Thinking Good Thoughts Today for Connecticut

This is the first step in a challenge for gay couples in the State of Connecticut to be able to marry our partners. Last year, Connecticut passed a civil union bill that would give gay couples most of the rights of marriage at the state level. This case argues that not allowing gay couples access to marriage is discriminatory and violates the equality provisions in the state constitution.

On a personal side, Kent recently went to a meeting where he works given by human services. At the meeting, they mentioned that if we were to get a civil union, he would be eligible to take leave in the event that something happened to me (care of a partner) that married couples now have access too. It opened up a conversation on the issue again and if we should swallow our pride and get a civil union.

I’m still holding fast and didn’t want to do it. We could get a civil union, but after that, would I even feel like celebrating? No. And I think the joining of two people in a wedding is a means for celebration and to feel good about what you have together. Getting a civil union for us would be a celebration of... this is the best we can have... second rate.

What the hell is there to celebrate in that?

NEW HAVEN, Conn. --Eight gay couples gathered Tuesday in New Haven Superior Court as a Superior Court judge began hearing their challenge to Connecticut’s ban on gay marriage.

The couples claim in a lawsuit that the state’s marriage laws are unconstitutional because they treat gay and heterosexual couples differently.

The Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, a group involved in the case, used a similar argument to win gay marriage in Massachusetts.

After they were denied marriage licenses in August 2004, the couples filed suit against the state Department of Public Health, which is being defended by Attorney General Richard Blumenthal’s office.

Last year, Connecticut approved civil unions for gay couples, which give them the same legal rights as heterosexual married couples. But the law also defined marriage as existing only between a man and a woman. (source)