Letter of othe week, 6/22/09: Rights, responsibilities and love

[David]

Rights, responsibilities and love

By U.S. Senator Christopher Dodd

Public officials aren’t supposed to change their minds. But I firmly believe that it’s important to keep learning. Last week, while I was in Connecticut meeting with members of the gay and lesbian community from across the state, I had the opportunity to tell them what I’ve learned about marriage, and about equality.

While I’ve long been for extending every benefit of marriage to same-sex couples, I have in the past drawn a distinction between a marriage-like status (“civil unions”) and full marriage rights.

The reason was simple: I was raised to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. And as many other Americans have realized as they’ve struggled to reconcile the principle of fairness with the lessons they learned early in life, that’s not an easy thing to overcome.

But the fact that I was raised a certain way just isn’t a good enough reason to stand in the way of fairness anymore.

The Connecticut Supreme Court, of course, has ruled that such a distinction holds no merit under the law. And the Court is right.

I believe that effective leaders must be able and willing to grow and change over their service. I certainly have during mine – and so has the world. Thirty-five years ago, who could have imagined that we’d have an African-American President of the United States?

My young daughters are growing up in a different reality from what I did. Our family knows many same-sex couples – our neighbors in Connecticut, members of my staff, parents of their schoolmates. Some are now married because the Connecticut Supreme Court and our state legislature have made same-sex marriage legal in our state.

But to my daughters, these couples are married simply because they love each other and want to build a life together. That’s what we’ve taught them. The things that make those families different from their own pale in comparison to the commitments that bind those couples together.

And, really, that’s what marriage should be. It’s about rights and responsibilities and, most of all, love.

I believe that, when my daughters grow up, barriers to marriage equality for same-sex couples will seem as archaic, and as unfair, as the laws we once had against inter-racial marriage.

And I want them to know that, even if he was a little late, their dad came down on the right side of history.

I have always been proud of my long record fighting for the civil rights of the LGBT community. I’ve co-sponsored legislation to strengthen hate crime laws and end discrimination in the workplace. I’ve spoken out against “don’t ask, don’t tell” and always supported equal rights for domestic partnerships.

But I am also proud to now count myself among the many elected officials, advocates, and ordinary citizens who support full marriage equality for same-sex couples.

I understand that even those who oppose discrimination might continue to find it hard to re-think the definition of marriage they grew up with. I know it was for me.

But many of the things we must do to make our union more perfect – whether it’s fighting for decades to reform our health care system or struggling with a difficult moral question – are hard. They take time. And they require that, when you come to realize that something is right, you be unafraid to stand up and say it.

That’s the only way our history will progress along that long arc towards justice.

[RC12L4]

Is it election time already?

[gene36]

Yea and Dodd is all for Motherhood and apple pie. Does he now have the RC shilling for him?????

[JPalmer]

He's still got the wrong position.

There's not much difference between the people who want the government to ban gay marraige and the people who want the government to legalize gay marriage. Both sides, either explicitly or implicitly, grant the authority to regulate marriage to the government. Many neo-liberals at least admit they want the government to have more power, but this issue exposes the lie that so-called conservatives are for smaller, less intrusive government.

A true position of liberty would call for the government to get out of the marriage question all together.

[flatrat]

Originally Posted by JPalmer

He's still got the wrong position.

There's not much difference between the people who want the government to ban gay marriage and the people who want the government to legalize gay marriage. Both sides, either explicitly or implicitly, grant the authority to regulate marriage to the government. Many neo-liberals at least admit they want the government to have more power, but this issue exposes the lie that so-called conservatives are for smaller, less intrusive government.

A true position of liberty would call for the government to get out of the marriage question all together.

as a ancient (not neo) liberal, I want only want the government to protect the rights of all citizens, not just those who subscribe to a particular religion. If it has to take a law to ensure that protection, so be it...Otherwise I agree, the government should stay out of our bedrooms.

I think marriage is a social, religious, and/or personal contract, and not one that should be regulated by the government. I think if you have to license relationships, they should all be "civil unions." The goal is to have no differences in rights and responsibilities between civil unions and marriages. Right now there are differences.

I find it rich that those legislators who advocate the "sanctity of marriage" the loudest are the least monogamous. The infidelity isn't the problem, its none of our business. The lies and hypocrisy are the problem.

Don't cry for me Argentina....

(Did his wife tell him to "take a hike?")

[CMNSNC]

Originally Posted by flatrat

as a ancient (not neo) liberal, I want only want the government to protect the rights of all citizens, not just those who subscribe to a particular religion. If it has to take a law to ensure that protection, so be it...Otherwise I agree, the government should stay out of our bedrooms.

I think marriage is a social, religious, and/or personal contract, and not one that should be regulated by the government. I think if you have to license relationships, they should all be "civil unions." The goal is to have no differences in rights and responsibilities between civil unions and marriages. Right now there are differences.

I find it rich that those legislators who advocate the "sanctity of marriage" the loudest are the least monogamous. The infidelity isn't the problem, its none of our business. The lies and hypocrisy are the problem.

Don't cry for me Argentina....

(Did his wife tell him to "take a hike?")

What makes a man love a man, or a woman to love a woman?
That is only for God to decide.
The key word here is LOVE.
If it's not for perversion, then may God bless them. Humans are so complex that only the Good Lord Himself can comprehend.
If the union is for love and life, then I say let them have the benefits of what others have. When we get to the final judgement that will all be sorted out. In the meantime, we humans are not wise enough to make that decision.

[nsxer]

Go tell it to Iowa.

[jma]

I laugh over the whole "sanctity of marriage" argument. A drunk, heterosexual couple in Vegas can get married within minutes of meeting each other, but a loving, long-term homosexual couple makes a mockery of marriage??

Are you kidding me??

[legalrights]

Public officials aren’t supposed to change their minds. But I firmly believe that it’s important to keep learning. Last week, while I was in Connecticut meeting with members of the gay and lesbian community from across the state, I had the opportunity to tell them what I’ve learned about marriage, and about equality.

While I’ve long been for extending every benefit of marriage to same-sex couples, I have in the past drawn a distinction between a marriage-like status (“civil unions”) and full marriage rights.

The reason was simple: I was raised to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. And as many other Americans have realized as they’ve struggled to reconcile the principle of fairness with the lessons they learned early in life, that’s not an easy thing to overcome.

But the fact that I was raised a certain way just isn’t a good enough reason to stand in the way of fairness anymore.

The Connecticut Supreme Court, of course, has ruled that such a distinction holds no merit under the law. And the Court is right.

I believe that effective leaders must be able and willing to grow and change over their service. I certainly have during mine – and so has the world. Thirty-five years ago, who could have imagined that we’d have an African-American President of the United States?

My young daughters are growing up in a different reality from what I did. Our family knows many same-sex couples – our neighbors in Connecticut, members of my staff, parents of their schoolmates. Some are now married because the Connecticut Supreme Court and our state legislature have made same-sex marriage legal in our state.

But to my daughters, these couples are married simply because they love each other and want to build a life together. That’s what we’ve taught them. The things that make those families different from their own pale in comparison to the commitments that bind those couples together.

And, really, that’s what marriage should be. It’s about rights and responsibilities and, most of all, love.

I believe that, when my daughters grow up, barriers to marriage equality for same-sex couples will seem as archaic, and as unfair, as the laws we once had against inter-racial marriage.

And I want them to know that, even if he was a little late, their dad came down on the right side of history.

I have always been proud of my long record fighting for the civil rights of the LGBT community. I’ve co-sponsored legislation to strengthen hate crime laws and end discrimination in the workplace. I’ve spoken out against “don’t ask, don’t tell” and always supported equal rights for domestic partnerships.

But I am also proud to now count myself among the many elected officials, advocates, and ordinary citizens who support full marriage equality for same-sex couples.

I understand that even those who oppose discrimination might continue to find it hard to re-think the definition of marriage they grew up with. I know it was for me.

But many of the things we must do to make our union more perfect – whether it’s fighting for decades to reform our health care system or struggling with a difficult moral question – are hard. They take time. And they require that, when you come to realize that something is right, you be unafraid to stand up and say it.

That’s the only way our history will progress along that long arc towards justice.

[AntonyG]

There has been a lot of discussion in regards to State regulating marriges and so forth. Some are pro, some against. Some even argue it's up to God only. However, we do need a State to regulate such actions, or grant licences, as we do it for any other legal matter. Just as many stated here that legaly bound marriage grants the couple a different set of benefits in comparison to civil union. However, thats not the only thing that one may see as an objective to get the same right for everyone. Today many people choose to live, work, reside in many other countries outside of the United States. Some are granted working visas for professional jobs else where. There are conditions that spouse of such visa holders may come and reside with their spouse. So thats already an issue since civil union is not exactly a marriage and you cannot produce a marriage certificate to foreign authorities. I can come up with so many other issues that will come up intenationally when dealing with this, yet it seems that the argument revolves around the bible subject and local benefits.

For instance, I am married. I get a work-isa to say Germany. I legalize my marriage certificate via apostille, show it to German authorities apply for visa for my wife to reside with me and be able to work.

Don't think many civilized countries care if your other half is same sex as you or not. So the issues comes down to why do we care?

Highly doubt that that homosexual couple down the block will somehow coerce me into turning gay, or just because they are there somehow my kids will be homosexual. Most likely not. Nore do I care what do they do in the privacy of their own bedroom. Just look at all perverted things straight people do, sax with children and so forth. Who are we to judge?