same sex marriage legalized in CT



Some people think this is a bad thing, but fuck em'

Wow, finally some good news. Awesome.

Kickass. How many states does that make now?

Three. Massachusetts and California were first, respectively.

Neat.

To be honest, I'm almost entirely apathetic on the issue.

Canada's been the original gay hang-out.

har har har

I fully support gays, even if I'm not gay myself. imo; Overpopulation is the biggest problem going on now. What's a way to curb the growth in a nice fashion?

Tell Clay Aiken that he can pound that ass til the break of dawn for all we care?

Well, personally, I don't really give a damn whether or not a gay couple gets married or not.

I understand that it's an equal rights thing, that the specific issue is whether gay couples should be recognized by the government. That amounts to, what, a tax break and a document saying, "It's official, these two are bangin."? Here I thought the whole concept of a "marriage" was supposed to be a ceremony recognizing that two people care deeply for eachother. That you even have to fill out paperwork for that boggles my mind.

It's not like having or not having a marriage license means the difference between a couple being together or not. And that's what's really at the heart of the issue.

Currently, any state has the right to grant any privilege or rights to it's citizens not specifically granted in the constitution, but CANNOT take away any rights or privileges granted by the constitution. As I understand it, the constitution doesn't mention anything about marriage. We can get into a debate about the semantics of the constitution, but let's not.

They pass laws saying two men or two women can't kiss and hold hands, or they take the issue all the way to the top, to the US constitutional level, then I'll start caring.

So it doesn't bother you at all that most states won't grant basic rights of couples to homosexuals, such as hospital visitation or joint ownership of anything?

It doesn't bother you in the slightest that by saying homosexuals can't marry, that putting up such a ban specifically invalidates the homosexual lifestyle, a lifestyle which, increasingly it is being proven is not a choice for the vast majority of people?

Well, I suppose if it doesn't bother you that, should the couple be religious in any way (unless of course, all gays are athiests, hurr) that even if they could find a pastor or someone who could serve as justice of the peace who would be willing to marry them, that that person COULD NOT under the ban and would lose their power to legally bind couples because of a legal abuse of power. I mean, you're not homosexual, if you wanted to get married you could get a real priest in a real church, and not have people coming up to you regularly and saying "you're not really married."

For that matter, the ban both validates and encourages the treatment of homosexuals as if they were second class citizens involved in some heinous crime.

But ok, if you don't care you don't care.

I find it ridiculous ANYONE, gay or not, has to get a document legally signed to say their together. And there are other ridiculous laws and red tape that prevent people from doing what we shouldn't need to seek permission to do, like seeing sick loved ones. Can't we just do away with marriage licenses entirely, seeing as how TOTALLY BINDING they are these days, and just specify who we want seeing us in illness or taking half our stuff in our will, or something?

I suppose that's where most of my indifference stems from; this is to me less of a civil-rights issue than it is just another case of political stupidity, which as I'm sure you've noticed, is rampant. Why can't we just give people these things without having to call it one thing or another, or without having to jump through hoops. That and the fact I don't have a problem with people being gay.

Does it specifically say anywhere two people of the same gender cannot be married, or does it just specify marriage being between a man and a woman? I ask because I don't know.



I had a gay psychology professor who was a registered priest. I liked that guy.



Does it bother me that people are sometimes denied small liberties that are really not so small? Yeah, it does. But, I've come to realize that happens a lot, much more than we'd like to admit, across the strata of society. This one, whenever I hear about it, just makes me want to throw up my hands and shout, "HEY! You guys are seriously arguing of THIS shit? This shit is fucked up to begin with, and you Homophobes and Gay-Rights Activists want to fight about it? You really can't find any middle ground? Whatever, just keep it down and don't bother me with it, will you?"

I suppose that makes me a bad person.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_benefits_of_marriage_in_the_United_States
I agree with Dicky partially. Some of these should be available to anyone, but I think people should get a marriage license for most of them. (And obviously that *all* married couples should get them.)

And I don't see why polygamy isn't allowed either, while we're at it. If three people want to live together and share their stuff, who the hell is the government to tell them no?

Did you pick at that just for the hell of it?

I meant that people don't choose to be gay.

@Stray: marriage rights shouldn't be exclusive. But, at the present moment they are, so it's really apples/oranges to what's being talked about here.

Well, save for that expanding rights of marriage to homosexuals could lead to the extension of those rights outside of the definition of marriage. Although that's not a point I could argue cuz' while I feel it's true, it's mostly based on conjecture.

If you mean to say that my views in my opening are childish, you should just say so...I mean, it kinda is. That I think marriage should be kept to a personal symbolic level isn't a very realistic view. There has to be some way to keep track of who gets the $100,000 dollars when a public safety officer dies on the job.

I just wonder who would still object if it were called a "legal union" or something even more non-descript for everyone as opposed to "marriage". When you sign a marriage license, are you saying you are emotionally devoting yourself to another person, or are you saying you are legally binding yourself to another person?

Are we trying to establish legal equality for all people, or are we trying to define what the word "marriage" means legally? Whether it's call a legal union or marriage, the people who object to this aren't going to recognize it on principle, but will have to legally.

I don't really want to argue whether this is similar to other civil rights issues of the past. Getting money in the event your partner dies of black lung from working in the coal mines isn't exactly the same as being beaten because of the color of your skin and having no legal recourse, or not being able to vote in your government. But they are in principle.

The principle that all people should be treated equally is a very good principle, one I believe in,but I think in this case our principles are getting in the way of a better solution: Stop associating the legal aspect with the ceremonial aspect.

That this is actually banned does make me more concerned; I had thought it was just defined as "between a man and woman" and not an outright ban.




Also, my comment about knowing and liking the gay priest was a rebuttal to Pinky's statement that a gay couple who love eachother can't have a marriage ceremony within a religious establishment. It wasn't a, "hey, I know sum queeeers, so I'hm rite!" maneuver. It wasn't necessary to the point I was making to qualify that I liked him, but he stands out as one of the more interesting (read: engaging and fun to learn from) teachers I've had, and deserved the qualification regardless.