[Antoninus]

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.

[Clemenza]

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.

[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."

[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