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."

[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.