You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Submit your comments on this article
Home Front: Culture Wars
Connecticut House endorses same-sex unions
2005-04-15
The state House passed legislation yesterday that would make Connecticut the second state to establish same-sex civil unions, and the first to do it without a court order. The House amended the bill to define marriage as being between one man and one woman. That means the Senate, which overwhelmingly approved the bill last week, would need to approve the amended version before it reaches the governor's desk. Vermont has approved civil unions and Massachusetts has gay marriage, but those changes came only after same-sex couples brought lawsuits. The Connecticut bill would give same-sex couples all the rights and privileges of marriage, but they would not be eligible to receive marriage licenses.
Posted by:Fred

#8  check for teeth gnashed and garments torn on the sidewalks, Shieldwolf - feedback next week?
Posted by: Frank G   2005-04-15 7:03:07 PM  

#7  I live in Oregon {the Left Coast} and the State Supreme Court ruling reads like a direct slap at Multnomah County officials : basically reminding them that they are a constituent member of the state, and not the state in toto. Also, we just passed Measure 36 mandating that marriage is reserved as an agreement/contract/institution between a man and a woman.
The whines in Portland over the ruling was like a thousand jet turbines winding up :)
Posted by: Shieldwolf   2005-04-15 6:54:51 PM  

#6  I'm totally against gay "marriage", but recognize that there are homosexuals residing in loving long-term relationships that need recognition of that relationship in terms of healthcare bennies, end-of-life and hospital care decisions, et al. Grant them Civil Unions, especially to encourage long-term relationships, which are, unfortunately, as infrequent as marriages without divorce. Reserve "Marriages" for man-woman
Posted by: Frank G   2005-04-15 6:49:16 PM  

#5  Got absolutely NO problem with that. If the legislature wants to vote on it and pass it - fine. If the people don't agree - they can vote themselves a new legislature. I just object to changing the laws via judicial fiat.
Posted by: DMFD   2005-04-15 6:43:31 PM  

#4  CF, they are still crying in their corn flakes over in San Francisco after the courts ruled that Mayor Gavin was not KING GAVIN. King Gavin thought he had more power and authority than the State of California, which by the way voted against gay marriage. Saw a couple crying that one couldn't go visit the other if they were in the hospital. Like some Bay Area Hospital woudl deny visitation rights to a gay partner. If that all they want just spelll it out with a legal declaration and then they can hold hands through any operation or procedures.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2005-04-15 4:10:08 PM  

#3  The courts in Oregon nullified all the Same-Sex marrages which took place there last year saying that a county could not override state law.

You should hear the whining here in Seattle......
Posted by: CrazyFool   2005-04-15 12:34:11 PM  

#2  I guess being next door to Massachusettes rubbed off on them. Was this that popular an issue in Connecticut too? Funny how no State on the left coast has passed similar legislation, but that's probably a matter of time.
Posted by: Cyber Sarge   2005-04-15 12:32:41 PM  

#1  Does the Connecticutt house want some ice with that Kool-Aid?
Posted by: badanov   2005-04-15 12:18:48 AM  

00:00