Connecticut Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage

In no case may the courts create law when it doesn't yet exist. This is elementary.

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

Quote:

In no case may the courts create law when it doesn't yet exist. This is elementary.

I would love to know where you get the term "create law when it doesn't exist yet". Is this conservative dogma... or did you make it up.

Of course the problem with phrases like this is that they can be applied however you like... Is it just a coincidence that conservatives want the court to protect the rights of gun owners, but not the rights of homosexuals?

I would be interested to hear you apply this "create law when it doesn't yet exist" standard to Brown v. Board of Education.

Obviously the Conn. SC did enforce the Constitution as written. Equal rights under law. It's the homophobes who realize equal rights are a given within the Constitution and so they feel the need to amend the Constitution.

No, do your own research.

BBB

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.

The issue presented by this case is
whether the state statutory prohibition against same
sex marriage violates the constitution of Connecticut.
The plaintiffs, eight same sex couples, commenced this
action, claiming that the state statutory prohibition
against same sex marriage violates their rights to substantive
due process and equal protection under the
state constitution. The trial court rendered summary
judgment in favor of the defendant state and local officials
upon determining that, because this state’s statutes
afford same sex couples the right to enter into a
civil union, which affords them the same legal rights
as marriage, the plaintiffs had not established a constitutionally
cognizable harm. We conclude that, in light
of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by
gay men and lesbians,1 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. We also conclude that (1) our state
scheme discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation,
(2) for the same reasons that classifications predicated
on gender are considered quasi-suspect for purposes
of the equal protection provisions of the United States
constitution, sexual orientation constitutes a quasi-suspect
classification for purposes of the equal protection
provisions of the state constitution, and, therefore, our
statutes discriminating against gay persons are subject
to heightened or intermediate judicial scrutiny, and (3)
the state has failed to provide sufficient justification
for excluding same sex couples from the institution of
marriage. In light of our determination that the state’s
disparate treatment of same sex couples is constitutionally
deficient under an intermediate level of scrutiny,
we do not reach the plaintiffs’ claims implicating a
stricter standard of review, namely, that sexual orientation
is a suspect classification, and that the state’s bar
against same sex marriage infringes on a fundamental
right in violation of due process and discriminates on
the basis of sex in violation of equal protection. In
accordance with our conclusion that the statutory
scheme impermissibly discriminates against gay persons
on account of their sexual orientation, we reverse
the trial court’s judgment and remand the case with
direction to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for summary
judgment.

Obviously the Conn. SC did enforce the Constitution as written. Equal rights under law. It's the homophobes who realize equal rights are a given within the Constitution and so they feel the need to amend the Constitution.

blueflame1 wrote:

Obviously the Conn. SC did enforce the Constitution as written. Equal rights under law. It's the homophobes who realize equal rights are a given within the Constitution and so they feel the need to amend the Constitution.

If it's so obvious as you say, it should be an easy matter for you to give me the section in the Connecticut Constitution which supports their decision.

the state’s bar
against same sex marriage infringes on a fundamental
right in violation of due process and discriminates on
the basis of sex in violation of equal protection.

ARTICLE V.

Section 20 of article first of the constitution is amended to read as follows: No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his or her civil or political rights because of religion, race, color, ancestry, national origin or sex.

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.

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.

I guess establishing "historic norms" by using intimidation and even violence is just the conservative way.

T
K
O

Brandon9000 wrote:

blueflame1 wrote:

Obviously the Conn. SC did enforce the Constitution as written. Equal rights under law. It's the homophobes who realize equal rights are a given within the Constitution and so they feel the need to amend the Constitution.

If it's so obvious as you say, it should be an easy matter for you to give me the section in the Connecticut Constitution which supports their decision.

From the ruling...

Quote:

the state’s bar
against same sex marriage infringes on a fundamental
right in violation of due process and discriminates on
the basis of sex in violation of equal protection.

From the state constitution

Quote:

ARTICLE V.

Section 20 of article first of the constitution is amended to read as follows: No person shall be denied the equal protection of the law nor be subjected to segregation or discrimination in the exercise or enjoyment of his or her civil or political rights because of religion, race, color, ancestry, national origin or sex.

Seems pretty simple and straight forward to me.

What you want is to amend the definition of marriage.

If you believe that the Connecticut court actually was enforcing the people's Constitution, quote the passage in it which protects gay marriage.

Like these once prevalent views, our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection. 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. 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.

We note that this case only addresses the state’s prohibition against
same sex marriage, a ban that we conclude violates the state constitution.
Our holding does not affect the recognition of civil unions in this state.