 |
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?
#28 Sea Lawyer
“Mustard, you’ve completely imagined that I have any problem with what people call each other.”
OK, you’re an idiot.
#31, yes, stupid people are easily confused, so I imagined you would be.
Wait for it…..
Actually the HIV thing is a scam so that argument does not hold much water. People are not going to marry their cats as they cannot say “I do”. Legally, they have to be able to sign the forms and say more than “meow”. Anything else I can clear up for you before the election?
> 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?
Unlikely, since it was a Democrat that signed the Defense of Marriage Act.
I hear people who oppose gay marriage attempt to say that gays already enjoy all the same benefits as traditional married couples, but that marriage should be limited to a man and a woman.
Their reason? They say that allowing gays to marriage would harm the institution of marriage.
Where is their petition to get divorce banned? Isn’t divorce the only one true threat to marriage? If preserving the institution of marriage is your goal, why aren’t you pressuring to get divorce banned?
Oh I know. It’s because you aren’t interested in preserving marriage, simply denying basic civil rights to a segment of the population whose choice of love and contentment you disagree with.
Hypocrites.
#38 – ‘fredo
>>which has the additional function of
>>expressing positively, what we think of our
>>marriages.
Yeah. Until the divorce. Will you come up with a new holy-rolling name to express positively what you think about the ending of your holy union?
btw, many churchgoers and clergy don’t have the same tight-assed, bigoted feelings about same-sex marriage as yours seems to. Are you going to sue to prevent them from using “blessed union” and “in holy matrimony”?
I suggest you go back to church and pray to your “god” of hatred and alienation, and leave the rest of us alone.
Well, all I can say is “About time!!!”
I did notice one of the dissenting Justices wrote that marriage is intended for the procreation of citizens. What he didn’t answer is why we allow sterile couples to marry or even remain married.
>“attack” on straight marriage.
Do they have any empirical evidence to support that fear?
Well they had to change marriage forms from ‘Husband’ and ‘Wife’ to ‘Partner A’ & ‘Partner B’
This is a redefinition of marriage. Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman.
Gays and lesbians were always free to marry, for example Gov McGreevey.
This decision and California’s is a reason to avoid the ‘compromise’ position of recognizing civil unions, then the courts turn around and say well you’re discriminating if you don’t call it marriage. These are legislative decisions.
#30, QB,
As someone suffering under Canada’s repressive “equal rights” marriage law, could you tell us how many straight marriages have been destroyed? Although it might be rash of me, how is your own marriage fairing since that terrible law against natural human dignity was passed?
I wonder what the suicide rate in Canada is now. Are the asylums all full? How are the mental health professionals holding up? Do they need more Prozac and Wellbutron?
I understand in California so many straight people couldn’t handle gays marrying they are putting a suicide net under the Golden Gate Bridge.
8)
Fusion–I saw that. I wonder if the suicide rate off the SF bridge would go up or down if a special spot were identified: “Jump Here”.
After a few tests, maybe a set of revolving blades could be installed with a 25 cent video slot installed to start the blades rotating: “You now have one minute to jump to certain death and maceration into the ocean. No refunds if you change your mind.”
Mr Fusion,
It is (and should be in my mind) an non-issue. The law has been challenged once by a free vote in parliament and was easily defeated. When the law came in the country was split 55-45, now it’s probably 65-35.
I have religious friends (mainly Catholic) and they’ve said that their church marriages are actually stronger, not weaker. They believe that marriage is a sacrament and the ceremony now is now more meaningful since it separates and reinforces their beliefs. In other words, they focus on the religious significance, not the legalities. Didn’t expect that.
There are still a few wingnuts who claim that gay marriage “makes them gay” as well. Our medical system provides Prozac at a reasonable price.
The most important thing is that it shows the strength (at least in some areas) of the parliamentary system, even with a minority government. The legislature was able to do their job without the craziness of the US system (multiple checks and balances, populism, etc). The whole debate lasted ~5 weeks and was made law.
#41
I’ve mentioned before, it is already the case that any two people or more can consider themselves married (or joined or whatever term you wish to pick). No degree of government intervention can prevent that. The core issue is whether governments and businesses are permitted to deny privileges to one type of union purely based on sexual preference.
If you limit the definition of “marriage” to unions between a men and women, you are allowing the government to differentiate between different types of unions. That enables businesses to do the same.
If we mandate that all types of unions must be afforded the same rights and privileges, then people and governments can call marriage whatever they wish. Until that time, it must be accepted that term “marriage” has a larger legal meaning and implication than its vernacular roots.
>> MikeN said, on October 12th, 2008 at 4:50 am
>> Well they had to change marriage forms from ‘Husband’ and ‘Wife’ to ‘Partner A’ & ‘Partner B’
No one is forcing you, MikeN, to call your wife “Partner B.”
That’s my point, actually, how does a gay couple on your block affect _your_ marriage whatsoever?
But my specific question is: is there any research gay marriages negatively impacted traditional marriages?
As a patriotic American, I think you have to have a damn-good reason to deny other Americans their equal rights.
Yes indeed, enough of that troublesome “government by the people” business. Much too messy . . .
What is your opinion on this hot topic? Should same sex pairs have equal rights with different sex ones, and be allowed to get married and have children? Or you are absolutely against it and think, that the less rights homosexuals gain, the less of them will appear? – http://www.votetheday.com/society-18/same-sex-marriage-305