In Connecticut, when is a wedding not considered a wedding, but a civil union?
When it appears in The Courant, that’s when.
Granted, back before same-sex marriage was legal, the Courant was quick to allow public notices of the civil unions approved by the legislature, much to the dismay of its neo-conservative readers [aka the Family Institute of Connecticut].
Now, unfortunately, my buddies at iTowns — or the advertising component thereof — have fallen behind the times. The wedding announcements that appear in the Celebrations section still have separate categories for weddings and “civil unions.”
Loading ...
Hi Paul, just came across this post and wanted to chime in because I don’t quite understand the point (or why it’s “uncivil treatment” for the paper to run civil union announcements.)
I want to point out that people can still get civil unions in Connecticut — they won’t sunset until Oct. 1, 2010, when all civil unions automatically become marriages. (Given that, I’m not sure why anyone would want a civil union instead of a marriage, but it is nevertheless an option for the next 14 months or so.)
Moreover, what about people who live in a state that at this point only allows civil unions, not marriage? Say their mom lives in Connecticut: they may want to publicize news about their out-of-state civil union in the Courant to let all their homestate friends and family know.
Thanks for the insight, Daniela. The point of the headline, based on my ignorance of the law, was that The Courant was using a double standard: marriages for heteros and civil unions for gays. On a practical level, I fail to understand the distinction between the two, other than the terms themselves, which seem to define the same concept only for two kinds of people. But if there are folks who want a civil union instead of a marriage, I wish them well.