7
   

Connecticut Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage

 
 
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 05:24 pm
Friday 10 October 2008
ยป
by: The Advocate
The Connecticut Supreme Court Friday issued a 4-3 decision in favor of eight gay couples who were the plaintiffs in Kerrigan and Mock v. the Connecticut Department of Public Health. (Photo: Fred Beckham / AP)
The Connecticut Supreme Court Friday issued a 4-3 decision in favor of eight gay couples who were the plaintiffs in Kerrigan and Mock v. the Connecticut Department of Public Health, effectively legalizing same-sex marriage in the state. Connecticut will now become the third state in the country behind Massachusetts and California where gay couples are allowed equal access to marriage. As in California and Massachusetts, out-of-state couples will be eligible to marry in Connecticut.

The court found that it was unconstitutional to deny marriage rights to gay and lesbian couples and that civil unions, which are available in the state, were an unequal institution. "We conclude that, in light of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm," Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote for the majority.

Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders filed the case in 2004 on behalf of eight same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in Madison, Conn.. The couples had been in committed relationships ranging from 10 to 30 years, with many of them raising children. The defendant, the state's Department of Public Health, oversees the registration of all Connecticut's marriages.

In June of 2006, Judge Patty Jenkins Pittman ruled that excluding same-sex couples from marital rights did not violate the Connecticut constitution, at which point the plaintiffs appealed the decision to the state supreme court.

Oral arguments for the case took place in May of 2007. "Separate institutions for different classes of citizens are now unheard of anywhere in American jurisprudence," GLAD senior attorney Ben Klein told the high court. "Our history has taught us that separation serves no other purpose than to mark a class of citizens as inferior."
http://www.truthout.org/article/E3_101008T
 
JTT
 
  3  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 07:48 pm
@blueflame1,
Quote:
The couples had been in committed relationships ranging from 10 to 30 years, with many of them raising children.


This is an abomination. Children deserve to be raised in the good old fashioned American way, by two divorced parents.
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 08:09 pm
@JTT,
hehe.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Fri 10 Oct, 2008 11:42 pm
@blueflame1,
I guess that letting the people vote on a significant departure from historic norms isn't the liberal way - just impose it on them by fiat.
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 12:31 am
As has been said repeatedly, rights are rights. You don't vote on them.

Wanna know how we handled it when it was "imposed on us" in Massachusetts?

"Hey, Adam and Steve, heard you got married. Congratulations! Say, I heard you guys got a 52" flat panel as a wedding present. Gonna invite us over to see the Sox whomp the Rays in game 2? Cool, see ya then. We'll bring the Buffalo wings."

The week after the ruling, the Boston Globe did an opinion poll. Around 60% supported the Mass Supreme Court's gay marriage decision.. The professional anti-gays fulminated. No one cared. In the next election, quiely, the electorate voted out just about all those legislators who'd loudly denounced it. Those legislators who supported gay marriage were reelected. That lesson wasn't lost on people who wanted office. A Globe columnist offered a $10,000 prize to anyone who could prove their marriage was threatened by gay marriage. To date there have been no claimants. We've still got the lowest divorce rate in the country, as opposed to all you Red Staters who're out shagging someone else and cheating on your spouse all the while you spout "family values".

We've had, what is it, three or four years of experience now. It's a non-issue.

And watch, Connecticut thinks just like us.
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 12:53 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

I guess that letting the people vote on a significant departure from historic norms isn't the liberal way - just impose it on them by fiat.


Nothing has been IMPOSED on you. There is no law that requires you to marry anyone. But if you choose to marry, you may marry a person of the opposite sex or a person of the same sex. If your neighbor marries someone of the same sex, why should you care? You should be elated that the State of Connecticut no longer allows discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
jespah
 
  2  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 07:40 am
@MontereyJack,
Yep. Gee, there's a woman in my office who's married to another woman (who does not work with us). I happen to be married to a man. I don't think my marriage affects hers any more than hers affects mine. The world has not gone careening off its axis.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 07:48 am
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I guess that letting the people vote on a significant departure from historic norms isn't the liberal way - just impose it on them by fiat.


Nothing has been IMPOSED on you. There is no law that requires you to marry anyone. But if you choose to marry, you may marry a person of the opposite sex or a person of the same sex. If your neighbor marries someone of the same sex, why should you care? You should be elated that the State of Connecticut no longer allows discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Not true. The court doesn't have the power to legislate. The court has ordered a major change to historical practices on which most people have some opinion. The people should have had some say in whether their government would start performing same sex marriage for the first time. This is supposed to be a democracy, right? However, letting the people have a say in the operation of their government is clearly not the liberal way. They've just imposed by fiat what they couldn't get the voters to agree to.
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 07:53 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:

As has been said repeatedly, rights are rights. You don't vote on them...

Actually, in this country, laws are supposed to be passed by elected members of legislatures. Would you be so good as to show me the passage in the Connecticul state constitution which says that same sex couples have the right to marry?
0 Replies
 
revel
 
  2  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 08:04 am
@Brandon9000,
This is sort of a silly argument coming from you Brandon. What about all the other equal rights out there that would not have become law unless a court said it would? Blacks would still have to sit in the back of the bus and drink out of different fountains and women and blacks couldn't vote.

Allowing gay marriages is merely restoring another civil liberty for American citizens. Gays are citizens too and they should have the right to get married if they want even if someone down the street don't think they should.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 08:27 am
@Brandon9000,
I say we vote on whether Brandon can continue to vote in elections.

All in favor say "Aye". The "Ayes" have it.


Too bad Brandon. It seems the voters have spoken. You don't get to vote any more. What you gonna do about it? Go cry to the courts?




Your argument is flawed Brandon. We don't allow the voters to decide everything in a constitutional democracy. I would have thought you knew that.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 09:08 am
@revel,
revel wrote:

This is sort of a silly argument coming from you Brandon. What about all the other equal rights out there that would not have become law unless a court said it would? Blacks would still have to sit in the back of the bus and drink out of different fountains and women and blacks couldn't vote.

Allowing gay marriages is merely restoring another civil liberty for American citizens. Gays are citizens too and they should have the right to get married if they want even if someone down the street don't think they should.

So, basically, you don't believe in democracy as a form of government. You and people who agree with you should have the right to make the laws, even if you can't get a majority.

The courts are supposed to enforce the laws as they are written, not as they wish they had been written.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 09:10 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

I say we vote on whether Brandon can continue to vote in elections.

All in favor say "Aye". The "Ayes" have it.


Too bad Brandon. It seems the voters have spoken. You don't get to vote any more. What you gonna do about it? Go cry to the courts?




Your argument is flawed Brandon. We don't allow the voters to decide everything in a constitutional democracy. I would have thought you knew that.

But we do allow the voters to elect congressmen who have the sole right to pass laws, thus the people, by proxy are passing the laws that they wish to live under. As to who gets to vote, if it comes down to you and me, it should probably be me, since at least I believe in the practice of voting.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 09:13 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon, given your position, how do you explain the Supreme Court's decision to award George W. Bush the presidency after the people had VOTED to give Al Gore over three million more votes than Bush received?

BBB
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 09:15 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon,

I am skeptical that you even believe the argument you are presenting. Conservatives flip-flop on the role of the court depending on the issue.

Case in point, the recent DC vs. Heller decision where the Court overturned gun control laws that were duly passed by the elected officials in the legislature.

Do you think it was wrong for the Court to protect the rights of DC residents in this way?

Please explain the hypocrisy here.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 09:19 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

Brandon, given your position, how do you explain the Supreme Court's decision to award George W. Bush the presidency after the people had VOTED to give Al Gore over three million more votes than Bush received?

BBB

First of all, I believe that the courts only have the right to interpret the law as it's written. Secondly, I'd have to read the Supreme Court opinion about the 2000 election to be able to tell if they enforced a written law or imposed their own opinion apart from the law, which would certainly be outside of their duties. One thing I find incredible is that you don't know that the law requried that presidential elections be decided based on electoral, not popular, votes.
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 09:23 am
@Brandon9000,
You are wrong and have not been paying attention to my political views and knowledge. I do know about the electoral college and have wanted to abolish it for decades.

Your response did not admit that the Supreme Court Republican majority took it upon itself to decide who should be president without legal or constutional basis.

BBB
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 09:23 am
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

Brandon,

I am skeptical that you even believe the argument you are presenting. Conservatives flip-flop on the role of the court depending on the issue.

Case in point, the recent DC vs. Heller decision where the Court overturned gun control laws that were duly passed by the elected officials in the legislature.

Do you think it was wrong for the Court to protect the rights of DC residents in this way?

Please explain the hypocrisy here.


In no case may the courts create law when it doesn't yet exist. This is elementary. If you believe that this decision constitutes an enforcement of a written law, then quote the passage to me from the Connecticut Constitution which says that gay marriages are a protected right. As I said, liberals just did an end run around the people, because many of them have no respect for the right of the people to determine their own government.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 09:25 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

You are wrong. I do know about the electoral college and have wanted to abolish it for decades.

Your response did not admit that the Supreme Court Republican majority took it upon itself to decide who should be president without legal or constutional basis.

BBB

I trust you know that the Supreme Court isn't in the business of enforcing the laws as you wish they existed, right? Their job is to enforce the laws as the they stand right now.

As for the Supreme Court actions in the 2000 elections, I guess you didn't read my answer, which was that I haven't read the court's decision, and so, don't know wether they enforced law or created law. If the latter, it would be wrong. Have you read their decision?
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 09:35 am
@Brandon9000,
Yes, I read their decision several time, something it appears you never took the time or interest to study because you were happy with their decision regardless of law or the constitution.

BBB
 

Related Topics

New York New York! - Discussion by jcboy
Prop 8? - Discussion by majikal
Gay Marriage - Discussion by blatham
Gay Marriage -- An Old Post Revisited - Discussion by pavarasra
Who doesn't back gay marriage? - Question by The Pentacle Queen
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Connecticut Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/16/2021 at 09:47:47