posted
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.
posted
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 ]
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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".
Posts: 2711 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
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.
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.
Posts: 2804 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
Go Connecticut! 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.
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.
Posts: 4953 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Really? I was under the impression that Dean signed the Vermont legislation into law. I thought judicial orders only made it happen in Mass.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Party]](graemlins/party.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
