Update: Advancements in Protecting Marriage State to State

Connecticut Rejects Same-Sex "Marriage," Missouri Becomes 6th State to Send Marriage Amendment to Voters
( [email protected] ) May 18, 2004 08:36 AM EDT

Much to the relief of Christian and pro-family groups in Connecticut, the Attorney General Richard Blumenthal clarified on Monday, that the state law does not allow for same-sex marriage.

The Statutes refer repeatedly to a “bride” and a “groom,” and a “husband” and a “wife,” which are commonly understood to refer to a “man” and a “woman,” said Blumenthal in the open opinion.

Brian Brown, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut applauded the announcement, saying, “It's clear, our law says marriage is between a man and a woman.”

Brown, who led a rally Sunday night at Hartford Connecticut, dropped off a petition with 90,000 signatures in support of the federal marriage amendment to protect traditional marriage at the Senator Joe Lieberman’s office the following day.

"I think our law is clear. Those "marriages" are invalid," said Brown, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut. "We do not recognize those marriages."

However, Blumenthal declined to clarify the issue on recognizing gay “marriage” licenses given from other states, saying that it is up to the legislature to grant the authority.

"The bottom line here is that the legislature, and only the legislature, has the authority to grant this authority to same-sex couples," Blumenthal said.

In Massachusetts – the only state legalizing such unions – the Governor specifically prohibited issuing “marriage” licenses to gay couples outside of the bay state. However, several town clerics and out-of-town gays defiantly and repeatedly broke the law on Monday, and express that they will challenge the law.

Meanwhile, on May 14, Missouri became the 6th state in the nation to take an amendment to protect traditional marriage in Missouri to the voters, thereby joining five other states – Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, Oklahoma and Utah.

The amendment was overwhelmingly approved with a vote of 124-25, four minutes before the close of the final day of the House of Representatives 2004 General Assembly. The only thing needed to codify the amendment would be a simple majority vote of Missourians during either the August primary or Nov. 2 general election ballot.

“People really do believe, as a whole, that marriage between a man and a woman is the core of our society. They feel like the homosexuals are forcing this lifestyle on them, so I think that we will have a large number, 65 percent-plus, vote for this,” said House Speaker Pro Tem Rod Jetton, R-Marble Hill.

Sen. Sarah Steelman, R-Rolla, who drafted the statement that was passed at the House, said the issue at hand was of utmost importance.

“Some people ask, ‘Why is this important? Aren’t there more important things that we ought to be dealing with up here?’” Steelman said. “The answer to that is, ‘This is extraordinarily important because the family unit has supported our society. It has been around for thousands of years, not hundreds of years, and it is absolutely fundamental to the raising of children in our society.”

The Missouri voters will be faced with the clear statement: “That to be valid and recognized in this state, a marriage shall exist only between a man and a woman.”

Said Rep. Jason Crowell, R- Cape Girardeau in supporting the amendment: “In the end, this issue deserves a vote by Missourians. Is this language perfect and excellent? I don’t know. I do know that the language gets the issue to Missourians.”