Connecticut OKs civil unions for gay couples

[Moooooo]

MSNBC

HARTFORD, Conn. - 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.

“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.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

woohoo! and no one can whine about judicial activism!

[A18]

Glad my state is too enlightened for this kind of crap.

[Gabu]

woohoo! and no one can whine about judicial activism!

Nope; now we have legislative activism.

[John Dibble]

woohoo! and no one can whine about judicial activism!

Nope; now we have legislative activism.

Damn them, legislating from the...errr....legislature!

[Frodo]

there is a lesson in this article on the legislature legalizing civil unions through the diligent lobbying of activists: 

if the proponents of those advocating legalized abortion, contraception, and gay marriage had followed the same path as those advocating legalized civil unions had done through the legislature (as opposed to taking the judicial short-cut), and worked to advance their cause state-by-state through press-the-flesh grassroots efforts, there wouldn't be this level of acrimony over such hot-button issues if citizens and legislators had had a say on it decades ago. it could have saved them a world of trouble down the road, as we have seen with the rise of the Religious Right.   

[WMS]

there is a lesson in this article on the legislature legalizing civil unions through the diligent lobbying of activists: 

if the proponents of those legalizing abortion, contraception, and gay marriage had followed the same path as those advocating legalizing civil unions had done through the legislature (as opposed to taking the judicial short-cut), and worked to advance their cause state by state through press-the-flesh grassroots efforts, there wouldn't be this level of acrimony over such hot-button issues if citizens and legislators had had a say on it decades ago. it could have saved them a world of trouble down the road, as we have seen with the rise of the Religious Right.   

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Indeed.

Oh, and this was done at the state level, by the legislature, so I have no problems with it. Take notes, activists...

[Alcon]

I was going to make a legislative activism joke, but that accursed Gabu!

[??????????]

MSNBC

HARTFORD, Conn. - 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.

“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.

I would prefer a public vote on the matter over the legislature making a decision on what is good for a state.

[Gabu]

I would prefer a public vote on the matter over the legislature making a decision on what is good for a state.

First you want it left up to the states, then when a state makes a decision you don't like, you want it done differently yet again.

[??????????]

I would prefer a public vote on the matter over the legislature making a decision on what is good for a state.

First you want it left up to the states, then when a state makes a decision you don't like, you want it done differently yet again.

No, what I have always said is I would like it to be left up to the states in the form of a public vote. For Gay Marriage and abortion. I have always held that opinion.

[Lunar]

If both the Republican Party and Democratic Party in that state approved it, it'd likely pass a popular vote.  It's not like the gay lobby controls a lot of campaign contributions.

[??????????]

If both the Republican Party and Democratic Party in that state approved it, it'd likely pass a popular vote.  It's not like the gay lobby controls a lot of campaign contributions.

Possibly so, but we don't really know for sure.

[Alcon]

I would prefer a public vote on the matter over the legislature making a decision on what is good for a state.

First you want it left up to the states, then when a state makes a decision you don't like, you want it done differently yet again.

No, what I have always said is I would like it to be left up to the states in the form of a public vote. For Gay Marriage and abortion. I have always held that opinion.

Well, OK.

A recent poll from the Associated Press found that 56% of Connecticut voters favor civil unions. I don't think that a vote would return much of a different result.

[nini2287]

Glad my state is too enlightened for this kind of crap.

How is equal protection crap?

[??????????]

Glad my state is too enlightened for this kind of crap.

How is equal protection crap?

Sexual lifestyles should not be "protected" by law in the same manner as race is.

[Sam Spade]

I would prefer a public vote on the matter over the legislature making a decision on what is good for a state.

First you want it left up to the states, then when a state makes a decision you don't like, you want it done differently yet again.

No, what I have always said is I would like it to be left up to the states in the form of a public vote. For Gay Marriage and abortion. I have always held that opinion.

Well, OK.

A recent poll from the Associated Press found that 56% of Connecticut voters favor civil unions. I don't think that a vote would return much of a different result.

Very true.  I think they would probably approve it 55-45%.

However, I also understand States' point and agree with him as to where approval should come from.  It's mainly a Southern thing. 

In most, if not all Southern states, something like this would require a Constitutional Amendment to the State Constitution to pass (as does almost everything).  And many, if not all Southern states, have similar rules to doing this sort of thing.

For example, in Texas, something like this would require a 2/3rds vote in support by both the House and the Senate.  It would then be placed on the next ballot and would be put to the voters for a vote.  If a majority approved it, it would become law.

Of course, because in most Southern states literally everything (and I mean everything) requires a Constitutional amendment, some of the State Constitutions which haven't been changed since Reconstruction have way too many amendments.

Texas has almost 3,000 Constitutional amendments that I know of.

[nini2287]

Glad my state is too enlightened for this kind of crap.

How is equal protection crap?

Sexual lifestyles should not be "protected" by law in the same manner as race is.

Why not?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

woohoo! and no one can whine about judicial activism!

And it was signed into law by a Republican. It doesn't look like there's any chance of defeating her next year.

[John Dibble]

Glad my state is too enlightened for this kind of crap.

How is equal protection crap?

Sexual lifestyles should not be "protected" by law in the same manner as race is.

Ok, no straight marriage then.

[Emsworth]

Sexual lifestyles should not be "protected" by law in the same manner as race is.

There may be a genetic basis for what you call "lifestyles" - it is quite possible that there is no choice involved. (Not being a scientific expert, I would not claim to know conclusively.)

[Storebought]

Except that this law is unconsitutional: it discriminates against heterosexuals.

[ATFFL]

Glad my state is too enlightened for this kind of crap.

How is equal protection crap?

Sexual lifestyles should not be "protected" by law in the same manner as race is.

Ok, no straight marriage then.

Oh, the government already discourages that, it is called the marriage penalty.

[John Dibble]

Except that this law is unconsitutional: it discriminates against heterosexuals.

No, they can enter a civil union with a person of the same sex if they wish, just as a gay person can enter a marriage with a person of the opposite sex.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

7,500 gay couples thank you Connecticut