Kudos and Cheers to Connecticut. I'm predicting New York will follow suit, based on the report it asked the bar association to put together regarding the legality of prohibiting gays from marriage.

April 21, 2005
Connecticut Approves Civil Unions for Gays
By WILLIAM YARDLEY

HARTFORD, April 20 - Gov. M. Jodi Rell on Wednesday signed into law a measure allowing same-sex couples to enter into civil unions, making Connecticut the second state after Vermont to approve such unions and the first to do so without pressure from the courts.

"I think that it certainly bodes well for Connecticut that we didn't have to be ordered to do this," said Mrs. Rell, a Republican, who signed the bill about an hour after the Democratic-controlled Senate approved the measure by a three to one ratio. The House passed the bill last week 85 to 63.

Under the law, which takes effect on Oct. 1, couples in civil unions will essentially have all of the rights and protections the state provides married couples, from tax benefits and insurance coverage to hospital visiting rights to family leave from work.

The law also includes an amendment, added last week, that defines marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Mrs. Rell had encouraged the amendment, though she stopped short of saying whether her support for civil unions depended on it.

"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," the governor said outside her office after signing the bill.

The relative ease with which civil unions became law in Connecticut contrasts with the trend across the country.

Fourteen states have voted to ban gay marriage since last year. Earlier this month, Kansas voted to ban gay marriage and civil unions.

Yet in New England, Connecticut falls cleanly into a countertrend. Vermont approved civil unions in 2000, and Massachusetts last year began allowing gay couples to marry. Vermont and Massachusetts adopted new policies after courts ruled that gay couples were being discriminated against.

Connecticut also faces a discrimination lawsuit, supported by the same gay activists who pushed lawsuits in Vermont and Massachusetts, but the suit could be years from resolution. And many lawmakers said on Wednesday that their support for civil unions was less a defensive act against a potential court ruling than the obvious next step for a state with a 15-year history of expanding gay rights.

In 1990, the state passed a law that included gay people among those protected under a hate-crimes law. The next year, the state added protections in housing and employment laws. In 2000, the state made it easier for gay couples to adopt children.

"This is a different state in many ways," said Representative Michael P. Lawlor, a Democrat from East Haven, who was the bill's lead supporter in the House, which Democrats control 99 to 52. "I think Democrats and Republicans can disagree about the budget, but when it comes to basic human rights issues, we don't disagree that much. There was more evidence of that today."

Public opinion polls also showed support for civil unions. A poll released this month by Quinnipiac University showed that 56 percent of Connecticut voters supported civil unions and 37 percent were opposed. The poll showed that 53 percent opposed gay marriage and 42 percent supported it.

Some viewed the civil unions bill as a compromise. Earlier this year, the state's most prominent gay marriage activist group, Love Makes a Family, opposed the bill for civil unions, vowing to settle only for marriage.

A longtime lobbyist for gay rights, Betty Gallo, eventually broke from Love Makes a Family, saying she could not oppose increased rights for gay couples.

Loves Makes a Family later said it would end its opposition to the bill, and the measure then moved quickly out of committee to the Senate floor two weeks ago.

"We don't want to overplay the rights versus the status and dignity that come with marriage," said Anne Stanback, the president of Love Makes a Family. "But today we celebrate."

Ms. Gallo said on Wednesday that opposition to civil unions was mostly rooted in wariness of a lifestyle foreign to many people.

She said the bill's passage was brought about partly by the activists' strategy of having gay couples invite lawmakers and others into their homes, where such wariness "goes away when you know people and you go into their houses and have coffee and pastries."

The bill passed on the day that Roman Catholic clergymen in the state, and many parishioners, make their annual visit to the Capitol to lobby for their legislative agenda. This year the agenda included one item reflected in the stickers many wore: "Protect Marriage!"

Peter Wolfgang, a lobbyist and the public policy director for the Family Institute of Connecticut, which opposes civil unions, said his group would make them an issue in next year's election.

He and others said that polls misrepresent voter sentiment and that lawmakers are being deceived by lobbyists who support civil unions.

"This is basically the end of one phase and the beginning of another," Mr. Wolfgang said. "It's all about 2006."

<font color = lightgreen>*sigh* This is such a non-issue...not to disparage your post, Timber. I am simply tired of hearing about how one group is fighting to have their sexual preference be accepted by others while a second group is fighting to have the first group banned.

The only person's whose sexuality and/or sexual preference matters is your partner's! How simple is that? If you aren't <font>Belle</font>, I don't care what you do, with whom you do it, when/where you do it, or what you do it with. </font>

::runs around, hands over head:: OH NO! Now fire and brimstone will rain forth from the heavens! Or is that when gay marriage is legal?

Azred... It might be a non-issue for you. But it's NOT a non-issue for gays and lesbians. And many heterosexuals don't share your opinion about only your partners' sexuality mattering. Otherwise gay marrige would be legal and nobody would care.

Orson Scott Card had a rather interesting article on this, maybe I'll see if I can dig it up...

here it is: link

[ 04-22-2005, 09:56 AM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

Spoken like a true idiot there, Orson. I piss in your general direction.

Look, you can argue and twist words all you want, but anyone with with 2 brain cells to rub together realizes that giving one couple legal benefits and denying them to another, based solely on the distinction of their genetalia, is a violation of that rule saying we all should get "equal protection" under the law. As I said over at the Oasis Forums,
It's not remaking the law. It's finally following it. 150 years late.

[ 04-22-2005, 10:32 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

This is misrepresenting the issue at hand. It is not about having sexual preference accepted. In fact, similiar lines of misrepresentation are often used by the people who would be quite happy having gays banned.


It is about having equal rights and priviledges under the law. This goal has not yet been achieved for all gay Americans, so while you may tire of hearing about it, it is not going away. It won't be going away either til equal rights are afforded to all American couples- regardless of their gender.

Hey, as an aside, who here saw that episode of South Park where the immigrant laborers were coming in from the future and taking the jobs (THEY TUK-ER-JOB!!!!). Remember how they solved the problem in the end?

I think Orson Scott Card would benefit greatly by putting his great imagination at work contemplating the issue at hand. I have read many of his books and consider him a smart, imaginative fellow....until now- I have been given a reason to pause.

I'm shocked that he stooped to the half-logic that since a gay man can marry a woman his rights to marry have not been infringed upon. How he misses the pink elephant in the room, the one with gender discrimination and unequal rights painted on it's side, I don't know.

Haha, that episode was just trippy...

One of the great Southpark episodes!

"Back to the pile!!!!!"


:D

<font color = lightgreen>It should be a non-issue for homosexuals. They may already obtain benefits through most employers, they may buy joint property, obtain joint financial acconts, etc. Homosexaul couples have everything that heterosexual couples can have except a marriage license; if your relationship is not validated without that particular piece of paper then you don't have a very strong relationship.

News flash--most people don't care.

Second news flash--the phrase "gays and lesbians" is not needed, because lesbians are gays. This is why I generally use "homosexuals". </font>

<font color = lightgreen>As I stated above, homosexuals already have equal rights, in case you didn't notice. [img]graemlins/beigesmilewinkgrin.gif[/img]

Never forget that I already treat every equally. As a true elitist, I consider all other demographic groups to be inferior to mine so I do not discriminate in my discrimination. [img]tongue.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] </font>

No, they don't- even if you state it again and again. ;) One example are the over 1,000 provisions in federal law alone that apply to a man/woman couple but do not apply to a man/man or a woman/woman couple. Equality in this case would be achieved when all coupled duos who seek out and attain a marriage-like living arrangment all have the same rights and priviledges, regardless of gender.

<font color = lightgreen>Just because some stuffy Federal laws don't say "man-man" or "woman-woman" means nothing. I should tell all those couples I know in the Metroplex that they don't have the same rights as <font color = red>Belle</font> and I do--that should come as a shock to them. The only thing they cannot do that we can do is procreate biologically. Thus, homosexual couples have de facto equality and, as Timber suggests, they have legal equality under the 14th Amendment. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] </font>

::stiffens:: Funny. Ask any gay person in the country if they have equal rights, and your response will be some variation of "No."

Most people don't care?
They care!
I care!

Is this just an instinctive reaction amongst the gay community though Illumina or based on fact?

I'm quite ignorant in this area so do you have any examples of where gay people aren't treated equally under law? (asides from their union not being called 'marriage')

[ 04-23-2005, 12:51 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

So what? You could probably do the same thing for almost any group of people. Every major group out there can point to a law and go "This is some right that they have that I don't".

<font color = lightgreen>I have asked people--several couples, in fact. They told me in person that they felt they had equal rights. I will tend to believe first-person responses. Conclusion: homosexuals have equal rights. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] </font>

Azred said:
If that's true now, it may not be soon.


http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3145627

Part of that is actually not true from what I've read: Florida has this exact ban, and Mississippi bans gay couples but makes no distinction for an individual. Significantly, at least from the quoted material, note that our discussion of this is a bit more sophisticated than theirs lol. While we're debating broader equal rights, one camp is calling the others hateful, and the other is, in a very Hellen Lovejoy from the Simpsons way, saying "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!!"

To me the issue of adoption is a separate one from the right to be a homosexual.

I'm all for the right to do whatever you want in the privacy of your own home, provided its between consenting adults.

However, homosexuality isn't something I 'approve' of or something I think should be flaunted in public. By allowing homosexuals to adopt children at a period when they're still impressionable must (at least to a certain extent) give them the impression that its socially acceptable and desirable.

It's one thing accepting that some people are homosexuals and not discriminating against them because of it. This any reasonable person should accept in my opinion. However, I see adoption of kids almost as encouraging it which I wouldn't support.

[ 04-23-2005, 05:35 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

<font color = lightgreen>Of course, no one presumes that homosexual households don't create a loving environment for children. However, many children won't understand why they have two fathers or two mothers instead of one each. Their classmates certainly won't understand and when they do they will be vicious in thier taunting of the child of a homosexual couple. Besides, when the other kids are attending some parent-specific function the child of a homosexual couple cannot attend, leading to feelings of alienation.

When the question of children arises, I won't support homosexuals raising children only becuase this will create too many emotionally destabilizing crises for the child. Homosexuality is for adults, not children.</font>

[ 04-23-2005, 07:45 PM: Message edited by: Azred ]

It is absurd to deny rights based on the prejudice of others.

Know what I say? Black parents shouldn't be allowed to adopt or have children because their children will face racism and prejudice. Racism is for adults, not children.

I had a link to rights allowed heterosexuals but denied to homosexuals floating around somewhere... When I do, you'll have it.

Your logic is impeccable Illumina.

However, in modern society there is still a difference in perception between being black (which is utterly beyond the choice of the person) and being homosexual (which many would still believe is either a lifestyle choice or simply sinful behaviour).

The perception is most likely inaccurate of course, but I think it would be hard to argue that having black parents would get you teased more than having two men as parents.

Not to mention that the social impact that a father figure and mother figure have on children is pretty large - those with both inevitably do better in life on average.

And racism and prejudice may be for adults and not kids, but I'm really really glad I didn't have two men as my parents. It's not an ideal world and expecting children to be unaffected by this is not realistic IMO.

[ 04-23-2005, 09:10 PM: Message edited by: shamrock_uk ]

The 14th amendment, nor the rest of the Constitution, don't mean squat unless goverment works like the document says it should and people participate in there own governence in order to see to it. Right now there are many anti-gay or limiting marriage laws on the books that can be deemed contrary to the implied legal equality as a right by the 14th amendment. Some can also be deemed a gender bias complaint made under civil rights laws.

One way our government works is by people particpating to change the laws that are deemed contrary to the guidelines of lawmaking into to laws that are compliant to the constitution. It is checks and balances, and people participating in the goverment for progress by the ways it is designed.

You can't just shut-up and pray that government changes the way you hope. Thank God they didn't do that in 1776. It takes time, work, and particpation to change the government. It also takes time for people to change. It is the hard road and sometimes the disappointing road and the road of sacrifice.

Gay Frank and Gay Joe can't file a joint tax return as a married couple, but Straight Jim and Straight Tina can. This is the simplist and extremely common inequality out of the thousand+ that exist.

I cannot spell out any more clearly why I think gay inequality exists. Gay inequality by the law is actual- plain as day, and it is a bona-fide fact and as far as I'm concerned not a side-issue. It is as disparaging and as pertinant as the struggle vs inequality women endured beofe sufferage and that people with colored skin endured before the civil rights era.

I see equality up there with freeedom as key issues whenever governement is involved. More so Equality and Freedom are like absolute ideals that make up key roots of our government.

<font color = lightgreen>Racial/ethnic origin is not a choice. Sexual preference is a choice. Therein lies the difference.

@Chewbacca: Gay Frank and Joe probably shouldn't file a joint return anyway, since the reduction in taxable income as a couple is less than they would enjoy filing separately. All married couples should file separately.</font>

<font color = lightgreen>Racial/ethnic origin is not a choice. Sexual preference is a choice. Therein lies the difference.
</font> </font>[/QUOTE]Taken from a brilliant essay a friend of mine wrote on the subject of gay marriage...

At some point, and on some mental level it is a choice, whether it's due to sexual abuse causing them to shie away from the opposite gender (I know several lesbians who were abused and I feel in my experience from talking to homosexuals it is a contributing factor), a lack of a strong gender role model (this doesn't necessarily mean a single parent household), and many other cues that may push them one way or another. So it may not be a decision they are aware of, it may be influenced by environmental stimuli beyond their control, but they are not "born that way" and that essay Illumina posted seems to be trying to push the consequences of that decision off onto something or someone else.

I believe God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. If you don't feel that way, fine, I do. It doesn't make them bad people, and it doesn't mean they should be treated differently. But accepting them doesn't mean condoning the behavior or portaying it as "normal" and desirable.

[ 04-25-2005, 05:10 PM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

<font color = lightgreen>If sexual preference is not a choice, then it must be something genetic that forces the behavior onto the person. Well, if that is the case then the following are true: 1) homosexuality occurs in a minority of the population and 2) it does not result in biological procreation, hence is an evolutionary dead-end. In that sense, sexual preference is similar to other genetic disorders and I don't think anyone--not even me--would want homosexuality to be classified as a genetic disorder. Thus, sexual preference must be a choice.

On the other hand, if they say "it isn't a choice" then they don't have to take responsibility for their actions. It isn't their fault, etc. :rolleyes:

Were I homosexual, I would want to be with my partner and I would want my partner to be with me because they want to be, not because they have to be. </font>

[ 04-25-2005, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: Azred ]

Morgeruat... Concequences? Do you mean discrimination or hellfire?

Responsibility for their actions, Azred? Consentual sex between two people? For shame. It must be easy for you to smugly talk about how you have your Belle and how gays have equal rights. Easy. And I'll accept that. But to sit there and smugly declare that it must be a choice is a slap in the face to gays and their allies... It must be refreshing to have your head firmly planted in the sand. Sometimes, I'm even jealous of that mindset. Bliss...

Honestly now, people. How the HELL can someone who isn't gay sit there and say it's a choice? Think about it logically. How would you know? And, more importantly, what kind of masochist would CHOOSE a life like that?

[ 04-26-2005, 01:55 AM: Message edited by: Illumina Drathiran'ar ]

I also believe sexuality is based on a series of choices.
This man is an acquaintance of mine: http://www.syrogers.org/
and his testimony is in line with the stories I have seen and experienced in other friends and partners of mine.

<font color = lightgreen>If someone chooses to think of my opinion as a "slap in the face" that is not my problem. Homosexuality is a choice of lifestyle; if someone decides otherwise then, as my signature states, their decision not to accept a fact is also not my problem.

Most people do find themselves jealous of me at some point. If only more people would join me in being a rational realist.... [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] </font>

<font color = lightgreen>It is very easy: "it's a choice." As I stated earlier, logically if homosexuality is not a choice then it must be at best a mental disorder and at worst a genetic disorder. Honestly, I would want to accept either of those conclusions and I am not homosexual.
I have friends who are homosexual and they agree that with me that their lifestyle is their choice. Like I said, they are homosexual because they want to be. I respect them for being true to themselves even though many others disagree with their choice.</font>

[ 04-26-2005, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: Azred ]

Given the moratorium which we've been skating dangerously close to with this topic (and the pope one), I'll leave it at consequences, everything from not being permitted to donate blood, consequences of sin, discrimination, having excellent track lighting on their ceilings [img]tongue.gif[/img] , etc etc

As I said before it's not necessarily even a choice they are aware of on a consious level, and any number of environmental factors can contribute to the choice, but it remains a personal decision.

I saw these stripers rub and suck all over each other this weekend at a club. One of them got all over my friend's gal, and even got her top off. It was hot, so hot. Choices? It was all about choices. Everyone there chose to be frikkin turned on!

I think I might be a gay woman. [img]graemlins/erm.gif[/img]

I guess my point is, how in the world can this be bad or evil? It's beauty, art, and higher form of existence. It is TRUTH. :drool:

PRO GAY ALL THE WAY!!!

[ 04-26-2005, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

So you're telling me you can't switch it off? Do you really mean to tell me you have that little control over your own mind and body? I pity you. You are a slave to your desires then, and therefore a slave to women that turn you on.

If I get turned on it's because I chose to let go. I chose to give in to my instincts. I have control over my willpower. My partner has confidence and trust in me, because they know my commitment to them overrides whatever temtpation may come my way.

As for your friends gal, she was simply an unpaid stripper for the night. She got sucked in to performing for free what the others were getting paid to do. Stripping is a job. They do it for the money. If you think otherwise, you've fallen for the act hook line and sinker sucka.

Who would pay for what they can get for free anyway?

So what does "accepting them" mean? I'll tell you that legally, it at least means that their couplings will not be discriminated against. Which in turn means that they won't be denied benefits other couplings will be granted. Acknowledging that their unions deserve the legal benefits of any other union accomplishes the goal of "accepting them" on the legal front. As far as NOT portraying them as "normal" and "desirable," well, now, that's up to PARENTING, isn't it? Just as discouraging drug use, encouraging church attendance, or discouraging pre-marital sex is up to PARENTING.

You have correctly identified the issue as a moral one. Now, we should give these couples their fair rights legally, and retain the moral issue to its rightful place -- which is the home, and not the judiciary or legislature.

Why?

Why? </font>[/QUOTE]Because we have a seperation of church and state in this country. See, my morals are different from your morals are different from George Bush's morals. I'm a very moral person. I see nothing wrong with homosexuality and have a huge problem with war, discrimination, injustice, and greed. I believe George Bush does immoral things. Some don't. Some would percieve ME as immoral. That's their right.

You can't legislate morality because hardly ANY morality is universal.

Deal with it.

[ 04-27-2005, 02:57 AM: Message edited by: Illumina Drathiran'ar ]

Why? </font>[/QUOTE]Fair enough. Answer: Because the most fundamental view of our country is that you can create a uotpia based on one rule -- that you do not harm others, and otherwise you are free -- completely free. This is specifically targeted at not legislating morality. I think it's difficult to legislate morality outside those things that directly hurt/harm other people. I admit that philosophically this stance is shaky for a number of reasons -- chief among them the fact that you can broaden or tighten the whole thing based on your understanding of what constitutes "harm."

[ 04-27-2005, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Why? </font>[/QUOTE]Because we have a seperation of church and state in this country. See, my morals are different from your morals are different from George Bush's morals. I'm a very moral person. I see nothing wrong with homosexuality and have a huge problem with war, discrimination, injustice, and greed. I believe George Bush does immoral things. Some don't. Some would percieve ME as immoral. That's their right.

You can't legislate morality because hardly ANY morality is universal.

Deal with it. </font>[/QUOTE]You yourself are proposing to legislate morality. You have decided "all are equal" should be made law under your interpretation of that statement. How can you criticise the other side for doing the exact same thing? That is hypocrisy and double standards.

You mention the separation of church and state, yet the state will end up dictating to the church on this issue. Is it a one-way seperation - meaning the church can't influence the state but the state can influence the church - or a true seperation? Make up your mind because at the moment you seem to want things both ways.

Get a grip and analyze what you're saying. No church will EVER be forced to perform a ceremony it disagrees with. Legalizing gay marriage will NOT force your local pastor to marry some fags -- it will be totally his and the church's decision as to whether they want to recognize gay unions, or just save them for the altar boys and priests.

However, the current state is that the churches and their congregations have forcefully kept ANYONE from recognizing gay marriages. That's a constitutional no-no. The law can't give favors based on skin color, ethnic background, or genetalia. It's that simple. If the law creates a benefit for two people who partner together for life, it has to make that benefit available to all couples, regardless of whether they are "innies" or "outies".

Why? </font>[/QUOTE]Fair enough. Answer: Because the most fundamental view of our country is that you can create a uotpia based on one rule -- that you do not harm others, and otherwise you are free -- completely free. This is specifically targeted at not legislating morality. I think it's difficult to legislate morality outside those things that directly hurt/harm other people. I admit that philosophically this stance is shaky for a number of reasons -- chief among them the fact that you can broaden or tighten the whole thing based on your understanding of what constitutes "harm." </font>[/QUOTE]So you're saying the law should be the way you're suggesting just because "it's the right thing to do?" Or is it just because "the founding fathers said this is how it should be".

Both have a sense of either subjective morality, or religious adherance to the writings of long dead men.

Why should homosexuals be given the rights you've suggested? Is there a reason outside the subjective morality that you have?