New Haven Independent

posted by: swatty on September 2, 2010  5:28pm

“The real wedding party, including a religious ceremony, is scheduled for Sunday at 632 Hudson in New York City’s West Village. Rabbi Robert Levine of Congregation Rodeph Sholom will officiate.”

huh???

if this couple truly believed what they preach this would be the REAL ceremony - or they’d do it up here in CT!

lame.

p.s. nice pics Paul! i hope they pay you for those…

non-news. Great people are doing great things everyday, let’s read about them. This should have received a sidebar, at best!

posted by: Truth Avenger on September 2, 2010  7:22pm

Swatty: The importance of the couple making a statement and drawing attention to the lack of civil rights in their own state, was not just a side-bar issue. Because there are so few willing to stand up for the civil rights of the gay community and by extension every community, This did qualify as news. Additionally, some of NHI’s best stories often appear in the “side bar.”

posted by: Townie on September 3, 2010  6:58am

I’m sure if you let the people of Connecticut vote on the issue same-sex marriage would not be legal. Judicial activism and liberalistic pandering has turned Connectict into a refuge of non-traditional values.

posted by: Gretchen Pritchard on September 3, 2010  7:19am

Swatty, I had the same thought.  But I think maybe what Paul meant was “the real wedding PARTY”—i.e. the one with lots of guests and food.

posted by: William Kurtz on September 3, 2010  10:42am

Townie,

Seriously?

I have to admit you continue to surprise me.

posted by: jayj on September 3, 2010  10:51am

kudos to them!
and Townie—

There is no deciding who has EQUAL rights.  They are there for everyone.

posted by: sally tamarkin on September 3, 2010  12:50pm

Townie,
We don’t have ballot initiative here so unfortunately we’ll just have to get by with the good ol’ fashioned judicial branch and legislative process—that pesky system of checks and balances we as citizens vote on.

Well, at least we nutmeggers can all slide together into the abyss of moral decrepitude and cultural decline that is marriage equality.

posted by: Townie on September 3, 2010  1:08pm

To Kurtz:
Personally I am against same-sex marriage, but I really don’t care if homosexuals want to get “married”. However I do believe that a society has a right to define certain institutions, without intervention from government. The people of this state should have been allowed to vote on the matter, especially since civil unions were already legal. If the people for same-sex marriage than so be it, and if they voted against it, oh well. It’s the will of the people.

posted by: streever on September 3, 2010  2:10pm

Townie:
Your position on this matter is astounding. Marriage confers certain legal rights and statuses on individuals. That government would deny it to some members of a free society is simply unconstitutional.

While I am certain that bigoted individuals and misguided individuals would vote against this, it doesn’t make it right.

posted by: Ed Walker on September 3, 2010  2:24pm

What a beautiful couple. Even Papa is looking good.
Way to make a statement!

posted by: Truth Avenger on September 3, 2010  2:37pm

Townie- I suppose if you are willing to overlook the Equal Protection under the Law clause in the Constitution, and that one of our inalienable rights as citizens is the pursuit of happiness, you might be able to conclude that,“Judicial activism and liberalistic pandering has turned Connecticut into a refuge of non-traditional values.”  There is nothing more emblematic of American Traditional Values, however, than our freedoms- And that includes forming unions with those we love called marriage, regardless of whether YOU think that is solely the purview of opposite sex couples.
Before the 1964 Civil Rights Act, many expressed similar trepidations about equality.  Thankfully, that paragon of liberalism, LBJ, signed into law what what most Americans believe, was the right thing to do. We cannot turn back the clock on civil rights freedoms, and we must not place shackles on the liberties of others - regardless of how you may try to malign and characterize those responsible for broadening freedoms in our society..

posted by: Townie on September 3, 2010  3:01pm

Marriage is not a right, it is a privilege. The state already limits marriage to certain people and places upon it certain restrictions and rules, these rules usually reflect the popular moral ethos. It is impossible to debate the morality of homosexuality. However, a consensus can and shold be reached as to the people’s allowance of broadening the definition of marriage and thus making it legal for same-sex couples. No such consensus was taken. What happened was a legislation of morality, much like liquor laws, anti-drug laws, etc. The government has no right to impose its morality upon the people.
As I said before, I would never act to impair same-sex couples from getting “married”. But, a lot of people do not want to live in such a society and no matter how backwards you may think they are, their voice should’ve been heard on the matter.

posted by: William Kurtz on September 3, 2010  3:29pm

Townie,

Thanks for the more developed explanation of your position.

You said:

The government has no right to impose its morality upon the people.
As I said before, I would never act to impair same-sex couples from getting “married”. But, a lot of people do not want to live in such a society and no matter how backwards you may think they are, their voice should’ve been heard on the matter.

but it’s in banning same-sex marriage that the government is imposing its morality upon the people.  It’s important to note that there’s no requirement for same-sex couples to marry, and no requirement that churches or religious institutions perform, sanction or bless any same-sex ceremony.  In other words, the only imposition on liberty or the pursuit of happiness is being placed on people who wish to marry in defiance of the wishes of “the people.”  Your liberty to disapprove and the integrity of heterosexual marriages remains untouched.

One wonders how the Civil Rights Act would have gone over if it had been put to “the people.”

posted by: Jonathan Hopkins on September 3, 2010  5:48pm

The state should note recognize marriage and should not permit marriage licenses. The second the government got involved in recognizing marriages, it automatically excluded part of the population, since marriage is a union between one man and one woman. Changing the definition, which is what would be required of the state to continue using marriage as an standard institution, is really pointless and doesn’t deserve any discussion. Although marriage has evolved from the ownership of woman to a joint union, same-sex marriage is not another step in the evolution of the word it is a clear departure and would fundamentally change what the word and the institution is. The state should only recognize civil unions and if religious organizations want to hand out marriage certificates then they can knock themselves out with that. I really see same-sex marriage as being like putting that I’m black on my birth certificate because I want the meaning of the word to be something that it’s not, which is why it is important to replace marriage with civil unions.

posted by: Townie on September 4, 2010  12:38pm

Banning same-sex marriage is not imposing the morality of the minorty, it is simply a reflex to the morality of the majority. The definition of marriage (pre-same-sex legalization) reflected the popular ethos of society.

posted by: Truth Avenger on September 4, 2010  4:45pm

The “popular Ethos” is not always the right ethos.  History is replete with examples of repressive societies that allowed for such evils as ethnic cleansing and genocide, reflecting the popular ethos of the culture.  America was founded on principles offering protections to those seeking personal freedoms and liberty. Those that justify repression based on archaic notions of the past must understand that democracy is predicated on an ability to evolve and adapt, always with an imperative toward granting, not denying freedoms. Today’s dictionaries definitions include the same sex paradigm in their definitions of marriage. Justice simply requires breaking with the popular ethos at times.

posted by: Ben Berkowitz on September 5, 2010  1:38pm

SeeClickFix has been doing some work with the Borough President’s office and Open Planning Project. There seems like a real will to encourage productive participation and communication.

posted by: Wedding Entertainment on September 5, 2010  11:57pm

Hi,
What is a wedding ceremony at City Hall like?Is it big? How many guests can attend? Can I wear a dress? How much does it cost? How long does the ceremony take? Do we bring flowers? Do you have a reception afterwards? We know nothing about city hall weddings but we cant afford an average wedding, so we’re exploring all options. Please give me any information you may have on Civil Ceremonies at City Hall. Thanks!!

posted by: JFA on September 6, 2010  12:37am

As Ben Berkowitz’s “direct democracy” website has shown, the internet has provided the technology so that citizens could feasibly vote on every bill and referendum.  Let Townie’s populists .... cast their vote. ...

posted by: maggie sottero on September 8, 2010  9:30pm

I do believe that a society has a right to define certain institutions, without intervention from government.

maggie sottero