HARTFORD — Less than two years after Connecticut became the second state to allow same-sex civil unions, Democratic state Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-27 and Democratic state Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-99 announced a bill on Wednesday that would allow gay marriage in Connecticut. The bill will be introduced in the next two weeks, Lawlor said. Massachusetts is currently the only state that allows gay marriage, and that law was pressured into existence through the courts. A court order also forced Vermont into being the first state to allow same-sex civil unions. Connecticut was the first to pass the civil-union law without court mandate.
I think it's about time the goverment gets out of marriage. You can't choose to be gay or straight; or decide who you love. Congrats to everyone who has been waiting on this to happen. I am 100% with you!!
I kind of think the state needs to get out of marriage altogether. Let the state offer "civil unions" to everyone. People can decide for themselves whether that equates to being married or have a religious ceremony if they wish to make it official within their religion as well.
Considering that you can have a civil wedding without a church involved I think it should be considered. WHat would the harm be?
As the constitution was set up to protect the minority, we as a country have to decide if it is in our best interest. Some people get married and never have children, so marriage is for children isn't an arguement. Since you can do it in a civil venue it isn't a religious one either. If it is about love between two consenting adults then doesn't gay marriage fit?
I am still on the fence on this but something to consider.
A dear couple friend has been together for 31 years. When one of theses ladies was in ICU, her partner was not allowed to see her because she was not considered immediate family, hopefully, as a society so we can learn to love and be loved by all.
I think one of two reasons I think about civil unions/gay marriage is what you have above. The other is after they die often the partner is stripped of everything by family.
I kind of think the state needs to get out of marriage altogether. Let the state offer "civil unions" to everyone. People can decide for themselves whether that equates to being married or have a religious ceremony if they wish to make it official within their religion as well.
I kind of think the state needs to get out of marriage altogether. Let the state offer "civil unions" to everyone. People can decide for themselves whether that equates to being married or have a religious ceremony if they wish to make it official within their religion as well.
the debate over whether the state ought to recognize gay marriages has thusfar focused on the issue as one of civil rights. such a treatment is erroneous because state recognition of marriage is not a universal right. states regulate marriage in many ways besides denying men the right to marry men, and women the right to marry women. roughly half of all states prohibit first cousins from marrying, and all prohibit marriage of closer blood relatives, even if the individuals being married are sterile. in all states, it is illegal to attempt to marry more than one person, or even to pass off more than one person as one's spouse. some states restrict the marriage of people suffering from syphilis or other venereal diseases. homosexuals, therefore, are not the only people to be denied the right to marry the person of their choosing.
question is, should the state get out of marriage regarding first cousins and close blood relatives? and polygamous relationships?
I've never understood why polygamy is illegal. if consenting adults want more then one spouse, then why not?
legalized polygamy could lead to the structures of family and society being radically realigned. and anyone who thinks that realignment wouldn’t favor men is forgetting basic biology. a man can father many children and so would have use for many wives. a woman can only have one child at a time and needs only one husband. in a polygamous culture, it is the men who have the power.
in a polygamous culture, it is the men who have the power.
why do men have the power in a polygamous family? i dont get that. i saw a family on dr.phil that was a modern day polygamy family. i didnt see it as the man having the power.
why do men have the power in a polygamous family? i dont get that. i saw a family on dr.phil that was a modern day polygamy family. i didnt see it as the man having the power.
in practice, polygamous society's power is weighted heavily toward the male. dr. phil is a talk show. one polygamous "family" on a talk show that pays money for it's most sensational guests is not a very good case study.
consider this: how many polygamous "marriages" exist where there is one wife and multiple husbands? where does the "power" lie again?
8Likes
Connecticut bill to allow gay marriage 
Woo-Hoo 
