Discussion on Same-Sex Marriage: State, Federal, Community

Bill Clinton was good for Bill Clinton. He got his agenda FORCED on him by Newt and the so called pretenders. Clinton was forced into the DOMA, forced into Welfare Reform, FORCED into a balanced Budget, heck, anything good Clinton ever did was the brainchild of conservative thought, he just did it to look good.

Whenever his whacky wife tried to get him to do something to satisfy their liberal base, (heatlh care reform, gays in the military, taking on the NRA) they failed and crashed and burned.

 

Obi-Wan McCartney said

Bill Clinton was good for Bill Clinton. He got his agenda FORCED on him by Newt and the so called pretenders. Clinton was forced into the DOMA, forced into Welfare Reform, FORCED into a balanced Budget, heck, anything good Clinton ever did was the brainchild of conservative thought, he just did it to look good.

Bill Clinton was good for Bill Clinton?

Well lets, see.....

**He rejuvenated our economy after 12 years of a disastrous policies by Reagan and Bush 41
**Created an uprecedented expansion economically that still continues to this day
**he got saturday night special handguns outlawed, got us the Brady Bill to keep guns away from criminals, and banned weapons that were being used specifically for killing sprees.
****Lowered the Crime Rates
***reformed goverment
***balance the budget
***rebuilt our military to handle the things we are taking on today

Yeah, Clinton was so self serving!!! All he ever tried to do was make a better america for the people, and especially for those that might be less fortunate.


Whenever his whacky wife tried to get him to do something to satisfy their liberal base, (heatlh care reform, gays in the military, taking on the NRA) they failed and crashed and burned.

Yeah, how dare his "wacky wife" try to provide universal health care for our nations poor, and for our children. What a decietfull and terrible person would try to do that!!!

But hey, in 2008, that "wacky wife" will be PRESIDENT-ELECt AND i AM GOING TO BE there to run it down your throat, just like you have with me in the 2002 and 2004 elections.

 

Are you kidding me? Who does Hillary Clinton think she is? Conservatives have been pouring money into think tanks for decades now, planning, filing, plotting against confused and unorganized liberals. Hillary Clinton may have Bill Clinton, and they may have been us once in 92, but since then, we've put them back in their place.

Hillary has no shot, like all other liberals you are living in a dream world.

 

Obi-Wan said

Are you kidding me? Who does Hillary Clinton think she is? Conservatives have been pouring money into think tanks for decades now, planning, filing, plotting against confused and unorganized liberals. Hillary Clinton may have Bill Clinton, and they may have been us once in 92, but since then, we've put them back in their place.

Hillary has no shot, like all other liberals you are living in a dream world.

Remember in December of 1991, how no one thought that Governor from Arkansas was a credible candidate?

Boy, where they wrong one year later!!!!

Hillary Clinton will be the next President of the United States, sir!!! If you all could not take out HIllary in 2000, how on earth are you going to do it in 2008? The GOP has no real direction, Bush may have stolen one election and slithered past another, but people will wake up and by the time you realize it, the Dem's will controll all 3 branches of congress.

 

Connecticut approves gay civil unions

---

[blockquote]HARTFORD, Connecticut (AP) -- 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. The law takes effect October 1.

"I have said all along that I believe in no discrimination of any kind, and I think that this bill accomplishes that, while at the same time preserving the traditional language that a marriage is between a man and a woman," Rell said.

Vermont is the only other state to allow civil unions. Massachusetts allows gay couples to marry. But those changes came about after same-sex couples won court battles.

Last summer, seven same-sex couples sued in Connecticut after being denied marriage licenses; the case has not been resolved.

Roman Catholics and other activists plan a big rally Sunday in opposition to the bill.

Marie Hilliard, executive director of the Connecticut Catholic Conference, said the civil union proposal "got more legs than we ever hoped it would get." About 44 percent of the state's 3 million residents are Roman Catholic.

Brian Brown, head of the Family Institute of Connecticut, said his group intends to keep the issue squarely before the public.

"Our mission will be to let every person know in the state of Connecticut which lawmakers voted to redefine marriage, and which lawmakers voted to protect marriage," he said.

Anne Stanback, executive director of Loves Makes a Family, said her group would probably begin talking to lawmakers about gay marriage -- though she acknowledged it's not likely the issue will be taken up next session.

"As important as the rights are, this is not yet equality," she said.[/blockquote][hr]

[hr][blockquote]Sec. 14. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2005) [b]Parties to a civil union shall have all the same benefits, protections and responsibilities under law[/b], whether derived from the general statutes, administrative regulations or court rules, policy, common law or any other source of civil law, [b]as are granted to spouses in a marriage[/b], which is defined as the union of one man and one woman.

Sec. 15. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2005) Wherever in the general statutes the terms "spouse", "family", "immediate family", "dependent", "next of kin" or any other term that denotes the spousal relationship are used or defined, a party to a civil union shall be included in such use or definition, and [b]wherever in the general statutes[/b], except sections 7-45 and 17b-137a of the general statutes, as amended by this act, subdivision (4) of section 45a-727a, sections 46b-20 to 46b-34, inclusive, section 46b-150d of the general statutes, as amended by this act, and section 14 of this act, [b]the term "marriage" is used or defined, a civil union shall be included in such use or definition.[/b][/blockquote][hr]

It's interesting that they amended it just to block the word marriage, since it is apparently identical in every way but name (and no doubt this was to satisfy those willing for civil unions who aren't ready yet to call it marriage), but it is a great development and I wouldn't quibble over nomenclature right now. A large Senate majority and a Republican governor passing it (although I admit I don't know where Rell stands politically) make this stand out even more; it's not simply a fluke, or a bare victory. It also definit

 

Hurrah! Good for Connecticut!

Indeed, I'm glad there's a definite voting example (and not just the high polling in MA) to raise against those who would argue that same-sex unions are going to be banned slowly but surely al around the country. Sorry, not happening; good for Connecticut for taking a role in demonstrating that.

-Paul

 

I'm going to surprise a few people here.

I don't have a problem with the measure in Connecticut. It's being done in the proper manner, through the legislature. I still have a very big problem with Massachusetts on this issue.

However, I have a question for those who have argued that "Civil Unions" aren't enough, because of "separate but equal". If civil unions (similar to, or identical to marriage in all but name) are not sufficient, when are you going to push for law suits in Connecticut to foce them to simply call them "marriage"? When are you going to try to force them to take that last little step?

If you aren't, or don't support pushing farther right now, then why not do the same in other states? Why is it so vital to push for everything all at once?

Kimball Kinnison

 

It isn't. Slow and steady may be the way to go. However, it's not like everyone is divided into two neat little sides, people do what they want on any side. Some people believe very strongly that it should be all at once and under federal order, others, like myself, might be willing to live with the slow expansion through the state legislatures as to not cause a national fight that pits gays in the middle.

I am just glad that three states will effectively recognize gay unions. It's a new kind of society, so why not create new institutions? The civil union: it's like marriage, but for everyone. Welcome to the new America.

EDIT: I'm not crusader, but people who do fight for causes should be allowed and not scorned for trying to use every legal means available to them to effect change. Whether it be through the courts, through the legislature, through executive order, through business pressure, through community pressure, through whatever non-violent legal means are available. Otherwise, what's the use in having a free country?

 

District Warned on Gay Marriage



You know, I don't think I can adequately respond to this without a swift banning, so I think I'll just link the article and wait a while.



b4k4^2

 

Yay! Hooray for the democratic process in D.C. the seat of our government. So if they don't get their way then it's financial cut-off for them. WOOO!!! Economic blackmail. It's soo....democratic.

 

Yeah, that sums up my feelings.

Though I'd have had alot more starred-out (or not, given my current feelings) words in there.



b4k4^2

 

I really do wonder what kind of precedent this is. I mean, this happened in our capital. Well, if they wanna **** with the budget there, fine. But I hope they like a ****hole for a capital.

"We didn't like dem der gay marruge so we gone an' did da right ting. We cut off da budget. Yeehaw!" *shoots a shotgun into the air*

 

Well, Washington D.C. was a swamp.

Maybe they like that "tradition" too.



b4k4^2

 

I'm sure they'd feel right at home there since our politicians are so diabolically comic book evil. See quote in my signature for my views on tradition.


"Blindly adhering to Tradition is for fools who fear the future and need some consolation from the past."

 

The gay haters in Texas are at it again, now they are trying to ban gays from being foster parents. It's quite sickening.

 

Well that's no surprise. It's Texas. Quite possibly one of the most backward states in the union besides Alabama.

 

I think this entire lawsuit/discussion is pretty much sickening!

Who are we to deny other people their right of happiness? If a gay couple want to get married because it'll make their life more complete and bring them more happiness, let them marry, i wish them all the luck and all the happiness they want!

I cant think of anyone else that has ever been offended or hurt because 2 gay people have got married.

I hear the "bible/church-argument" a lot from people against it. But this isnt about the bible or church here, it's about human rights! And human rights dont make a difference between gay and straight people!

And im talking about a real marriage here, not just the civil union or whatever! I checked the dictionary just to be sure: the word marriage comes from the french word "marier" which originally means something like "join together". If 2 gay want to "join together" because it'll make them happy, then we are we to deny them that?

 

Joining Kimball on this one. Yes, It is well know that I have suprising 'liberal' views on this, and I am totally OK with COnnneticut's decision because it went thru the proper path. Had the Massachussett's Supreme Court and San Fransisco Mayor chosen to let their people weigh in on the issue themselves, I don't think there would have been such an "Anti-Gay Marriage backlash".

BUt, liberal elitists will be liberal elistis, and in a way, I am glad they did because it helped pave the way for the 2004 Elections that I am still laughing about to many of you.

 

Joining Kimball on this one. Yes, It is well know that I have suprising 'liberal' views on this, and I am totally OK with COnnneticut's decision because it went thru the proper path. Had the Massachussett's Supreme Court and San Fransisco Mayor chosen to let their people weigh in on the issue themselves, I don't think there would have been such an "Anti-Gay Marriage backlash".

Good on ya for recognizing and "being OK" with the vote of the people, Trips. I still have a problem with people who toss the rule of law out the window in favor of public opinin, though.

The Mayor of SF acted outside the rule of law, and was duly reprinmanded--and his action was properly reversed. End of story.

The MASC, on the other hand protected their state consitution by striking down a law that contradicted it. That is what the Supreme Court is supposed to do--when a law is challenged as unconstitutional, it is their job to hear the case and rule on the constitutionality of that law. How do you not get that?? The law, as passed by legislation, defied the central laws of the state Constitution by actively discriminating against a group of people without just cause. You may or may not recall that the attorneys representing the state of Massachusetts were unable to show just cause to deny marriage to gay couples. The only reasons, they cited, were staunch family values and tradition, neither of which constitutes "just cause" in any court of law.

And as I have repeated endlessly, this is by no means the end of the case. In 2006, the people of MA will be given the opportunity (assuming it passes the state legislature) to change their constitution in the form of an Ammendment so that the previous law can be reinstated and supported by the state constitution.

The court did its job. It's job is never "to let the people weigh in on the issue themselves." Their job is to interpret the letter of the law as pre-determined in the state constitution, which--I must remind you--was ratified by the people of Massachusetts at its inception.

If you want the law to be legal, you must ammend the constitution as it stands currently. Period. That, Trips, is how the law works.

 

You liberals up in the north Pole are the backwards ones. Gays are wrong

 

YOU'RE WRONG.

I win . My letters are bigger than yours.

 

rechedelphar: You'd get better response from people if you:

a) don't bait,
b) don't troll,
c) have any amount of substance in your post.

Do you have anything to contribute to the topic, or are you only trolling?

 

children need a mom and dad

 

That's not necessarily true. There've been studies that if one or the other parent is not present that they'll find a surrogate.

 

True Fire, but often the surrogate isn't nearly (not even close actually) as the real thing.