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."

[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?

[Claud]

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.

BTW, you are confounding two things here. It is and has been the rule of the Catholic Church that Catholics are to marry Catholics. That's true. However, that is part of the law of the Church, not the Natural Law. You can tell that because the Church can and does grant dispensations for Catholics to marry non-Catholics. Also, the Church recognizes the marriages of any two Christians to be sacramentally valid, and marriages between two pagans to be valid as well (though not sacramental).

But you absolutely cannot get a dispensation from the Catholic Church to marry someone of the same sex. Because that violates not just Church law which only pertains to Catholics, but also the Natural Law which pertains to everyone.

And on the interracial argument, the Catholic Church and I dare say most Protestant denominations never ever recognized the legitimacy of any American law that prohibited interracial marriage. Period. That was done by the state. Bans on interracial marriage never had any basis whatsoever in Natural Law and were therefore completely illegitimate from the date of their promulgation.

[manc]

just read your post and Igree

this person who said that about judges is advocating homo views,
They have used the usual argument homo’s use as well , right form the book of homo’s

I guarantee that when a muslim want so to have 4 wives, or a man wants 9 wives or the mother wants to marry her son this pro homo as others will oppose that

[manc]

Is there no way to go to the federal supreme court on this and put this ruling on hold

yet again the law was not upheld and yet again pro homo judges are forcing this sickness onto us

what is next, homo adoption, homo teachings in school

[manc]

another newbie who is pro homo
my there are a few lately on here

so by your argument that they do not bother me or interfere with me

can a father marry his daughter, hey you use the not bothering you not interfering with you argument

can a woman marry her dog?
can a man have 7 wives?
can a man marry his daughter

every argument you used can be used for these questions

why join a conservative website and then push your pro homo views?

[itsahoot]

Drip, drip, drip.

Luk 17:26 And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

[manc]

great links

have you noticed that those who are pushing their pro homo views on here have just joined

maybe they are trolling, who knows

[itsahoot]

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

I guess you could ask Obama, didn't he teach a Law class?

[Claud]

I guess you could ask Obama, didn't he teach a Law class?

LOL...and that right there's the problem!

[Mr. Blonde]

I didn't look at any of the WND pages when I first saw your post. Generally I try to stay away from them. The straw that broke the camel's back in that respect was when they direct quoted someone for 11 paragraphs. And nothing from the other viewpoint. CNN, AP and Reuters may be biased but they at the very least practice good journalism.

The story about Kiildi felt like a WND story despite not being from there. I tried googling her name and all that came up was that story and what appears to be you posting on another forum.

Only 4 of the Philadelphia 11 ever went to court and the charges against them were thrown out.

It sounds like Crystal Dixon is in the process of suing the university. The entire issue has not played out yet. Unfortunately not everyone is inclined to let someone enjoy free speech, but so far the courts have been pretty clear on allowing it. We are lucky in being unlike other countries in allowing all kinds of speech regardless of who's feeling they hurt. Hopefully the courts in this case will continue that tradition.

Free speech can be messy and doesn't always come off without a hitch, but we have ways to correct the errors.

I had some difficulty finding information about Leo Childs, but it appears he was fired for more reasons than his opposition to gay marriage. "Selectman Fred Gaechter, the board chairman, wrote that he and other selectmen took issue with Childs last year after he allegedly appealed a procurement decision to the board of selectmen without notifying the board of fire engineers." I realize that this is not the best source either, but it was all I could find.

As for the NPR article this looks like an issue dealing with another part of the first amendment, the freedom to assemble. If the Church generally allows people to freely assemble there they cannot arbitrarily bar people from assembling there. I searched for the case on Westlaw and Lexis and all that came up between the two was the District Court dismissing the case because it deals with an ongoing state case. If you have anymore information about it I would be glad to hear it.

[sandy23185]

What I meant in my last post is that Western society has been continually redefining marriage for hundreds of years. The idea that marriage is and has always been a singular, stable idea is false.