Posted on 04/14/2005 9:50:36 AM PDT by AZScreamingEagle
HARTFORD, Conn. — The state House passed legislation Wednesday that would make Connecticut (search) the second state to establish same-sex civil unions, and the first to do it without a court order.
Addressing concerns raised by Gov. M. Jodi Rell (search), 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 (search) has gay marriage, but those changes came only after same-sex couples brought lawsuits.
The Connecticut bill, approved 85-63 by the House, would give same-sex couples all the rights and privileges of marriage, but they would not be eligible to receive marriage licenses. Critics said they saw no real difference between civil unions and marriage, but proponents stressed that it would not affect the state's marriage laws.
"The public policy of this state could not be clearer. Marriage is the union of one man and one woman," said Democrat Rep. Michael Lawlor, who co-chairs the Judiciary Committee.
While some proponents said the bill was a key step toward providing civil rights for same-sex couples, others were disappointed it was amended with the marriage definition.
"In the end, they have completely accepted and put into law the second-class status of gay and lesbian families in Connecticut," said Mary Bonauto, a Boston lawyer who led a successful fight for same-sex marriage rights in neighboring Massachusetts. "That is a very bitter pill to swallow."
Rell, a Republican, said she would sign the amended bill if the Senate passes it.
"The House bill sends an unambiguous message about our commitment to fight discrimination, promote civil rights and preserve the traditional institution of marriage," she said.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Conn. is doing it how it should be done. By legislative action of the elected representatives.
My sympathy to those conservative Conn. voters and our freeper buddies who live there. Keep fighting the good fight!
True, this is far superior to Mass. Supremes
making up the rules as they go, so at least they
have that one over them.
I agree with you that at least it was done through the legislature. However, as to the issue... I don't know why the Gov't is involved in "marriage" at all. I don't need no stinking Gov't to get married.
Sigh...that would be me. Sorry folks. We're sorely outnumbered.
I think that leaves New Hampshire as the only New England state that hasn't made some accomodation to gay civil unions, marriages, etc...and I DO MEAN ETC!
So, what's next? Goats? Dogs? Sheep?
Yikes.
This state (CT) sucks.
And Governor Jodi Rell-Republican-will sign this into law!!!!!
A dysfunctional sex fetish is being force on tax payers, because tax payers and private businesses are going to be forced to support the demented fetishists.
Heck, even heterosexual prostitution is illegal, yet they accept something that goes against every natural law on the planet earth!
Unless the American people are allowed a say in this, all those who support this type of anti-life dictation need to lose their jobs via the voting booth. I for one will never, ever vote for someone who tries to force me to accept and support something contrary to my own conscience. Never. This is not Communist Red China!
That is my view too, although they should also have a referendum before making such a decision.
The worst thing is when courts FORCE gay marriage (like in Canada)
They'll lose and go to the courts anyway.
What about the Conn. Senate?
That's the rational way to look at it. Unfortunately folks on both sides of the debate wish to use government to do their bidding.
The CT Senate passed the civil unions bill last week 27-9
The voting booth is when the American peole get their say.
Well, this is the way it is supposed to work. If they want to be foolish in Connecticutt then so be it. At least this way they can undo the damage when and if they ever want to.
They should draw up an amendment like the other states. Those people got to vote on this issue.
I'm sure if people knew in advance their chosen representatives would act against their best interests, or vote their tax dollars and pay checks away like this, they wouldn't have voted the same way!
I don't know the rules and laws of all that states regarding amending their Constitutions. In the states where citizens vote on Constitutional amendments, then they get to vote. In states where they don't, they don't.
What other options do they have? The way the gay activists are running, even the Federal Marriage Amendment won't be enough...they could come to Canada, get married and go back to the US (even if it isn't recognized there)
Sure. Let them move to Canada. It's better than Americans being forced by law to cover their fetish benefits.
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.