Skip to comments.
Connecticut: State Supreme Court says same-sex couples can marry
The Danbury News Times/The Associated Press ^
| October 10, 2008
Posted on 10/10/2008 11:47:54 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-112 next last
Polygamy is right around the corner, mark my words.
To: 2ndDivisionVet
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
2
posted on
10/10/2008 11:52:32 AM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Marry a fag, don’t smoke one.
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Don’t forget bestiality and necrophilia.
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Get used to it, President Hussein will appoint 3 Supreme Court Justices.
5
posted on
10/10/2008 11:55:29 AM PDT
by
roses of sharon
(When the enemy comes in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD will put him to flight (Isaiah 59:19)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
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
6
posted on
10/10/2008 11:55:54 AM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
“Polygamy is right around the corner, mark my words.”
Oh boy! I’m going to marry three strippers.
7
posted on
10/10/2008 11:56:50 AM PDT
by
y6162
(uot)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Another nail in the USA’s coffin.
Next, legalize pedophilia.
8
posted on
10/10/2008 11:58:25 AM PDT
by
ViLaLuz
(2 Chronicles 7:14)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
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.
To: 2ndDivisionVet
“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.
10
posted on
10/10/2008 11:58:46 AM PDT
by
keepitreal
("I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message. . . until I don't.")
To: marymaryquitecontrary
Oh quit beating a dead horse ;-)
11
posted on
10/10/2008 11:59:26 AM PDT
by
jeffo
(http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1372399/posts)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
Our judicial masters have spoken.
Will the voters of CT be able to put them back in their places?
12
posted on
10/10/2008 11:59:48 AM PDT
by
Antoninus
(Ignore the polls. They're meant to shape public opinion, not measure it.)
To: keepitreal
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
13
posted on
10/10/2008 12:00:16 PM PDT
by
goldstategop
(In Memory Of A Dearly Beloved Friend Who Lives In My Heart Forever)
To: goldstategop
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.
To: 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.
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.
15
posted on
10/10/2008 12:03:05 PM PDT
by
Antoninus
(Ignore the polls. They're meant to shape public opinion, not measure it.)
To: y6162
Solution to islamofacism - you can marry 72 versions without having to blow yourself up.
Pig entrails anyone?
16
posted on
10/10/2008 12:03:36 PM PDT
by
wubjo
(nO Terrorists; nO Tyranny; nObama)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
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!
17
posted on
10/10/2008 12:03:44 PM PDT
by
jeffc
(They're coming to take me away! Ha-ha, he-he, ho-ho!)
To: y6162
Correction: Solution to islamofacism - you can marry 72 virgins without having to blow yourself up.
Pig entrails anyone?
18
posted on
10/10/2008 12:05:27 PM PDT
by
wubjo
(nO Terrorists; nO Tyranny; nObama)
To: Antoninus; sandy23185
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.
19
posted on
10/10/2008 12:06:06 PM PDT
by
Clemenza
(PRIVATIZE FANNIE AND FREDDIE! NO MORE BAILOUTS!)
To: 2ndDivisionVet
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.
20
posted on
10/10/2008 12:08:39 PM PDT
by
Mr. Silverback
(*******It's not conservative to accept an inept Commander-in-Chief in a time of war. Back Mac.******)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-112 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson