 |
The Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that gay and lesbian couples have the right to get married…
“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,” the ruling said.
“To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others. The guarantee of equal protection under the law, and our obligation to uphold that command, forbids us from doing so. In accordance with these state constitutional requirements, same sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry.”
The decision would only allow gay couples the state benefits of marriage. The Defense of Marriage Act, passed in 1996, denies gay couples federal recognition of state marriages, which provides for federal benefits with regard to Social Security, taxation, immigration and others.
Who knows? Perhaps a dramatic overhaul of both Congress and the White House might leave the nation with a government that rejects second-class citizenship?
We can only hope this will foster a more positive response from other states and the federal government. You would think after Woman’s Suffrage and the Civil Rights Movement that we as a nation would be beyond such petty and trivial differences and disagreements…
Another nail in the coffin… tap, tap, tap.
how wonderful
how important
what comes next – same sex divorces
if straight people talked about their preferences in so loud a manner they would be told to be quiet
work hard , contribute to society and pay taxes
who cares
#3: Yes, same sex divorces could follow same sex marriages. The idea is that the laws regarding marriage should apply to all potential cou”who,” so I have no idea why you’re getting all cranky about it.
By the way I’m straight, and have been married to the same woman for 26 years. I do have a lesbian sister who would not be allowed to get married if she wished, because of the current laws in her state. Lesbians/gays do “work hard, contribute to society and pay taxes,” just like the rest of us.
First women, then black people, now gays.
This country is [comment deleted due to incendiary and misleading rhetoric.]
The Religious Right views gay marriage as an “attack” on straight marriage.
Do they have any empirical evidence to support that fear?
California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts and Vermont all allow it, now, to one degree or another. Hawaii too?
It will be interesting to see if marriage and/or divorce rates among straights changes at all in those states.
My guess is not.
#2 – contemptible one
>>Another nail in the coffin… tap, tap, tap.
Yeah, man! At this rate, we’re going to be the land of the free, and the home of the brave. Just imagine. Treating all people equally, regardless of race, sex, age, ethnic/ racial background, sexual orientation….the horror! THE HORROR!!!
The End Times are truly near…..
Hiya America:
Welcome to the rest of the western world… we’ve been wondering when you’d join us…
-Ben.
That’s just great. Hooray for you. Don’t you just love it when Judges act like legislators??
BTW, Obama and Biden aren’t in favor of this either, so why don’t you go and talk to them if this is such a great idea? After all the democrats are the party of civil rights champions…right? right?
#9 – why does equal rights before the law frighten you?
#7 Mister Mustard
I’ve noticed that you like treat some groups more equal than others. Yes the Horror.
#11 – contemptible one
>>I’ve noticed that you like treat some groups
>>more equal than others. Yes the Horror.
“more equal than others”?? WTF are you talking about? Do you have an actual point here, or is this just typical fearmongering?
Nearly every privilege that comes with marriage can already be accomplished through other means. Others, like insurance policies, are private contracts and “who is covered” shouldn’t be dictated by the government anyway.
#12 Mister Mustard
There are just some groups you constantly attack like a pit bull with lipstick, while others get a pass for no reason other than you think by taking their side it somehow absolves the guilt you have acquired somewhere in life.
As you see, fear has nothing to do with it.
#10 “why does equal rights before the law frighten you?”
Yet another group gets to experience the marriage penalty tax!
#9 Stinker said: “Don’t you just love it when Judges act like legislators??”
When legislators get gutless, that’s what happens.
#10 Where have you been. They already do have all the same civil rights since 1964.
But you ask the wrong quesiton, as your’s supposes that they don’t already have equal rights. These citizens have the exact same rights as you or I do, and they always have.
See #13’s logic.
Apparently, in this land of tolerance, thats not enough.
I have yet to hear that gays have challenged decisions in places like the deep south or the Midwest. Even blacks had the courage to stand up to the bigotry the deep south had. Gays know that winning in places like Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut are really empty victories and a real victory in Alabama or Georgia would mean something for the entire nation. The again, Prop 8 here in California has a real chance of winning, and if it passes, Gays only Option will be to challenge in the Supreme court, which, with 5 Catholics on the Bench could mean a fatal blow from which they won’t be able to recover.
>>Nearly every privilege that comes with
>>marriage can already be accomplished through
>>other means.
So. What’s the problem then? Calling it “marriage” is nothing more than a cosmetic change, in your mind.
Are you really that het up about minutiae?
#17 – Stinker
>>These citizens have the exact same rights as
>>you or I do, and they always have.
>>See #13’s logic.
#13 is full of shit. And even if she weren’t, what’s the big deal? If they “already” have all the rights and privileges of married couples, why is everyone so hot under the collar about calling their contract a “marriage”?
yea! Anther law written by men in robes instead of by the people or the legislature. your constitutional rights at work
-end sarcasm
That’s an adorable family photo there. The kids will have twice as many loving parents as many less fortunate children have.
#20
“why is everyone so hot under the collar about calling their contract a “marriage”?”
Because, with the aid of a sleazy lawyer and a Christian judge the two-faced relatives can easily null whatever union not declared officially as a marriage in case one of the partners die and thus repossess half of the assets, forcing the surving one for either sell off their half for virtually nothing or be denied full custody of the children just because the Christian judge thinks the Bible is above the Constitution.
Cool Superman suit. The kid has established a strong masculine role model.
Oh no! Now people are going to be marrying their cats!
Also, gay people have a higher incidence of HIV, and people with AIDS are a financial burden to the health care system. Therefore, gays in general are more of a financial liability. Gay marriage will encourage sexual transmission of HIV giving more people AIDS and increase the financial burden of health care on employers. This excessive burden on business will hurt the economy. Therefore, we should disallow gay marriage.
Yeah, somebody actually argued that (less coherently of course).
My own polemic:
In reference to the accusation of bench legislation, I need to urge those who hold such views to consider that point moot, momentarily. In a representative republic, such as we have, in which direct democracy is not an answer to issues of the day, but a quagmire of majority rule, high courts sometimes rule against the majority opinion for the sake of minority rights. Those in the minority will welcome the clarification of the canon and those who hold with the majority must see otherwise.
Pardon my pedantry but this is how I see it. Angry reactionaries responding to impudent gays and their aces in the hole is what #9 (and #21, I think) fear. Clarification of legislation is a function of high courts. What is your stance?, #9? We will never know b/c you don’t have the brains to support one. That’s what your silence will say.
In response to the opinion that gays have always had the same rights as others and are just recipients of protected or special class rights, I concur that gays can be viewed as a special class who need judicial intervention. This is supported by myriad discussions such as these. Past traditions are simply burdens carried, dragged by those willing to endure the stench of deceaced affinities. Any deferrence by the state to any past traditions must not be tolerated by a free society and must be hunted and burned by the guardians of the peaceful and orderly.
Any more writing and my true colors will show.
Mustard, you’ve completely imagined that I have any problem with what people call each other. My problem is with the government thrusting itself into the affairs of private entities to begin with.
Sam Also, gay people have a higher incidence of HIV, and people with AIDS are a financial burden to the health care system. Therefore, gays in general are more of a financial liability. Gay marriage will encourage sexual transmission of HIV giving more people AIDS and increase the financial burden of health care on employers. This excessive burden on business will hurt the economy. Therefore, we should disallow gay marriage.
Wow, are you serious or just trying to be funny? Just in case you are being serious (or someone takes it as serious): single gay men are more likely to sleep around and get and transmit AIDS/HIV than married gay men who are in longer term relationships with one person. Therefor gay marriage should not only be legal, but should be encouraged.
Up in Canada we legalized same sex marriage several years ago. Since then God has punished us by destroying our banking system.
#28 – Sea Lawyer
>>Mustard, you’ve completely imagined that I
>>have any problem with what people call each
>>other.
Well, now you’re confusing me, counselor.
Are you saying that you have no problem if same-sex couples call themselves “married”, in exactly the same way that heterosexual couples call themselves “married”?