Thursday, March 28, 2002

A story published today by the Hartford Courant reports that Connecticut’s legislative judiciary committee made history Monday by strongly endorsing a measure that would extend limited legal rights to same-sex couples.

The legislation was narrowly crafted and, in the end, it didn't even count because the committee had failed to meet a 5 p.m. deadline to deliver bills.

Nevertheless, the vote marked a milestone for gay rights activists, who have been pushing for legal recognition of their relationships.

Rep. Michael Lawlor, the committee's co-chairman, predicted the measure would resurface later in the legislative session in the form of an amendment to another bill.

Each time the question of gay rights comes up for debate, opposition softens, said Lawlor, a Democrat from East Haven. "Now people are talking about technicalities [rather] than the big fundamental issue of homosexuality."

The measure under consideration by the committee Monday did not fulfill gay activists' hope that Connecticut would become the first state in the nation to allow same-gender couples to marry.

It also stopped short of allowing couples to enter into Vermont-style civil unions or California-style domestic partnerships. Both of those states have set up systems that give gay and lesbian couples many of the responsibilities of marriage.

In fact, the limited legal rights debated on Monday weren't even exclusively aimed at same-sex couples. It would have allowed two people to enter into a legal contract for the purpose of medical decision-making, end-of-life care and a host of other matters.

It was, Lawlor said, an attempt to remedy some of the "everyday problems that same-sex couples experience." For example, many gays and lesbians testified they were barred from visiting their ailing partners in the hospital.

The bill, which both sides viewed as a compromise, drew mild praise from an outspoken critic of same-sex marriage. "This is much better than what we might have had before us," said Sen. John Kissel, a staunch Republican from Enfield.

A story published today by the St. Paul Star Tribune reports that over the past 30 years American couples have quietly moved cohabiting from the fringes to the mainstream. These days, more than half of couples taking their wedding vows already have lived together.

It's a statistic that shows this country is not quite going the way of Sweden: We don't cohabit instead of marriage; we cohabit on the way to marriage.

"We've gone beyond the 50 percent mark," said Pamela Smock, a sociologist at the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. "We're closer to 60 percent for first marriages. Soon we're not going to be asking questions about who does decide to cohabit, but who doesn't."

One indication of the jump in cohabiting couples is the U.S. Census, which shows an increase in unmarried men and women sharing a household, from 500,000 in 1970 to 4.9 million in 2000. Another revealing Census statistic: 90 percent of Americans will marry at least once.

A growing body of research is bringing more detailed understanding of cohabitation:

Of cohabiting couples, about 50 percent marry within five years, 40 percent break up, and 10 percent simply continue living together.

Forty percent of all children spend some time in a cohabiting household.

Some research found that domestic violence is twice as common among cohabiting couples as married couples, and that depression rates are higher. Also, cohabiting couples who then marry are 50 percent more likely to divorce.

But other research found that the relationships of cohabiting couples who plan to marry each other — up to 75 percent of all cohabitors — are as good as those of married couples.

"All those differences are why we need to be careful not to treat cohabitors as a monolithic group," said Susan Brown, sociologist at Bowling Green State University in Ohio. "A couple plans to marry? Presence of children? Ever married? Depending on all that, cohabiting is going to have very different outcomes."

Acting on a charge led by Republicans, the Ways and Means Committee voted 16-12 Wednesday night to take away the health benefits of same-sex partners of state employees in a bill that now goes to the House floor.

Last fall, the state agreed to the domestic partner benefits after a two-week strike by the two largest unions representing state workers, the Minnesota Association of Professional Employees and Council 6 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.

The contracts are in effect, but ratification by each house is needed for them to remain in force. A bill to ratify the contracts is awaiting action in the Senate.

MAPE President Chris Mau said in a statement that even though the benefits wouldn't affect many employees in the union, he remains committed to pushing for them to be included in the new contract.

"We don't care if you're Mork from Ork and you've been fired for saying 'Nanu Nanu' to every question your boss asks you. If you have committed yourself to being a member of our union, then our union is committed to fighting for you." added Mau.

But House Republicans disagreed with that notion. Rep. Doug Stang, R-Cold Spring, proposed the amendment to scrap the domestic partner benefits. He said state employees and his constituents told him it was "not appropriate" to offer them because the benefits would discriminate against unmarried heterosexual couples and increase state compensation costs.

James Monroe, executive director of MAPE, said Wednesday's committee action was a setback for labor relations for state employees. "I think it's bad law (and) it's bad policy," he said.

Employee Relations Commissioner Julien Carter said the Ventura administration would fight legislative efforts to change the contracts. He added the vote may violate the Public Employees Labor Relations Act.

Ventura sent a letter to House Speaker Steve Sviggum in late February, urging him to work to ratify the contract after the House passed HR25, a resolution that officially objected to the state contract. At the time, Sviggum called it "a warning" that the House would not ratify the contract.

In the letter, posted on the DOER Web site, Ventura said, "With any negotiated contract, there will always provisions one group or another will not like. With the passage of HR25, the House of Representatives has deviated from a twenty-year practice of the legislature to not interfere with the bargaining process."

Ventura said rejecting the contract sets a precedent that he won't support.

Wednesday's committee vote sends the measure to the House floor for a debate Friday.

A story released today by the Manchester Evening News reports that the city of Manchester, England will have its first same-sex ‘wedding’ by the middle of next month.

The ceremony, though having no legal validity, will be performed by register office staff.

City council chiefs are due to approve plans for the new partnership register service this week.

Couples will sign a partnership register and make a declaration of life-long commitment to each other at the ceremony. The register and ceremony will be open to straight couples as well as same-sex partners.

The ceremony will be performed by officials from the register office at the council's marriage suite in Heron House - or at other locations for an increased charge. The standard charge will be £97.50.

Despite having no legal validity, council campaigners say the register is an important step towards full equality for gays and lesbians.

Count Mary Murphy, the council's spokeswoman on same-sex issues, said: ‘‘I am very excited this is going to happen, and I am pleased that it's happening in Manchester because we have always tried to keep the equality issue to the forefront."