http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/nyregion/11marriage.html?_r=1&ref=connecticut&oref=slogin
I'm so happy that Connecticut has joined Massachusetts and California in legalizing same sex marriage, and I hope that the other 47 states join this union soon. However, it's troubling that Connecticut remains divided on this issue but it is comforting that the law cannot be appealed after October 28th. Hopefully Connecticut keeps this law.
Also, when Robert D. McFadden (the author of this article) compared the issue to gay rights to the limitations on women and blacks it was striking to me. I easily see the comparison and it frightens me. All of these issues seem to lead back to religious involvement in the government. Now I am not by any means criticizing religion, I think it's a wonderful thing, but I see the negative influence that it has on society. I believe that we should go back to what our founding father's wished: for the seperation of church and state.
Overall however, this article was well written and covered both sides well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
The civil rights movenment in the
60's made great strides and muchs is the same about the new legislation placed in CT. With any new bill there will always be those who disagree with it. While I have no problem with gay-rights, many do, and I dont think it will be a widley accepted concept throughout all 47 remaining states, especially southern states.
“There is no doubt that civil unions enjoy a lesser status in our society than marriage"- Connecticut Sepreme Court
I agree that the article is well-written-- it did show both sides of the issue equally. However, I disagree with the court's statement above. Basicallly, gay couples can now be officially married, but thier legal rights have not changed much from the civil union laws passed in 2005. All that has changed is the name. With this name change also comes the implied message that gay marraige will be supported by society. Tis view goes against many religions. Technically, in the Catholic Church (which I am a member of), marraige is only considered official if the ceremony is presided over by a priest. A marraige done by a justice of the peace will not be honored by the Church. Althogh gay marraige is not viewed by us as marraige in the Church, many others in society will view it that way. By keeping marraige out of the name, gay couples can still keep thier legal rights without intruding on religion. Although I do not have a problem with gays being together, calling it "marraige" is against religion. Blocking a name change from civil union to marraige is not a "negative impact on society."
I completely agree with you, Devon. I also think that the comparrison to women and black people was interesting. America has made such good progress (and takes pride in) the fact that we are becoming less descriminatory. Why is it, then, that we are discriminating once again?
I also agree with your thoughts that there should be seperation of church and state. People should look to the constitution if they have issues with gay rights. The constitution promises citizens “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” That means that it is unconstitutional to deny same-sex couples marriage. After reading the article, I was sad to see that the Govenor of CT disagreed with us. Overall, though, the article was pretty good, since it managed to show both sides of the issue. That is crucial when writing a news story.
comment
Post a Comment