piranha: hate is not a family value,rainbow-coloured (anti-shrubwads)
[personal profile] piranha
for becoming the 4th US state to legalize same-sex marriage. there is a part of the new law that makes me somewhat uncomfortable -- not only religious institutions are exempted from having to perform services for same-sex couples, but also religiously motivated groups (like the knights of columbus can refuse to rent same-sex couples their hall for the reception). on the positive side, neither general vendors (caterers, florists) nor justices of the peace may do so, and if religious organizations accept state funds they will be required to adhere to the terms as well.

on 2009-04-23 22:48 (UTC)
hatman: HatMan, my alter ego and face on the 'net (Default)
Posted by [personal profile] hatman
Yeah, that's exciting news. Hoping more of the country will follow.

As for the exemptions... mixed feelings. I mean, it shouldn't be okay to legalize discrimination, which this is, in a way. But you're also talking about reserving the right not to perform the ceremony if you don't believe in it. Which is important in its own right. You wouldn't really want it performed by someone who doesn't believe in it, anyway, would you? As long as there are viable alternatives available, and as long as the state recognizes the ceremonies that are performed as valid marriages, I think it's good. And that last clause, that they can't get state funding... that's a big one.

All in all... it sounds pretty good to me. Definitely a big step forward.

And... nice icon.

Re: yay (mostly), connecticut

on 2009-04-24 05:09 (UTC)
hatman: HatMan, my alter ego and face on the 'net (Default)
Posted by [personal profile] hatman
Yeah, I'm not articulating very well. (Was also half asleep when I wrote the previous comment.)

Like I said, I'm not happy about the idea of legalizing discrimination.

I mean, you can reserve the right to choose your customers. To refuse service based on a number of reasons, right down to how the prospective customer is dressed.

But refusing for that reason is squicky.

But would you really want to rent their facilities for your wedding, knowing that they don't want you there? And what effect would forcing them have?

Then again, there's the effects of explicitly giving them the right to say no.

Then again, would the law have passed otherwise?

Like I said... not entirely articulate today.

No, I don't like the discrimination. But I'm happy about the law, overall. And I'm not entirely sure that legally forcing those semi-religious organizations is really the best way to move forward.

Re: yay (mostly), connecticut

on 2009-04-24 06:05 (UTC)
hatman: HatMan, my alter ego and face on the 'net (Default)
Posted by [personal profile] hatman
Hmm. Issue of choice is a good one, and not one I'd really stopped to consider.

Agree with you on that last paragraph.

And... I don't think I've got anything more to add.

Re: yay (mostly), connecticut

on 2009-04-25 01:03 (UTC)
deane: (Default)
Posted by [personal profile] deane
How is "just a dress code" not a form of discrimination?

For many people, how they dress is part of who they are.

Not that I'm eager to strip down the next time I'm in a restaurant, but the "no shirt, no shoes, no service" line has always bothered me. Its basis seems to lie in the belief that other patrons might find the sight objectionable, or that it might not fit in with the establishment's image. That seems milder echo of the manner in which door keepers at posh night clubs select only the "beautiful" people from the crowd outside to let in. Another form of discrimination that bothers me.

Re: yay (mostly), connecticut

on 2009-04-24 10:34 (UTC)
ladyvox: (Default)
Posted by [personal profile] ladyvox
/nodsnodsnods :)


piranha: red origami crane (Default)
renaissance poisson

July 2015

   123 4

Most Popular Tags

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags