Hatrack River Forum: Republican governor signs gay civil unions bill

This is topic Republican governor signs gay civil unions bill in forum Books, Films, Food and Culture at Hatrack River Forum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.hatrack.com/ubb/main/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=034032

Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :

I just got an email from the Log Cabin Republicans with the following text:

quote:
Connecticut’s Republican Governor has taken a courageous stand for basic fairness. Gov. Jodi Rell signed historic civil unions legislation on Wednesday, providing important protections for gay and lesbian families. The radical right has been flooding her office with angry phone calls.

We need the Governor to hear from us -- offering words of thanks and support. Please call Governor Rell now at (800) 406-1527 and thank her for signing this historic bill! Don't forget to mention you are a Log Cabin Republican!

Anyone from in or around Conneticut know anything about this? It's the first I'd heard of it. Was it a big deal in the state, or did anyone even notice? What kinds of rights is this giving CT's gay citizens that they didn't have before, or that they don't have in, say, Utah?

I'm tempted to call, but I want a little more information about what exactly happened before I do. I can just see someone on the other line... "Why are you calling" "Because I got this email that told me to, uh huh huh huh." Just thought it was interesting, and wanted to see if anyone here had any personal information or opinions about this.

[ April 21, 2005, 05:23 PM: Message edited by: Speed ]

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :

Yep. First state to legalize civil unions for same sex couples via legislative (as opposed to judicial) action. Let me look around for the link.

[ April 21, 2005, 05:29 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]

Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :

I'm not a legal expert, but what I'm guessing that means is gay couples can be registered as domestic partners, granting them rights such as inheritance, child custody and medical power of attorney. They just can't be called "married".

Posted by Kasie H (Member # 2120) on :

From the

Boston Globe

[ April 21, 2005, 05:31 PM: Message edited by: Kasie H ]

Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :

Good article. Thanks.

It's a bit disturbing, though. I'm not surprised that the conservatives would be upset by this, but it sounds like the liberals aren't happy either just because they don't get full marriage status with this bill. Is there no one in that state, or in this country, that appreciates a moderate executive who exhibits a spirit of compromise? Can't we be happy without utterly crushing whoever opposes us?

Posted by lem (Member # 6914) on :

NO!!!! NO WE CAN'T! WHY CAN'T YOU MODERATES GET A BACKBONE! YOU KNOW A MODERATE OR INDEPENDENT IS JUST A LIBERAL WHO CAN'T MAKE UP THEIR MIND. OH...AND UH, WIKIPEDIA IS A LEFT WING ENCYCLOPEDIA OR SOMETHING.

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

Was the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman included in the final bill?

Given that the extremists on both sides were upset, this is probably a "good" functioning of the politcal system, even if I think the outcome is unfair.

I predict in 10-15 years there will be a law called something like "the marriage/civil union consolidation law" which will essentially eradicate marriage as a legal concept in the state, with everything being civil unions.

Maybe 25-50.

Dagonee

Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :

Is that really the direction you see America headed in?

Posted by Portabello (Member # 7710) on :

I don't think he was lying or being sarcastic.

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

That's the direction I see states with civil unions heading in, if only because it will get very inconvenient to maintain two sets of laws and precedents.

I don't see nation-wide civil unions for same sex couples in the next 25 years, though.

Edit: it's possible it will go the other way, with civil unions being folded into the surviving concept marriage. But I think the more generic term will be used in cases, and people will begin to get tired of typing "civil unions and marriages" over and over again.

They may come up with a third term, but I can't predict what it would be.

Dagonee

[ April 21, 2005, 06:49 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :

quote:
I don't think he was lying or being sarcastic.

Thank you, neither did I. The question was really just a prompt for further details, which I got.

[ April 21, 2005, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: jebus202 ]

Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :

quote:
Given that the extremists on both sides were upset, this is probably a "good" functioning of the politcal system, even if I think the outcome is unfair.

Unfair in what way?

Not trying to pick a fight, I just want to know what you think.

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

I don't like the separate but equal aspect. But I'd probably vote for it if I thought a truly equal bill wouldn't pass, because it provides real benefits to real people whose lives will be immediately improved by them.

Dagonee

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :

Go Connecticut!
[Party]

I don't see why some people would be upset that we got civil unions as apposed to marriage...it's all the same in the end. I think some want the title of marriage for gay unions because they are desperate to be loved by the mainstream. Well, sometimes just plain equality is better than having all parts of society love you. If the conservatives are willing to allow civil unions then let them keep the title of marriage for themselves. It's all good.
[Smile]

quote:
I predict in 10-15 years there will be a law called something like "the marriage/civil union consolidation law" which will essentially eradicate marriage as a legal concept in the state, with everything being civil unions.

Mmmm... Dag I could see this too, but that's not really a bad thing, nor any different then what we do now. Marriage is actually just a contract between two people that the government recognizes like any other contract. The religious flair around marriage is separate. You can't just have a religious ceremony and then be married...you need to sign that marriage license afterwards for the government to recognize you.

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

Telp, the scenario I predict happening in years is my preferred outcome, actually.

Dagonee

Posted by Ryuko (Member # 5125) on :

quote:

They may come up with a third term, but I can't predict what it would be.

Mivil unions. Civarriages.

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :

How is CTs new law different from VTs?

Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :

quote:
Telp, the scenario I predict happening in years is my preferred outcome, actually.

Ah ha! Gotcha. [Smile]

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

I don't know the details, Lyr. The biggest difference in my mind is that this was done by the legislature, not because of judicial order.

Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :

Really? I was under the impression that Dean signed the Vermont legislation into law. I thought judicial orders only made it happen in Mass.

Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :

Yes, the VT legislature passed and Dean signed the law, but it was in response to an order by the VT Supreme Court.

I believe the Mass. legislature passed something as well.

[ April 21, 2005, 09:24 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]

Posted by Bokonon (Member # 480) on :

Civil Unions are equal right up until someone (maliciously, or plain stupidly) provides rights/responsibilities for one, but not the other.

If they are equal in all but name only, I see little legal/ethical reason to have different names.

A step forward this is, however.

-Bok