Hartford Courant: Rell Sets Civil Unions Conditions

[Redstone]

Gov. M. Jodi Rell announced Tuesday night that she will sign a bill authorizing civil unions for same-sex couples only if assured that the measure does not allow gay marriage.

"If the attorney general in any way equivocates, is unclear or indicates that the bill would allow gay marriage, then I will ask the House to pass an amendment specifically prohibiting gay marriage and defining marriage as solely between one man and one woman," Rell said.

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-civilunions0413.artapr13,0,1391458.story?coll=hc-headlines-local

Is she taking this stance to mollify the "anti-marriage" crowd and ensure that the bill will go through, therefore makins sure that gays get at least SOME protection under the law, rather than none? I think she might be; she's essentially a decent person.

Redstone

[Atman]

1. This sucks

She knows what she's doing...trying to cover all the bases. I'd rather she just be HONEST about what she's doing...giving the proverbial inch in hopes that gay citizens don't take a mile. Bullshit. Glad to hear my friends and neighbors in CT will be allowed something called "civil union," (which really is all any of us ever gets unless we go before a church for something called a "marriage" ceremony), but this bill is ultimately an end run to DENY rights, not preserve or protect them.

[calico1]

2. The Democrats are saying they have enough

votes to override a veto should there be one. Hope they are right. Maybe she knows this but figures if she insists on the condition she will be viewed as having tried even if they override her.

[JerseygirlCT]

4. THAT would be good news.

I wonder how many will hold firm on that odious amendment restricting marriage to a man and a woman? The temptation to try to please everyone will be huge. I've already contacted my rep., but I'll say I'm pretty skeptical about him. Wouldn't be surprised at all to see him go for such a thing -- even though he's supposedly a Democrat!

[JerseygirlCT]

3. I agree so far as her intentions go

but I really believe that full marriage rights WILL happen, regardless.

Call me a cock-eyed optimist, but I think history is on the side of right here.

I will interested to see whether this (transparent) gambit will work. It's all now on Blumenthal's shoulders -- wonder how he'll handle it? And regardless of his reading -- won't this eventually end up in the courts if marriage is restricted, but civil unions are ok?

I think this begins the chipping away of Rell's high poll numbers.

[Redstone]

9. I'm not sure if she'll suffer inthe polls;

since we don't have that high of a fundy percentage in this state. But you may be right, and it may be enough to cost her.

We'll see.

Redstone

[JerseygirlCT]

10. This may be the first time she's actually had to take any

sort of stand on an issue with any controversy. She's been avoiding it at all costs, it seems. So either way, there will be people upset.

And while we don't have a huge number of fundies, we do have a big Catholic population, and they've been big in the fight against gay marriage...

As you say, we'll see!

[Redstone]

5. Let me make it clear that I have no problem

with John and Joe, or Mary and Margaret getting married...I don't see how that could possibly have any deleterious effect on my (heterosexual, though with a twist) marriage.

But, as we know, there are an awful lot of reactionaries who don't like "those people" to be able to call themselves married.

How about this: Maybe we should come up with a different word: It could be "Narriage" with the N standing for "Neener, neener, we got what we wanted and fooled you bozos by calling it a different name."

Or, if further distinction is desired, there could be "Larryage" for male-male couples, and "Maryage" for female-female couples.

Just joking - I know this is a serious issue for gay folks, and I sympathize with you. You deserve your full rights as Americans.

Redstone

[HockeyMom]

6. Civil Marriage License

is not a religious document. It is not sacred, holy, or a sacrament. These people simply cannot understand that fact. It is simply a CONTRACT. I think any contract issued by the government should be called a Civil Union - for straights and for gays. Let the religious institutions call it marriage for those who choose that.

[StuckinKS]

7. As a gay man

I feel some of these suggestions have merit, even in jest.

The only problem is that without the word "marriage," gay couples do not have access to any of the many important FEDERAL rights afforded straight couples. So, civil unions are nothing more than separate AND unequal.

That said, I am a strong proponent of getting as many civil rights as are politically available, all the while furthering the fight for full marriage rights. There is room for accepting civil union and domestic partnership laws on one hand, while cheering the Gavin Newsomes and other officials who push full marriage equality. And all of this while concurrently fighting defense of marriage amendments across the US.

It's always best to engage the enemy on many fronts, using both offense and defense. And most importantly, education of the masses.

[JerseygirlCT]

8. I agree with you

and I think securing civil unions will force gay marriage down the road. It IS separate but (sort of) equal, and we know that doesn't hold.

I'm all for letting those opposed to marriage think they're pulling a fast one and shutting liberals up by handing them CUs. B/c marriage WILL win out on this one. I really think it's inevitable.

[renaissanceguy]

11. And it's not just the word the fundies are after.

They would rather have us exterminated if they could.


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues/479728

[JerseygirlCT]

12. It's just strange.

I have to say, as a straight, married, parent... (boring old suburban, you get the picture, lol) I fail to see how allowing two other people to marry even affects my marriage, not to mention threatens it. It's just plain illogical.

It will happen. I'm sure of it. But it's going to take some backbone from people like me.

[Redstone]

13. I don't know that they'd want you exterminated,

as long as you'd let them "cure" you and get you to start saying "Praise the Lord" every three minutes, then go out and "cure" others like your former self.

Course, if you don't want to do that, I'm sure they'd be happy to go back to the extermination option.

Console yourself with the fact that even the Civil Union option is giving them the fits.

Redstone