New Haven Independent

Posted by: Ned | February 21, 2007 4:47 PM

Why are religious (superstitious) people such boring, anal sex obsessed busybodies? Here's a tip: Homophobic guys are usually gay!
Furthermore, I don't believe in your stupid gods, the afterlife, heaven or hell, reincarnation, angels, devils, jesus, etc... I don't want to get married in your stupid church, so mind your own business - it's that simple. Also, when do I get to vote on your marriage?

Posted by: Rebecca | February 21, 2007 6:19 PM

It is not a religious thing, marriage has been the only institution that has kept our race together and thriving for all of time. If you don't want to get married religiously, that's your own problem- you keep that to YOURself, Ned.

Posted by: TrueBlueCT | February 21, 2007 7:00 PM

Someone should primary New Haven State Rep. Juan Candelaria, a Democrat from Fair Haven, who had the gall to vote against 2005's Civil Union law.

Honestly, it was heart-wrenching to watch Juan join with the Republicans in opposition to the historic civil rights legislation... Shame on him.

Posted by: ANDY | February 21, 2007 8:06 PM

The marriage debate needs to be split into two components. Holy Union and Civil Union.

Holy Union is a seperate issue if your church/faith will honor and respect it.

Civil Union is a seperate issue if law/government will honor and respect it.

Gays and straights seem to blur the issue completely. Straights don't want to see the rights, and gays don't want the religious side dismissed as seperate in the argument.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | February 21, 2007 8:21 PM

If Marriage is Between a Man And Woman,How come These Pastor And Minster Do Not Surport Polygamy And Concubines!!! And If Marriage Is Surport By God Than Why Did God Not Have A Mate!!!

Posted by: Maura | February 21, 2007 9:04 PM

Rebecca, what do you mean by "our race"? Do you mean the human race? Are you really suggesting that the human species would not survive and thrive were it not for the institution of marriage? If so, how do you think all those other species manage not to be extinct despite their notable lack of veils and gold rings?

Obviously, Ned is differntiating between civil marriage and religious marriage. If your religion wants to shut out same sex couples from the sacrament of marriage, that's part of the freedom of religion guaranteed in our country. But that doesn't mean that civil authorities shouldn't extend the legal privileges and rights afforded through civil marriage contracts to all people. That's why we have this beautiful concept called separation of church and state in our country, an principle which, borrowing your words, has kept our nation together and thriving for more than 200 years.

Posted by: Ned | February 21, 2007 10:16 PM

How is not wanting to get married "religiously" (whatever that means?) a "problem"? Why are religious people, so sex obsessed and seemingly always trying to get their superstitions legally pushed on others? - really it's like petty fascism based on the tooth-fairy. Isn't it time to move your mind out of the 12th century? Is the "race" coming apart in Massachusettes? the Netherlands? Canada? Get real.

"Marriage is a fine institution, but who wants to live in an institution?" Groucho Marx

Posted by: Evan | February 21, 2007 10:57 PM

“Yes, we shouldn’t discriminate, but to change the basic foundation, the structure of home, it should not happen and is not right.” Apparently he believes that you shouldn't discriminate -- except for when you want to. The hypocrisy is mind-boggling: the guy who claims to be such a champion of social justice in New Haven, is also the town's most outspoken homophobic bigot.

Posted by: kevin | February 21, 2007 11:15 PM

...it saddens me that there is such a strong conviction against gay marriage....who is anyone to tell another human being whether their choice of partner is acceptable...and ridiculous comments made by anti-equal rights individuals such as the above "Clare suggested the earth’s population would be depleted if gay people are allowed to marry. “If we want our race to continue, marriage has to stay between a man and a woman.”", only go to show how narrow minded and ignorant people can be. do they really believe that preventing gays from wedding, will stop them from being partners..and do they really the believe the earth is facing a depleted population crisis with over 6 billion people?
its hard to know where to begin when countering arguments against gay marriage-- that it is even an issue is dumbfounding...its like arguing with a child that the earth is round....its exasperating....
for all of you close minded individuals so afraid of those who are different than themselves...i am sorry that you were brought up in a way that warped your perception of justice and equality

Posted by: JonathanBoulware | February 21, 2007 11:31 PM

It IS actually a religious thing, Rebecca. That's the whole point. It is only the incursion of Judeo-Christian values into our political and governmental system that has made gay marriage an issue at all. If the issue were related to real, definable moral values, then marriages would be regulated and allowed or disallowed based solely upon whether they are loving or not.

Many same sex marriages are loving and beneficial to the two partners. Many heterosexual marriages are abusive, violent, and nothing but damaging to the participants. The reverse is also true. Does it really matter how we have sex? And before anyone retorts with a biblical quote about how homosexuality is a sin, etc., let me remind you that the bible also says that if I discover on my wedding night that my wife is not a virgin I am required to beat her to death on her father's doorstep.

Morality is a highly relative subject, Rebecca.

Posted by: nfjanette | February 22, 2007 1:31 AM

It IS actually a religious thing, Rebecca. That's the whole point. It is only the incursion of Judeo-Christian values into our political and governmental system that has made gay marriage an issue at all.

Indeed, and that incursion is an unfortunate one from several perspectives.

It has facilitated the belief in people that don't practice one of the "traditional" religions that the state is capable of creating something magical called a marriage, rather than simply certifying a contract of civil union - which is all the state really does. For people who desire something more than a civil union that declares and protects certain financial matters, the local house of worship would no doubt welcome the interest in the more spiritually defined unions. Those that want the title "married" need to seek it someplace other than the state.

The current church-state intercourse also allows religion a foot hold in a matter it has no business in - the civil union. Religions have the right and the obligation to define their beliefs and bounds for marriage - the type of union that takes place on their turf. By separating the civil union from the word "marriage", religious influence will be weakened, because there is no legitimate religious involvement in civil matters of the state.

The previous comment by Andy was right on the mark - well stated.

Posted by: Bruce | February 22, 2007 7:49 AM

"...marriage has been the only institution that has kept our race together and thriving for all of time..."

Rebecca: I'd say that language and intelligence are more responsible for keeping our race thriving than marriage. Many cultures have different ideas on marriage than one man and one woman. You are not looking beyond modern Western culture, which has been around for only a very, very brief time, relatively to mankind.

Posted by: Ned | February 22, 2007 8:06 AM

Check out New Haven pastor Abraham Hernandez's tie (in the photo above); it's pink! Could that be a Freudian clothing slip? He really needs to butch it up more, if he's going to be the spokesman for all of the manly, "traditional" marriage men - pink isn't going to fly. A mumu, funny hat and slippers seems to work for the pope, when he's spewing about the "intrinsic evil" of gay people and the horrors of Gay marriage. What would jesus wear to his same sex marriage - a gossamer shroud, D&G, Chanel? Well those girls can argue it out amongst themselves; see what happens when religion gets dragged (pun intended) into everything.

Posted by: THREEFIFTHS | February 22, 2007 9:21 AM

Do The Research To Get Legally Married in Any State You Have To Apply For A Marriage License Which Is Issued By City Goverment.So This Being The Case Gay Couples Should Be Allowed To Apply
For The License Like EveryBody Else.

Posted by: Eager | February 22, 2007 10:04 AM

Please let me know how I can get involved to support gay marriage in Connecticut. This is an issue I care about, and would love to know how to help. You can email me at moonsidhe @ gmail.com. Thank you.

Posted by: Cedar Hill Resident | February 22, 2007 3:24 PM

I really just don't understand the problem. Two people asking for the right to be together in marriage. Why would it be denied. Why? There children do not deserve the security of marriage? They do not deserve the right to walk down the isle and take there vows of commitment to eachother?
This is out right discrimination as far as I can see. You are take a large group of people and telling them that they can not do what other people do because you do not agree with there choose of who they want to do it with? So should a Jewish person marry a catholic should a person of color marry out of there race? It should be as simple as you love someone and you want to be in a monogamous realaship with them and you want the benifits that marriage offers to such a commitment.

"les not judge lest ye be judged"

Posted by: Marianne Seggerman | February 23, 2007 11:56 AM

A bit of the history of marriage: Marriage, for most of the history of the Catholic Church, was not a sacrament. It was a property transaction. The woman, the property, was transferred from one man (her father) to another man (her husband). It wasn't for many centuries before the Roman Catholic Church decided that the woman was enough of a human being for the sacrament to deserve its participation. Even as recently as the 50's the differences between the woman's role in marriage and the man's was such that a married woman was less than human in the eyes of the state - she was merely an appendage to her husband, in the eyes of the state. She couldn't open a bank account or get credit in her own name - without her husband's approval. If you truly believe in traditional marriage, where the wife (or wives) is the property of the husband, then I would ask you, Mrs. Rell - how mauch are you worth in cows to your husband? Otherwise - what's your problem?

Posted by: Kat | February 23, 2007 3:58 PM

To Eager (above) and others: If you'd like to get involved in support of marriage equality, I'd suggest contacting Love Makes a Family, who is doing great work in the state. Join them on a lobbying day, sign up for their email alerts so you know when to contact legislators about important issues, and host a party for Eat, Drink & Be Married '07 next month! They make it easy to volunteer.

Posted by: g | February 26, 2007 1:09 AM

I am really trying to understand this. If civil unions give homosexuals the same rights as married people, except federally; why do gays care if they are "married" or in a "civil union" in Connecticut? It seems to me that this fight for "marriage" is a Federal issue..income tax, social security benefits and all the other national protections.

Why spend so much energy on this as a state issue when it is the Federal Government that doesn't recognize civil unions or any relationship between same sex couples AT ALL.

Help me understand this.

g-

Posted by: Ned | February 26, 2007 8:01 AM

Is this typical of the self loathing, religious, homophobic type or what?
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon07/02/022207pastor.htm

Posted by: Sally tamarkin | February 27, 2007 12:06 PM

Today's reason for banning marriage equality: it would deplete the human race. Hahahahahaaa

Are you serious?! Off all of the ridiculous arguments against marriage equality, this one takes the cake. It's what we make sci-fi movies out of.

Posted by: g | February 27, 2007 8:34 PM

I am really trying to understand this. First of all, I am not homophobic at all.

I would not want to see any gay person discriminated against in any way!!!

I just don't understand your issue: the adamant use of the word marriage. Does marriage reduce discrimination against gay people? Does it add to quality of life? Does marriage create equality with heterosexuals?

I still didn't get an answer to my original question:
Why is "marriage" so important if "civil unions" give you the same rights except on Federal level.

Again, Why is this fight not at the Federal level?
g-

Posted by: Sally tamarkin | February 27, 2007 10:25 PM

CIVIL UNIONS DO NOT GIVE YOU THE SAME RIGHTS AS MARRIAGE ON ANY LEVEL.

Look here: http://glad.org/rights/Marriage_v_CU_chart.pdf.

But another point, I think, IS the symbolic nature of it. Separate but equal is unequal. Psst....that got decided a long time ago!

Posted by: g | February 28, 2007 1:20 AM

Sally, this url your provided: http://glad.org/rights/Marriage_v_CU_chart.pdf.
is not working.

Also your response is quite vague and does not answer to my questions.

As a straight person who would indeed support gay rights I am still not clear why you need the word marriage.
g-

Posted by: Sally tamarkin | February 28, 2007 10:07 AM

Try this
http://glad.org/rights/Marriage_v_CU_chart.pdf

Or, you can look on GLAD's website. Or, you can google "civil unions marriage difference." Do a little research on the issue, do some googling. If you want to understand the issue, I suggest you read up.

The word "marriage" means we get what you get. Having a different word, and by the way the rights are different, too, sets up a "separate but equal" (although, as I said, civil unions are unequal) situation, which as we all know, is never equal. Just ask Homer Plessy. Remember when the Supreme Court struck down separate but equal in 1954? Same idea.

Hope this helps. Again, I suggest research.