E-mail:
Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com
Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu
Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu
Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu
Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu
Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com
Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu
Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu
Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu
Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu
Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu
Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu
Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu
Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu
Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu
David Luban david.luban at gmail.com
Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu
Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu
Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu
John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu
Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com
Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com
Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com
Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu
Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu
David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu
Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu
K. Sabeel Rahmansabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu
Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu
Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu
David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu
Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu
Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu
Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu
Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu
Connecticut became tonight the first state to legislatively embrace "civil union" rights for same sex couples. It is now impossible to argue that it just "activist judges" who force equality on an unwilling majority. In CT, 3 out of 4 senators voted for it and it was signed by a Republican govenor. As Jennifer Brown wrote this statute makes clear that the hidden ambition of the proposed federal constitutional ammendment is really to preempt the democratic embrace of marriage equality that so many people see now as inevitable.
Domestic Partners will not be able to file joint state income taxes and state employees will not be entitled to the same benefits under the state’s long-term care benefits package.
Neither state, however, provides equal standards for qualification. As I earlier blogged, Connecticut discriminates against same-sex couples by making them wait until they are 18 (while allowing heterosexual couples to marry at 16 or 17 with parental or judicial permission). Here we are just following California's discriminatory lead (again 18 for same sex, less than 18 with parental consent for heteros).
What is most interesting is the question of how to rank the C states with regard to their treatment of people who are older than 62. In California, different sex couples can register for domestic partnership if and only if they are >62, while no different sex couples can united in civil union in CT (or Vermont for that matter). On this dimension, does this make California better or worse than CT in terms of equality. Well in one sense it is a move away from "separate but equal" discrimination. But it is an assymetric move in that it represents yet another place where different sex couples clearly have more rights thn same sex couples. If you are a sufficiently old different sex couple in California, you can sit in the front or the back of the bus.
Connecticut civil union is not the whole enchilada of marriage equality, but it will provide tangible, on-the-ground benefits to thousands of same-sex couples and their families. Now it is time for other state legislatures to follow suit. Posted
9:24 PM
by Ian Ayres [link]
Comments:
It is now impossible to argue that it just "activist judges" who force equality on an unwilling majority.
Ah, sure, but another way to put it would be that it is now impossible to argue that the cause of gay equality requires activist judges to force gay-marriage/civil-unions on an unwilling majority. All hail Connecticut -- what Massachussetts should have been!