koretz said he is happy with how his bill moved the debate on
recognizing same-sex unions forward.
``We know that sometimes the most profound changes in our society have taken place over time," said Koretz, a West Hollywood Democrat, in a Jan. 14 statement announcing his withdrawal of the bill. ``I knew when I introduced this historic legislation that it would be a challenging, multi-year process for it to pass. We scored a huge victory this year. We put civil union on the map of California and began the dialogue. We opened many eyes to the need for full legal recognition of committed same sex couples," he said. Known as ``The Family Protection Act," Assembly Bill 1338--modeled on Vermont's civil union law--would have granted same-sex couples all of the rights, responsibilities, and protections offered to married heterosexuals under California state law.
While Koretz cited the need for further education as his reason for pulling the bill--he has pledged to re-file it, possibly in 2003--if he accomplished anything by filing AB1338 it was engaging the public in a debate about civil unions. According to Scott Svonkin, Koretz's chief of staff, when the assemblyman first introduced the bill in Jan. 2001, the legislature had little understanding of the concept of civil union, questioning why the law was necessary when the state already offers domestic partner benefits--under current state law gay couples who register as domestic partners receive about a dozen rights associated with heterosexual marriage. There was also debate over whether a civil union law would violate the voter-approved Proposition 22 passed in March 2000, which defined marriage in California as between a man and a woman only.
In response to such questions, Koretz, other lawmakers and a handful of gay and civil rights organizations such as Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, the ACLU, the National Center for Lesbian Rights and the California Alliance for Pride and Equality (CAPE), undertook a public education campaign that included Town Hall meetings in Oakland and San Diego. The Assembly Judiciary Committee also held two informational meetings to discuss the exact nature of the AB 1338. The meetings, Svonkin noted, ``were very balanced. Both sides had their say. They changed a lot of people's views in California," he added, by clarifying that ``civil unions are like marriage, but not identical." Unlike civil unions, which would apply only at the state level, marriage offers a host of federal rights and protections, Svonkin pointed out. The bill gained widespread attention from local media and even made its way into the current gubernatorial race--Richard Riordan, who's considered the leading Republican contender, told a gay political group in West Hollywood Jan. 9 that he is open to considering the possibility of such a law. ``For a leading Republican candidate for governor to have engaged in the debate is remarkable," Svonkin observed.
But the right wing has also been ``beating the drum" against AB 1338, Svonkin said, and ``two weeks ago we began seeing there was still work to be done." Far-right organizations such as Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council, and the California-based Capitol Resource Institute lobbied hard against the bill, declaring victory after Koretz announced its withdrawal. In a Jan. 15 statement, Family Research Council President Ken Connor called the development a ``victory for California families who sent a clear message two years ago that they want marriage to represent the union of one man and one woman," a reference to the passing of Proposition 22.
Svonkin dismissed the Right's claims that Koretz is trying to undo Proposition 22. ``That's the right-wing mantra," he stated. But Koretz's bill is ``not about marriage, it's about civil unions. [Koretz] can't give marriage to gay and lesbian Californians," said Svonkin, ``but he believes everyone should be protected."
Perhaps Connecticut is more prepared to offer full legal equality to gay couples--at least state Rep. Michael Lawlor hopes so. ``I think it's changing pretty quickly," said the East Haven Democrat, who co-chairs the legislature's Judiciary Committee, of the legislature's attitude toward the issue. Lawlor noted the discussion began last March when his committee held a public hearing on gay marriage--attended by no less than 300 concerned citizens--during which it heard six hours of testimony on both sides of the issue. ``There was a pretty interesting discussion at the hearings last year. The general consensus [among lawmakers] was it's appropriate to do something," said Lawlor, though he added, ``there still continues to be a lot of resistance to the marriage topic." Civil unions, he said, would be difficult to pass, but more ``doable."
``It's a new issue for legislators," agreed Anne Stanback, president of Love Makes a Family, a coalition of Connecticut gay organizations working for same-sex marriage rights. ``There are a lot of them who are struggling with it. ...Many of them are really beginning to think about the issue in a whole new way," which Stanback attributes to the success of last year's hearing.
They may be thinking about it a whole lot more during the upcoming legislative session--the Judiciary Committee Jan. 18 voted to allow for consideration two bills addressing same-sex unions. One would legalize gay marriage. The other would be more akin to the Vermont civil unions law. While Lawlor, who worked to pass the state's gay-friendly second parent adoption law in 2000, expressed more hope for civil union legislation, he believes the legislature can no longer ignore the ``thousands and thousands" of same-sex Connecticut families counted in the recent census--there were more than 7, 0000--which he believes is just the tip of the iceberg. ``We can either prohibit same-sex couples from having rights, or ignore [same-sex families]--as some would rather do," said Lawlor. ``The only other option I can think of is you start dealing with it."
Certainly, there is opposition to the idea of gay marriage or civil unions in Connecticut--Judiciary Committee members Rep. Wade Hyslop, D-New London, and Sen. John Kissel, R-Enfield told the New Britain Herald they oppose the bills. According to Stanback, ``The opposition is primarily religious. But I would quickly add that many of our allies are also religious people. ...The Catholic Church is an obvious group that has been publicly lobbying against [same-sex marriage]. We expect them to do it this year." The church most recently weighed in on the issue of gay marriage legislation in the Hartford Courant: ``Laws are created to protect the common good, not to confer legal recognition on those who seek it," said Marie T. Hilliard, executive director of the Connecticut Catholic Conference.
Both Stanback and Lawlor also said that they expect ``defense of marriage" legislation may also be put forth in response to their efforts, most likely in the form of an amendment attached to either of the pro-gay bills.
Laura Kiritsy is a staff writer at Bay Windows. Her e-mail
address is
Comments, criticism or praise regarding this article or
writer -- or just about any other subject of interest to the lesbian and gay
community -- are always welcome. Send comments for publication to