Connecticut: State Supreme Court says same-sex couples can marry

The Danbury News Times/The Associated Press ^ | October 10, 2008

[tioga]

So instead of changing the court, you will settle for more of the same? I say NO, we need to move forward, not tread water.

[Ol' Sparky]

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.

Are you really attempting to compare a benign characteristic like race to the government putting its stamp of approval on deviant sexual behavior?

It is NOT a right for homosexuals to marry. In fact, the Founders didn't believe there was a right to engage in homosexual behavior. So, we know the intent the of the Founders wasn't to pervert the definition of marriage and allow homosexuals to marry.

In fact, based on your arguments here, the government shouldn't have the right to prevent polygamy or siblings from marrying either.

Take the liberal arguments elsewhere.

[DirtyHarryY2K]

Sodomy was illegal until the liberal activist court struck it down just a few short years ago because of some lame excuse about privacy and consensual adult business . Pryor to that sodomy was illegal.

Thomas Jefferson had the punishment for such changed from death penalty to castration. Don't take my word for it look it up.

BTW this issue isn't about privacy and consensual adult business. It's about forcing society to grant credence to perversion via activist judicial fiat. No, we do not consent. Keep perversion where it belongs, in the bedroom or closet!

[DirtyHarryY2K]

You sign up today just to jump on this thread?
I smell ozone!

[Admin Moderator]

Sniff?

[Ol' Sparky]

So instead of changing the court, you will settle for more of the same?

No, I'm voting for McCain. But, if Obama does get in, we may get lucky, depending on who retires, and the court won't shift to the left.

[roses of sharon]

You don't think Breyer will retire?

I think all three will go.

They are just waiting for Hussein to take office, and he will certainly shift the court further left.

[whatisthetruth]

LMAO!

[Ol' Sparky]

But, it isn't possible for judges to be much further to the left than Ginsberg, Stevens and Breyer.

If Obama gets in, Kennedy retiring, however, would result in the court shifting to the left. And, we all better pray Scalia not only stays on the court but remains healthy.

[manc]

er no
if two consenting adults want to marry let it be right according to your argument

so if a man wants to marry his son and they both consent is that alright with you?

here’s a piece of advice , if you are a man do not have sex with a man simple yes. and if you are a woman do not sex with a woman .

it is sick, perverted and disgusting.
so no matter how many times you want to say and harp on about your perverted view it will not be accepted by the majority.

are you a homosexual?

why come on here and try to spread your homo views?

You know as well as i do that nature did not intend for say a man to have sex with another man.

Think about it, a man is poking his cock up another mans arse, , are you seriously trying to tell me that that is normal?

Why come on here and spread your disgusting perverted sick homo view?

Do you not get it, the majority will never accept it, they look at it as either weirdo’s or just plain mentally sick

[word_warrior_bob]

Homosexuality in humans is and has always been a psychological disorder, they changed the designation in the 70’s due to political pressure.

Parental issues, early childhood development, and molestation, etc. are the causes of homosexuality, there may be a predilection towards the behavior but there is no “gay gene”. E N D O F S T O R Y.

[Mr. Silverback]

Heh!

Sandy’s a just-signed-up-today newbie who jumped right in to push homonormative propaganda...I thought maybe she (he? shkle?) might be a retread.

While you’re at it, got any NyQuil? you know...the snuffling, sneezing, coughing take it in the kitchen and wake up on the stairs medicine? :-)

[manc]

seems funny that you with your pro homo came on to this site at the same time as another pro homo name registered.

give it up hey, your pro homo views will never be accepted no matter how many times you come on here as different names.

how sad you have to have different names to try and back your perverted sick lifestyle up.

Well you can can harp on as much as you want but my kids aged 10, 7, 5 know already how sick you are mentally.

nature never intended for two men or two women to be able to have kids, you are just mentally sick and I do feel sorry for you and my kids do as well.

seek some help

PS
I’m not religious either like everyone I know we just think you are sick either get some testerone or estrogen depending on what you are(but you do not know really)

[manc]

why on earth do you think that if you think someone is opposed to your sick mentally view that they have to go to church

I along with many don’t, we just plainly think it is disgusting that you do things like have sex with with two men

what don’t you get with that,?

Do you honestly think that is normal?

HELLOOOOOOO
a man is poking another man and you think it is hey OK

SICK

[Shethink13]

I didn't ask you what you think the government's "role" is, I asked you what you believe is the "reason" the government got involved in marriage in the first place. And remember, the history of government recognition of marriage didn't start in the 1960's. It goes a lot farther back than that, before "social safety nets" and welfare.

Try again.

[whatisthetruth]

"This account has been banned or suspended."

Bye-bye Sandy! Bye-bye Church State Sentry, say hello to Heather and her two mommies for me.

[Mr. Silverback]

Yes! Another couple of smooth kills! I love the smell of ozone.

[Claud]

But by that logic/definition, wasn't our own country fascist at least from the time of its founding until the aftermath of the Civil War? The Constitution as originally written quite clearly indicated that one man was worthy of the right to vote and to own land, while another was simple property to be bought and sold at the whim of another. Or that this woman here might legally bind herself in marriage to whichever man she chose, while that woman there might only watch as her children were sold to a stranger.

Not fascist, no, because fascism by definition gives supreme power to the state, and the Constitution didn't do that, as I said.

Secondly, it is in no way a violation of the Natural Law for a Republic to stipulate which people vote. Don't forget that Natural Law still applies in monarchies, where nobody votes.

And to your final point, I don't see anything in the Constitution that bans interracial marriage. That wasn't a Federal law, that was implemented locally or within the states.

But in general the following principle applies: if any form of government--Republic or what have you--passes a law that violates the Natural Law, that law is by that very fact unjust and null and void. Homosexuality is against the Natural Law--it used to be called the "crime against nature"--and therefore not only is it completely lawful and moral for societies to criminalize it, but any supposed "law" or decision which promotes it is unjust and does not bind the citizen.

[Claud]

oops! Meant to ping manc, not marc. Apologies.