Immediately after the court proceeding, one of the plaintiff couples, Barbara and Robin Levine-Ritterman, were on their way to New Haven city hall to obtain their marriage license.
Attorney Bennett Klein of GLADD, the Boston-based legal group that litigated the case, told the court how proud each of the couples is to live in Connecticut.
This "does mark the end of a very long journey toward equality," he said.
Judge Clears Way For Same-Sex Marriages
please correct title
yeah. like this is news. has there been a single newscast since the initial decision that HASN’T mentioned same-sex marriage now being legal in CT?
it’s all the newsers talk about.
With morons like this running the state, soon it will violate the state constitution if one cannot marry a sheep, or a horse, or a dog, or a cow! Next we will have Barbara and her cow Lulu calling on city hall to obtain their marriage license.
In the book of Romans, it says that God gave them up to their sins. These gay victories are a sign that God is giving up on America. The few faithful better prepare for some severe persecution.
FULL STORY - Explained before published
http://engforum.pravda.ru/showthread.php?t=231626
JUDGES RULE !!??!
Next step: showing up at the Catholic Church and demanding a wedding.
To those outside the State of Connecticut:
No one voted on this. This was pure judicial activism. CT already recognized civil unions, but I guess it was important to homosexual activists to have the right to attach a religious label to their partership.
The right to call a Constitutional convention, as a means to regain some control over our own lives, was winning by a 2-1 margin about a year ago. Then the activists implemented a media blitz and the measure was voted down.
Leftist Incrimentalim at work
they were not satisfied with their legal domestic partnership status in CT.
God will never view their perversion as equal to His plan for sex and marriage.
Yet another chapter in the destructive American fad of court-worship, wherein legislatures, governors and presidents routinely cede their authority to courts who have no jurisdiction to do so.
Now do what they did in California, and fix the CT state constitution. The Catholic church will help you.
So this judge looks at his state constitution, and presumably at the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, neither of which has changed significantly in over 150 years, and sees that all those judges who went before him just couldn't understand what these things meant. He issues a decision which would allow me to marry my sister if HE, the JUDGE, weren't the bigot he is. But it probably allows me to "marry" my son; and maybe a couple of his friends too.
ML/NJ
ML/NJ
This is what America gets when they did not nip judicial activism in the bud when it became the “leftist” tool of choice for destroying America’s biblical legal and moral foundations.
So, that is why they wear those black dresses.
It sure has nothing to do with the law.
What were the legal issues in this case?
RE : “preventing gay and lesbian couples from marrying violates the state constitution. “
What constitution? The one in their heads? Well if they thought that was true they would throw out the marriage law and not allow marriages. Not order the state to marry, that’s creating laws. I assume the elected agree with them but cant say so they wont do anything. What if the legislature passed a law outlawing ALL marriages in the state? So you had to go to another state to get married. It would be unpopular but it shows how these judges are dangerous assuming power.
I don't understand why those who believe in polygamy aren't demanding their right to marry mutable wives. According to the rulings in Conn. and Mass., they have the same constitutional right to choose their own lifestyle as homosexuals. If anything, they could demand their rights to show how unreasonable homosexual "marriages" are.
I don’t know what’s in Connecticut’s constitution, but please consider the following.
When the a federal or state constitution says nothing about an issue like gay marriage, it’s not surprising for renegade judges to seize the opportunity to legislate special-interest agendas from the bench when cases concerning such issues arise, deciding such cases in favor of minority interests.
Sadly, such judges know that they can get away with their “insightful” findings in a constitution concerning such cases because, since the people generally don’t know their own constitutions, the people won’t lift a finger to fight such decisions, wrongly regarding a judge’s decision as absolute. So the will of the majority is subverted as a consequence of the majority’s silence about the issue in a constitution.
I must commend New York judges at this point. I remember a relatively recent case concerning gay marriage. New York judges were at least honest enough to say that since the NY constitution didn’t address gay marriage that state legislators should essentially quit sitting on their hands and make legislation concerning gay marriage.