“Marriage is not a Threat to Marriage.”
February 4, 2007: Two openly gay Connecticut lawmakers (see why’s its important to elect LGBT people?) are proposing to replace that state’s civil union’s bill with full and equal marriage.
State Sen. Andrew McDonald, D-Stamford, and state Rep. Michael Lawlor, D-East Haven, co-chairmen of the Judiciary Committee, announced plans yesterday morning to introduce a “marriage equality” bill.
The legislation would not have to be recognized by religious institutions, but proponents say they would afford more rights than civil unions and extend them over state lines.
“We have a chance, yet again, to lift people up,” McDonald said. McDonald and Lawlor are gay.
They were introduced at the event by Anne Stanback, executive director of Love Makes a Family of Connecticut, the chief proponent of 2005’s civil-union legislation. I love this quote from her:
“Divorce is a threat to marriage. Infidelity, domestic violence and losing your job (are) a threat to marriage,” Stanback said. “Marriage is not a threat to marriage.”
Of course, the usual haters were there to remind us that their version of the Almighty strongly supports discrimination against LGBT people in Connecticut.
Unlike other issues, like property tax reform, Republican Senate leader Louis DeLuca said gay marriage goes beyond policy issues.
“The definition of marriage goes back to Christ,” said DeLuca, R-Woodbury.
DeLuca said, as a married man of 53 years, he is offended by efforts to pass a gay marriage bill and is certain it would not survive a statewide referendum.
I don’t remember the part in the Bible where Christ defined marriage - do you? Of course, he did preach about tolerance, love, charity and the importance of accepting those whom some in society would condemn.
But maybe he defined marriage in the crazy-backwards version of the Bible that Rep. DeLuca reads. I gotta get one of those.
You can read the whole story in Connecticut’s Advocate here.
February 5th, 2007 at 1:40 am
Is marriage a religious institution?
Maybe I’m just a whiner or overly sensitive, but I feel that I am at times the only gay person that is not comfortable or satisfied by the term “civil union”. To me it feels like a consolation prize given as a means of pacifying gays. I hope that we gay men and woman will stop our belly aching about the issue of “marriage” until our work is done. Whiney or not, I am saddened to see that many gays are willing to accept second class citizenship. Our entire gay civil rights movement that has been courageously fought by a very few, is about equal rights. This of course means marriage as well.
We should not be satisfied by civil unions. Unions to me are not equal. It is a concilation prize. It’s not about doing the right thing, it’s about politics. Even the politicians that are in favor of calling our civil unions marriage are afraid to speak openly about it, with the exception of a few impassioned politicians that have a strong sense of integrity and also what is right and what is wrong.
We cannot look to the bible for any answers regarding equal rights. Those laws were written at a different time and for uneducated illiterate people. They were also a very superstitious people that made many of their laws in regards to those superstitions. We therefore cannot be influenced by scripture. We live in a country that has a law of separation between church and state. That’s the wonderful thing about our country.
Somebody please help me understand why marriage by many is considered a religious institution. For the sake of discussion I would like someone to tell me why atheists are then eligible for marriage? It seems to me that heterosexual marriages are afforded just about any opportunity and environment they choose to take their vows. Even those darned heathens.
They can choose a church marriage, they can get married underwater, on a mountaintop, by a justice of the peace or even by a ship captain. However, the most romantic and holy place I can imagine to pledge ones vows of love and fidelity, is driving through a drive-in chapel in Las Vegas, as one would order a family meal. I’m sorry, I’m only human and I got a bit choked up when mentioning that. I love happy meals. The best part, no one has to even get out of the car, and the best man and woman are provided for one of the most important events in ones life; holy matrimony. How can one even compete with that kind of service? I think they even change your oil. That may be just hearsay.
Has it dawned on anyone that the constitution of the United States says very clearly that all people shall be treated as equal? There are no clauses added to that, such as, except gays and African Americans. What was stated in that document then still rings very clear yet today and likely for many years to come. We don’t have to look too awfully far back into our history to find examples of how we ignored the constitution for selfish heterosexual Anglo-Saxon citizens so we could still own people. It wasn’t until the early part of the nineteenth century before woman were allowed to vote. Not so long before that, slavery was legal. It wasn’t until nearly fifty years ago that African Americans weren’t allowed to marry whites. If we are to learn anything from our nations history, we should then know that whenever we veer off from what that beautifully crafted document we call our nations Constitution for whatever convenient reason, it is eventually overturned and changed for reasons of being unfair and not following the principals set forth in that document Back to my original question, I am hoping someone can give me a valid reason to prevent any two people that love each other from having the right to marry. I have heard some reasons that make no sense to me. One being that if gays were allowed to marry it would have the impact of destroying traditional marriage. We only have to look at the statistics of the success of heterosexual marriages to discover that more than half end up in divorce. Gays did not cause that. Fidelity within marriage has a terrible track record as well. Therefore I would truly like to hear some reasonable argument posed that would make sense why gay marriage ought not be allowed. Thank you, Aaron Jason Silver www.aaronjasonsilver.com; Fennville, Mi 49408
February 5th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
I am still not sure why people have to make such a big deal of gay people getting married… Really whats the big freaking deal?? I may not be gay but I have happened to see the two greatest people fall in love (my aunts) and them having to go through extrodinary (sp) lengths to get married… Their solution marriage in Canada