(Editor's note: This updates the April 13 ABP story titled “Connecticut, Maryland legislators pass domestic-partner bills.”)
WASHINGTON (ABP) — Proponents of legal recognition for same-sex couples have taken two steps forward and one step back, thanks to votes in Connecticut and Maryland and a court ruling in Oregon.
In an April 14 ruling, the Oregon Supreme Court invalidated about 3,000 same-sex marriages conducted in that state last year. The justices concluded that officials in Multnomah County — home to Portland — did not have the authority to change state practice by issuing marriage licenses to gay couples last March and April.
County officials had decided that the state's practice of issuing marriage licenses only to heterosexual couples violated the Oregon Constitution's equal-protection provisions. Partially in reaction to that decision, voters in Oregon approved a state constitutional amendment last November banning gay marriage.
But the court said the decision would have been unconstitutional even without the amendment, because determining marriage policy is the purview of state officials.
“County officials were entitled to have their doubts about the constitutionality of limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples,” Justice Michael Gillette wrote for the court. “But marriage and the laws governing it are matters of statewide, not local, concern.”
Just days before the Oregon decision, legislators in Connecticut and Maryland passed bills providing state protection for relationships between domestic partners, including same-sex relationships.
Late on April 13, the Connecticut House of Representatives voted 85-63 to approve a bill that would create civil unions — legal arrangements that provide many of the same benefits and responsibilities as marriage — for same-sex couples. It came a few days after a similar bill was approved in the state's Senate.
The vote sent the bill to the desk of Gov. Jodi Rell (R), who said she would sign it if the Senate okays it. The House version of the bill included an amendment that reserves the term “marriage” for heterosexual unions.
Many gay-rights advocates — including two openly gay state legislators — opposed the amendment.
“To me it's the equivalent of putting a 'whites only' sign above a water fountain, a 'whites only' sign on the majority side of the lunch counter, a 'whites only' sign on the areas on the front of the bus that we have to pass through to our place on the back of the bus,” said Rep. Art Feltman (D-Hartford), according to the Stamford Advocate newspaper.
But the bill's main author, state Sen. Andrew McDonald (D-Stamford), said the additional language wouldn't “change any of the substantive rights that are going to be conferred on same-sex couples,” according to the Advocate.”The whole nature of this amendment was to provide nothing more than political comfort food for some people to reaffirm what is already in our statutes,” the paper quoted McDonald as saying. “If that provides political cover for them to vote for this legislation, then so be it…. This is a vote and this is a process that will reverberate around the country.”
But some groups opposed to gay rights oppose civil unions, saying they are merely a “counterfeit” version of marriage. “So-called 'civil unions' are simply same-sex 'marriages' cloaked with a different name, something that a clear majority of Connecticut residents oppose,” said Tony Perkins, president of the Washington-based Family Research Council, in a statement released after the Connecticut Senate approved the bill.
On April 11, the Maryland House gave approval to a bill creating a state domestic-partnership registry that includes gay couples. The registry would provide some, but not all, of the benefits of civil unions. Maryland senators had already approved the bill.
Democrats control the legislatures in both states.
The decisions in Oregon, Connecticut and Maryland all came within a week of the overwhelming approval of a state constitutional ban on gay marriage in Kansas. On April 5, voters there joined Oregon and 16 other states with similar amendments.
If Rell signs the Connecticut bill as promised, then that state would become the first in the union in which legislators approved civil unions or same-sex marriages without pressure from judicial decisions. Rulings by the highest courts in Massachusetts and Vermont in recent years have forced lawmakers in those states to create such arrangements for same-sex couples.