CT: Governor to Support Civil Unions

By JamesB3

Connecticut is one of several states which is actively considering passing legislation to give legal benefits to unmarried couples. Until today, the state's Republican governor, Jodi Rell, had wavered on whether or not so support the bill. Finally, she made her decision: she's in. A few years ago, a Republican governor even in the bluest of states would be considered a freak show (look at the reaction to former MA governor Bill Weld) if they supported gay rights. In 2005, in spite of Rell's own initial dancing around the issue, few people seem to have batted an eye at her decision to support civil unions. It's not an act of courage - it's a no-brainer, and thankfully she seems to have realized that. While there has been some controversy among gay groups in CT as to whether or not to support this legislation or fight for marriage and nothing else, especially since there is a CT court battle over gay marriage and the legislature may be using civil unions as an excuse to ban gay marriage, the general consensus has become that civil unions themselves are a major step forward and that anything is better than nothing.

From Idaho to Virginia there has been a growing number of Republicans who have walked away from the gay-baiting bogeyman and realized you can oppose homophobic legislation without paying a negative price. But this is the first real attempt from a major state Republican figure to support proactive legislation for gays (since Gov. Ahnold is actively pushing for gerrymandering legislation that will send more anti-gay Republicans to office in Congress and the legislature, I can't count him), and hopefully it's a positive sign for the future. When Democrats do these things, the media and the bigots fly into a rage. When Republicans do them, it's usually the first sign that the taboo is becoming boring. While we're quite a few years ago from this subject being "boring", we're a lot closer than anyone predicted even 3 years ago, so don't let any of the "Democrats can't support gay rights because it's political suicide" people get away with that argument anymore.

Comments

[jsmckay]

Unlike bigotry based on immutable characteristics like race and sex, even Republicans can't get away from the simple truth that their own loved ones, and those of their supporters, could be gay. As more and more people are openly gay, the bashing strategy becomes more of a double-edged sword.

Thanks to Rell for not taking the low road. (Of course I'll still vote for the Dem next time around).

[DemFromCT]

Proud to be a Nutmegger. Live and let live, says I.

OTOH, rell is looking formidable in the next election. She's no fool; CT repubs are not in favor of hate or hate amendments.

[Bill Rehm]

Good news, James! At some point, critical mass kicks in, doesn't it? (Not that we're nearly there.)

Slightly OT question -- looking for feedback on an attempt at framing. I've recently started taking the position in discussions that there are no such things as gay rights. Civil rights -- the same civil rights -- must be afforded every citizen of our country.

What do you think?

[pamindurham]

Cheers to CT!

It's all about coming out of the closet. The Repugs are scared they are going to have to "come out" and admit they know and love people in their lives that are gay to their bigoted party members.

Now if only I can get my DINO governor to stop supporting our (NC) state amendment, that would be progress. Sad, isn't it? We've got some Dems and all Repugs taking the low road here. Sigh.

[jsmckay]

I like Bill Rehm's framing. Equality is equality. If you're here you should get it. Period. Gays aren't looking for a special advantage but only what every American (and every human) deserves- fairness in the eye of the law.

[jsmckay]

When I moved to CT from Ashcroft's MO, it was like a breath of fresh air. I think a proper description is that most CT Republicans are at least as liberal as most MO Dems.

Ironically, Lieberman's giving CT Dems a bad name. We need to get rid of him and take advantage of our state's ability to actually elect a true liberal.

God, if only Rosa DiLauro would run, but I'm sure she's too loyal to challenge Joe.

[James]

jsm, I hope that you don't think that I'm underrating CT Dems with my post. You really should be proud that in your state so many Democrats just automatically support this kind of legislation (except for that ass legislator who went on and on about gays being sick -- actually I think even he votes for most gay rights legislation).

And I'm glad that someone may have told Rell that she owuld have lost popularity if she hadn't supported this legislation. How refreshing for a Republican to be pro-gay for political expediency.

Bill I'm not a big fan of the framing concept in general, but I think your idea is sound as long as you have arguments to all the usual anti-gay shriekers on this issue. The "special right" people, the "polygamy/incest/bestiality/pedophelia" people, the "gays can marry whoever they want, just like I can, of the opposite sex" people, the "gays hate blacks" people, etc.

[James]

Oh, and Pam, I recommended one of your blog entries to the people at Ex-Gay Watch. You're such a fabulous writer but the people you take so much time to write about don't really seem to notice.

[Rolfyboy6]

For better or worse marriage and the whole bundle of "family law" are the province of the States for reasons older than the Constitution. Take what you can get in this area, everything in Marriage and Family Law moves sort of glacially and incrementally. Eventually, the social creep is such that there is a crazy quilt of laws and cases that drives everybody crazy and the American Law Institute then publishes a Model Law that's then adopted by about 28 states, and then by the rest except Utah. Take everything you can get everytime and don't stop pushing. The push has to be regarded as legalizing social change or you go crazy waiting. This is the scenario that the change in women's legal status went through between 1966 and 1976.

[pamindurham]

James, thanks for the good word.

I have, however, caught the attention of the twisted proponents of the "ex-gay" movement, lol. :) Check out this excruciating site, Scattered Words for a taste of some really sorry, supposedly ex-queer folks. A sampling:

"Pam's insidious and self-assuaging comments about exgays on her blog and the numerous (I mean numerous) comments I've received about "self-loathing" and "self-hate" have made me think about the topic a lot. It's a myth."

The same author also wrote a little entry called Masculinity:

"I've been giving a lot of thought to this topic over the past few days, trying to figure out what it is and more importantly, what it looks like. I haven't gotten very far. I've been thinking about the various visual stimuli that I respond to -- like a shirtless guy. His shoulders, the back, it has an effect on me. I've always thought that this is the attraction part."

Man, this is pathetic.

[James]

Pam I wouldn't even consider linking to his blog, even on here. He abuses those types of things, trackbacks, to get more traffic for his site. For all the hype from him about how a-scared so many people are of his message, he gets very few comments (many of them from him) and the comments have decreased quite a bit over the duration of his blog. I think most people saw through him a while back.

[DHinMI]

D'oh!

James and Pam, I wasn't up to speed on the comments, and I followed the trackback.

Last time I do that.

I looked at the thing for about 20 seconds, and my reaction, thinking at first that he was gay and not "ex-gay," was "who are you people, and why don't you get lives?"

That's a sad little site if the best they can do is complain that people are saying mean things about them.

Oh well, last time I go there...