Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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

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."

(Excerpt) Read more at newstimes.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; Politics/Elections; US: Connecticut
KEYWORDS: activistcourt; activistjudges; ammendnow; culturewar; gaymarriage; homosexualagenda; homosexualmarriage; homotroll; judicialactivism; judiciary; prop8; retread; ruling; samesexmarriage; trolls; zot; zotbait
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-112 next last
Polygamy is right around the corner, mark my words.
1 posted on 10/10/2008 11:47:54 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Marry a fag, don’t smoke one.


3 posted on 10/10/2008 11:54:12 AM PDT by swarthyguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 2ndDivisionVet

Don’t forget bestiality and necrophilia.


4 posted on 10/10/2008 11:54:35 AM PDT by marymaryquitecontrary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.


9 posted on 10/10/2008 11:58:36 AM PDT by sandy23185
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

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.


14 posted on 10/10/2008 12:03:05 PM PDT by Blue Turtle (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

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!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

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!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

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.******)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson