It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Connecticut Passes Gay Civil Union Law

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 02:06 AM
link   
The State of Connecticut has passed a law that will allow gay couples to enter into legally recognized civil unions. Vermont also provides civil unions to gays and lesbians, but only after it was ordered to so by a state court, making Connecticut the first state to offer the unions voluntarily through legislation. However, the law also defines marriage as solely between a man and women, angering some gay activists. Massachusetts offers full marriage rights to gay couples due to a State Supreme Court decision, but that ruling is in endangered by a proposed amendment to the state constitution.
 



abcnews.go.com
HARTFORD, Conn. Apr 20, 2005 — 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.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


I think this should be the model for offering legal equality to gay couples without stepping on the religious meaning and sanctity of marriage. In other states, gays have been able to find activist executive authorities or courts to grant marriage status only to have it overturned by higher courts or a constitutional amendment. If they continue to pursue the title of marriage, further amendments banning it will pass, perhaps even an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.


[edit on 4/21/2005 by djohnsto77]




posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 12:19 PM
link   
I don't know if this law is constiutional. Seperate but equal has been rejected no?

States should recognize gay marriage, not gay unions. Why not?



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 01:17 PM
link   
That's something I've never understood. Why not allow gay marriages? People argue that it undermines the sacred holy union. Doesn't divorce do that as well? Doesn't legally allowing adultery do that as well? It's also been argued that married people get a tax break so they can raise a family. Quick fix: change the name to a "family" tax break and state that you must prove intent to raise a family. If a gay couple adopts (which is also a debate that I hate to see), then they get the tax break. If not, they don't. Same applies to heteros: if they have kids or can prove they're trying to have kids (ie fertility doctor visits), they get the break. If not, they don't. Of course, I could have been entirely mislead on the purpose of that tax break originally and that entire point is moot



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I think gays should applaud Vermonts ruling and push for this type ruling nationwide--and for now, give-up trying to change the definition of marriage. I support gay marriage, it sure as hell doesn't hurt mine, but gays need to live to fight another day.

[edit on 21-4-2005 by kazi]



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 04:05 PM
link   
Kazi...I think you have a very good point.
The homosexual minority should be able to do the same kinds of things that the rest of us do. It doesn't affect me, other than make me angry to see someone being treated differently, just because they're not the same as "everyone else". If we keep this kind of thinking up, it won't be long before someone ties me up to a wooden fence out in the countryside, stabs and beats me, leaving me to die simply because I like to put my peanut butter on top of my jelly.

Oh, and this is for anyone that's thinking it:
What's that? You say the Bible says it's wrong?
So what.
Just because YOU believe they're going to burn doesn't A) make it Your civil responsibility to inform them of it, and B) give you the right to judge them.

You don't like it? Don't walk out your front door, close your eyes, and plug your ears. YOU don't have to acknowledge it, but please...quit trying to stop the rest of us from doing so.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by kazi
I think gays should applaud Vermonts ruling and push for this type ruling nationwide--and for now, give-up trying to change the definition of marriage. I support gay marriage, it sure as hell doesn't hurt mine, but gays need to live to fight another day.


This is exactly my point. Even if you support gay marriage, you must acknowledge the political reality. Gay marriage is so unpopular now that anti-gay marriage constitutional amendments pass easily, even in states regarded as quite liberal such as Oregon. If a Federal amendment is ever passed, that's it for the gay marriage issue -- it'll be banned for the foreseeable future everywhere within the U.S.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 04:30 PM
link   
I don't know about the likely success of an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment nationally. Bush already tried to push one, but it hasn't gone anywhere because it doesn't have nearly enough votes to succeed, even with a Republican dominated Congress.

Fortunately, even a lot of moderately anti-gay types are leery of enshrining discrimination in the US Constitution.



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 04:33 PM
link   
A Federal Amendment hasn't gotten much support from legislators yet since the issue isn't ripe enough for it. But if Federal courts start mandating gay marriage on states, you can believe one will be passed quite easily.

[edit on 4/21/2005 by djohnsto77]



posted on Apr, 21 2005 @ 06:14 PM
link   
.
As long as there are no legal limitations because they are 'Civil Unions' I have no problem with this. If on the other hand that means for Income tax purposes you are excluded from classes and categories because you are not 'married' this is a problem.

It is a step in the correct direction.

AND they did if voluntarily. Kudos for them.

Gay partnerships carry the same rights and responsibilities as heterosexual partnerships do.

me, i will never get married, gay or straight, ha, ha, ha, on you suckers.
(just teasing, if it works for you cool, but marriage is not for everyone)
.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join