senate passed the civil unions bill

[cassandra uprising]

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.

[bigwillq]

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:

[cassandra uprising]

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

[cassandra uprising]

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

[Liberalgirl788]

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!!!!!!!!!

[cassandra uprising]

5. she signed the bill n/t

[Liberalgirl788]

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?

[cassandra uprising]

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.

[NewJeffCT]

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.

[Don1]

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.

[NewJeffCT]

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.

[Don1]

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.

[Liberalgirl788]

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.