Commentary

What the civil union numbers tell us

January 5, 2006

If you read the press reports, you might conclude that civil unions in Connecticut are a bust.

In its Best of the Year issue, the Advocate (which bills itself as "the national gay and lesbian newsmagazine) offers a timeline of significant events for 2005.

"Oct. 1: Connecticut's civil unions law goes into effect, but few couples take advantage of it." An Associated Press story on Dec. 13, 2005, took a similar negative attitude. The editors at the Hartford Courant gave it the headline: "Civil unions law doesn't lead to a rush on courthouses."

Have gay couples in Connecticut chosen to forgo civil unions altogether? Far from it.

Let's do a little math. According to the AP story, "In the first six weeks that civil unions were legal in Connecticut, 463 gay couples received licenses."

That's an average of 11 licenses a day. In this paper on Dec. 15, one reads that between July 1, 2000, and Dec. 31, 2004, 1,137 Vermont couples filed for civil unions. That averages out to 0.7 licenses per day. And in The Boston Globe last Sept. 12, we find out that, since May 17, 2004 (the day on which same-sex marriage became available there), some 6,500 gay couples have married in Massachusetts. That's roughly 13.5 marriages a day.

Now factor in population. Vermont's population in 2004 was estimated to be 621,394; Connecticut's, 3,503,604; Massachusetts', 6,416,505. For the sake of convenience, let's say that Connecticut is six times larger than Vermont and Massachusetts 10 times larger. Using Vermont's rate of licenses as a benchmark, in four and a half years we might expect Connecticut to average 4.2 civil union licenses a day and Massachusetts to average seven marriage licenses a day. Right now, Massachusetts is giving away almost twice as many licenses than the Vermont rate suggests, and Connecticut is handing out close to three times more licenses than the current Vermont rate.

It's hard to know precisely what these numbers mean. Are there twice as many gay couples per capita in Massachusetts and three times as many in Connecticut as there are in Vermont? We simply don't know; there are no reliable census figures for gay Americans. Intuitively, one senses that the pace of licensing slackens over time, once pent-up demand is met, so Vermont's rate is probably lowest because we've been at it longer and Connecticut's is highest because it is the newest. It also remains unclear how many of the licenses in Massachusetts and Connecticut have been given to out-of-state couples. (Remember: the Vermont number factors only Vermont couples.)

But look at the Connecticut numbers all by themselves. Even assuming a decrease in the rate of licenses, Connecticut stands to issue thousands of civil union licenses by the end of next year. And if it were to issue 4,000 licenses by spring 2007 — a number not outside the realm of possibility — it would match per capita the rate of same-sex marriages in neighboring Massachusetts. Thus, it is simply untrue to state, as the Advocate does, that "few couples" are entering civil unions or to suggest, as does the AP story, that couples are avoiding civil unions. The numbers tell a different story.

It's not hard, though, to figure out why journalists and gay activists try to downplay events in Connecticut. Having decided that anything short of marriage is inherently discriminatory, they are of two minds as they watch thousands of gay couples perpetuate the alleged discrimination. No one begrudges these couples from seeking the legal benefits offered by the civil union law, but perhaps we would all reach same-sex marriage more quickly if these couples refused to ride on the civil union bus.

But the distinctions between civil union and marriage are crumbling all around us. In that same issue of the Advocate, an interview with former president Jimmy Carter reveals that he supports civil unions for all, gay and straight alike.

Andrew Sullivan, one of America's most outspoken advocates for same-sex marriage, has taken to using the M-word when describing Britain's new civil partnership law. Sir Elton John and his partner, David Furnish, took advantage of that law when they had their civil ceremony in the Windsor Guildhall, the same place where Prince Charles and Camilla Parker Bowles were married.

So perhaps the time has come to admit what civil union opponents have said all along. You may recall how some lawmakers who voted against the civil union law in 2000 had rubber ducks on their desks. Their message: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it's a duck. Calling legalized gay relationships "civil unions" doesn't disguise what they really are: marriages.

Yes, civil unions still don't receive federal recognition (neither do Massachusetts same-sex marriages), and portability is uncertain (Connecticut recognizes Vermont civil unions but not Massachusetts same-sex marriages). But let Connecticut serve as an object lesson: Thousands of gay couples care less about what the government calls their relationships and care more about the protections the government extends. That's a story that journalists and activists alike seem to miss.

Steve Swayne is a resident of Woodstock and an associate professor of music at Dartmouth College.

http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060105/NEWS/601050317/1039