Connecticut Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage

I believe in the rule of law and the right of the voters to determine law.

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.

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>

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.

Brandon9000 wrote:

I believe in the rule of law and the right of the voters to determine law.

If you truly believe in the "rule of law," then you would educate yourself to understand that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. You should know that the supreme law of the land guarantees a republican form of government. Our form of government is NOT a pure democracy. A pure democracy (mob rule) was expressly rejected when this country was founded. Thus, contrary to your ignorant belief, the voters do NOT have the right to determine law.

In the Prop. 8 thread, I provided you with a link to the Federalist Papers. I provided you with an excerpt from Federalist Papers that discredits your uneducated belief. You make things up that have no foundation in fact or law. You refuse to educate yourself. You choose to remain ignorant.

Debra Law wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I believe in the rule of law and the right of the voters to determine law.

If you truly believe in the "rule of law," then you would educate yourself to understand that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. You should know that the supreme law of the land guarantees a republican form of government. Our form of government is NOT a pure democracy. A pure democracy (mob rule) was expressly rejected when this country was founded. Thus, contrary to your ignorant belief, the voters do NOT have the right to determine law.

In the Prop. 8 thread, I provided you with a link to the Federalist Papers. I provided you with an excerpt from Federalist Papers that discredits your uneducated belief. You make things up that have no foundation in fact or law. You refuse to educate yourself. You choose to remain ignorant.

And what part of the federal Consitution gives courts the right to create laws?

Obviously. I want to continue to use the definition that's alwats been used.

ehBeth wrote:

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>

Obviously. I want to continue to use the definition that's alwats been used.

Brandon9000 wrote:

ehBeth wrote:

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>

Obviously. I want to continue to use the definition that's alwats been used.

"One of the definitions that has been used" you mean.

"the" implies it is the only definition.
"always" implies that never has this definition been different.

Your statements RE: The history of homosexuals and marriage is consistently wrong.

T
K
O

Brandon9000 wrote:

Debra Law wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I believe in the rule of law and the right of the voters to determine law.

If you truly believe in the "rule of law," then you would educate yourself to understand that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. You should know that the supreme law of the land guarantees a republican form of government. Our form of government is NOT a pure democracy. A pure democracy (mob rule) was expressly rejected when this country was founded. Thus, contrary to your ignorant belief, the voters do NOT have the right to determine law.

In the Prop. 8 thread, I provided you with a link to the Federalist Papers. I provided you with an excerpt from Federalist Papers that discredits your uneducated belief. You make things up that have no foundation in fact or law. You refuse to educate yourself. You choose to remain ignorant.

And what part of the federal Consitution gives courts the right to create laws?

Non-sequitur. If the court was to say prop8 was unlawful, it would be resolving a internal constitutional discrepancy not creating a new law.

You ramble about judicial legislation, but obviously don't care to educate yourself about the issues involved here.

T
K
O

Okay, let's see who's right. Please mention one example of a country that issued licenses for same sex marriages before, say, thirty years ago.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Okay, let's see who's right. Please mention one example of a country that issued licenses for same sex marriages before, say, thirty years ago.

okay, bunny, you're really hopping down the wrong trail now.

Marriage licences are a comparatively new piece of business* in the history of relationships/partnerships.

Marriages/relationships/partnerships existed for centuries before there were licenses. Same sex or otherwise.



*business as in show business

ehBeth wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Okay, let's see who's right. Please mention one example of a country that issued licenses for same sex marriages before, say, thirty years ago.

okay, bunny, you're really hopping down the wrong trail now.

Marriage licences are a comparatively new piece of business* in the history of relationships/partnerships.

Marriages/relationships/partnerships existed for centuries before there were licenses. Same sex or otherwise.



*business as in show business

DTKO seems to be claiming that the definition of marriage has included same sex couples in the past, and I have the right to request an example.

The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for same-sex couples occurs during the Roman Empire. A number of marriages are recorded to have taken place during this period. [11] In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal.

Theodosian Code 9.8.3: "When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in womanly fashion {quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam), what does he wish, when sex has lost all its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment.

Debra Law wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I believe in the rule of law and the right of the voters to determine law.

If you truly believe in the "rule of law," then you would educate yourself to understand that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. You should know that the supreme law of the land guarantees a republican form of government. Our form of government is NOT a pure democracy. A pure democracy (mob rule) was expressly rejected when this country was founded. Thus, contrary to your ignorant belief, the voters do NOT have the right to determine law.

In the Prop. 8 thread, I provided you with a link to the Federalist Papers. I provided you with an excerpt from Federalist Papers that discredits your uneducated belief. You make things up that have no foundation in fact or law. You refuse to educate yourself. You choose to remain ignorant.

And what part of the federal Consitution gives courts the right to create laws?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Debra Law wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

I believe in the rule of law and the right of the voters to determine law.

If you truly believe in the "rule of law," then you would educate yourself to understand that the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land. You should know that the supreme law of the land guarantees a republican form of government. Our form of government is NOT a pure democracy. A pure democracy (mob rule) was expressly rejected when this country was founded. Thus, contrary to your ignorant belief, the voters do NOT have the right to determine law.

In the Prop. 8 thread, I provided you with a link to the Federalist Papers. I provided you with an excerpt from Federalist Papers that discredits your uneducated belief. You make things up that have no foundation in fact or law. You refuse to educate yourself. You choose to remain ignorant.

And what part of the federal Consitution gives courts the right to create laws?

....If you assert that voters have the right to determine the law, then you should substantiate your assertion. What part of the federal constitution do you rely upon to substantiate your assertion that voters have the right to make laws that violate the manifest tenor of the constitution?

....The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution provides, "No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

The Constitution clearly prohibits elected state legislative bodies (or state voters through the initiative process) from making any law that denies to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

If you educated yourself, then you would know that our framers established a constitutional republic complete with checks and balances to secure individual rights to life, liberty, property, and equal protection of the laws. It is the constitutional duty of the courts to decide cases and controversies. Any person injured or harmed by discriminatory laws may apply to the courts for relief. It is the duty of the courts to declare VOID all acts that violate the manifest tenor of the Constitution.

Thus, when a court complies with its constitutional duty and declares a law void for violating the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws, the court is enforcing the constitution. The court is not creating laws.

The voters have the right to elect legislators, with whom they are in general philosophical agreement, to make law.

In general, government is supposed to depend on the consent of the governed.

A law or policy which defines, either explicitly or implicitly, marriage as being between a man and a woman is not discriminatory, because it applies equally to everyone. We are not discussing laws which allow one thing to one group and forbid it to another group. Not allowing people to do whatever they want isn't discrimination, unless there is a law which permits one group of people to do something which it forbids to another group.

The court is creating laws when it claims that the law in question says something which it doesn't say, purely in order to enforce its members own, personal philosophies.