|
Adoption News - 12 -
A Civil
Debate Over Civil Union
[
Gay Couples
sue over Okla. Adoption Law
] [
Children's Groups appeal overturning of Florida Gay Adoption Ban
]
[
Britain
Parliament Oks Gay Adoption
] [
Lesbian Couple from VT Prevail in Adoption Suit
] [
Out of the Shadows ]
[
ACLU
Dismayed by 11th Circuit Appeal Upholding Floridas Anti-Gay Adoption Law
] [
US Adoptions Get Easier ]
[
Supreme
Court Lets Stand Floridas Gay Adoption Ban
] [
Experts Dispute Bush on Gay Adoption Issue
]
[
Adoptees
Deserve Access to Family Health Histories
] [
Committee Defeats Bill to Ban Gays from Adoption
]
[
Civil
Debate Over Civil Union ]
[ Study
Says Foreign Children Adapt Well
] [
Custody After Civil Union Pits States and Judges
]
[
Birth
Mothers vs Egg Donor Decision Upheld
] [
Hello I'm Your Sister - Our Father is Donor 150
]
[
Lund Family
Center Capital Campaign Remarks
] [
Unwed Fathers Fight for Babies Placed for Adoption by Mothers
]
[
Adoption
Institute Supports Gay Parents
] [
Gays See Shift in Momentum Toward Acceptance in Alabama
]
[
Judge
Rejects Law on Gay Adoptions
] [
Perdue vs Mississippi ] [
Gay
Marriage Losing Punch as Ballot Issue
]
[
Gay Couple
Awaits Adoption Ruling from US Court
] [
China Tightens Adoption Rules, U.S. Agencies Say
]
[
A Taste of
US Family Life, But Adoption in Limbo
] [
Gay Couple Win Lawsuit Against Adoption Web Site in Arizona...
]
[
Significant
Victory for Same Sex Couples in Oklahoma
] [
Report Urges States To Open Adoptee Records for Adults
]
[
State Court
Recognizes Gay Marriage From Elsewhere
] [
Miami Judge Rules Against Florida Gay Adoption Ban
]
[
House
Passes Bill Restricting Birth Certificates For Adoptions By Unmarried Couples
]
A Civil
Debate Over Civil Union
Published: April 23, 2005 - The New York Times
One
of the amazing things about Connecticut's approval of a
law guaranteeing the rights of gay couples was the
almost placid way the political process worked. This is
a pioneering law - the first enacting civil union
voluntarily, without court pressure - yet it was adopted
with a minimum of political fireworks. There are healthy
lessons in this for the rest of the nation as this vital
human right progresses.
Connecticut's
legislators were obviously influenced by shifting public opinion
in favor of taking the historic step, but even more by the
gatherings across the state where gay couples invited
politicians and neighbors into their homes to experience their
domestic lives firsthand. This grass-roots lobbying by gay and
lesbian couples proved that their humanity was not to be denied,
even if the word "marriage" was denied to them as the final
compromise was passed by large, bipartisan margins and was
enthusiastically signed by Gov. Jodi Rell, a Republican.
The law firmly
extends to gay couples the same rights and protections
guaranteed to married heterosexuals, including tax and insurance
benefits, family leave, hospital visits and more. Its passage
was undoubtedly eased by an amendment that defines marriage as a
union between a man and a woman. But there's cause for optimism
that this obstacle may be removed, considering the state's
progressive path since the day, 40 years ago, when the courts
finally struck down a puritanical law that criminalized birth
control.
In the past 15
years, Connecticut has protected gays and lesbians under
hate-crime, employment and housing laws, and allowed unmarried
couples to raise adopted children. Just as civil union was the
next logical step, so may the term marriage be finally extended
someday.
Other states
are heading in a different direction. Fourteen have banned gay
marriage in the last year, with Kansas going further and
outlawing civil union. But Connecticut's new law and the
bolstering of gay unions in Vermont, Massachusetts and
California provide a response to the tendency of civil
libertarians to presume that lawmaking is transitory and less
reliable than a court decision. Critical as the courts are,
there's nothing more stirring than the sight of a legislature,
representing the will of the people, passing laws to protect the
rights of a vulnerable minority group.
Back to top
|