Connecticut Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

We are not discussing laws which allow one thing to one group and forbid it to another group.

That is EXACTLY what we are discussing. We are looking at two classes of existing modern day couples who join together in committed relationships and form families:

1) opposite-sex couples in committed adult relationships; and

2) same-sex couples in committed adult relationships.

Although they are similarly situated, the persons in the first class may get married, but the persons in the second class may not. Thus, the persons in the second class who are EXCLUDED may apply to the courts for relief. Because marriage is a fundamental right, excluding gay couples from the right to marry must serve a compelling state interest.

What compelling state interest is served by denying gay couples the right to marry?

2 Replies

@Debra Law,

They have the "right" to marry. Just not to ones of the same sex.

This is not a legislative matter or a "rights" matter. This is a social issue.

Is this the type of thing you want in your society?

No one should be discriminated against. Any 2 people, regardless of sex, who want to enter into a contractual relationships that allows them to pass property, make medical decisions on behave of each other, etc...should be allowed to do so.

Under Debra's model, she is discriminating against same sex individuals who do NOT want to "marry".

1 Reply

@Woiyo9,

Woiyo9 wrote:

They have the "right" to marry. Just not to ones of the same sex.

If you're going to join the conversation, read up first. We've been there, done that. The argument holds no logical or legal water.

Woiyo9 wrote:

This is not a legislative matter or a "rights" matter. This is a social issue.

Is this the type of thing you want in your society?

In short: Yes.

I think my gay friends and co-workers should be able to have their romantic commitments recognized as a marriage.

Woiyo9 wrote:

No one should be discriminated against. Any 2 people, regardless of sex, who want to enter into a contractual relationships that allows them to pass property, make medical decisions on behave of each other, etc...should be allowed to do so.

But civil unions don't do that Woiyo9. They aren't always recognized from state to state, or they mean different things in terms of property inheritance etc.

This is textbook discrimination.

Woiyo9 wrote:

Under Debra's model, she is discriminating against same sex individuals who do NOT want to "marry".

Care to explain? I can't wait.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

a) I do not need to lectured ona post that has been going on far too long on an issue that most Americans have little interest in.

b)Since there are a few Americans who have a different opinion on the matter, why not let the citizens of this Nation voice their opinion on how they want to organize their society? If the decision is not to you rliking, you are free to move on.

c) If civil unions were recognized in all States, would you feel better? Same sex marriage is not recognized at the Federal level and on most States. So what if your point here?

d) I think the discrimination is obvious. Debra is only interested in protecting the property rights of gay people. What about straight people?

Feel free to start your name calling as you clearly are unwilling to debate this issue.

1 Reply

@Woiyo9,

Woiyo9 wrote:

a) I do not need to lectured ona post that has been going on far too long on an issue that most Americans have little interest in.

Say's who? You?

Woiyo9 wrote:

b)Since there are a few Americans who have a different opinion on the matter, why not let the citizens of this Nation voice their opinion on how they want to organize their society? If the decision is not to your liking, you are free to move on.

Why not? Because if we abandon the rights/privileges of the minority, the rights of the majority become trivial. It becomes a game of numbers and not liberty.

How about the notion that voting in something like this creates a internal conflict in our governing documents? How can these things both survive?

Woiyo9 wrote:

c) If civil unions were recognized in all States, would you feel better? Same sex marriage is not recognized at the Federal level and on most States. So what if your point here?

I'd feel better, but I still would feel it wasn't enough. History shows us the truth, separate is never equal. The state has no interest in forbidding gays from marrying.

Woiyo9 wrote:

d) I think the discrimination is obvious. Debra is only interested in protecting the property rights of gay people. What about straight people?

Straight people's rights are already established and in no way challenged by granting gays the right to marry.

Woiyo9 wrote:

Feel free to start your name calling as you clearly are unwilling to debate this issue.

Unwilling? I've been willing and debating. You've just shown up late to the prom. Stop posing.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

The error in the logic on the pro homosexual marriage position is that you think it is a legislative issue.

It is not.

It is a social issue.

So far, this society is unwilling to change it's structure to accommodate this minority position.

Precedent has already been established when the Utah territory was denied admission to the Union until it changed it's "social" makeup.

Should we allow polygamy?

1 Reply

@Woiyo9,

Woiyo9 wrote:

The error in the logic on the pro homosexual marriage position is that you think it is a legislative issue.

It is not.

It is a social issue.

It became a a legislative issue the second the anti-gay camp decided that the government needed to define marriage to exclude homosexuals. It is a legislative issue. Obviously. Legislation is being written and contested as we speak.

As for it as a social issue. If it was were that, then the majority has zero authority to assert their will. If that wasn't true, they wouldn't be using their majority to advance a legislative agenda.

Woiyo9 wrote:

So far, this society is unwilling to change it's structure to accommodate this minority position.

What structure are you referring? A married straight couple isn't required to make any changes to accommodate. None. Straight people aren't any less married if gays are allowed to marry each other.

Woiyo9 wrote:

Precedent has already been established when the Utah territory was denied admission to the Union until it changed it's "social" makeup.

Should we allow polygamy?

Let polygamy be judged by it's own merits. I'm not advocating polygamy. I'm indifferent to it. They aren't a two for one deal. Any legislative action in either direction regarding polygamy, I'd want to hear the argument for state's interests and why they want it or don't want it. Polygamy is more complex and compounds complexity as the number of people involved increases.

A distinction I can think of quite clearly is that a polygamist is not forced to marry more than one person and so as is the polygamist now has at least one more opportunity than the homosexual to marry a person of their own desire. The polygamist only runs into problems after the first spouse.

Polygamy also cannot be a true parallel to gay marriage/civil unions. One of the logistical issues that would be very different is the issue of inheritance, next of kin, and inter-spouse -to-spouse legal interactions. Each of those interactions, the state may find it has some interest it needs to look out for. That interest may be fiscal. It doesn't necessarily come down to social issues.

Beyond that, polygamy itself as a construct is more an alternative to marriage in the first place--by design no less. What kind of parallel institution do you offer the polygamists?

They aren't the same issue
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

We DO LEGISLATE social and moral issues in the country every day and have been for 200 years.

We have a tax system that in many ways assess tax based upon what we feel are "social norms". Sin Taxes are a good example of "legislating" social and moral issues. Establishing an age for a minor is another example.

Therefore, your argument has not convinced me that just because a govt defined marriage between 1 man and 1 woman, that constitutes this issue as legislative, not social. To the contrary, the gov't made it a social issue by legislating/defining it in law.

2 Replies

@Woiyo9,

Woiyo9 wrote:

We DO LEGISLATE social and moral issues in the country every day and have been for 200 years.

Our history demonstrates that the majority has often used the law to oppress disfavored minorities. Doing so is unconstitutional. The majority may not dictate "morals" unless doing so serves a legitimate state interest.

Consider "sodomy" laws. Sodomy is defined as any contact between the genitals of one person, and the mouth or anus of another. Does the State have any legitimate interest in prohibiting your wife from using her mouth to give you sexual pleasure? Does the State have any legitimate interest in dictating the "love making" acts that may or may not be performed between you and your wife in the privacy of your bedroom? Does the State have any legitimate interest whatsoever in making a law that prohibits sexual positions other than the "missionary" position simply because some people may believe other sexual positions are dirty or immoral?

Do you understand that there are some things that the MAJORITY may not impose upon INDIVIDUALS and MINORITIES through the operation of our laws under the guise of social engineering or policing morals?

0 Replies

@Woiyo9,

Woiyo9 wrote:

We DO LEGISLATE social and moral issues in the country every day and have been for 200 years.

We have a tax system that in many ways assess tax based upon what we feel are "social norms". Sin Taxes are a good example of "legislating" social and moral issues. Establishing an age for a minor is another example.

Therefore, your argument has not convinced me that just because a govt defined marriage between 1 man and 1 woman, that constitutes this issue as legislative, not social. To the contrary, the gov't made it a social issue by legislating/defining it in law.

Translation: We do legislate issues like this. We are legislating this issue. However, this is not a legislative issue.

This is the equivalent of saying that "it's not on fire, it's burning."

Since you bring up morals, I'd love to hear then what the moral angle is on this issue. How is it moral to oppress homosexuals?

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

Woiyo9 wrote:

We DO LEGISLATE social and moral issues in the country every day and have been for 200 years....

Translation: We do legislate issues like this. We are legislating this issue. However, this is not a legislative issue.

This is the equivalent of saying that "it's not on fire, it's burning."

Since you bring up morals, I'd love to hear then what the moral angle is on this issue. How is it moral to oppress homosexuals?

T
K
O

Good question.

Woiyo9, we're waiting for your response.

The term "morals" means principles with respect to right or wrong conduct.

It is wrong (immoral) for the majority to oppress individuals and minorities through the operation of our laws. This is the principle upon which our constitutional republic was founded.

Woiyo9, how is it moral to oppress homosexuals?

1 Reply

@Debra Law,

There is no oppression of homosexuals. Your are grossly exaggerating this issue as your side always seems to do what you can not convince the majority.

Homosexuals have every right to live together acquire property, create estates adopt children, share benefits. Where is the oppression?

Oh...you want to be able to be called "married". Well, so far this society is unwilling to recognize that union as a marriage. Deal with it.

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
We are not discussing laws which allow one thing to one group and forbid it to another group.

That is EXACTLY what we are discussing. We are looking at two classes of existing modern day couples who join together in committed relationships and form families:

1) opposite-sex couples in committed adult relationships; and

2) same-sex couples in committed adult relationships.

Although they are similarly situated, the persons in the first class may get married, but the persons in the second class may not. Thus, the persons in the second class who are EXCLUDED may apply to the courts for relief. Because marriage is a fundamental right, excluding gay couples from the right to marry must serve a compelling state interest.

What compelling state interest is served by denying gay couples the right to marry?

The point, obviously, is that the law permits all people to marry according to the traditional definition of marriage. You cannot point to any law which states something like "group A is permitted to do this, but group B is forbidden." No law containing such a directive exists. The gay people in question want to do something which no one is allowed to do. Therefore, no rights are being denied this group, since what they want to do is not considered a right for anyone.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

...
Brandon9000 wrote:
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.

This argument has ZERO legal basis. You keep posting it ad naseum as it it will be any true if you just keep repeating it.

The legal basis is that one cannot condemn a law as violating the 14th Amendment's equal protection mandate if that law is treating everyone equally. Prohibitions againts same sex marriage don't discriminate. The gay people in question are trying to do something which is forbidden equally to everyone. You cannot just declare that my interpretation has "zero legal basis" without referencing something or other in the law which would tend to indicate that it's not valid. I can declare that anything has "zero legal basis," but it's meaningless unless I can produce at least one example of something in the law that contradicts it.

Diest TKO wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
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.

If I had to trust you or a judge on the constitution, and "what it says" I'm going to trust the judge. Your opinion about what the constitution says is very incongruent with 2 centuries of legal precedent Brandon.

Perhaps you need to do some re-evaluating.

T
K
O

If there's 2 centuries of precedent, you should easily be able to locate a single example. So, show me a legal precedent which conflicts with my statement above that a court cannot validly claim a law says something which it doesn't actually say, and that if it does so, it's creating law.

0 Replies

Connecticut Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know