Gothamist: Connecticut Loves Gays!

Name

Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:48:18 -0500

The government should get out of the marriage business entirely.

hijiki

Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:39:31 -0500

"marriage is a privelege and not a right?" oh, it's not even worth starting...

toyochin

Thu, 21 Apr 2005 16:11:49 -0500

This whole thing would be a moot issue if the (mostly) religious institution of marriage wasn't state sanctioned. The ideal solution would be to call everything civil union, then couples can go to whatever church will marry them. Kill the two birds of Equality and separation of church/state with one stone. That's not going to happen though.

dhex

Thu, 21 Apr 2005 13:49:49 -0500

"Does one have more rights over the other except from having a different name?" mostly federal tax situations. on a state by state basis, it would vary.

Kojak

Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:46:56 -0500

Soooo whats the difference between Marriage and Civil-Unions again? Does one have more rights over the other except from having a different name? Ahh I can hear all those Holy Rollers now. "We must Protect the Sanctity of Marriage!" Maybe they should worry more about abusive marriages and the high as hell divorce rate before they go after gays.

Bob

Thu, 21 Apr 2005 12:19:07 -0500

Gays have NO RIGHT to be married. Marriage is a privilege and not a right. Obviously, most of the nation will ban gay marriage. It is already happening. Places in the Northeast and California will run the gamut from civil unions to marriage. I am uncomfortable equating gay marriage with heterosexual marriage. It is too bizarre. However, I guess I could live with civil unions. Life is too short.

yankee

Thu, 21 Apr 2005 11:19:13 -0500

Actually, Connecticut is pretty liberal. Maybe it seems "stodgy and Yankee" because you haven't done your homework. Watching The Ice Storm takes two hours; Googling election returns or Richard Blumenthal, two seconds.

jaykayess

Thu, 21 Apr 2005 10:48:22 -0500

"Will gays have their main residence in Connecticut, but keep a pied a terre in the city?" Oh please. I WISH I could afford that.

Jen

Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:32:39 -0500

Rio, thanks for the clarification. I think many people appreciate baby steps, even if it's not an ideal. What I think is interesting is that the states that seem stereotypically stodgy and Yankee are the ones that have made strides in recognizing gay unions and/or gay marriage.

Rio

Thu, 21 Apr 2005 08:24:28 -0500

Civil unions are STILL discrimination against gays. It's the modern equivalent of "separate-but-equal". It is important to mention that the same bill that allowed civil unions in Connecticut also officially declared that legal marriage can only be between a man and a woman. It is offensive that people think the institution of marriage needs to be "protected" from gays.