Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Civil Unions in Connecticut [Surprise, surprise, the NYT blatantly shills for it and more later]
NY Times ^ | March 7, 2005 | MEATHEAD EDITORIAL

Posted on 03/06/2005 10:18:38 PM PST by neverdem

Connecticut is seriously considering giving gay couples the ability to have their relationships legalized in civil unions. A civil union bill took a critical step toward passage when it was approved, 25 to 13, by the Legislature's powerful Judiciary Committee recently, and supporters believe they have the votes in the House and Senate. Gov. M. Jodi Rell has said she supports at least the concept of civil unions.

Gay rights advocates have mixed reactions, since they had hoped for a law that would give them the same rights and privileges as any married couple, and call it a marriage. Love Makes a Family, the largest gay rights organization in Connecticut, lobbied against the civil union bill in committee, arguing that it would make gay couples "separate and unequal." But later, the group changed its position. "We will not stand in the way of expanding our rights," wrote Anne Stanback, the president of Love Makes a Family, in The Hartford Courant.

Ms. Stanback and her allies were right to insist that gay couples should have the same right to marry and create families as other Americans and to urge the Connecticut Legislature to call their unions marriages. But the existing measure goes far toward giving gay couples the rights and protections of marriage, and gay rights advocates also were correct when they decided not to make the perfect the enemy of the good this year in Hartford.

The measure would treat gay couples joined in a civil union as spouses in a myriad of important ways, including rights of inheritance and making medical decisions. It's an important step in supporting the stability of gay families, and one that should not be dismissed because it does not take us right to the end of the road: marriages recognized beyond a single state's borders.

If Connecticut enacts a civil union law, it will join California as the only states to enact broad laws of this kind voluntarily. Vermont passed a civil union law under court pressure, and in Massachusetts a court decision forced officials to recognize gay marriage. It is no small thing for a state legislature to take this step on its own. The constitutional rights of every American are the safest when they are protected not by the judiciary alone, but also by the strong support of the citizenry as a whole.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: California; US: Connecticut; US: Massachusetts; US: Vermont
KEYWORDS: buttbuddies; civilunions; homosexualagenda; homosexuality; marriage; marriages; samesexunions

1 posted on 03/06/2005 10:18:38 PM PST by neverdem
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: neverdem
I have no problems with civil unions. I do have a problem with same sex marriage.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
2 posted on 03/06/2005 10:31:29 PM PST by goldstategop (In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives On In My Heart Forever)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

Freep the Governor, she has to veto this bill. She is a Republican and she needs to stand up, mention Oregon and Michigan supporting Marriage Amendments last year. Not conservative states


3 posted on 03/06/2005 10:32:13 PM PST by TheEaglehasLanded (S)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goldstategop

civil unions are just a way of having marriage without the m word. The next step of the homo-advocates will be to eliminate marriage as an institution or make civil unions and marriage one in the same by judicial fiate and thus subject to FFC spread.

Civil unions are no longer viable as a compromise. they must be opposed as equally as homosexual marriage.

ANYTHING homosexuals want to do via civil unions can be done with a simple cohabitation form.

The final iron of the "love makes a family" homosexual group is that "love" is NEVER EVER been part of marriage and law. The law has NEVER cared about love, the law only viewed all marriage (and divorce) in the context of production of children.


4 posted on 03/06/2005 10:44:56 PM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: neverdem

If it's on the Opinion page, it's not shilling. It's opinion. For shilling, see page 1 of the old gray lady.


5 posted on 03/06/2005 11:37:11 PM PST by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCrago66
Check out The Senate on the Brink [The NYT blatantly shills for the obstructionist Democrats]

I posted it as a MEATHEAD EDITORIAL. Someone added the sentence minus period within brackets. Now it's in the breaking news sidebar.

6 posted on 03/07/2005 12:11:44 AM PST by neverdem (May you be in heaven a half hour before the devil knows that you're dead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

"Civil unions are no longer viable as a compromise."

Should business partnerships be unviable too?


7 posted on 03/07/2005 5:58:43 AM PST by Smartaleck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Smartaleck

you state a non sequiter.

Civil unions are to be a legal recognition of sexual relations which do not have the remotest possibility of producing natural chidren from those sexual relations.

Business parnerships are to make money. Parnerships have contractual agreements which do not change year to year by act of legislature. Businss partnerships are artificial entitites (part the reason corporations have to use lawyers in a courtroom, can't represent yourself if you are not a person)

Civil unions are essentially a legal construct of marriage lite which is dedicated to the production of orgasms instead of children. Marriage is an institution, society rewards the institution not the individual in the institution.


8 posted on 03/07/2005 7:56:46 AM PST by longtermmemmory (VOTE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
"Civil unions are to be a legal recognition of sexual relations which do not have the remotest possibility of producing natural chidren from those sexual relations."

Obtaining benefits from a partner relationship has nothing to do with the sex act. .... and I suppose they will at some point want recognition of custodianship should one or the other partners have a child from a previous marriage or through adoption.

Business partnerships also ensure each other and spell out what is to occur upon dissolution of the partnership, such as the death of a partner. Not much different than the partner union the gays seek.

It appears you make the mistake that many make. Marriage exists as a union of a man and woman, a union in the eyes of God. The state acknowledges this institution and by law gives it certain deference. It is this second part that certain partners seek to inure to themselves in a civil union.
9 posted on 03/07/2005 8:22:05 AM PST by Smartaleck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: RaceBannon; scoopscandal; 2Trievers; LoneGOPinCT; Rodney King; sorrisi; MrSparkys; monafelice; ...
Connecticut ping!

Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.

10 posted on 03/08/2005 10:04:09 PM PST by nutmeg (democRATs = The Party of NO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DirtyHarryY2K

ping.


11 posted on 03/09/2005 7:17:26 AM PST by DBeers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: EdReform; backhoe; Yehuda; Clint N. Suhks; saradippity; stage left; Yakboy; I_Love_My_Husband; ...
Homosexual Agenda Ping.

If you want on/off the ping list see my profile page.

12 posted on 03/09/2005 7:47:07 AM PST by DirtyHarryY2K (''Go though life with a Bible in one hand and a Newspaper in the other" -- Billy Graham)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TheEaglehasLanded
Indeed! In addition, the gay activists are no in favor of civil unions, and will not stop there.

I do not favor any kind of same sex marriage, or marriage by any other name.

Families are a blessing from God. Mortal man does not HAVE to create them. Same Sex people have to create something out of nothing. It doesn't make it a family.

There is far too much dysfunction in society already. We should be looking to ways to eliminate dysfunction, not sanction it.
13 posted on 03/09/2005 9:37:39 AM PST by gidget7
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson