A reader tipped me to this article heralding the good news in Connecticut where, by a margin of 27-9, the Connecticut State Senate voted to recognize civil unons between same-sex couples. Six Republicans joined 21 Democrats in voting for the bill. Republican Governor M. Jodi Rell favors the concept of civil unions, but has not taken a stand on this particular legislation.

Yet, not everyone is happy. “Brian Brown, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, had maintained that most voters do not support civil unions or same-sex marriage, and he called the vote ‘a slap in the face of democracy.’”

Called the vote a slap in the face of democracy? Since when is a vote of elected legislators a slap in the face of democracy?

This guy seems to be mimicking the rhetoric of those reacting to court decisions mandating same-sex marriage. In Connecticut, however, it was a little different. You see, an elected legislator presented a bill to the legislature, all of whose members, were elected by people from the various districts of the Nutmeg State. They debated the bill. Some Senators spoke out in favor of the bill, others against. Both sides got to make their case. Afterwards, Senators voted on the bill, first in committee, then in the full Senate.

That’s not a slap in the face of democracy. That is democracy.
(more…)

Back in the late 1990s when I was involved in Log Cabin, I realized that other gay organizations were not our natural allies. While I agreed with the groups on a number of issues, I often found that their leaders had a knee-jerk reaction to most problems facing society. (Just as all to many had a knee-jerk reaction to the very word, “Republican.”) If there was something wrong, they felt that the government needed to step in, either with a regulation or a handout.

Most conservatives, however, believe that individuals and private institutions, whether business, civic or religious are better equipped to handle social (and other) problems. Indeed, many of us on the right fault the Bush Administration for not being aggressive enough in containing the growth of federal spending.

This weekend in New Orleans, it seems LCR has, at least on gay issues, signed on, to the liberal worldview. They used the same words to describe the struggle for “gay rights” as do the liberal gay groups: “equality” and “fairness.” Given that LCR calls its “educational think tank,” the Liberty Education Forum, one would think that they would add the terms “liberty” and “freedom” more often to the mix.

I’m all for fairness and equal opportunity, but am concerned whenever the government tries to enforce fairness and equality. I mean, I think this blog is a good as Andrew Sullivan’s, so it’s only fair that we should get an equal number of hits. But, for whatever reason, more people read his blog than read this one. If the government tried to make it “fair” to this blog, it would either have to force people to read this blog (which could be unfair to them) or limit the number who read Andrew’s blog (which would be unfair to those (over the quota) who wanted to read it).

That policy would necessarily limit the freedom of many individuals, forcing some to read this blog and blocking others from reading Andrew’s. Since the government should protect our freedom, it shouldn’t regulate blogging. So, I accept things as they are. Even if the blogosphere appears unfair and unequal, it remains free. As it should be.
(more…)

As Connecticut prepares to be the third state to recognize same-sex unions, The Hartford Courant ran an insightful piece on attitudes toward civil unions and same-sex marriage. This article confirmed something that I have long believed — that there are many people who oppose calling same-sex unions marriage, but who are clearly not anti-gay. Many opponents are supportive of gay issues, a healthy number even favor some form of state recognition of same-sex couples. But, as the title of the article indicates, they draw the line at gay marriage.

“Marriage and gay rights are two different issues,” says Bob Utley, a retired insurance industry employee from Burlington. Utley has a gay nephew and supports civil unions, which he believes would address most of the problems facing gay couples. “If they’re after legal rights, they can have those,” he says.

“But when you talk about changing the definition of marriage, it just raises a whole bunch of questions,” says Utley, who has been married for almost 40 years. “The term `marriage’ means `marriage between a man and a woman.’”

As I have said repeatedly on this blog (e.g., here, here and here), we need to understand why people like Utley oppose gay marriage. Voters in 18 states have voted to amend their state constitutions to preclude gay marriage. A host of other states are preparing similar initiatives for future ballots.

Reporter Daniela Altimari has done a good job of helping us understand the success of these initiatives. She has collected the thoughts of a number of Americans, many sympathetic to gay men and lesbians, who oppose gay marriage. Every gay leader, particularly those who advocate gay marriage should read her piece.
(more…)

According to 365gay.com, Texas State Representative David Swinford, a Republican from Dumas, chairman of the House State Affairs Committee in the Lone Star State, led the effort to strip a proposed amendment to the Texas Constitution precluding same-sex marriage of a clause that would bar civil unions and same sex benefits. “It just goes too far,” he said. Another Republican, Rep. Martha Wong of Houston, was “shocked” to see the provision barring civil unions. Wong “supports a ban on gay marriage.” The amendment’s author, also a Republican, Warren Chisum of Pampa, agreed to remove the new language, but would try to amend the bill when the full House debated it.

I still hope (but doubt) that this proposed amendment (even without the anti-civil unions clause) goes down to defeat, but, this shows that while some Republicans in the very “red” state of Texas, like many Republicans in the “blue” state of Connecticut, may balk at state recognition of same-sex marriage, they favor (or at least are not opposed to) civil unions.

With this in mind, I repeat a point I made yesterday, “the best strategy for now is to pursue civil unions in state legislatures.”

UPDATE: North Dallas Thirty has a more in-depth post on this very topic.