Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

senate passed the civil unions bill

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Places » Connecticut Donate to DU
 
cassandra uprising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 03:12 PM
Original message
senate passed the civil unions bill
Governor Jodi Rell has said publicly that she will sign the bill.

note- I've had problems with my links in the past. I'll edit this post accordingly if the links don't deleiver.

Here is the link to the bill:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/TOB/s/pdf/2005SB-00963-R00-S...

The bill was amended by the Connecticut House of Representatives to include the definition of marriage as between a man and a woman.

Here is the link the amendment:

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2005/amd/s/pdf/2005SB-00963-R00HA...

the vote tally

26 / 8

Here's a wrap up of the senate debate:

Several senators spoke up and remarked that the amendment only serves to belittle homosexual couples. Those senators also noted that this bill is progress for civil rights and the bill would not be signed by the governor without the language. There were other senators that said that they couldn't sign the bill without the amendment, and others that flat out oppose the bill.
Refresh | 0 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
bigwillq Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 04:17 PM
Response to Original message
1. This is such great news!
I'm very proud to live in CT!
I know some people are upset that gays are not getting full marriage rights but this is a step. Baby steps, people, really do get the job done.:bounce:
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
cassandra uprising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 04:21 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. i know it's historic
even if it's a baby step. the gov said she will not sign without the def of marriage.

but she will sign this bill as amended
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
cassandra uprising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 04:18 PM
Response to Original message
2. i don't have the electronic tally but
here is the list of senators who voted NO

kissel, ciotto, gaffey, hartley, cook, gunther, deluca, nickerson

those that were absent:

mckinney and guglielmo
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Liberalgirl788 Donating Member (95 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 04:35 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. I see my old senile Senator Billy Ciotto still discriminates
I am happy beyond words that our state has taken the first step in recognizing equal rights. I am still furious at my old senile Senator Billy Ciotto for not only his unforgiving lack of support for equal rights but especially because he made me believe he would support us! Just the same, a great day for Connecticut!!!!!!!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
cassandra uprising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 04:38 PM
Response to Original message
5. she signed the bill n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Liberalgirl788 Donating Member (95 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 04:39 PM
Response to Original message
6. Jodi Rell kind of believes in equal rights
Only if they leave in some insulting amendment the basically classifies gay people as second class citizens? Are we suppose to be happy?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
cassandra uprising Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Apr-20-05 05:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. You raise a good point and you're right.
But, are you aware of how expensive it is to live as a gay couple? Now under this law, same-sex couples will have the same tax benefits as hetero couples and be able to access their partners health benefits. Same sex couples will not be denied hospital and legal rights to their partner's end of life decisions. I think these are huge improvements. The fight does not stop with this law. And you are right about Rell, but she would not have signed the bill without the amendment.

Lame and offensive yes, but progress none the less.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Apr-21-05 07:11 AM
Response to Original message
8. correct, it is a baby step
But, it is a step in the right direction. If we pull the upset & beat Rell next year, it would be a good time to revoke that man & woman crap and implement a marriage policy that says marriage between two people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Don1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu May-05-05 10:53 PM
Response to Reply #8
9. Rell Schmell
Sorry to argue over this, but Rell had nothing to do with the gay marriage ban. The vast majority of state Congress is Dem and they could easily have overturned a gubenatorial veto, if they wanted to.

I do not see this as a plus or a "baby step." I see it as the denial of civil rights to a minority group plus a consolation prize. It is neutral at best and only further illustrates the point that Dems are geared toward mediocrity.

We are supposed to be the most free country and Connecticut as the "Constitution State" is supposed to be a leader in civil rights. This is embarassing for the whole majority-blue state and the Dem Congress sold us all short from the get-go.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
NewJeffCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-05 04:56 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. a few things
1 - Democrats don't have enough votes in both houses to overturn a veto without Republican help. Many Democrats voted for the amendment that defined marriage as between a man & a woman. The passage of the amendment ensured that Rell would sign the civil unions bill. Before that, she wanted assurances from Blumenthal that the original bill would not allow gay marriage.

2 - It took 99 years between the end of the Civil War in 1865 to the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and in 2005 we still don't have racial equality. Several years after 1964, laws prohibiting inter-racial marriage were finally overturned, yet many inter-racial couples still turn heads. Gay marriage has only been on the table for less than a decade, and in 5-10-20 years when it is the law of the land, it will seem a short time in comparison. Most change doesn't happen overnight. I know it's not fair for those that want to marry now, but it's way better than what Kansas recently did.




Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Don1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-07-05 01:34 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. A few more things
You've lost all track of the argument here. YOU scapegoated Rell for the denial of marriage part of the bill. Check your words. They are here:
"If we pull the upset & beat Rell next year, it would be a good time to revoke that man & woman crap and implement a marriage policy that says marriage between two people."

My response was entitled "Rell Schmell" because I called you on the scapegoat. You see, if it really was a tooth-and-nail partisan issue, then yes, there would have been a very significant chance that the Dems could have overriden a Rell veto. There is a lot of hand-waving here on both our parts, so let's talk statistics and law, instead.

(A) 99 out of 151 House members are Democrat. They would have only needed 2 Republicans to vote along with them in order to override a veto. And another very significant chance here for overriding the veto is that vetos can be overriden by a 2/3 vote of the QUORUM present, NOT 2/3 OF THE TOTAL COUNT OF SEATS. That means that under hundreds of viable absentee scenarios, which are commonplace, the Dems could have overriden such a veto.
(B) 24 out of 36 Senate members are Democrat and that is enough to override a veto outright.

Since the Dems never tried this viable tactic, it means that the majority of them were most likely not in favor of the bill without the marriage component.

Therefore, regardless of whether there is a Dem Governor of CT next year, the law will remain the same. It is what the powers that be wanted. And this tactic is exactly the same crap that Kerry pulled in his campaign when he said he was for civil unions but against gay marriage. It is a Dem tactic for popularity.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Liberalgirl788 Donating Member (95 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-06-05 08:32 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. YES!!! I agree
I am so upset at our Democratic party for degrading and discriminating against gay marriage. We have the MAJORITY!!! I expect Republicans to not care about civil rights but I don't expect it from Democrats. Thats why I tell everybody I can about my senile old Senator Billy Ciotto who is a liar and a jerk. I will never vote for a Republican but I will also never vote for a Democrat (possible exception is whoever runs again senile Billy) who discriminates. Good guys like Jim O'Rourke my State Rep deserve our support.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sun Dec 22nd 2024, 12:49 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Places » Connecticut Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC