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 ...
Thanks...and yeah, I have noticed the sign-on dates, but some of them (like the one I addressed 37 & 38 to) are old-timers.
you seem to know a lot on this issue so I hope you do not mind ,me asking you these questions.
Could the people in CT or MA for that matter go to the Supreme court or an appeals court of that district?
Is there any way the ruling in CT be overturned?
Thank you in advance if you know of any answers on this
Did you just join today to give pro homo views on this subject?
Marriage is between a man and a woman, that is it for every argument homo’s use can be sued for all different types of sham marriages.
Let me ask you this.
You seem very pro homo so would you have a problem is a man marries his son?
would you care if a woman married 7 men at once?
Would you care if a man marries an animal and yes it has happened?
or do you just want two men or two women to have sex and marry each other?
if so then where is your tolerance for them, they are not hurting you nor are they affecting you. They are doing it in their private bedroom.
see the point
marriage is for a man to be with a woman full stop nothing else
why one would be allowed to do so is a mystery to me..
First of all, kind of rude to disparage someone and not ping them to the post.
Next, I’m curious what proof of this you have? I don’t even recall having any kind of discussion with you. I checked and I haven’t even posted in a gay marriage thread in the last six months. Congratulations if you have gone through just short of four years of my posts and decided that I spend my time on here trolling about gay marriage.
In the thread at hand I haven’t made any remarks directly about gay marriage period. The only comments I have made are that the court clearly said that this was not enlarging marriage to include a man marrying a young child. And that I find WND a suspect news source and then my feelings about the topics within those articles. I didn’t realize that counted as trolling.
Finally I’m a he although not a blonde.
This is a serious subject. Don't tell jokes.
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.
As a reporter, I've often interviewed people whose names never appeared in any other publication, because it was a local story. That doesn't mean the story wasn't true or didn't indicate anything about the situation being discussed. The fact that an injustice hasn't been reported in 15 different journals doesn't mean it didn't take place, and it doesn't mean that more like it aren't coming. Also, M.D. Harmon has excellent credentials and has been writing for the Press Herald for at least 10 years.
Only 4 of the Philadelphia 11 ever went to court and the charges against them were thrown out.
Let's say there's a group of 11 people holding McCain signs outside an Obama rally. The police arrest all of them, 4 end up in court and a federal judge throws the charges out. Is that OK with you? Can you show me in the Constitution where it says the overriding principle of our government is "All's well that ends well?"
If some city decides that Blacks may not protest against Klan rallies and hauls a few of them off to jail, will you be OK with that as long as none of them go to prison? How about if someone decides gays aren't allowed to hold pro-gay marriage rallies? Arrests OK as long as no one gets convicted?
If you were arrested and released (eventually) because one of your closely held beliefs was declared to be "hate" and a violation of civil rights, you'd think that was acceptable? Really?
It sounds like Crystal Dixon is in the process of suing the university.
Crystal Dixon said that gays hadn't had it as bad as people who were enslaved for hundreds of years, and she was FIRED. If they had fired her because she was Black or Jewish, would you say, "Hey, it's OK, she's taking it to court and the courts don't seem to be fond or racial discrimination" or would you call it what it is?
I had some difficulty finding information about Leo Childs, but it appears he was fired for more reasons than his opposition to gay marriage.
So, why did they decide to fire him a year later, right after he was berated in a public meeting for daring to have the "wrong" opinion on gay marriage? If you had a disagreement with a boss, and then he fired you for it a year later right after he (for instance) found out you were a Republican, a Jew or gay, would you accept that you were being fired for the previous year's activity, or would you call a lawyer?
If the Church generally allows people to freely assemble there they cannot arbitrarily bar people from assembling there.
1. How exactly is it "arbitrary" for a church to decline a ceremony that violates their closely held teachings? Should a synagogue be forced to prepare ham in their kitchen because their decision to not serve ham at previous functions was arrived at "arbitrarily?"
2. Should the church have to host Satanic weddings?
3. While I was a drinker, I was married at a Baptist church and was not allowed to serve alcohol at my reception. Should I have been able to sue over this arbitrary decision?
4. The lesbians in question could assemble their wedding at thousands of other locations, but the property and religious rights of this church would only be violated by holding the wedding at one location. Why is the "right" of first choice for wedding location more important than property rights and religious conscience? Should lesbians be able to hold a wedding in my living room if that's their first choice?
5. Why did you only read (or at least coment on) the part of the NPR article that dealt with the Ocean Grove case? What about the violations of other Americans' rights detailed in the sidebar at the bottom of the page?
Marriage has always been between men and women, even in cultures (such as ancient Greece) where homosexuality was accepted.
Can you provide evidence otherwise? Note, BTW, that interracial marriage has been allowed in numerous cultures going back thousands of years, but gay marriage never has been.
And homosexuals should be denied these privileges.
Hello, Antoninus! I’m back - good to see you. I even did a vanity last night announcing my grand return! (/sarc)
And greetings to you, Mr. Silverback!
My point about the people going through court is not that it is OK. The point is that an injustice sometimes has to happen in order for the courts to rule on it. It is unfortunate, but true. I wish everyone would be more open to letting others speak their mind, but that isn’t the case. The fact is that despite all of the attempts in this country to limit speech, free speech is being reinforced.
You represented in the Philly case that this huge injustice occurred and all 11 of them went to jail for something that none of them did. And the case didn’t even go to trial.
Mr. Childs may have done several things that by themselves didn’t add up to enough to fire him, but when it came around to re-hire him there was a pretty much unanimous decision to not do so. Maybe the gay issue was the over-riding issue, but there were at least some other issues at work.
And yes, if you are allowing people to freely assemble you can’t all of a sudden stop. Not that a church shouldn’t be able to do so. But some of that kind of depends on how the pavilion has been used in the past. I agree with you that they should go to a place that isn’t owned by a church. However, things are not as black and white on these issues as you are portraying them.
Are you as much of a crusader for people to not be arrested for something like flag burning?
Thank you...and I don't mind at all. The problem is I'm unsure of the answers. I'm pretty sure that if CT's government made a federal appeal they could get it into the federal system, but I'm not certain.
Good to see you, J!
I did no such thing. Show me where I did so. Huge injustice? Yes. And since when is wrongful arrest and prosecution not an injustice? Besides, the fact that a law calling protected speech a crime exists is injustice enough, never mind if someone goes to jail.
Mr. Childs may have done several things that by themselves didn’t add up to enough to fire him,
Any evidence of that? Every account of him I've come across describes him as a very dedicated volunteer.
Maybe the gay issue was the over-riding issue, but there were at least some other issues at work.
If the overriding issue had been the fact that he came out of the closet or married a black woman, would you be copacetic with that? How about if he'd gotten fired right after he put a McCain sign on his lawn?
And yes, if you are allowing people to freely assemble you can’t all of a sudden stop. Not that a church shouldn’t be able to do so. But some of that kind of depends on how the pavilion has been used in the past.
So, the church would have to allow a Satanic wedding on the pavilion? If not, why not?
However, things are not as black and white on these issues as you are portraying them.
I think the state forcing people to violate their conscience is a black and white issue. It is wrong for the state to do so, every single time.
Are you as much of a crusader for people to not be arrested for something like flag burning?
1. I don't see the point of arresting flag burners. I understand the arguments that say it isn't speech, but I prefer to err on the side of caution. After all, bad speech can be countered with other speech, so someone who should be locked up will be checked. Moreover, flag burners simply reveal themselves as enemies of the nation. As painful and disgusting as it may be to see, it reveals who the scumbag traitors are.
2. Let's say I did favor arresting flag burners. Is there only one way to express disgust with America's policies? No. But if you own a pavilion that a couple wants to use to violate the teachings of your religion, there is only one way to follow the dictates of your religion: Say "no." So, I guess things aren't as black and white as you portrayed...
Let's see about you: Should a gay-owned tattoo parlor have to tattoo Leviticus 18:22 on a customer's arm, or can they refer the customer to another tat shop? Should a gay printer be forced by the state to print fliers for a "one man one woman" marriage rally?
Sniff?
DHY2K
Incest, bestiality and pedophilia are crimes. They are violent acts of rape, they are not consensual, and they are abusive and psychologically scarring. Homosexuality is a mutually consensual act between adults, it harms no one involved, and, most importantly, it is not against the law. It is a personal choice that is protected under the pricacy/free speech clauses of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Don’t believe me? Ask the U.S. Supreme Court: “Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct” (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003). Homosexuality is no different from a religious belief: people are free to believe what they want and practice their beliefs the way they want to as long as they do not break the law. If you don’t agree with it morally, that’s too bad. Many people think having premarital sex is a sin. Should we limit rights to people who have premarital sex? Heterosexual couples practice sodomy all the time. Should we deny them the right to marry? The key issue is about freedom and equality: allowing people to pursue their own life, liberty, and happiness. It’s not your life to lead. Here’s a piece of advice: if you don’t like gay marriage, don’t marry a guy.
What about a couple of 89 year olds, straight but unable to have kids, unlikely enough to be crazy enough to adopt at their age. There is no problem with them perverting the sacred baby making contract. It is a bond between two people with certain spelled out rights and responsibilities.
Making babies is an optional part of marriage, with laws covering that option (IF YOU CHOOSE TO EXERCISE THAT OPTION), and marriage is optional for making babies, but there are still laws binding mothers and fathers to support children they have conceived or adopted. It isn't about a kid having a right to a father and a mother. If you divorce the mother of your child you may owe child support or maybe alimony, but the court doesn't and can't force you to be a good father too. The mom isn't ordered to go out and find a new dad in 90 days if she's widowed or abandoned. We don't give the state that much power, at least in my America.
Look, if you hate fags, fine, don't marry one. Some people hate blacks or Catholics or Mormons. Whatever hobby keeps you in hate juice is your right as an American. We founded America so Catholics in Maryland wouldn't be second class citizens like they would have been in Ireland under the British state Episcopal religion, so Quakers in Pennsylvania wouldn't suffer like they did in Oliver Cromwell's Puritan republic, so Protestant Huguenots would not die in the streets because Catholics wanted the French monarchy to stay Catholic, and so Jews could be non-Christian without the government sanctioned hate that eventually led to Auschwitz.
If your church denies homos marriage, fine. They can get a secular marriage or marry in a church that does love them. We just can't have the state institutionalize discrimination. As for marrying your daughter, or enjoying necrophilia or bestiality, remember, contract law (marriage) is only allowed and enforced between consenting partners. Animals, corpses and minors cannot give informed consent. I think polygamy is covered under the nature of the contract, it is between 2 people. It doesn't cover the rights and responsibilities of more than 2 people. It could be rewritten that way if the voters chose, as long as you didn't have sickos in rural Texas or Utah railroading minors into forced marriages, but I don't see voters or the courts doing that.
My point is, America doesn't sponsor one approved religion, because it injures and is unfair to Americans of competing religions. Marriage is contract law. If you want your marriage to correspond to your religion, fine. But all marriages don't have to correspond to your religion, they just have to be contracts that are enforced fairly, open to all qualified parties, and that doesn't include the ability or desire to breed naturally in the the heterosexual manner.
It depends who retires. If Obama is merely replacing liberals with other liberals, the court won't shift to the left.
I suspect Stevens and Ginsburg would retire. What other judge do you think is likely to?
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.