Vote caps decade-long gay marriage fight in Conn.

[cybok0]

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20090423/US.Gay.Marriage.Connecticut/

:free-sick-smileys-1:thumbdown::thumbdown::thumbdown:

[Skyhi]

Why does this bother you? Because it's called a "marriage" and not a "civil-union," or because you don't want it under any name?

[fallout2600]

I'm not sure why this bothers anyone unless they have some religious reason for it. Truth is, married couple get tax breaks that others don't. If a gay couple is living together as a "normal" married couple and sharing incomes, then they should be allowed to receive the same benefits.

[msmith198025]

If I am understanding it correctly, they already had a civil union law that gave them the same rights as being married when it comes to taxes, ect.

I guess that makes me question why change this? Why upset your traditionalist over a name change that they (and I) hold dear when you already have the same basic rights under the law that exists?

[fallout2600]

If that's the case, then I agree with you msmith. Why stir the pot if equality already existed?

[msmith198025]

From what I read in the article, the law has been on the books since 05

Edit: from what google pulled up this is in fact true

http://www.211ct.org/InformationLibrary/Documents/civilunionsct.asp

http://www.jud.ct.gov/lawlib/Notebooks/Pathfinders/CivilUnions.htm

[HD MM]

If I am understanding it correctly, they already had a civil union law that gave them the same rights as being married when it comes to taxes, ect.

I guess that makes me question why change this? Why upset your traditionalist over a name change that they (and I) hold dear when you already have the same basic rights under the law that exists?

First off, Civil Unions are NOT recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples. Civil unions ARE recognized locally by the select states (Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, California and Oregon).

Secondly, there are specific benefits to married heterosexual couples. These range from federal benefits such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

BTW, the United States Constitution guarantees equality for all, but as you can see, marriage and civil unions are not the same. Creating equal access to marriage is the only fair way to ensure equality for gay and straight couples alike.

Personally, I don't see what the big deal is and why people care so much on this topic.

[Skyhi]

First off, Civil Unions are NOT recognized by the federal government, so couples would not be able to file joint-tax returns or be eligible for tax breaks or protections the government affords to married couples. Civil unions ARE recognized locally by the select states (Vermont, New Jersey, Connecticut, California and Oregon).

Secondly, there are specific benefits to married heterosexual couples. These range from federal benefits such as survivor benefits through Social Security, sick leave to care for ailing partner, tax breaks, veterans benefits and insurance breaks. They also include things like family discounts, obtaining family insurance through your employer, visiting your spouse in the hospital and making medical decisions if your partner is unable to. Civil Unions protect some of these rights, but not all of them.

BTW, the United States Constitution guarantees equality for all, but as you can see, marriage and civil unions are not the same. Creating equal access to marriage is the only fair way to ensure equality for gay and straight couples alike.

Personally, I don't see what the big deal is and why people care so much on this topic.

In order for the equal protection clause to have teeth on the federal level, gay people would have to be deemed a "protected class" by the SCOTUS or the legislature. This is happening in some states and I think its only a matter of time until we see it federally.

I also don't understand why so many people do not want gays to have the protected rights you mentioned above. I'm guessing its rooted in homophobia (although few would probably admit it).

[fallout2600]

I don't think its homophobia as much as "Bible-Belt" values.

[Skyhi]

I don't think its homophobia as much as "Bible-Belt" values.

I understand the bible-belters wanting to "save" the "sinning" homosexuals from their "choice", but you'd think true followers of Jesus wouldn't approve of the way current law denies homosexuals simple, basic rights.

[msmith198025]

I don't think its homophobia as much as "Bible-Belt" values.

I know that is the case with me, but I doubt that is universal among those that oppose it.

[msmith198025]

I understand the bible-belters wanting to "save" the "sinning" homosexuals from their "choice", but you'd think true followers of Jesus wouldn't approve of the way current law denies homosexuals simple, basic rights.

I think people misinterpret Christians views on this, or some Christians views on it anyway.

I am against it for the simple reason that I see marriage as between a man and woman. No other reason needed for me. It is not because I see homosexuality as a greater sin than anything else, because it is not. It is no worse as far as that goes than many of the things I do day in and day out, and even if it were, it is not my place to "judge" for that.

They want the same rights? Give it to them under a civil union status and make it federally recognized, just leave the institution of marriage as is.

Of course this is just my opinion, and like most things Christians support these days, I am sure it will get changed

[fallout2600]

I know that is the case with me, but I doubt that is universal among those that oppose it.

Yeah, some here, some there. Regardless it a taboo topic just like the marijuana legalization debate. Gets people more fired up emotionally than cognitively.

[Skyhi]

I think people misinterpret Christians views on this, or some Christians views on it anyway.

I am against it for the simple reason that I see marriage as between a man and woman. No other reason needed for me. It is not because I see homosexuality as a greater sin than anything else, because it is not. It is no worse as far as that goes than many of the things I do day in and day out, and even if it were, it is not my place to "judge" for that.

They want the same rights? Give it to them under a civil union status and make it federally recognized, just leave the institution of marriage as is.

Of course this is just my opinion, and like most things Christians support these days, I am sure it will get changed

:thumbup: to you. I consider myself a Christian, but I don't think homosexuality is a sin. I applaud you for not considering it a "super-sin" like many Christians do.

As long as gays get ALL the rights of a straight couple, I think calling it a civil-union should be a concession they're willing to make to appease people like you.

[HDRoberts]

I'm not sure why this bothers anyone unless they have some religious reason for it. Truth is, married couple get tax breaks that others don't. If a gay couple is living together as a "normal" married couple and sharing incomes, then they should be allowed to receive the same benefits.

I have another solution: get rid of tax breaks for married couples. I'm not gay, but single. Why should I continue to get the shaft?

Single, childless people: one of the few groups you can still legally discriminate against.

[msmith198025]

I have another solution: get rid of tax breaks for married couples. I'm not gay, but single. Why should I continue to get the shaft?

Single, childless people: one of the few groups you can still legally discriminate against.

Two years ago I would have agreed with you 100%. Now since I am married and have a kid they will probably change it!!!!!!!!!!!!:05:

[HDRoberts]

Yep, that's why we are still discriminated against. Single people get married, then they are happy to be the beneficiary.

I don't think the tax code should reward or punish family choices.

So much is attitude, too. A married friend with kids calls in sick, it's "Aww, the liddle man sick?" Me, "Oh, rough night drinking?"

I'm also against maternity/paternity leave. I think EVERYONE should be eligible for a certain number of paid (or even unpaid) sabbaticals over their career. Want to use them for kids? Fine. Want to use them to pursue another goal? That should be fine, too.

Sorry to threadjack.

[fallout2600]

Single, childless people: one of the few groups you can still legally discriminate against.

You're not being discriminated against, you could be single and have a child and get the child tax credit if you claim them as a dependent. Once you have a child, you realize that your cost of living just went out the roof!

[fallout2600]

I'm also against maternity/paternity leave. I think EVERYONE should be eligible for a certain number of paid (or even unpaid) sabbaticals over their career. Want to use them for kids? Fine. Want to use them to pursue another goal? That should be fine, too.

Sorry to threadjack.

Move to France! :)

[msmith198025]

I am not against maternity leave at all. After having seen that in person, there is NO WAY a woman should be required to go straight back to work.


Honestly, I felt the same as you, more or less anyway, but things did change, and I now understand why things are the way they are. It is impossible for me to explain it however.

[HDRoberts]

You're not being discriminated against, you could be single and have a child and get the child tax credit if you claim them as a dependent. Once you have a child, you realize that your cost of living just went out the roof!

No one held a gun to your head (or anyone else's head) and forced you to procreate.

All I'm saying is people chose to have kids, they should be forced to deal with the financial consequences instead of the government giving them a break.

I'm also pretty sure France doesn't guarantee all workers share in parental leave, only parents.

[fallout2600]

Honestly, I felt the same as you, more or less anyway, but things did change, and I now understand why things are the way they are. It is impossible for me to explain it however.

Don't worry my friend, it makes the second baby that much easier!! :)

[HDRoberts]

Don't worry my friend, it makes the second baby that much easier!! :)

Yet I'M the one in favor of government welfare?:augentreher:

:)

[msmith198025]

No one held a gun to your head (or anyone else's head) and forced you to procreate.

All I'm saying is people chose to have kids, they should be forced to deal with the financial consequences instead of the government giving them a break.

I'm also pretty sure France doesn't guarantee all workers share in parental leave, only parents.

For that matter, no one is forcing anyone to remain single and childless:)

[fallout2600]

No one held a gun to your head (or anyone else's head) and forced you to procreate.

All I'm saying is people chose to have kids, they should be forced to deal with the financial consequences instead of the government giving them a break.

I'm also pretty sure France doesn't guarantee all workers share in parental leave, only parents.

Go knock someone up and you'll understand the differences. As a single person, you don't have a diaper expense, a formula expense, a re-occuring doctor bill for the mother and child. The lists goes on....Its a fact that the cost of living goes up for parents and as you know very well, companies don't give raises to people that have babies!

The France thing was a joke...

[msmith198025]

No one held a gun to your head (or anyone else's head) and forced you to procreate.

.

You are correct, the gun came after her dad found out she was pregnant:05:

[msmith198025]

Go knock someone up and you'll understand the differences. As a single person, you don't have a diaper expense, a formula expense, a re-occuring doctor bill for the mother and child. The lists goes on....Its a fact that the cost of living goes up for parents and as you know very well, companies don't give raises to people that have babies!

The France thing was a joke...

Amen to that. Formula cost alone was unreal!

[Skyhi]

Amen to that. Formula cost alone was unreal!

Waaaaay off topic, but: breastfeeding is the way to go for a myriad of reasons.

[HDRoberts]

For that matter, no one is forcing anyone to remain single and childless:)

Well, in my case, the women are:)

Yeah, kids are pricey, but why should I have to pay the "no kids" tax by not getting a tax break?

[fallout2600]

You are correct, the gun came after her dad found out she was pregnant:05:
:free-happy-smileys-

Been there myself!!!

[msmith198025]

Well, in my case, the women are:)

Yeah, kids are pricey, but why should I have to pay the "no kids" tax by not getting a tax break?

There are some very good mail order sites online:free-happy-smileys-

I kid:thumbup:

[fallout2600]

Waaaaay off topic, but: breastfeeding is the way to go for a myriad of reasons.

No doubt, baby gets all those antibodies from mom. Only problem, not all mothers produce enough milk. And if they continue to work to support the family, then they might be forced to the convenience of formula.

[Skyhi]

No doubt, baby gets all those antibodies from mom. Only problem, not all mothers produce enough milk. And if they continue to work to support the family, then they might be forced to the convenience of formula.

That's what breastpumps are for! :) :)

[msmith198025]

:free-happy-smileys-

Been there myself!!!

Yeah, fun times.....fun times...:free-happy-smileys-

We had a good talk, and I basically said, "look, it is done, we are having it. You can get mad, but that is not going to change anything, and does not help your daughter."
He agreed after the initial shock wore off, and we have been on great terms since

Sorry for the ot posts guys

[msmith198025]

Waaaaay off topic, but: breastfeeding is the way to go for a myriad of reasons.

True, and we had that discussion. We just decided that the bottle was the way to go for us.

[HDRoberts]

Sorry for the ot posts guys

Yeah, that's my fault. Maybe I should eventually start another topic. I haven't even gotten started on how unfair medical benefits are to single people.

[fallout2600]

That's what breastpumps are for! :) :)

Tell that to a working mom suffering from post portum depression!!!! :)

[Skyhi]

Tell that to a working mom suffering from post portum depression!!!! :)

been there, done that (minus the depression), not fun! :) :)

[cybok0]

Amen to that. Formula cost alone was unreal!

WIC was a great help.

[cybok0]

Why does this bother you? Because it's called a "marriage" and not a "civil-union," or because you don't want it under any name?

Marriage is between a man and woman.

[HD MM]

Marriage is between a man and woman.

So if Big Ben married Jeff Reed, you'd be against that?

[vurbano]

Waaaaay off topic, but: breastfeeding is the way to go for a myriad of reasons.
he has breasts?

[cybok0]

So if Big Ben married Jeff Reed, you'd be against that?

Yep, just like I'm against the mighty Quinn and Winslow getting married.

[Derwin0]

Not exactly my idea of how marriage should be.

But the issue was settled the way it should be, in the legislature and not by a court making new laws through it's rulings (ala Iowa).