Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login

Equality Smackdown in Hartford, CT

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU
Ian David Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 10:39 AM
Original message
Equality Smackdown in Hartford, CT
You can help yourself
But don't take too much

from God Bless the Child
Arthur Herzog Jr. and Billie Holiday

Keep those homosexuals out of Gov. Jodi Rell's Connecticut state house! She already signed a civil-union bill for them. How dare they come back asking for something more!

She claimed nearly two years ago that she was for equality. However, yesterday she sounded a lot more like our own recent ex-governor in saying in no uncertain terms that she'd veto a same-sex marriage bill if one appeared before her.

Two years ago, her statement on signing civil unions into law was:

I am pleased that the House of Representatives passed this amendment and made it clear that while we will recognize and support civil unions, marriage in Connecticut is defined as the union of a man and a woman.

Passage of this bill will extend civil rights to all couples, no matter their gender, and send the unmistakable message that discrimination in any form is unacceptable in Connecticut.

At the time, the conflict between her DOMA wording and that about no discrimination in her state seemed odd enough. Many of us put it down to the shock of the new.

Yesterday, she made it plain that separate with kind of equal was as far as she cared to go. According to the AP, Rell stated at a news conference, "I said ... when I signed the civil union bill that I believed it covered the concerns that had been raised. And I believe that that bill was the appropriate way to go and I still do. And the answer is 'yes,' I would veto a bill that provides for same-sex marriage."

Rell, shown above, wears a UCONN women's basketball jersey. The costumed hound beside her is allegedly her husband Lou in a husky suit. The pic is from the state Website. It draws attention to her status as married, which she can legally do in Connecticut as a heterosexual.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Warpy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 11:02 AM
Response to Original message
1. If the civil union confers all the civil rights that marriage does
expect a lot of straight couples opting for it, too. We're as desperate to get out from under the marriage baggage as you are to assume it.

If a civil union offers the same legal rights as marriage does, you can call it whatever you want to. In fact, I would prefer gay and lesbian couples call it marriage. I do so enjoy watching fundies get closer to strokes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
moose65 Donating Member (525 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-28-07 06:27 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. You know, that is something I've never even thought of!
And it seems strange to me that no one has ever asked the question: in Vermont and Connecticut (and soon New Jersey) are civil unions restricted to same-sex couples only? Can straight couples get civil unions? If they can't, I can see a course of action: find two straight people who want a civil union and when they can't get it, they should sue for the right! After all, if civil unions are really the same as marriage, they should be open to opposite-sex couples as well, shouldn't they? I can see freeper heads exploding right now as straight people get denied the right to a civil union! LOL. And the gay community could get all up in arms about the "sanctity" of the civil union. There are several ways to go with this. If everyone could get civil unions, wouldn't that be a "threat" to marriage as well? It's almost like an alternate universe.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BR_Parkway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-29-07 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Some knee jerk keyboarders on the right would instantly cry that
we were getting "special rights" by having civil unions that heterosexuals couldn't get.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Midlodemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 11:47 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. And, interestingly, when some folks get married,
they get married in a 'civil' ceremony versus a 'church' service.

I would prefer it to be called marriage as well. Especially since it will greatly enhance the standing of the GLBT community.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-31-07 12:44 PM
Response to Reply #4
5. ALL marriages are civil
The ceremony itself is irrelevant; only the signing of the civil marriage license has any legal standing. Every state allows judges to officiate, and in Florida, Maine and South Carolina, any notary public may take what is nothing more than a jurat.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Jan 20th 2018, 01:20 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » GLBT Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC