Catholic Transcript Online

Peter Wolfgang, president of the Family Institute of Connecticut, addresses some 100 people at a rally at the state Capitol on April 7. Click here to enlarge. (Photo by Jack Sheedy)

HARTFORD – A same-sex marriage bill that has both sides claiming victory has been signed into law by Gov. M. Jodi Rell. Senate Bill 899, which codifies the Oct. 10, 2008, state Supreme Court’s decision in Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health, passed in both chambers of the General Assembly April 22 and was signed into law April 23.

The new law redefines marriage as the legal union between two people, rather than between a man and a woman. Civil unions will become marriages as of Oct. 1, 2010, unless they are annulled or dissolved.

A major obstacle as the bill trudged through the committee process was the question of religious liberties. The Connecticut Catholic Conference, the public policy office of the state’s bishops, joined the Family Institute of Connecticut (FIC) in calling for an amendment that would allow clergy, church-sponsored organizations and individuals the right to refuse to take part in same-sex weddings if that would conflict with their religious beliefs.

"I’m glad that it was a one-two punch yesterday and the bill is history," said Michael C. Culhane, executive director of the CCC, on April 23. "It was not a 100 percent win, but clearly, religious liberties are better off today than they were yesterday," Mr. Culhane said.

The final compromise exempted clergy and church-sponsored organizations. But individuals, such as justices of the peace, wedding photographers and florists who are asked to perform their services for same-sex weddings, must still do so under anti-discrimination laws.

A late-April advertising campaign, paid for by the FIC, Knights of Columbus and National Organization for Marriage, prompted thousands of calls and e-mails to legislators as the bill headed toward the Senate without the amendment guaranteeing religious freedoms. A letter by Archbishop Henry J. Mansell, read at Masses throughout the Archdiocese on April 18-19, urged Catholics to contact legislators and voice their opposition to S.B. 899 as a violation of religious freedom.

A week later, the Archbishop sent parishioners a letter thanking them for their response to the first letter. "As a direct result of the concerns that you expressed to your legislators in phone calls, e-mails, and other messages, the bill was amended to provide three important exemptions," he wrote.

These include the right of a religious organization to refuse to provide services that would violate its religious beliefs; the right of religious organizations that are not publicly funded to provide adoption and foster care services as they deem appropriate; and the right of fraternal societies such as the Knights of Columbus to deny insurance benefits if doing so would violate the society’s free exercise of religion.

The Archbishop also expressed gratitude to clergy and lawmakers who toiled to make the bill acceptable to concerned citizens of faith. He thanked the parishioners for their "integral role … in bringing the need to protect our religious freedoms to the forefront of our legislators’ attention."

Mr. Culhane said, "It was very important for the Catholic Conference to secure the best provision dealing with religious freedoms and our First Amendment rights." When the amendment failed to pass in the Judiciary Committee on March 30, the CCC and FIC tried to amend the bill while the Senate was considering it, he said.

"I believe in large part that we accomplished that goal," he said.

Anne Stanback, executive director of Love Makes a Family (LMF), which had lobbied for same-sex marriage for 10 years, told The Transcript that she was satisfied with the final version of the bill. "What we believed was a reasonable compromise was an amendment drafted by Republican and Democratic leaders, exempting religious leaders [from participating in same-sex weddings]," she said. But she felt the amendment was unnecessary because earlier legislation already guaranteed those rights.

She said that LMF has a strong faith-based membership that values religious liberties. "That shows that there’s a diversity of faith perspective on this issue," she said. "So we have very much respect for the need for religious freedom, and the question was, ‘Where do you draw the line?’"

LMF announced in March that, because its goals of "marriage equality" have been met, it will close at the end of the year.

Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the FIC, pointed out in an e-mail bulletin on April 23 that LMF originally opposed the religious liberty amendment. The bulletin states, "Going into yesterday’s vote, the adamant position of Love Makes a Family and its lobbyists was: ‘Pass 899 with no amendments.’"

Mr. Wolfgang also stated in the bulletin that the final bill was "miles ahead of the Judiciary Committee’s version," which had no specific provisions for religious liberty.

Before religious liberties were protected by language in the bill, he said, there was the possibility of lawsuits if, for example, the Knights of Columbus denied the use of their facilities for same-sex wedding-related activities. That scenario actually already occurred in Canada in 2005.

Brian S. Brown, executive director of the National Organization for Marriage, said it’s important to understand the history of the bill. "Obviously, the bill for same-sex marriage was bad, but there weren’t any religious protections at all [at first]," said Mr. Brown, who is a former FIC executive director. "Is it as robust as we would have liked? No, but it’s much better than anything people expected would come out."