7
   

Connecticut Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage

 
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 09:36 am
@Brandon9000,
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.

blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 09:38 am
@Brandon9000,
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.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 09:38 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

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

Statements about me personally have nothing to do with the argument, unless you want to argue by distraction. I don't want to get too far distracted about some other decision, like the one concerning the 2000 election, which, be it a good one or a bad one, would mainly serve to distract attention from this topic. Could you please quote for me the section of the Connecticut State Constitution which protects the right to have the state perform gay marriages?
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 09:41 am
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

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.


I know you wish to get me off the subject of this particular court decision, but I won't comply. If you believe that the Connecticut court actually was enforcing the people's Constitution, quote the passage in it which protects gay marriage.
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 09:41 am
@Brandon9000,
No, do your own research.

BBB
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 09:42 am
@blueflame1,
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.
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 09:42 am
@BumbleBeeBoogie,
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

No, do your own research.

BBB

So, you cannot quote the passage, because it doesn't exist.

Next.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 09:51 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon,

I am accusing you of hypocrisy.

Your "legal opinion" on the ruling is based far more on your conservative political view on the subject than on any "legal theory".

It is clear you don't think that homosexuals should have the right to marry. It is fine for you to disagree with the court.

But you are pretending that this has to do not with your own prejudice, but with some legal principle that applies to this case but not to cases with rules that fit your world view.

This is nothing but hypocrisy.

rabel22
 
  2  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 09:57 am
@ebrown p,
Agree!
0 Replies
 
blueflame1
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 10:07 am
@Brandon9000,
WE DECLARE

Sec. 1. All men when they form a social compact, are equal in
rights; http://www.harbornet.com/rights/connecti.txt
0 Replies
 
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 10:40 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

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 court does have the power to apply the supreme law of the state--the state constitution--to a case or controversy. The state constitution, being supreme, trumps a mere state statute enacted by the state legislature. Here is the court opinion:

Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health

This is an 85 page decision. Here is the introduction:

Quote:
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.


Brandon: You should read the entire case. You might benefit from the educational value that comes with reading the entire case and making an effort to understand the court's reasoning. Just click on the link:

Kerrigan v. Commissioner of Public Health



0 Replies
 
DontTreadOnMe
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 02:12 pm
@blueflame1,
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.


so much for strict constructionism. and here i thought those guys detested the idea that the constitution is a living document.

btw, what happened to the conservative thing about state's rights?

c'mon guys. pick one and go with it. when you hop back and forth about it based on what you do or do not approve of, it makes you look like a... umm, there's a word for that...

it's right on the tip of my tongue.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 06:54 pm
@Brandon9000,
One only needs to read the ruling to find out the justification by the courts.

But then it seems you prefer to argue from ignorance.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 11 Oct, 2008 07:02 pm
@Brandon9000,
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.
Debra Law
 
  1  
Reply Sun 12 Oct, 2008 03:12 pm
Brandon is taking his time reading the opinion....
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 08:45 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.

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

T
K
O
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 10:38 am
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO 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.

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

T
K
O

Well, it's not my way, and I wouldn't say that it's the conservative way. I believe in the rule of law and the right of the voters to determine law.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 10:42 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

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.

I hadn't seen that you had responded. It's a big board. Who is being denied equal protection by a state policy of not issuing marriage licenses for same sex couples? Where is this case where one person is allowed something that another person is denied? I am unaware of it. Every person is allowed at the legal age to marry another person of the opposite sex. Everyone is being treated precisely the same. What you want is to amend the definition of marriage.
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 10:45 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
What you want is to amend the definition of marriage.


What you want is for your definition to be the preferred one. <shrug>
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 11:16 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
If you believe that the Connecticut court actually was enforcing the people's Constitution, quote the passage in it which protects gay marriage.


Actually, it's very simple: the highest court of the State of Connecticut said it quite clear, understandable even for these without an academical degree in jurisprudence:

Quote:
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.


Quote:
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.
 

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
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/27/2021 at 05:49:25