Connecticut ping!
Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.
Posted on 04/12/2007 8:20:54 PM PDT by nutmeg
After more than two hours of debate at the Legislative Office Building Thursday afternoon the legislature's powerful judiciary committee decisively approved a controversial gay marriage bill by a 27-15 vote.
The move sends the bill, which would allow gay and lesbian couples to marry, to the House, and then the Senate. Both chambers of the legislature must now approve the bill, which would then go to Gov. M. Jodi Rell, who has indicated in the past that she does not support gay marriage. Thursday's vote comes nearly two years to the day after the legislature approved a bill allowing civil unions, which Rell signed.
In emotional testimony Thursday, freshman Rep. Beth Bye, a Democrat from West Hartford, spoke about her own civil union. While she said she is pleased to have some rights, she is continually reminded that her relationship is not accorded the same status as a marriage.
"I'm the only one sitting here living it every day," Bye said Thursday. "I tell you it's not trivial."
Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, the judiciary committee's co-chairman, said public opinion about gay marriage is swiftly evolving. "People are obviously changing their minds," he said, noting that just this week a California legislative committee approved a similar gay marriage measure.
(Excerpt) Read more at courant.com ...
Connecticut ping!
Please Freepmail me if you want on or off my infrequent Connecticut ping list.
Great issue for 2008 anyway - one we can’t possibly lose.
“Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, the judiciary committee’s co-chairman, said public opinion about gay marriage is swiftly evolving. “People are obviously changing their minds,” he said, noting that just this week a California legislative committee approved a similar gay marriage measure.”
OK, Mike? First off, ewwwwwww, and then, NO public opinion is NOT evolving. The only thing evolving is the ways legislatures like yours gag the honest opinions. And my guess is you all know it. And furthermore, what the CA legislature is doing is ignoring the vote of the people, and THAT is unconstitutional.
Typical, give them civil unions, they still whine, until they get marriage. Once you grant them that, AGAINST the will of the voters, they will want more. Don’t ever doubt it.
Gotta do some pinging tomorrow!
Right. It’s so popular the only way to get it passed is for wacko legislatures to bypass the people and mandate it.
Being that she’s a life-time resident here, she’s been reluctant to move out of state.
The problem is that young people are being so heavily propagandized that the majority of them do favor “gay” marriage. Public opinion is changing (I wouldn’t characterize it as an evolution) in that sense.
I'm sorry, but that is too funny.
First the courts mandate gay marriage, and everyone screams about "activist judges" (and rightly so---law-making is the responsibility of the legislature).
So now the legislature does it, and you are complaining about "activist lawmakers"?
What is your preferred system? Direct Democracy? (aka. Mob Rule?)
Sexual attitudes are always in a state of flux. The definition of marriage has changed innumerable time in the past.
The only constant is change.
Uh, that's because you don't have a husband....
Of course it is.
Which is precisely why I found your statement, "wacko legislatures bypass the people and mandate [gay marriage]" to be so funny.
Barf! The legislatures don’t seem to care what the people in the state want, only a handful of liberals and homosexual activists. They don’t care about morality in making laws. The will continue to push this until homosexuals have their marriage. When will it stop? Polygamists, zoophiles?
Being that she’s a life-time resident here, she’s been reluctant to move out of state.
I know... we're sort of in the same boat, although we're not life-long residents of CT. Hubby has a good (and unique) job here, and I've been caregiver to my elderly mother for years. I think it would be very difficult to move her out of state at this point. It's not always that easy to just pack up and "leave Connecticut" as much as we might like to...
The proposition system works quite well in California. One of the few things I liked about it.
I think that I have my wife convinced that if this passes, it is time to leave Connecticut.
Being that she’s a life-time resident here, she’s been reluctant to move out of state.
I know... we’re sort of in the same boat, although we’re not life-long residents of CT. Hubby has a good (and unique) job here, and I’ve been caregiver to my elderly mother for years. I think it would be very difficult to move her out of state at this point. It’s not always that easy to just pack up and “leave Connecticut” as much as we might like to...
I moved (CT to FL) and it’s not so smooth. My wife misses her CT family and friends - badly. The CT housing market has kept the home we left empty. The escape from CT has created a stress level none of us has had to deal with for 25 years in CT - and the politicians know that most residents can’t/won’t move - til it gets beyond tolerable.
“Sexual attitudes are always in a state of flux. The definition of marriage has changed innumerable time in the past. The only constant is change.”
You give me an opportunity to expound.
The definition of marriage has never changed to man/man or woman/woman at any time in the past. Not even ancient Greece in its decline had gay marriage. Asking little children to give up a mother or father because of the lifestyle preferences of homosexuals or lesbians or narcissistic heterosexuals is thoroughly selfish. People are not seriously considering the long-term ramifications of such a radical redefinition; they just want to live in a world with no sexual restrictions without considering the grave hardships imposed by such a world. We’re already coping with some of the destruction wrought by the sexual revolution. Sex outside of marriage is no longer taboo, so illegitimate babies grow up in poverty because adults want the right to make lifestyle choices. Children are denied mothers or fathers because feminists pushed through easy divorce in the 1970s. It empowers women, after all. There are radicals who want to destroy marriage altogether. Radical feminists, for example, want to overturn the so-called “patriarchy”.
Here’s a quote from Michelangelo Signorile from “Out” magazine, Dec/Jan, 1994, page 1-D. He advocates:
“fight(ing) for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefin(ing) the institution of marriage completely, to demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution that as it now stands keeps us down. The most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake - and one that would perhaps benefit all of society - is to transform the nation of “family” entlrely.”
I was substitute teaching the 4th grade one day in my area, and the kids had to write a story about what they wished for. Here’s part of the outline of what one little boy wrote, beginning with the title.
“I wish I could live with my father.
1. I could play more games.
2. football, baseball
3. I could be with Josh, David and Michael.”
There were 2 other reasons that I did not get time to write down.
“The End”
This is so plaintif. When will adults stop with their narcissistic “redefinitions”?
Yep.. One more straw to break the camel’s back. First huge tax increase proposals now Gay Marriage. Check out FreeStateProject.org!!
Sorry your move was so stressful. With tax rates high and going higher, no job growth and awful housing market, you got out when getting out was good... I know you must have a much lower cost of living now and some political sanity. Thank you FL., GOP! Hope your wife visit CT., once or twice a year...
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.