In a comment, reader Pat Trick, alerted me to this article in the Hartford Courant which noted that only about 3,000 opponents of the state’s civil union law showed up at a protest of this groundbreaking legislation.
This a pretty pathetic turnout, especially since many of those there were bused in from out of state. Pat Trick also observed a number of cars parked near the rally with out-of-state license plates.
This limited opposition seems to be a sign that a broad consensus of the citizens of the Nutmeg State are comfortable with the actions’ of their state’s legislature. And a sign perhaps that the Connecticut legislation may be a model for other states. It may not be a perfect, but it’s one huge step on the right direction.

A few weeks ago, a blog (which one it was I can’t now remember) linked Jane Galt’s really long post about gay marriage. I started reading it online and thought she raised some valid points, so, being busy, decided to print the whole thing out so I could give it the attention it deserves.
I finally got to it on Wednesday and had hoped to blog on it this week, but, well, Connecticut’s Republican governor signed her state’s civil unions bill–and knew I needed to get to that first.
Anyway, I found Ms. Galt’s post most engaging. I underlined select passages and scribbled notes in the margins. If I wasn’t so lacking in energy today (probably due to lack of sleep from staying up late to blog on the Pentheus and Nutmeg State then waking early the following day to research same-sex initiation rituals in Melanesia).
As I’ve been a bit slow in blogging, I recommend Ms. Galt’s post, quite possibly the best piece which “probably falls,” as its author puts it, “on the side of supporting the anti-gay-marriage forces,” thus, a must read for serious advocates of gay marriage.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

Back when I was first struggling with my feelings for men, I wanted to find a friend who, to paraphrase the great George Eliot, could “be all to me.” As I opened up a little to gay classmates in college, some dismissed my notion of an enduring romantic relationship as an “idealized fantasy.” Others called it a “media image.” They told me that sex was great and I should just come out and have fun.
In the 1980s, most gay people (or so it then seemed to me) didn’t talk about relationships. Many activists saw the notion of a monogamous gay couple as a strained imitation of a patriarchal pattern. Gays were going to break free of societal constraints on sexual expression. Everyone seemed to agree with André Gide‘s statement: “Families, I hate you.” I couldn’t belong to this world. I stayed “in the closet.”
It wasn’t just the gay culture that which frowned upon couples. Few social (or political) institutions recognized our unions.
And this barely two decades ago.
When we look at Connecticut’s recognition of same-sex civil unions in this context, we see how huge it is. Yes, many municipalities, universities and private employers, including 200 Fortune 500 companies, offer domestic partnership benefits. Yes, many religious denominations celebrate gay unions, with Reform Judaism recognizing gay marriage.
But, until yesterday, no elected state legislature, without having been forced by the courts, passed a bill recognizing same-sex civil unions. When the state’s democratically elected Republican governor (albeit elected Lieutenant Governor, but who assumed her current position in accordance with the state Constitution when her predecessor resigned) signed the legislation, the bill became law. Now, the whole nation is watching.
Alas, that so many gay organizations have focused on getting gay marriage through the courts, even as an overwhelmingly majority of Americans oppose calling same-sex unions marriage. They thus don’t fully recognize the significance of an elected legislature recognizing gay couples. As of this writing, there is nothing on the web-site or HRC or NGLTF to acknowledge what happened yesterday in Connecticut.
[Read more…]

The one day when I don’t check the news regularly comes the biggest positive news for gay men and lesbians in a long time. This afternoon, Connecticut’s Republican governor, M. Jodi Rell “signed into law a bill that will afford same-sex couples in Connecticut many of the rights and privileges of married couples.”
This is huge. This good Republican is the first Governor in U.S. History to sign such a bill — without being forced to by the courts. Log Cabin President Patrick Guerriero was quick to praise Governor Rell. On this one at least, LCR and this blog are on the same page.
I will have much to say about this, hopefully as soon as this evening. I cannot underestimate the significance of this move. Let me repeat. This is huge, bigger than many of us realize or many of our leaders acknowledge. I’m glad to see that LCR noted in the sub-head to its press release that this legislation is historic. Their use of that word suggests that LCR understands its significance.
And it’s that significance that I will address anon, but first I must dine with a reader of this blog currently visiting LA.
I expect this blog to do something to help further this good Governor’s reelection.
Way to go, Nutmeg State!!!
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com
UPDATE; As of 7 PM PST (10 PM GayPatriot blog time), I have scoured conservative blogs (as many as I could in the short time I have) and only PoliPundit has taken note of this significant move. And neither HRC or NGLTF has issued a release on the good news from the Nutmeg State.

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.
[Read 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.
[Read 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.

Like most gay people, I am saddened, but not surprised, by yesterday’s vote in Kansas to add the definition of marriage (as one man to one woman) to the state’s constitution. I am especially troubled by the sweeping nature of the provision. Not only does it define marriage, but it also prohibits the state from authorizing civil unions. The measure passed with 70 percent of Kansans in favor. All but one county, Douglas, voted for the proposition.
Kansas is now the 18th state to amend its constitution to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Voters in every state who have had the chance to vote on the issue, have approved, in many cases by margins of more than two-to-one, measures which so define marriage.
The people of Kansas have spoken. I wish they had voted differently than they had. But, now that the results are in, we must recognize their reality. Our task now is not to condemn the Kansas vote as HRC and NGLTF have done, but to figure out what it means.
[Read more…]

A three-judge appellate panel in my adopted home state upheld the Golden State’s domestic partnership legislation, finding that the act establishing such partnerships “did not constitute an amendment of the defense of marriage initiative.” According to the court, that initiative, passed overwhelmingly by California voters in March 2000, “intended only to limit the status of marriage to heterosexual couples and to prevent the recognition in California of homosexual marriages.” The initiative, however, didn’t “repeal our state’s then-existing domestic-partners law” nor did it prevent the legislature from enacting future domestic partnership legislation.
This California court got it right. The Campaign for California Families and the late state Senator Pete Knight, had sued, claiming that the Golden States’s domestic-partnership bill violated the 2000 initiative. The court, however, noted that “the Legislature has not created a ‘marriage’ by another name or granted domestic partners a status equivalent to married spouses.”
Randy Thomasson of the Campaign for California Families is upset by the ruling, yet feels it “gives impetus to the push for a constitutional amendment to protect marriage from the clutches of judges and politicians.” Thomasson also said “if it’s not a man and a woman, it’s not marriage.” That’s one reason the court got it right. The legislature didn’t call domestic partnerships marriages. The court noted that our elected legislators granted different privileges to each institution and defined different processes for entering into and ending each relationship.
[Read more…]

As Kansas voters prepare to decide tomorrow “whether to become the 18th state to add a ban to the state constitution, a new CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll shows that 68 percent of respondents did not think “same-sex ‘marriages’ should be recognized by the law as valid and come with the same rights as traditional marriages.” Only 28 percent favored same-sex marriages while 4 percent had no opinion.
This represents an increase from 55 percent opposing same-sex marriage one year ago. This poll also showed an increase in support of a constitutional amendment defining marriage, up to 57 percent from 48 percent a year ago. According to this poll, 37 percent remain opposed to such an amendment.
I have to say that I’m a little shocked by these numbers and note this poll’s relatively small sample size (fewer than 500 adults). (To those knowledgeable of polling methodology, do pollsters often use samples this small when surveying Americans’ opinions on issues?) If other polls show a similar growth in the opposition to state recognition of gay marriage, that will only prove the point that this blog has made in the past — advocates of such change must adopt new strategies if they wish to win popular support.
[Read more…]

As I was tidying my desk last night, I came across an old note I had scribbled on the back on an envelope. The envelope was postmarked February 14, so I must have written the note just over a month ago. In the note, I had observed that, in the wake of the 2004 elections, like John Kerry, gay leaders claim that if only they had changed their message, they would have gotten a more positive response in the “red” states. I realized that this was one of those notes which was as valid today as it was when I first scribbled it.
I had wondered then — as I do now — whether or not the language of the advocates of gay marriage had changed at all in the wake of the 13 state referenda (11 in November, 2 earlier in the year) in 2004 defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, thus precluding gay marriage.
Just as I don’t think that John Kerry would have won last year had he had a “better message,” I don’t think that changing the message will be enough to defeat proposals in a growing number of states to amend their constitutions to preclude same-sex marriage. It’s not just semantics which cause many Americans to oppose gay marriages.
That said, advocates of gay marriage must do as Jonathan Rauch has done in the first chapter of his book, Gay Marriage : Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America and talk about what marriage is for. But, we also need to understand why, in the wake of growing tolerance for gay and lesbian citizens and growing support for civil unions, over 60% of Americans oppose gay marriage. (At the same time, most polls seem to show that a plurality of Americans oppose amending the federal constitution to define marriage.)
Instead of casually dismissing the arguments of social conservatives, gay marriage advocates need to take them seriously, understand that many see their arguments as scripturally based, some going to the very first chapter of the Bible where we read that “God created man in His image, in the image of God He created him; male and female” (Genesis 1:27). That is, they see marriage as a union of two people from different genders, not merely as a lifelong partnership between two loving individuals who have committed to the mutual welfare of each other.
Those who want to change the message have made a valid point. We do need to change the message. As I have said before (e.g., here and here, instead of using the terms “rights” and “equality” when talking about marriage, we need to talk about the issue as most Americans do, using such words as “values,” “commitment” and “responsibility.” But, we also have to consider the arguments of those who are making a scriptural case against gay marriage.
In short, we need to take seriously their religious arguments, to understand how they define their faith — and how they see it as essential to the survival of a free and civil society.
-Dan (AKA GayPatriotWest): GayPatriotWest@aol.com

Since GP regular Frank IBC has repeatedly joked about the courts eventually allowing “sheep marriage”, I thought it was only appropriate to post this interesting article (hat tip: BoiFromTroy)
Football player caught with stolen sheep – Boston.com

The 200-pound ram lives at the university’s Sheep Center, and is part of a study on homosexuality in sheep, said Sheep Center manager Tom Nichols.
“At this point they’re just going to deal with it internally,” Fenk said. “I don’t know if it’s going to affect spring practice.”

Uh, I’m pretty confident his teammates will at least “deal with it” internally. Heh.

In a previous piece, I wrote that, “when state courts define marriage as gay activists want it defined, citizens of the various states and their elected representatives respond by . . . . codifying the traditional definition of marriage.” Yet, one gay scholar has decided that San Francisco Superior Court Judge Richard A. Kramer who held the California’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional was merely “following the political branches of state and local government, not leading them.”
To come to such a conclusion, this scholar, law professor William B. Rubenstein, defines state laws on marriage not as the legislature passed them, but as he wants the legislature to have passed them. To be sure (as Mr. Rubenstein notes), the California legislature has granted a number of privileges to same-sex unions. And I commend our legislators for that. But, despite Mr. Rubenstein’s wishes, our elected representatives never defined those unions as marriage.
Mr. Rubenstein suggests that the apparent views of a majority of the state legislature are more important than the actual votes of the people:

It is true that Judge Kramer declared a ballot initiative enacted by the state’s voters unconstitutional. But that ballot initiative was not supported by voters in the Bay Area, and it does not appear to align with the views of a majority of the Legislature in Sacramento.

The state legislature never voted for gay marriage. But, it appears to Mr. Rubenstein that they want it. (Especially since voters in the most liberal region in the state opposed a state initiative precluding gay marriage.) Finding an appearance of non-alignment between the views of the state legislature and the views of a majority of the state’s citizens (in an actual election), Rubenstein thus justifies Judge Kramer’s decision (overturning the initiative passed by that majority). (Kind of sounds like those Democrats who believe John Kerry beat the president because the exit polls said he did.)
[Read more…]

Although I’m in the middle of three days of intense classes in Mythological Studies, because of my blog-league’s nudge, I burn the midnight oil to weigh in on San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer’s ruling that the Golden State’s ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. Since reading the article on the web (when returning to my hotel room from classes), I have had the chance to scan a number of press releases and read a number of posts (from gay bloggers) on the topic. All seem to be reveling in the decision.
Well, I would rather be the bearer of good news. But, I believe that this joy is misplaced. This is the decision of one judge who sits in perhaps the most liberal big city in the United States. Although he was appointed by a Republican Governor, from what little I have read about him, he does not sound like a conservative jurist.
The case will likely be overturned on appeal. And if it’s not appealed, opponents of gay marriage will certainly be able to gather enough signatures to put an amendment on the California ballot to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Five years ago this month, Californians overwhelmingly voted to so define gay marriage, but the provision they passed was not a state constitutional amendment.
So far, not one state legislature has passed a law extending the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. Nor have voters in any state approved such a definition of marriage. Indeed, in every state where they’ve had the chance to vote on provisions limiting the definition of marriage to the union of one man and one woman, they have passed such provisions overwhelmingly. Even in such “blue” states as Oregon, California and Michigan.
[Read more…]

Just picking this up now after a long day of work away from the ‘puter.
Judge Says Calif. Can’t Ban Gay Marriage – AP News
Here’s the roundup from some good bloggers on the topic….BoiFromTroy,
ChristianGrantham, and GayOrbit.
I don’t have anything unique to add, so I’ll leave it for now. When I have some time to write tomorrow, I may discuss further. I’m sure my West Coast blogger pal, GPW, will weigh in at some point.

If you read the gay press, you’ll find much bellyaching about New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s filing an appeal of a judge’s decision demanding that the city grant marriage licenses to gay couples. N.Y. State Senator Tom Duane, a longtime gay activist, called the mayor a “coward” while most of the Democrats vying to oppose him in the fall election have been tripping over themselves in order to denounce this Repubican.
And these very Democrats and gay activists forget to mention that this good man believes the issue of gay marriage is “better resolved in the Legislature, where he pledged his help in pushing the issue, rather than the courts.” Yep, we’ve got a Republican Mayor willing to promote gay marriage in the state legislature. But, because he doesn’t think courts should decide this issue, a gay activist has called him a “coward.”
And while those on the left can’t cease their bellyaching about this Republican, they don’t have the stomach to take on Democrats who have the same or similar stand on gay marriage. Indeed, they eagerly supported John Kerry’s bid for the White House even as that Democrat claimed to have fundamentally the same position on gay marriage as President Bush. Indeed, these activists have backed many a Democrat who are less open to gay marriage than the Big Apple’s Republican Mayor.
[Read more…]

Very insightful posting from a straight, conservative, married guy. He has some valid points about gay unions, and some good reasons why the backlash has occurred.
Gay Unions – A Red Mind in a Blue State

I think two things really hurt the gay cause:
1) Outlandish behavior, such as the Halloween Gay Parades, just reinforces every bad notion, and defeats all attempts to cast gay couples as “normal” Americans, save for their partner’s gender; and
2) When we see a heterosexual couple, we see them as Dick and Lynn, individual adults who are a couple. We don’t think of them as a couple engaging in sex. Think about it– what if the first thing you thought of when you saw the Cheneys holding hands on a stage was their sexual activities? You’d gag. As you would with just about any couple, other than Jennifer Aniston & Brad Pitt. But when we see gay couples, we are immediately focused on their sexuality, like you would be drawn to the hair of someone wearing a giant orange Afro wig. And it freaks us out.

-GayPatriot: gaypatriot2004@aol.com

Because I seem to be misfiring today (see post below & comments), I’m glad I came upon this posting from last November 4. First, read the entire piece….. then let concede that the issue is more complex than perhaps I like to stress in my postings.
But also please understand that I believe the gay Republican/conservative voice is many times lost in the deafening cacophony (and you know I just wanted to use this word) of the gay liberal thought police’s talking points. So I hope that close readers of the blog know I realize I sometimes go out of my way to stress or exaggerate a point to highlight differences of opinion. It is just my style…
So with that all said, I completely agree with the closing part of Gryphmon’s post:

Anyway, the result of this has been that a true case for Gay Marriage was never made in a way that would resonate with the majority of Americans. It is for the most part a new idea. And the majority of Americans are still not even at the point where they consider us to be people, instead of just a behavior. And the Conservative echo chamber continues to reinforce this, while the Liberal echo chamber assumes that everyone is as open-minded as they supposedly are. Both sides are talking past each other.

There, now I’m done!

These postings, especially part two, from A Stitch In Haste, hit the “rush to marriage” and the “horror over FMA” crowd squarely between the eyes.
Do The Gay Marriage Math, Part One
Do The Gay Marriage Math, Part Two
Money quote:

It’s honestly getting to point where one might ask whether the “too much too soon” crowd suffers from some form of pathological self-loathing. Or perhaps they’re taking a page out of the radical feminist and black activist playbook — after all, it pays to be persecuted.

Bravo.
UPDATE: Clearly I must be having some reading comprehension problems today, as has been pointed out by the commenters on this posting! So I humbly accept the ‘Dope of the Week’ award. *grin*
That being said, let me outline clearly my views of gay marriage and its backlash. If A Stitch In Time agrees with any of it….. then, that’s what I meant to infer above! *laugh*
[Read more…]

Remember folks, the man who the gay community endorsed enthusiastically for President (mainly because of who he wasn’t) was John Kerry. Kerry endorsed state-by-state decisions on gay marriage. He opposed gay marriage, but supported civil unions. He said he would have voted in favor of the Missouri gay marriage ban…before later saying he would have voted against it.
Well, the Kerry Gay Rights Doctrine is certainly prevailing across the nation. And there’s more evidence of it this week…
First let’s head to Virginia,
Then it is off to Alabama,
Now finally we wil go to Indiana…
Yeeeeeeeeiiiiiiiiiiaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhh!!!!
Huh…maybe it is really the Howard Dean Gay Rights Doctrine?
And speaking of which…. when a Republican opposes gay marriage they are branded by the gay left as undeniably evil. Yet, when the soon-to-be-new Democratic National Chairman opposes gay marriage he is given the full support of the Gay Street activist crowd. Go figure.
Hypocrisy, the other red meat of politics.
-GayPatriot: gaypatriot2004@aol.com