Connecticut: State Supreme Court says same-sex couples can marry

The Danbury News Times/The Associated Press ^ | October 10, 2008

[2ndDivisionVet]

HARTFORD - Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry, making the state the third behind Massachusetts and California to legalize such unions.

The divided court ruled 4-3 that gay and lesbian couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry under the state constitution, and Connecticut's civil unions law does not provide those couples with the same rights as heterosexual couples.

"I can't believe it. We're thrilled, we're absolutely overjoyed. We're finally going to be able, after 33 years, to get married," said Janet Peck of Colchester, who was a plaintiff with her partner, Carole Conklin.

Connecticut will join Massachusetts and California as the only state to allow same-sex couples to marry.

"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice," Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote in the majority opinion that overturned a lower court finding.

"To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others," Palmer wrote.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Friday that she disagreed, but will not fight the ruling.

"The Supreme Court has spoken," Rell said in a statement. "I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision - either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution - will not meet with success."

[2ndDivisionVet]

Polygamy is right around the corner, mark my words.

[goldstategop]

M. Jodi Rell is a RINO empty suit who believes in nothing. But the Connecticut Supremes raw exercise of judicial activism to impose same sex marriage by fiat is all the more reason California, Arizona and Florida voters need to protect marriage in their state constitutions.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[swarthyguy]

Marry a fag, don’t smoke one.

[marymaryquitecontrary]

Don’t forget bestiality and necrophilia.

[roses of sharon]

Get used to it, President Hussein will appoint 3 Supreme Court Justices.

[goldstategop]

The Left touted civil unions as a middle ground between same sex marriage and protecting marriage by amending the state constitution. What they showed its a sham that doesn't even protect marriage and every state where the initiative is available is going to amend its constitution to inoculate against the spread of the Massachusetts disease.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[y6162]

“Polygamy is right around the corner, mark my words.”

Oh boy! I’m going to marry three strippers.

[ViLaLuz]

Another nail in the USA’s coffin.

Next, legalize pedophilia.

[sandy23185]

Like it or not, this is the function of a Supreme Court: to determine if our laws are consistent with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In 1958, only 4% of whites approved of interracial marriage. When interracial marriage was finally made legal ten years later, only 17% of whites approved. Why was it made legal? Because a few “imperialist activist judges,” oh, I mean the U.S. Supreme Court, ruled that it was fundamentally unconstitutional to deny citizens the right to marry the person of their choice. I quote from the court’s decision from this case (Loving v. Virginia, 1967): “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.” Replace “race” with “gender” and you’ve got yourself gay marriage.

[keepitreal]

“I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision - either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution - will not meet with success.”

So four people get to decide. Ain’t it great to be an American.

[jeffo]

Oh quit beating a dead horse ;-)

[Antoninus]

Our judicial masters have spoken.

Will the voters of CT be able to put them back in their places?

[goldstategop]

The Democrats in Connecticut will block measures to amend the Constitution. And the state has no initiative. The voters are screwed.

"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus

[Blue Turtle]

MCCAIN should point to this ruling as ANOTHER reason to vote for him. Point out Biden and Barack’s voting record against Alito and Roberts....let the US know that our culture will change dramatically and traditional marriage will fall.

[Antoninus]

Like it or not, this is the function of a Supreme Court: to determine if our laws are consistent with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Absolute poppycock. Nowhere does it say that the unelected courts shall be able to define the moral behavior of the people. Nowhere.

Using your logic, a man would be able to marry his son. No one has the right to do that.

If you're comfortable living under a judicial tyranny, that's fine. But just wait until that judicial tyranny comes gunning for you--you won't like it so much then, trust me.

[wubjo]

Solution to islamofacism - you can marry 72 versions without having to blow yourself up.
Pig entrails anyone?

[jeffc]

The divided court ruled 4-3 that gay and lesbian couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry under the state constitution

And the homos say the State constitutions don't need amendments; here's the real reason why they don't want them, their activist judges can't rule the marriage protection laws are against the constitutions!

[wubjo]

Correction: Solution to islamofacism - you can marry 72 virgins without having to blow yourself up.
Pig entrails anyone?

[Clemenza]

The laws of Connecticut explicitly discrimination against homosexuals, ie the exercising of rights available to the rest of the population. If Connecticut wants to ban gay marriage, they need a constitutional amendment. Despite the fact that CT is the third most Catholic state in the union (after Rhode Island and Massholechusetts), most voters Catholic or otherwise, won’t care enough to fight it.

[Mr. Silverback]

IIRC, it was only a few weeks after the Lawrence vs. Texas decision when a Utah couple filed for a marriage license that named a second wife.

[Claud]

Answer me this. Who or what gives human beings their rights?

[MathDoc]

Like it or not, this is the function of a Supreme Court: to determine if our laws are consistent with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights ... Replace “race” with “gender” and you’ve got yourself gay marriage.

No. Determining if our laws are consistent with what the Constitution actually says is the function of a Supreme Court. Their Constitution lists the criteria for equal protection, and sexual orientation is not on the list. That should end the discussion, at least at the Supreme Court level. Determining what the Constitution and the state's laws should say is the function of the legislatures or the voters. By creating new laws that are not supported by a literal reading of their Constitution, the Connecticut State Supreme Court has exceeded their authority, and that is by far the biggest problem with their decision.

[MathDoc]

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights ...

The Founding Fathers got this one right.

[TheDon]

How can adult siblings be denied the right to marry?
Santorum Alert!

[TheDon]

"The Supreme Court has spoken," Rell said in a statement. "I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision - either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution - will not meet with success."

A rather telling statement. The will of the people of Connecticut is not represented by their own government! Neither the judicial, legislative or executive branch. Why do we keep voting for the same idiots? Hmmmm..... Never mind....

[weegee]

Lesbians are free to marry any man who is of age and not related to them.

There is no discrimination.

It’s like saying that laws against theft discriminate against kleptomaniacs.

[hunter112]

Get used to it, President Hussein will appoint 3 Supreme Court Justices.

And the three he would have replaced are already in the tank for gay marriage. The conservative votes that would be against it are all hale and hearty, and that leaves Tony Kennedy in the middle, and who knows which way he will go. Frankly, we don't absolutely need nine Justices, let the libs resign or die, and we can "bork" Hussein's nominees until we get a new President, if it comes down to that.

There is a silver lining in this decision, if you are dead set against civil union or domestic partnership, and your state has not outlawed same-gender marriage in its constitution. Two out of the now three state Supreme Court decisions that have imposed gay marriage have done so because there was already a "separate but equal" relationship on the books.

You now have a fresh argument to use against CU/DP in your state.

[Mr. Blonde]

Using your logic, a man would be able to marry his son. No one has the right to do that.

The Conn. Supreme Court agrees with you:

"Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice."

[Vermont Lt]

Have you met my brother? Or sister? THAT will not be an issue in this household.

[sandy23185]

People don’t seem to recognize that marriage laws don’t discriminate based on sexual orientation. They discriminate based on gender: a gay man can marry a gay woman. If it does not mention sexual orientation, the constitution DOES consider gender a criterion for equal protection.

[Claud]

Exactly.

Really, I don’t know what they teach at law schools today.

[MathDoc]

People don’t seem to recognize that marriage laws don’t discriminate based on sexual orientation. They discriminate based on gender: a gay man can marry a gay woman. If it does not mention sexual orientation, the constitution DOES consider gender a criterion for equal protection.

I don't see your point. Men are allowed to marry the opposite sex. Women are allowed to marry the opposite sex. The most natural reading of the laws on marriage and their state Constitution is that equal protection requirements are met, even without considering that the primary definition (and until the recent activism the only definition) of marriage is the joining of a man and a woman. The proper route for changing laws that are constitutional is legislation, not litigation, and the gay-marriage advocates are undermining the rule of law by using the Courts to write new laws through dubious rulings.

If I wanted to marry my first cousin (and cute as she is, I don't), I wouldn't be able to do it legally in half the states. Is that an equal protection question too, or is it more properly in the realm where the legislature should be writing the laws? How are the gay marriage and incestuous marriage questions different constitutionally?

[Philo-Junius]

The ruling represents an abuse of power by further weakening the claims of traditional families: a single brother attempting, say, to adopt his deceased brother’s children will now find the state disposed to view his “married” lesbian sister as providing a more stable family environment.

Lies given state sanction are always tyrannous, in any event. Those who challenge the lie will be hammered down.

[Claud]

In what sense does this decision define (or determine) your moral behavior? Whether or not you are a Connecticut resident, you are free to live your life exactly as you have lived it.

You're focusing only on the damage to the individual and not the state itself. I may not be damaged directly. But make no mistake about it, this ruling completely destroys the entire American Republic.

Here's why. The Founding Fathers were clear that we derive rights not from other men, nor even from the Constitution, but from GOD. God grants the rights, and the state protects them. The Constitution does not GRANT rights, it merely RECOGNIZES them.

What this decision is saying, in effect, is that the Supreme Court of CT can grant rights to individuals that God did not give in the first place. So if the Court "decides" that everyone has the right to live in a gun-free society, so be it. If they decide that everyone has the right to live in a socialist workers' paradise, so be it. If it decides that we have the right to live in a pure Aryan America, then so be it.

Welcome to fascism: where the state dictates what rights you are allowed to have, and which ones you aren't. That's not the Founding Fathers' vision, which was of a country that was governed by the laws of "Nature and Nature's God".

[MathDoc]

As for tyranny, in what sense have your rights been restricted or your choices taken from you by this decision? Or, to put it another way, how has this decision made you less free?

Any time the courts usurp the powers of the legislature, they make me less free. There is no excuse for their conduct, and it has nothing to do with the content of the ruling and everything to do with the absence of a clear and natural constitutional basis for their ruling. As we move from the rule of law under the elected State Legislature to rule by fiat from the appointed Court, we are moving to an oligarchy, and that is a huge step down in freedom, whether or not you support the details of the decisions that undermine the rule of law.

[Mr. Silverback]

To save myself a lot of HTML editing, I'm going to post to you twice, because one of my evidence lists is HTML formatted and the other isn't.

Let's put aside the absolutely ludicrous idea that this...

...and this...

...are in any way equivalent, that the term "marriage" can even be applied to a union of two homosexuals. Let's talk about fire in a crowded theater.

The Constitution states that my right to freedom of speech shall not be abridged, but I can't express myself by yelling "Fire" in a crowded theater. That's because the possibly disastrous impact on others outweighs my right. I submit that homosexual "marriage" would be the demographic equivalent of yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

Now, here's my first list...keep it in mind when you read the next post:

Gay Marriage? What could it hurt?

Results of gay marriage in Scandinavia.

Results of gay marriage in Holland. (Note: Written before the Dutch decided to legalize polygamy.)

Where it will lead sociologically.

More on Holland (and why contraception, secularization, etc. aren't the reason for the European problems)

Why libertarians should stand up against gay marriage.

[Mr. Silverback]

Now, here we get to the meat:

In the links that I posted to you previously and the ones that will follow, I can show that acceptance of sexually-based privileges for homosexuals has led to the following things:

1. Increased illegitimacy in the heterosexual population

2. A decrease in marriage overall

3. An increase in the prevalence of homosexuality

4. Most importantly, egregious violations of the rights of other citizens

In other words, interracial marriages were saying the word “fire” and gay “marriage” and other sex-based privileges is yelling it in a crowded theater. One is the use of a basic right, the other is a dangerous exercise that will surely be regretted later on.

Here are my other links:

Legalizing Same-Sex Marriage Will Increase Prevalence of Homosexuality
http://www.drtraycehansen.com/Pages/writings_legalizing.html

If gay “marriage” is all about freedom and human rights, what about these people?

Leo Childs
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/005774.html

Scott Brockie
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2004/apr/04041604.html

Ake Green
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ake_Green

Scott Savage
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49761

Crystal Dixon
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,355507,00.html

Ene Kiildi
http://people.maine.com/paula/pph/pph-2.9b.98.html

The Mennonites of Roxton Falls, Quebec
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2007/aug/07081701.html

Christian (and Mormon, Jewish and Muslim) business owners in Colorado
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=68060

Guy Earle
http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=7096c4b6-e48c-46ea-9aeb-7a075a3766e2

Christian youth in Australia
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jun/08062406.html

Christian civil servants
http://www.10news.com/news/16663610/detail.html

The Philadelphia 11
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41705

The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association
Yeshiva University
California Lutheran High School
A psychologist at North Mississippi Health Services
A Vermont civil servant
Elane Photography
A Christian doctor
A private adoption agency
The Boy Scouts
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91486340

[Mr. Silverback]

Typhon, please see my posts 37 and 38. Any time sex-based privileges for homosexuals are adopted, the societal fabric is damaged and the previously undisputed rights of others are violated. This is not a prediction or specualtion, but cold, hard fact.

[sandy23185]

When a law contains exceptions based on gender, such as your formulation, “Men are allowed to marry the opposite sex. Women are allowed to marry the opposite sex,” it is no different from older laws that made exceptions based on race, such as “Black people are allowed to marry the same race. White people are allowed to marry the same race.” Many Christian faiths (where our “primary definition” of marriage comes from) still insist that marriage should be retained between two people of the same church: “Catholics are allowed to marry Catholics.” The last time I checked, our government was supposed to promote religious freedom, which also applies to gay marriage.

[Mr. Blonde]

Looking at your links I see a few from other countries that have never had speech protection anywhere near as strong as what we have in the US.

Then we have some World Net Dailies which is every bit as reliable as The National Enquirer. I tend to feel the same way about Life Site News. They are certainly starting out with a clear agenda. That does not help them in the believability department. That, in turn, doesn’t help you make your case.

[Shethink13]

I am interested in opening a debate with you about your position on this. If you're game, would you kindly reply to the following questions:

What, in your opinion, is the reason governments sanction marriages?

Since marriage is fundamentally a religion-based practice, why would the government get involved in something that is, on the surface, none of their business?

[Mr. Silverback]

They are certainly starting out with a clear agenda.

And the AP, Reuters and CNN aren't?

You may have a good point about WND (I'm not a fan of theirs) and LifeSite (which does a fine job, but perhaps might turn off non-conservatives) but I notice you don't have anything to say about the content of the articles, just the publications they appeared in. So, let me ask...

What foreign country is Leo Childs living in?

What foreign country is Crystal Dixon living in?

What foreign country was Ene Kiildi living in?

What foreign country were the Philadelphia 11 protesting in?

What conservative agenda is NPR starting out with, and what country are the people described in the NPR article living in?

People say it can't happen here...but it already is. It will continue to do so if we do nothing.

[Mr. Silverback]

Many Christian faiths (where our “primary definition” of marriage comes from) still insist that marriage should be retained between two people of the same church:

1. Name me a U.S. state where that is a requirement, or has been any time in the last 200 years.

2. Name me any major religion that allows homosexual marriage in its core, orthodox teachings.

[Antoninus]

In what sense does this decision define (or determine) your moral behavior?

Do I really have to answer this question? One would think the answer would be so self-evident that even a moron could see it. The court, of it's own accord, has declared a sodomite relationship to be the moral equivalent of marriage. This redefinition by the court creates a societal norm. If you don't believe me, try telling a public school teacher in CA or MA that they teach children that families consist of a mother, a father, and children.

As for tyranny, in what sense have your rights been restricted or your choices taken from you by this decision?

Again, one would have to have his head firmly implanted in the sand not to understand the ramifications of this. See the "human rights" tribunals in Alberta and the similar Kangaroo court in New Mexico for what these types of decisions mean. We will not have the right to shun such people who are defined not by race, religion, or color, but solely by what they do with their genitals.

If you don't have a problem with that, you've got something wrong with you.

[Antoninus]

When a law contains exceptions based on gender, such as your formulation, “Men are allowed to marry the opposite sex. Women are allowed to marry the opposite sex,” it is no different from older laws that made exceptions based on race, such as “Black people are allowed to marry the same race. White people are allowed to marry the same race.”

Only to the most addle-brained moron.

Two men sodomizing each other are not the moral equivalent of man and wife. Neve have been. Never will be. Our lunatic courts be damned.

[manc]

so the Gov is having it both way , doesn’t agree but will not do anything, so much for leadership and representation

every argument the homo’s use can be used for a man marrying his sister, a woman marrying her dog, (it has happened)a man marrying 9 women.

This is outrageous and either every republican moves out to NH, if they want to stay in New England or move to VA, FL or another red state to get away from this lunacy and let the homo’s have the homo utopia.

OR

They fight this, all the way like we have in FL and out in CA
Ca will not have homo marriage soon so wipe that state off the map

This is outrageous that judges force a sham marriage and a perverted sick view onto others

[manc]

exactly
they said no they will be happy with civil unions now they want marriage, then homo adoption, then teaching homo way into schools

sickening

They have just got civil unions in NH now they are trying to get marriage

straight normal couples should sue for civil unions as well

polygimists should sue for their right, muslims should sue to have their 4 wives

the homo’s have made a mockery and I bet they oppose polygamists

[sandy23185]

I am happy to offer my position on this. I think the government’s role in recognizing and providing legal benefits for married couples has to do with protection: if two people in marriage share everything (bank accounts, belongings, houses, children), governmental protections of marriage ensure a safety net in case something were to happen (such as a nasty divorce or one partner’s death, etc). Currently, gay couples are denied these same protections under law (and no, civil unions to not grant the same rights as marriages!)

[manc]

anyone else notice how a few newns have come on recently arguing for homo sham marraige and have their perverted scik twisted views forced on to us
well for those newbs who are here to spread homo views forget it I with my kids and normal natural family will never accept your perverted sick lifestyle

hello newbie

yea right
that sounds like a homo argument, so should I have 9 wives as like you said it is a right ARF no it is not.

should I marry my daughter, we’re not interfering with you, we are not hurting you, it is our business

SARC

so newbie are you pro homo?