HC: Just One Hitch: Before OK, House Adds 'Marriage' Definition

[Redstone]

April 14, 2005
By MARK PAZNIOKAS, Courant Staff Writer

The state House of Representatives approved civil unions for same-sex couples Wednesday night, but not before amending the bill to define marriage as exclusively for one man and one woman.

The Senate, which passed the measure 27-9 last week, is expected to approve it again as amended, and the marriage language turned Gov. M. Jodi Rell into an unequivocal supporter of the landmark legislation.

"Passage of this bill will extend civil rights to all couples, no matter their gender, and send the unmistakable message that discrimination in any form is unacceptable in Connecticut," Rell said.

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-civilunions0414.artapr14,0,2112356.story?coll=hc-big-headlines-breaking

And guess what? 14 out of 49 REPUBLICAN state reps voted yes, and 6 out of 12 REPUBLICAN state Senators voted yes! I guess at least some of our repubs have the guts not to toe the party line...that's encouraging. Finally, something to be proud of this state for, after all the corruption.

Redstone

Edited for typo

[patricia92243]

1. At the risk of being stupid, this appears to be a HUGE improvement.

Marriage is a religious ceremony that really doesn't have anything to do with anything.

I assume what couples want are the civil rights that go with the now legal civil unions.

If it applied to me, I'd be dancing in the streets with happiness.

[booksenkatz]

2. This just confuses me further

If marriage is a religious ceremony, then why are state legislatures passing laws about it? Shouldn't religious groups be passing their own laws about what they want marriage to be? The state needs to stay out of the religion business. Let people marry whomever they wish in a civil ceremony, and then let the religious folks sort out how they want to churchify it (or not). If I were religious, I certainly wouldn't want politicians deciding what happens in my church!

I'll never understand why our country loves to make it so hard for gays. I don't understand why this marriage thing has to be such a big damned deal in the first place. Why do so many people seem to feel so threatened by it? It's absurd. I'm a straight who has marched for gay rights since 1985, it's one of my top issues.

[Redstone]

3. I don't get it either.

If two guys or two owmen (on edit: I meant "two women," but if two "owmen" want to get married, I wouldn't object to that either) want to get married, it doesn't have any effect on my heterosexual (with a twist) marriage at all.

How could it?

So why should I care?

I don't understand the people who are against it. I just don't.

Redstone

[booksenkatz]

7. I agree

There is absolutely NOTHING that anyone could do anywhere on this planet that would affect my marriage (20 years on May 4th!).

[patricia92243]

4. Have to crawl before you walk.

[booksenkatz]

6. I agree, I like the civil part, BUT

why did they feel a need to take this extra step and interfere with how religious groups want to deal with their own definitions of marriage? It should piss off religious groups, it seems to me, that politicians want to tell them how to deal with marriage.
:shrug:

[David__77]

9. You don't sound stupid, but here's the problem.

There are many federal issues involved here. I'm in a state domestic partnership in California that is legally equivalent to marriage in state matters besides taxation. But, for instance, when the GOP congress moved "right to die" issues to federal courts instead of state courts, I realized there's just one more area that my relationship is not recognized. If one of us were to be in that position, the other would not be recognized as next of kin by federal courts, unlike state courts. It's complex and the real solution is equal marriage on a federally-recognized level. That's a long-term goal. Civil union is a step forward.

Also, I'm not sure about Connecticut, but here in California, private employers that provide benefits for employees' spouses need not do that same for domestic partners. Would this law allow employers to treat civil unions differently than marriages?

[JerseygirlCT]

5. My (supposedly Dem) rep voted FOR the amendment

and AGAINST CU.

I'm so angry!

[Redstone]

8. There are morons in both parties.

My state rep is republican, but in general a good rep. I was disappointed as well when she voted against, but we can't expect our reps to agree with us on everything.

Redstone