Gov. Rell (Connecticut) Signs Gay Marriage Bill

Source: Hartford Courant

Four years ago this week, Gov. M. Jodi Rell signed a bill allowing civil unions. Today, with the stroke of a pen, she abolished them.

Rell this afternoon signed Senate Bill 899, which incorporates the findings of the Kerrigan case into Connecticut statutes. That ruling, handed down by the state Supreme Court in October, paved the way for same-sex marriage.

Both the House and the Senate spent hours yesterday debating Senate Bill 899, which passed only after an amendment was added that provides an exemption to groups who object to same-sex marriage on religious grounds.

""This bipartisan vote is a strong affirmation of the Kerrigan decision and the dignity and respect of same-sex couples and their families," Anne Stanback, executive director of Love Makes a Family said in a statement. "Today, fairness won out over fear."

Read more: http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hcu-gaymarriage-0423,0,664738.story

---

CT is now the second state to pass a same-sex marriage bill and the first to enshrine a court order legalizing same-sex marriage in statute.

I am proud of my state. I am happy that I CAN be proud of my state. This is one of the many reasons I live in a progressive state. I would be miserable in one that was not. And I am a straight, married female over the age of 65...

was what the "exemption to groups who object to same-sex marriage on religious grounds" means. I mean right now a minister has the right to refuse to officiate at a marriage. Is this just putting that into the law? I wouldn't think a gay couple would ask someone who they knew was against gay marriage to marry them anyway. I just hope this exemption doesn't mean that an employer, say, could discriminate against a gay couple when it came to spousal coverage on insurance or whatever. Does anyone know what the exemption entails?

In CA, the lie spread by the churches was that priests and ministers could be arrested or sued if they refused to "marry homosexuals." Another version of the lie was that churches could closed down or forced out of business by lawsuits.

I think this is to allay the fears of the sheeple who listen to the religious quacks.

In fact, the new anti-Prop H8 proposition in CA contains similar language and adds that the measure won't require schools to change their curriculum, which was another lie told by the priests and ministers. They said that if Prop H8 wasn't passed, schools would be required to teach homosexuality to kindergarteners.

but I'm glad to see that the new anti- Prop 8 in CA is taking steps to counter them.

almost every pro-Prop H8 person that I saw interviewed repeated one or more of those lies as the reason for supporting the proposition.

http://www.theday.com/re.aspx?re=595d1a29-061e-4cc7-a1ad-fa60d4220821

But religious groups, including the Catholic Church, and social conservatives waged a last-minute lobbying effort in hopes of stalling the legislative move to formally codify the court decision by removing outdated language that the court had struck down, and other language critical of homosexuality that many had long found offensive and demeaning.

Religious groups warned that the bill would infringe on religious freedom and did win a late bipartisan compromise, as sponsors agreed to modify the proposal to more explicitly exempt church-affiliated groups from some provisions. The language closely mirrors that in a bill recently passed in Vermont, overriding a gubernatorial veto to legalize same-sex marriage in that state. The language expressly permits churches and related organizations - including church-owned venues and adoption agencies - to continue to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation as long as the specific services that discriminate do not receive funding from the state or federal government.

The bill also strips “extremely offensive” statutory language dating to the early 1990s, when Connecticut first passed anti-discrimination laws covering gay people, that said no civil protections should be construed to condone homosexuality.

...

But the bill does not offer what some Republicans insisted was also necessary - a “conscientious objector” provision for those personally opposed to same-sex marriage on religious grounds - that would protect individuals who refuse to serve or recognize gay couples.

I was afraid it would be used as a loophole to allow the very discrimination that you talked about. Glad it doesn't.

I have to say though, the bastards tried to legalize discrimination. Nasty bunch aren't they? It pisses me off that they could even consider that and I'm not even gay!

get married. We have been together for 13 years(i don't know how he has put up with me for so long!)
I have not been in a church for a service other than a funeral or wedding in almost 20 years, because I find the Kreestian hypocrisy so offensive.
We would not ask someone objects to perform our ceremony.
We want it to be in joy not begrudging.
We have already picked out an officiant and place. If a justice of the peace or magistrate what have you does not want to perform a legal ceremony, they are not fit to do the job as far as I am concerned. That applies to pharmacists, Drs and nurses too.
We may push for legal recognition when we return, after all we pay taxes and abide by the states laws. Not that I really want to stir the pot, but right is right.
I have been a pot stirrer for long and long and I m getting tired in my old age, it's time for the younger ones to take up the slack.

Congrats on 13 years together! I love Vermont, and have been there several times. I think another trip might be forthcoming soon!

:hi:

"Sec. 7. No member of the clergy authorized to join persons in marriage pursuant to section 46b-22 of the general statutes shall be required to solemnize any marriage in violation of his or her right to the free exercise of religion guaranteed by the first amendment to the United States Constitution or section 3 of article first of the Constitution of the state."

Seems clear to me. Nobody's ever forced a Catholic church to marry a divorced person, either.

I could also see a minister not marrying a couple when one of them is not a church member. Churches do have odd takes on things like this.

....:applause:

Sure makes you wonder about Dems who oppose marriage equality, doesn't it?