CT bill would update law for same-sex
Find a Conversation
| Fri, 03-06-2009 - 9:26pm |
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110ap_xgr_gay_marriage_connecticut.html
By STEPHANIE REITZ
ASSOCIATED PRESS WRITER

RETRANSMISSION of a graphic that moved Nov. 5, 2008; graphic shows same-sex relationship laws by states
HARTFORD, Conn. -- As Connecticut lawmakers consider updating state law to conform with a court ruling that allows same-sex marriages, opponents of gay marriage fear their effort will go too far to promote homosexuality.
The legislators' work is spurred by last year's state Supreme Court decision that concluded same-sex couples have the right to wed in Connecticut. The state's 2005 civil union law doesn't give same-sex couples equal status of married heterosexual couples, the court said.
The General Assembly's judiciary committee is considering a bill to remove gender references in current state laws and transform same-sex civil unions into legally recognized marriages as of October 2010. The bill was the subject of a committee hearing Friday.
The measure also would strip language from a 1991 state anti-discrimination law that says Connecticut does not condone gay marriage and will not set quotas for hiring gay workers or encourage teaching in school about same-sex lifestyles. Some lawmakers consider the language outdated and unnecessary.
The Family Institute of Connecticut, which calls the court ruling undemocratic, said on its Web site that changing the 1991 law "goes beyond mere legislative housekeeping."
Peter Wolfgang, the organization's executive director, told the committee the proposed changes could be interpreted by "some enterprising judge" or others as encouragement to teach about homosexual lifestyles in schools. (me: 'homosexual lifestyles'...still haven't figured that one out...seems to me that all my gay/lesbian friends eat, sleep, work, pay bills, go on vacations, etc., just the same way I do...)
Waterbury resident Robert Muckle Sr. told lawmakers he worries about the effect on children if same-sex relationships are condoned or encouraged by educators.
"Things are bad enough in our schools with the teaching of comprehensive sex education without the added promotion of homosexuality and bisexuality," he said.
Some church and conservative group leaders also want lawmakers to let Connecticut justices of the peace and anyone else with religious objections -such as wedding photographers or florists - refuse to participate in same-sex ceremonies. (me: Same lame arguement. They already have the right to refuse. And I seriously doubt that anyone would bother suing them. IMHO, they'd just take their business elsewhere. The only ones who might have an issue are the Justices of the Peace because they are licensed by the state & I think that in most states are considered state officials, so they can't discriminate.)





FYI, our Constitution says diddly squat about marriage.
"Those opposed to gay marriage began to urge that an amendment to the Constitution be created to define marriage as being between a man and a woman only. Opponents of the amendment pointed to the failed Prohibition Amendment as a reason why such social issues should stay out of the Constitution. In the absence of any such amendment, however, marriage is not mentioned in the Constitution at any point"
http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#marr
Jabberwocka
Catholics Argue For Right To Refuse Goods, Services
Article at.........
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-gaymarriage0307.artmar07,0,1928509,print.story
No one is arguing that a Catholic priest should have to perform a gay marriage.
But the church says that doesn't go far enough.
The Connecticut Catholic Conference is asking lawmakers to expand the category of those who don't have to comply with the state's new same-sex marriage law if their religion holds that such unions are wrong.
People such as florists, wedding photographers and justices of the peace.
"Same-sex couples have their liberties protected fully. Religious people are wondering, 'How is this going to affect me?'" said David Reynolds, lobbyist for the Catholic Church.
Reynolds raised his concerns Friday as the legislature's judiciary committee considered a bill to ensure that existing statutes comport with the landmark state Supreme Court ruling legalizing same-sex marriage.
"A situation has been created ... where state policy seriously conflicts with the religious beliefs of a large number of the citizens of the state," Reynolds said. He cited examples in other states where businesspeople have faced legal action because they declined, on religious grounds, to provide goods or services to same-sex couples.
The judiciary committee hearing is likely the final chance opponents will have to put up obstacles to gay marriage. But several lawmakers oppose extending the religious exemption. Sen. John Kissel is Catholic and has long shared his church's opposition to gay marriage.
"I've been with you guys all along," said Kissel, a Republican from Enfield. But, "we're at a fork in the road and I have to let go of your hand."
A law preventing a Catholic caterer from serving guests at a same-sex marriage could also be used by a Protestant baker who doesn't want to sell a cake to a Catholic father for his son's first communion, Kissel said. "It could just as easily turn against each and every Catholic in the state of Connecticut."
Rep. Beth Bye, D- West Hartford, stopped by to publicly thank the committee. She brought a framed copy of her marriage license; Bye and her wife, Tracey Wilson, were the first gay couple to marry in Connecticut.
Anne Stanback, executive director of Love Makes a Family, also thanked lawmakers; they are, she said, poised to close the "final chapter on the effort to end legal discrimination based on sexual orientation."
At one point, committee co-Chairman Rep. Michael Lawlor congratulated Stanback on her wedding — she and longtime partner Charlotte Kinlock recently eloped — and the audience burst into applause.
"Marriage equality is the law in Connecticut and this bill won't make it any more legal," Stanback said. But in addition to making sure that the statutes line up with the court's decision, the bill would eliminate language in the state's 1991 gay rights act that many gays and lesbians consider archaic and demeaning.
That language states that the state does not condone homosexuality and does not require teaching it as an "acceptable lifestyle."
Said Stanback: "That language was insulting to many of us when it was added 18 years ago and today it is simply unacceptable. ... Words matter, and the only thing words ... do is demean gay people and our families."
More see link above.
And what part of the Constitution would that be?