Thu, 21 Apr 2005 00:00:51
Connecticut Approves Civil Unions For Gays, Fundies freak out
Good for us. It’s not real human equality, but it’ll do.
Connecticut on Wednesday became the second state to offer civil unions to gay couples — and the first to do so without being forced by the courts.
About an hour after the state Senate sent her the legislation, Republican Gov. M. Jodi Rell signed into law a bill that will afford same-sex couples in Connecticut many of the rights and privileges of married couples.
“The vote we cast today will reverberate around the country and it will send a wave of hope to many people, to thousands of people across the country,” said Sen. Andrew McDonald, who is gay.
The state House passed the measure last week but amended it to define marriage under Connecticut law as between one man and one woman. The Senate approved the amended bill Wednesday 26-8.
“I have said all along that I believe in no discrimination of any kind and I think that this bill accomplishes that, while at the same time preserving the traditional language that a marriage is between a man and a woman,” Rell said.
Wanna see the stupid fundie react insanely?
“Our mission will be to let every person know in the state of Connecticut which lawmakers voted to redefine marriage, and which lawmakers voted to protect marriage,” he said.
Hey retard, the bill defined the word marriage as between a man and a woman, you simpleton. Shut your idiotic, backward-thinking pie-hole and stop trying to prevent human beings from having rights of survivorship and medical benefits, you piece of filth.
Posted by JimK at 12:00 AM on April 21, 2005
Permalink | Trackbacks (0) | Email to a friend |
Categories: Other, Politics
Tags:
Comments:
#2 Posted by Sean Galbraith 
on 04/21 at 01:16 PM -
Congrats Conn! Well done indeed.
#3 Posted by Badger87 
on 04/21 at 02:55 PM -
Yes Jim, the bill did define marriage as between an man and woman but the last paragrpahs of the article say this:
Anne Stanback, executive director of Loves Makes a Family, said her group would probably begin talking to lawmakers about gay marriage — though she acknowledged it’s not likely the issue will be taken up next session.
So it just doesn’t stop with the benefits did it? The next step is to redefine marriage
as the rest of the article states
#4 Posted by Sean Galbraith on 04/21 at 04:26 PM -
Personally, I think there should be no such thing as civil marriage. Straight or gay, there should only be a civil union license that is legall valid. If someone wants to have a religious marriage ceremony, they are welcome to do so but it would be a private affair separate from the civil union and not legally binding (except between their god and them, of course).
#5 Posted by JimK on 04/21 at 05:39 PM -
Badger: so what??
That is NOT a lawmaker saying it. The statement is NOT part of the law. The point I made, and that you and that “person” seem to have ignored, is that he is threatening to “expose” lawmakers for something that simply is not true...each lawmaker that voted to pass this legislation ALSO voted to define marriage and between a man and a woman. Period.
#6 Posted by Sean Galbraith on 04/21 at 06:08 PM -
JimK: Exactly. I don’t see what the problem is. Everyone body wins, even if neither side got all that it wanted.
#7 Posted by JimK on 04/21 at 06:16 PM -
Sean: You know what the problem is. They never wanted civil unions either. Some people just want to demonize gays and treat them poorly because they disagree with them on religious grounds.
I’m glad Connecticut called their bluff. Now there’s no barrier to calling opponents of a civil union law bigots...because that’s precisely what they’re showing themselves to be. Marriage is protected and gay people have rights that they deserve as a couple. There should be no complaints about *this* law as it stands. But no...we have to start in with the threats.
I should also say, the mouthy idiot that threatened to push for full marriage recognition is just as guilty of being dumb. Let the damn ink dry before you threaten to shove something down the throat of the people, who clearly do not want the word “marriage” broadened in definition.
Slow your roll, Stanback.
#8 Posted by Sean Galbraith on 04/21 at 06:32 PM -
While I sympathize with his wanting the full benefits of citizenship (i.e. actual marriage), I agree that things should be taken one step at a time. The impact of this, I hope, will be huge.. the first time in the US where civil unions can’t be blamed (falsely, IMHO) on “activist judges”. Simply fantastic.
Up here the right-wing douchebags* (aka The Conservative Party of Canada) are threatening to force a new election (in part) because the ruling Liberal party wants to make full gay marriage the law of the land (as opposed to just the 90% of the population it currently applies to).
*I do not use this term lightly.. they really are right-wing and douchebags.
RSS (Subscribe)
Tip jars (Donate today!)
Doncha just love it when people try to cloak their hate in “tradition”? u.u
“Our old-timey religion”, anybody?