Con-necti-cutting Marriage

Associated Press Writer Susan Haigh turns in a celebratory article on marriage neutering in Connecticut. This is how it starts:

A decade-long battle for marriage equality in Connecticut ended late Wednesday when the General Assembly voted to update the state's marriage laws to conform with a landmark court ruling allowing gay and lesbian couples to tie the knot.

"Marriage equality"? But tell us – how do you really feel about this issue?

[The rest is below the fold if you care to read it.]

"It feels so good. It really does feel like the book is closing," said Anne Stanback, president of Love Makes a Family, a gay-rights group that has led the fight for [neutered] marriage in the state.

"Love Makes a Family". Really? Actually, marriage, birth, and adoption makes family.

A spokesman for Gov. M. Jodi Rell said she will sign the bill, which passed 28-7 in the Senate and 100-44 in the House of Representatives, into law. While Rell, a Republican, signed the state's 2005 civil unions law, she has said she believes that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

They why sign the law, even if a veto can be overridden?

It redefines marriage in Connecticut as the legal union of two people. State law previously defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman.

Why just two? Isn't that bigotry? If not, how could it not be bigotry if "limiting" it to bride-groom couplings was bigotry?

The Connecticut bill transforms civil unions into marriages as of Oct. 1, 2010, unless they've been annulled or dissolved.

What if someone wants a civil union, but not marriage? Isn't that "destroying" their relationship, according to the reasoning we heard when the California Marriage Amendment passed in California? Clearly, this isn't about equality, freedom, choices, etc. It is about neutering marriage. "Civil unions" were nothing more than a tool for these people that have served their purpose, and so are now dismissed. Yet ten years ago, they would have told us how important civil unions are, and that they were vital socially and legally.

In an effort to appease some gay marriage foes, lawmakers amended the bill to show they want to protect religious liberties.

"Gay marriage foes"? That is a slanted misnomer. Yes, some people who are against court-forced neutering of state marriage licensing may be against gay "marriage", but not all. What of all of these homosexual men all of these years who have talked about their "husbands"? Is the reporter being so "bigoted" as to say those men weren't really in a marriage? The state did not create traditional marriage. But this state is fabricating "gay marriage", apparently.

For example, it says religious organizations and associations are not required to provide services, goods or facilities for same-sex wedding ceremonies.

So what? Your law means nothing if the court decides it doesn't like it. That's how we got to this point in the first place.

Wednesday's bill also strips language from a 1991 state anti-discrimination law that says Connecticut does not condone "homosexuality or bisexuality or any equivalent lifestyle," require the teaching of homosexuality or bisexuality "as an acceptable lifestyle," set quotas for hiring gay workers or authorize recognition of same-sex marriage.

Why do that unless they are planning to require the teaching of homosexual and bisexual behavior as "acceptable", or set quotas for hiring homosexual people?

McDonald, who is openly gay, said the language is outdated and offensive to gays, lesbians and bisexuals.

Oh, that's why. So, what we have to do if we want laws changed is to get a minority of people together to say they find those laws offensive, and that's justification for changing them? Or does equal access/protection not apply here? Some feelings are more equal than others?