HARTFORD, Conn., April 25, 2005, (LifeSiteNews.com) Connecticut’s decision to create civil unions for same-sex couples has been called a “naive move that further erodes marriage” by attorneys associated with the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), an organization active in numerous cases involving marriage, domestic partnerships and civil unions in the United States.
Connecticut Gov. M. Jodi Rell signed a bill which grants same-sex couples all the same benefits of married couples – only without a marriage license – because it contains an amendment stating that marriage under state law would be limited to one man and one woman.
Glen Lavy, senior vice president of ADF’s Marriage Litigation Center, in his comments regarding the passing of the legislation stated: “The governor believes that she can protect marriage by including a statement that says marriage is only between one man and one woman in legislation that creates civil unions for same-sex couples. This is clearly naive, as proven by media reports of homosexual activist groups that are already stating that they intend to continue to push for full-fledged marriage rights.”
Furthermore, the “amendment does little to protect marriage. Civil unions themselves are an erosion of marriage … No one can legitimately conclude that these civil unions are anything but marriage with a different name. No matter what anyone calls it, marriage is, and always will be, a union between a man and a woman.”
ADF is America’s largest legal alliance defending religious liberty through strategy, training, funding, and litigation. It argues that the “civil unions” approach is a Trojan Horse designed to infiltrate and conquer marriage.
The strategy is fairly simple.
Citing Lawrence v. Texas, the ACLU has argued, and several state and federal courts have held, that a law justified by moral disapproval alone cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny. A recent California Superior Court decision further demonstrates how civil unions undermine the state’s interest in preserving marriage: “[T]hat California has granted marriage-like rights to same-sex couples points to the conclusion that there is no rational state interest in denying them the rites of marriage as well.”
Litigation Scenario:
1. State X passes a state constitutional marriage amendment which is upheld by state courts. The amendment does not prohibit civil unions.
2. The legislature in State X then passes a civil unions law which grants all the rights of marriage to same sex couples. (This gives the ACLU grounds in federal litigation)
3. The ACLU files a federal lawsuit alleging that the state constitutional marriage amendment violates the U.S. Constitution. The ACLU argues that the only distinction between civil unions and marriage under state law is in name only. Therefore, the failure to grant same sex marriage must be based on mere moral disapproval which is unconstitutional per Lawrence v. Texas. By allowing civil unions the state legislature has effectively undermined its legal interest in preserving marriage as a unique institution.
See related stories:
See the full Vatican document on Homosexual Unions.