Hey Bigger, Thanks for the support. Although I wouldn’t have used your negative terms, I’m glad that you brought the discussion back to the point and put Big (mouth) in his place.
All people should enjoy the same rights regardless of sexual orientation.
I am all for the civil union law but I have not heard discussion of heterosexual civil unions. If gays and lesbians can enjoy the benefits of marriage that married heterosexuals enjoy such as tax breaks, health insurance, protection under the law for division of property if the marriage/union dissolves and social security benefits,then why can’t heterosexual couples fall under this civil union law without the hassles of a “wedding”?? There are plenty of us heterosexual couples in this state that live together, acquire property together and have children together that cannot enjoy these “benefits” without “marriage” so why shouldn’t we be included in this civil union law along with the gays and lesbians?
I agree that everyone should be subject to a civil union law. We should throw out the provincial common law requirements that say men automatically get stuck paying alimony and child support, and must move to another home while supporting the continuance of his first home, even when it’s his sleazey whoring wife that has initiated the whole event.
Gays wil rue the day they actually get married, because along with it comes the kiving death known as divorce. If you have kids, you’ll alsways be stuck to your ex, and a lot of times you will also be _ucked by your ex repeatedly, while the law favors the so-called care-giver, a role defined for you by the court and common law.
No, give us all civil unions, and let marriage be a simple ceremony that has no further relevance except between two people and their God.
Perhaps the government should get out of the marriage business all together and just have civil unions for both heterosexuals and gays. Let each Church decide who it will and will not marry. It really shouldn’t be the job of the government to make policy on what really is a religious issue.
Perhaps the government should get out of the marriage business all together and just have civil unions for both heterosexuals and gays. Let each Church decide who it will and will not marry. It really shouldn’t be the job of the government to make policy on what really is a religious issue.
If feel this is a very just decision. Everyone one has the right under our constitution to live as they feel. Gay couples should have the same right as any other couple
Hey Joe, Thanks for the input, but I really do see it as a government issue. I’m an atheist, so it has nothing to do with religion at all for me. It has everything to do with the government: Tax breaks, social security benefits, division of property laws, and health insurance. So you bring up another very interesting issue: if marriage is a component of religion, then why does the government have the right to govern it? Is there not some constitutional article that covers that? I live with my partner, we are heterosexual, we own a home together, we share all expenses and would split everything evenly if we broke up but we can’t benefit from the marriage laws because we are not “married”. I’m self employed and he is a state employee so I have to pay for my own health insurance. We can’t file married on our taxes, neither of us can collect social security benefits if one of us dies and our family members could fight for thier deceased family member’s half of our assets (not so in a legal marriage).
I have a cousin who married her husband with a Justice of the Peace ceremony because neither of them is religious. This marriage IS a heterosexual civil union. It had and has nothing to do with any church or religion. It is simply thier expression of the desire to be recognized by the government as a family unit. Why not let gay people have access to this level of the institution?
Just remember that marriage from the government perspective is ALWAYS a civil union. It’s only a “sacrament” when a church becomes involved. These are two fundamentally different things that are lumped together under the same name.
Thanks for your input Ken. Ok…. so if this Civil union law will give gays and lesbians rights under the “marriage” laws of the state, then why not heterosexuals as well? If this passes, then all couples should be able to excercise their “marriage” rights under this law. I agree that gays and lesbians should be able to get married if they choose to do so but if our state is saying NO they can’t! but…..we are going to treat them as if they were, then we need to get rid of the marriage requirement all together.
Another way of putting it: Why should gays and lesbians have more (or less)rights in this area than heterosexuals??
Get married and stop complaining. Otherwise blow off the lingerer if he’s dead in the water. It seems you are full of excuses, but I see the main impediment being your inability to move over the threshold and get the deed done. Also, you aren’t getting any younger. Don’t let too much time go by. You’ll always regret it.
I’m a JP, but common law is where divorce lurks. Not some civil ceremony. Health insurance, wills and the disposition of one property and wishes can all be established contractually anyway. It is when you throw kids in the mix does it become dicey. That’s when your hard earned assets get garnished, often against your will because you are considered the “breadwinner” and the other half is termed the “caregiver”. The Breadwinner gets the raw deal more often than not.
Hey Big Insurance…your assumptions are incorrect. Neither of us wants to get married because if it doesn’t work out we have to pay ridiculous legal fees to go our separate ways just for some lawyer to file paperwork with the courts.
My complaint is simple to understand and agree with. Either do away with marriage and give ALL couples civil union rights or require all couples to get married in order to enjoy married benefits.
This country and this state has become so concerned about discriminating against “minorites” that “majorities” are now being discriminated against.
Whatever your reasons, you are choosing not to exercise legal rights that are yours, either by not getting married or by getting married. The choice is yours and your partner’s. If you don’t care for the consequences of that, you have options. Gay and lesbian couples do not have that option at all.
Frankly, I’m not sure how the bill could be written to exclude you and your partner. I’m not sure why you’d opt to do civil union versus civil marriage and a pre-nup, but the point of the debate is to make available a basic civil right to a group for whom no other reasonable option exists.
Now I got you talking. Interested is right, and Rev Right is right. But how come no one has the balls anymore to live life while you are alive? Using your logic, I shouldn’t get a drivers license because I might crash! Obviously he isn’t Mr. Right, or maybe you just measure life in dollars and cents.
You are making the choice not to marry. Gay people don’t have that choice, but civil marriage is hardly a choice when you factor in property and custody issues. it always favors the caregiver unless for some reason the caregiver is incompetent. Even when adultry causes the split, and, as the Rev has described, the caregiver is the tortfeasor, the breadwinner in almost all cases still ends up on the short end of things, regardless of whether they are not a willing party to the action.
In the scheme of things, however, this whole conversation is a diversion. I agree with President Bush and let’s vote on an amendment. That way, the whole of the population decides, the 2.2 million CT residnets, not 2 activist homosexual lawyers who co-chair the Judiciary Committee (McDonald & Lawlor) who are serving a consituency that doesn’t necessarily fall within the boundries of their districts, and who are taking up the valuable law time with this diversion.
You are rude and you obviously are a pole smoker. Cindy has made some intelligent comments about a fact that we as CT residents may have to deal with in the near future. I think she makes some very important points that are valid and all you can do is throw insults about her personal situation of which you have no business doing. Who says marriage is the right thing to do as you are implying. Marriage requires a license, a ceremony of some sort which may or may not be something a couple wants to go through and an expensive stressful process to dissolve it. Why can’t heterosexuals have a civil union? In nearby RI a couple can claim common law marriage (both parties must agree on this status, so you screwed over breadwinners need not worry about getting suckered in). They don’t have to go through the foolish hoop-la that our society puts so much importance on. Those that enjoy that sort of thing…have a blast, but don’t knock those that don’t. And nowhere in her posts do I see her saying that gays and lesbians should not have the choices and rights that heterosexuals do. So why should gays have more rights than us?
Hey Big what kind of insurance do you sell….fudge packers liability?
No matter what one calls it, legal connection between two people should and must be recognized in an equal way by our government. After all, that’s what we’re supposed to be all about..equality.
As for “marriage”, religious orders can call it whatever they want and grant it to only those who they wish. In fact, for years they have!
The rights and privledges for each committed couple must be the same in the eyes or our democracy. Keep religion out of it.
Hey Big-Ger, did I touch a nerve? Got you talkin’ too!
If you read my comments, you will see that I don’t like the idea of civil marriage, and would prefer everyone be subject to civil unions. Cindy can live life however she chooses. Personally, I feel it is a compromise to cohabit tenuously with someone else. In my mind it demonstrates an element of selfishness, and in many cases cheapness -“why buy the cow when you can have the milk for free”. That’s fine. It’s not my personal problem, but it aslo shouldn’t rise to the level of being equal under the law as a persona shacked up with with no further commitment. Maybe civil unions can help move the commitment level to a higher tier under the law based on the potential encumberances it imposes.
Your fudge-packing comment is unfortunate. I feel a Gay lifestyle is a compromise at best. I feel seeking a right to “marriage” and the recruitment of children to form a pseudo-family is a disorientation that attempts to justify a dysfunctional behavioral choice. It’s like telling society, by group imposition, that your behavior is of the same high value to a committed heterosexual marriage, whose fruit of which is children. Gays can marry a person of the opposite sex under the law as easily as those cohabiting compro-misers who have suspended the courtship process at roommates-who-have-sex phase and are pretending to be married, and who want the benefits without the commitment – and the encumberances.
I agree that Gays should not enjoy a higher station under the law than do cohabiters, and currently they don’t. The Gay issue and civil unions will cause creep in the law. Next, we see all kinds of Kinseyan perversion looking to legitimize their pathology by adopting children, or each other’s children, to form a so-called family.
Hey Bigger, Thanks for the support. Although I wouldn’t have used your negative terms, I’m glad that you brought the discussion back to the point and put Big (mouth) in his place.
All people should enjoy the same rights regardless of sexual orientation.
Thanks for the lively interaction people.
Good night
I am all for the civil union law but I have not heard discussion of heterosexual civil unions. If gays and lesbians can enjoy the benefits of marriage that married heterosexuals enjoy such as tax breaks, health insurance, protection under the law for division of property if the marriage/union dissolves and social security benefits,then why can’t heterosexual couples fall under this civil union law without the hassles of a “wedding”?? There are plenty of us heterosexual couples in this state that live together, acquire property together and have children together that cannot enjoy these “benefits” without “marriage” so why shouldn’t we be included in this civil union law along with the gays and lesbians?
I agree that everyone should be subject to a civil union law. We should throw out the provincial common law requirements that say men automatically get stuck paying alimony and child support, and must move to another home while supporting the continuance of his first home, even when it’s his sleazey whoring wife that has initiated the whole event.
Gays wil rue the day they actually get married, because along with it comes the kiving death known as divorce. If you have kids, you’ll alsways be stuck to your ex, and a lot of times you will also be _ucked by your ex repeatedly, while the law favors the so-called care-giver, a role defined for you by the court and common law.
No, give us all civil unions, and let marriage be a simple ceremony that has no further relevance except between two people and their God.
Perhaps the government should get out of the marriage business all together and just have civil unions for both heterosexuals and gays. Let each Church decide who it will and will not marry. It really shouldn’t be the job of the government to make policy on what really is a religious issue.
Perhaps the government should get out of the marriage business all together and just have civil unions for both heterosexuals and gays. Let each Church decide who it will and will not marry. It really shouldn’t be the job of the government to make policy on what really is a religious issue.
If feel this is a very just decision. Everyone one has the right under our constitution to live as they feel. Gay couples should have the same right as any other couple
Hey Joe, Thanks for the input, but I really do see it as a government issue. I’m an atheist, so it has nothing to do with religion at all for me. It has everything to do with the government: Tax breaks, social security benefits, division of property laws, and health insurance. So you bring up another very interesting issue: if marriage is a component of religion, then why does the government have the right to govern it? Is there not some constitutional article that covers that? I live with my partner, we are heterosexual, we own a home together, we share all expenses and would split everything evenly if we broke up but we can’t benefit from the marriage laws because we are not “married”. I’m self employed and he is a state employee so I have to pay for my own health insurance. We can’t file married on our taxes, neither of us can collect social security benefits if one of us dies and our family members could fight for thier deceased family member’s half of our assets (not so in a legal marriage).
I have a cousin who married her husband with a Justice of the Peace ceremony because neither of them is religious. This marriage IS a heterosexual civil union. It had and has nothing to do with any church or religion. It is simply thier expression of the desire to be recognized by the government as a family unit. Why not let gay people have access to this level of the institution?
Just remember that marriage from the government perspective is ALWAYS a civil union. It’s only a “sacrament” when a church becomes involved. These are two fundamentally different things that are lumped together under the same name.
Thanks for your input Ken. Ok…. so if this Civil union law will give gays and lesbians rights under the “marriage” laws of the state, then why not heterosexuals as well? If this passes, then all couples should be able to excercise their “marriage” rights under this law. I agree that gays and lesbians should be able to get married if they choose to do so but if our state is saying NO they can’t! but…..we are going to treat them as if they were, then we need to get rid of the marriage requirement all together.
Another way of putting it: Why should gays and lesbians have more (or less)rights in this area than heterosexuals??
Hey Cindy,
Get married and stop complaining. Otherwise blow off the lingerer if he’s dead in the water. It seems you are full of excuses, but I see the main impediment being your inability to move over the threshold and get the deed done. Also, you aren’t getting any younger. Don’t let too much time go by. You’ll always regret it.
I’m a JP, but common law is where divorce lurks. Not some civil ceremony. Health insurance, wills and the disposition of one property and wishes can all be established contractually anyway. It is when you throw kids in the mix does it become dicey. That’s when your hard earned assets get garnished, often against your will because you are considered the “breadwinner” and the other half is termed the “caregiver”. The Breadwinner gets the raw deal more often than not.
Hey Big Insurance…your assumptions are incorrect. Neither of us wants to get married because if it doesn’t work out we have to pay ridiculous legal fees to go our separate ways just for some lawyer to file paperwork with the courts.
My complaint is simple to understand and agree with. Either do away with marriage and give ALL couples civil union rights or require all couples to get married in order to enjoy married benefits.
This country and this state has become so concerned about discriminating against “minorites” that “majorities” are now being discriminated against.
Cindy;
Whatever your reasons, you are choosing not to exercise legal rights that are yours, either by not getting married or by getting married. The choice is yours and your partner’s. If you don’t care for the consequences of that, you have options. Gay and lesbian couples do not have that option at all.
Frankly, I’m not sure how the bill could be written to exclude you and your partner. I’m not sure why you’d opt to do civil union versus civil marriage and a pre-nup, but the point of the debate is to make available a basic civil right to a group for whom no other reasonable option exists.
Now I got you talking. Interested is right, and Rev Right is right. But how come no one has the balls anymore to live life while you are alive? Using your logic, I shouldn’t get a drivers license because I might crash! Obviously he isn’t Mr. Right, or maybe you just measure life in dollars and cents.
You are making the choice not to marry. Gay people don’t have that choice, but civil marriage is hardly a choice when you factor in property and custody issues. it always favors the caregiver unless for some reason the caregiver is incompetent. Even when adultry causes the split, and, as the Rev has described, the caregiver is the tortfeasor, the breadwinner in almost all cases still ends up on the short end of things, regardless of whether they are not a willing party to the action.
In the scheme of things, however, this whole conversation is a diversion. I agree with President Bush and let’s vote on an amendment. That way, the whole of the population decides, the 2.2 million CT residnets, not 2 activist homosexual lawyers who co-chair the Judiciary Committee (McDonald & Lawlor) who are serving a consituency that doesn’t necessarily fall within the boundries of their districts, and who are taking up the valuable law time with this diversion.
Hey Big,
You are rude and you obviously are a pole smoker. Cindy has made some intelligent comments about a fact that we as CT residents may have to deal with in the near future. I think she makes some very important points that are valid and all you can do is throw insults about her personal situation of which you have no business doing. Who says marriage is the right thing to do as you are implying. Marriage requires a license, a ceremony of some sort which may or may not be something a couple wants to go through and an expensive stressful process to dissolve it. Why can’t heterosexuals have a civil union? In nearby RI a couple can claim common law marriage (both parties must agree on this status, so you screwed over breadwinners need not worry about getting suckered in). They don’t have to go through the foolish hoop-la that our society puts so much importance on. Those that enjoy that sort of thing…have a blast, but don’t knock those that don’t. And nowhere in her posts do I see her saying that gays and lesbians should not have the choices and rights that heterosexuals do. So why should gays have more rights than us?
Hey Big what kind of insurance do you sell….fudge packers liability?
Cindy…I’m with you girl!
No matter what one calls it, legal connection between two people should and must be recognized in an equal way by our government. After all, that’s what we’re supposed to be all about..equality.
As for “marriage”, religious orders can call it whatever they want and grant it to only those who they wish. In fact, for years they have!
The rights and privledges for each committed couple must be the same in the eyes or our democracy. Keep religion out of it.
Hey Big-Ger, did I touch a nerve? Got you talkin’ too!
If you read my comments, you will see that I don’t like the idea of civil marriage, and would prefer everyone be subject to civil unions. Cindy can live life however she chooses. Personally, I feel it is a compromise to cohabit tenuously with someone else. In my mind it demonstrates an element of selfishness, and in many cases cheapness -“why buy the cow when you can have the milk for free”. That’s fine. It’s not my personal problem, but it aslo shouldn’t rise to the level of being equal under the law as a persona shacked up with with no further commitment. Maybe civil unions can help move the commitment level to a higher tier under the law based on the potential encumberances it imposes.
Your fudge-packing comment is unfortunate. I feel a Gay lifestyle is a compromise at best. I feel seeking a right to “marriage” and the recruitment of children to form a pseudo-family is a disorientation that attempts to justify a dysfunctional behavioral choice. It’s like telling society, by group imposition, that your behavior is of the same high value to a committed heterosexual marriage, whose fruit of which is children. Gays can marry a person of the opposite sex under the law as easily as those cohabiting compro-misers who have suspended the courtship process at roommates-who-have-sex phase and are pretending to be married, and who want the benefits without the commitment – and the encumberances.
I agree that Gays should not enjoy a higher station under the law than do cohabiters, and currently they don’t. The Gay issue and civil unions will cause creep in the law. Next, we see all kinds of Kinseyan perversion looking to legitimize their pathology by adopting children, or each other’s children, to form a so-called family.