Connecticut Governor Signs Gay Marriage Bill
BY ON TOP MAGAZINE STAFF
PUBLISHED: APRIL 24, 2009
Connecticut Governor M. Jodi Rell signed into law yesterday a gay marriage bill passed by the General Assembly, the Boston Globe reports.
The bill comes six months after the Connecticut Supreme Court declared gay and lesbian couples have the right to marry.
The law transforms civil unions, which began in 2005, into marriages as of October 1, 2010, unless they are no longer legal. The bill passed 28 to 7 in the Senate and 100 to 44 in the House of Representatives on Wednesday.
In a nod to gay marriage foes, a last-minute amendment provides “full conscience protection” to parties that object to gay marriage. Its language includes vendors and members of the service industry, not only religious groups.
"We wanted to make it completely clear that the state of Connecticut fully embraces not only the rights of same-sex couples to marry, but we fully embrace the rights and protections afforded by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Connecticut Constitution to the free exercise of religion," said Sen. Andrew McDonald, a Democrat from Stamford and gay marriage proponent.
Opponents of gay marriage had asked for the extra protections and called its inclusion a small victory.
“It made a bad bill better,” Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, a group that opposes gay marriage, told the AP.
“It's a gesture of respect,” National Organization for Marriage President Maggie Gallagher told POLITICO. “Even people who want same-sex marriage see that groups that want marriage to remain between husband and wife have a point.”
Karen Millen
Go Jodi!
1Sexy!
2Baby steps...
3That's really great news!
4I agree steph. I'm not crazy about the disclaimer. I think discrimination=discrimination no matter how fancily they dress it up. BUT I'm very happy none-the-less!
5I think this is wonderful!
6I'm not crazy about the disclaimer, either, but at least it's something.
:yay:
7
8I agree, at least it's something!
9woohoo!
10that's awesome.
11Great news!!!
12Awesome news! yay!
13Democracy is a wonderful thing. Our elective representatives are ultimately responsible to the electorate, and they have acted accordingly. I fully expect an acceleration of such legislation in the several states.
14I just HOPE this acceleration of such legislation isn't a race to do what is currently the rage, and is in response to their constituents.
15If it is not Undave, they will face a tougher time come election day.
16Doesn't it suck how Equal Rights are the hot new thing?
17I love homophobia that's painted with the veneer of "caution". Delightful, UnDave!
18
Whatever. I've described what I consider a viable solution. If you don't like it, that's
fine. I know I can't change a closed mind, even one that claims to be open and progressive.
19Whoa, someone's been schooled, probably sitting at the master's knee.
20Good turn around! You're advocating "caution" on granting someone equal rights by, well, not granting them. That's not really a viable solution. You either have equal rights or you don't. Your "solution" is just another sad way of delaying justice. Nice try on calling me closed mind though. Won't wash.
21I think you are wrong to criticize Undave for his comment. He expressed what is a legitimate concern. There is always a concern about the "Tyranny of a Majority". Such concern has NOTHING to do with a position on gay marriage.
22I don't think the definition of marriage should be changed to be between one Christian man and one Christian woman. I have no desire to be married in a church or by a pastor, so under UnDave's idea, my relationship would not qualify for marriage, just because I'm not religious. To think that is a viable solution to the gay marriage issue shows just who is close minded. Do everything you can to stop gay from marrying, even if it means invalidating the marriage of straight couples along the way.
23Brandy, in essence if you commit in a civil ceremony, then call it such. You want a traditional religious ceremony, then "marry". I have been married 44 years today. To the best of my knowledge neither my wife nor have ever been asked what kind of service we had. Today there is nothing preventing me from calling my car, my significant other, or wife, or even husband. Depending how adamant I am in making this "announcement", would determine if anyone would even look at me strangely.
24I don't know anyone married by a justice of the peace who considers themselves 'committed in a civil ceremony' and not "married". In California, you go to the County Clerk for a Marriage license - there's no reason why the government should change the language it has always used:
http://www.lavote.net/Clerk/Marriages.cfm
"MARRIAGE LICENSE
A marriage license can be issued on the same day from one of the following locations if requested during hours listed. The processing YOU CAN APPLY FOR A MARRIAGE LICENSE ONLINE.
IT'S EASY AND SAVES TIME.
Once you complete the online application you can come to the Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk headquarters in Norwalk or go to any one of our branch offices to pick up your marriage license, pay the license fee and arrange for a civil marriage ceremony, if desired. See Marriage License information below for further details."
It would waste a lot of tax dollars to change everything.
25Post A Comment
To post comments, please log in or register.