Gay Marriage Ruled Legal in CT

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/nyregion/11marriage.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

A sharply divided Connecticut Supreme Court struck down the state’s civil union law on Friday and ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Connecticut thus joins Massachusetts and California as the only states to have legalized gay marriages.

The ruling, which cannot be appealed and is to take effect on Oct. 28, held that a state law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, and a civil union law intended to provide all the rights and privileges of marriage to same-sex couples, violated the constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law.

Striking at the heart of discriminatory traditions in America, the court — in language that often rose above the legal landscape into realms of social justice for a new century — recalled that laws in the not-so-distant past barred interracial marriages, excluded women from occupations and official duties, and relegated blacks to separate but supposedly equal public facilities.

“Like these once prevalent views, our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection,” Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote for the majority in a 4-to-3 decision that explored the nature of homosexual identity, the history of societal views toward homosexuality and the limits of gay political power compared with that of blacks and women.

...

Just click the link for the rest. Excellent news, I'd say. Hopefully California will vote against Prop 8 come November, too.

[lesqueletterouge]

Hopefully California will vote against Prop 8 come November, too.

I am. Just got my voter pamphlet today.

[TygressVirgo]

I can't believe some of teh things they use against prop 8 . . .

[Plekto]

Now, students - let's turn to page 134. It mentions separation of religion and state. Can someone tell me what this means?
***

Seriously. Our government has no business with making laws like this OR making laws against it as well. Just stay the hell out of our personal lives. Do not legislate religious matters, morality, or tell me what I can or can't do with my own body.

Honestly, the only thing that should exist for ALL couples as far as the government is concerned should be a civil union. If their religion that they may or may not be part of wants to call it a marriage, well, so be it.

[l337moomoo]

Just to toss it out there, I am definitely voting no on Prop 8.

[Kaji]

As I see it, all men gay or straight have the right to be able to marry a woman, and likewise all women have the right to marry a man, hence there is no inequality. I'm putting in a vote for prop 8.

[whispering]

As I see it, all men gay or straight have the right to be able to marry a woman, and likewise all women have the right to marry a man, hence there is no inequality. I'm putting in a vote for prop 8.

Id like point out the flaws in your reasoning, if they werent so bloody obvious :blank:

[nanashi]

..Ditto. That was just a bunch of lol. wtf. right there.


Anyway, good on Connecticut. Is that 3 or 4 states that have accepted gay marriage? They keep changing their mind so it's hard to keep up.

[Hikoku-Y]

As I see it, all men gay or straight have the right to be able to marry a woman, and likewise all women have the right to marry a man, hence there is no inequality. I'm putting in a vote for prop 8.

Fourty years ago, this is how the story went: "As I see it, a black man has the right to marry a black woman, and a white man has the right to marry a white woman, hence there is no inequality."

[archdukezeb]

Men marrying men, women marrying women?? Oh the inhumanity!!


How does this really effect anybody besides the gay people that want to get married. If they want to get married, than screw it let them get married. Who actually wastes their time trying to get people from getting married.

I can picture you anti gay marriage people now

"if anybody has a reason these two should not be wed speak now or forever hold..."

"Objection!"

(everyone gasps)

"THEY BOTH HAVE PENISES!!!"

[Fermented Yeast Paste]

As I see it, all men gay or straight have the right to be able to marry a woman, and likewise all women have the right to marry a man, hence there is no inequality. I'm putting in a vote for prop 8.
Care to give a good reason for voting for Prop 8 that doesn't make you sound like a bigot?

[h2orowe]

There is no good reason to support prop 8 other than bigotry. It actually slightly helps California's economy because more people will be spending money on getting married since there will be a whole new group of people being allowed to be married.

I think Kaji is just a troll. Honestly, there are very few conservatives on OP9 and even then, they're usually not as, uh, how do you say, backwards as this guy.

The whole prop 8 shit has one valid point. It wasn't officially voted for or anything to allow gay marriage. Four judges, I think in San Francisco, just overturned it and now gays can marry (which in my opinion is faaaaaabulous news.) However, before, it was banned (which comes as a surprise since this is California and not Alabama.)

Now, a lot of the commercials for prop 8 seem to focus on something that really irritates me. Kids learning about gay marriage. This one commercial I saw last night was a little girl going up to her mom and saying something along the lines of "Mom, today in school I learned I can marry a prince or a princess." which just sounds silly; everyone knows there's no princes or princesses in California (I had to learn the hard way.)

Then another argument I've heard is that people "don't mind" gays, they just don't want to see them kissing in public. How the hell is that an argument against marriage? The kiss the bride thing? What the hell kind of logic is that? This isn't Puritanafornia. Many people have plenty of sex before marriage, let alone kissing. It's not like when you get married, all of a sudden you're prone to making out in public more; if anything, I'd think it'd be the opposite.

Kaji, without citing the bible as a reason, tell us why you don't want gays to marry without saying something along the lines of "LOL I HATE FAGGOTS." Just for the record anyway, Jesus says nothing in the bible for or against homosexuality.

[Beowulf]

Louis CK is always relevant. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPvVnrV1tow)

[Trump]

I don't really want to see anyone kissing .... like that in public. That's something you do in private regardless of who makes up the two people.

[nanashi]

Now, a lot of the commercials for prop 8 seem to focus on something that really irritates me. Kids learning about gay marriage. This one commercial I saw last night was a little girl going up to her mom and saying something along the lines of "Mom, today in school I learned I can marry a prince or a princess." which just sounds silly; everyone knows there's no princes or princesses in California (I had to learn the hard way.)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4 This commercial??

But you can't let the gay people marry! That means they'll get free will and convert the little kiddies into their agenda. Next thing you know, people will have premaritial sex, doubt religion, or maybe even find it ludicrous to pay for their own rape kits. :eyepop:

[sOkU]

I'm actually voting no on prop 8 but responses on this thread are funny as hell - especially plekto's.

[haterllnation]

If you voted no on Proposition 24, you'd probably vote no on Proposition 8.

[Citizen]

..Ditto. That was just a bunch of lol. wtf. right there.


Anyway, good on Connecticut. Is that 3 or 4 states that have accepted gay marriage? They keep changing their mind so it's hard to keep up.

California, Massachusetts and Connecticut

[Jetsetlemming]

Care to give a good reason for voting for Prop 8 that doesn't make you sound like a bigot?
I can think of at least one I've heard used that instead makes you sound like a sociopathic piece of shit, if that helps.

I think Kaji is just a troll. Honestly, there are very few conservatives on OP9 and even then, they're usually not as, uh, how do you say, backwards as this guy.

Lol

[Citizen]

Hey guys let's answer intolerence with intolerence we're so much smarter and better than people who don't agree with us lol how i shot strawman and conjecture and ad hominem?

[Plekto]

I'm actually voting no on prop 8 but responses on this thread are funny as hell - especially plekto's.

I know it sounds like I was getting all Libertarian Curmudgeon on it there for effect, but I really do believe that. Separation of Church and State wasn't just about keeping the two political institutions apart, but it went to a deeper problem as far as the people who founded this nation were concerned. That the State should govern and the Church(es) should deal with morality and religion.

Legislating morality or preaching laws both end up with equally disastrous outcomes.

Plus, honestly... aren't there more important things to deal with than crap like this?

[Roxie]

We skyped about this the other night. I seriously cannot understand how someone can really vote for this.
One of the judges used the same "reasoning" as Kaji, which is absolutely ludicrous.

Hikoku-Y is correct in his assessment. All the arguments I've seen against legalize gay marriage are very similar to, if not exactly the same as the ones that were tried against interracial marriage. These new arguments (that are the old arguments) are just as flawed and as bigoted as they were before.

[SlickWilly440]

I'm voting for Prop 8 b/c they won't let first cousins get married. So if a man can't marry his first female cousins, then neither can they.

[Fred]

Although I agree with Plekto that it is important to separate State and Church issues, I don’t think the definition of marriage is entirely a “Church” issue.

Marriage laws in the US are almost exclusively governed by State law. However, there are federal statutes which rely on marital status to determine federal rights and benefits. This is the primary reason why I think the federal government should define marriage.

That said, the federal government already has defined marriage and I don’t like how they defined it. I am referring to the federal marriage act (Federal Defense of Marriage Act – 1996), signed by Clinton, that defines marriage as a “legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife” This act also specifies that States can disregard same-sex marriages performed in other States.

I think this definition is unconstitutional based on the 14th amendment:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. 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.”

[qwert]

Now, students - let's turn to page 134. It mentions separation of religion and state. Can someone tell me what this means?
***

Seriously. Our government has no business with making laws like this OR making laws against it as well. Just stay the hell out of our personal lives. Do not legislate religious matters, morality, or tell me what I can or can't do with my own body.

Honestly, the only thing that should exist for ALL couples as far as the government is concerned should be a civil union. If their religion that they may or may not be part of wants to call it a marriage, well, so be it.

I think the history goes

Once a government deal --> gov. handed over to church --> but still handled by the government so thus conflict.

I like to think of this as more of the gov. taking back something that is rightfully theirs and not letting the church bullies dictate what they do.

[Plekto]

Although I agree with Plekto that it is important to separate State and Church issues, I don’t think the definition of marriage is entirely a “Church” issue.

Marriage laws in the US are almost exclusively governed by State law. However, there are federal statutes which rely on marital status to determine federal rights and benefits. This is the primary reason why I think the federal government should define marriage.

But they do have laws about civil unions, which as I suggested, should be all they cover and deal with. Some religions don't actually HAVE a codified concept like Marriage, as well. Everyone can have a civil union. And that's all they they have. But the religiously charged term "Marriage" is purely a societal and religious one(or should be).

[Roxie]

It is not purely religious. It's on your legal certificate.

[erbiumfiber]

I understand what Plekto is trying to say and I kind of agree. I know that, currently, marriage certificates do say "marriage" but it could be made more neutral- some kind of term like "union." I think it would make everyone happier. Then everyone has the same kind of "civil union" and the more emotionally-charged term "marriage" could be reserved for private (not state-endorsed) commitments.

That's kind of what happens in countries like Japan (not an expert here but it seems that everyone goes down and gets a registration of a union, no vows or anything, no ceremony required). So you get registered (yes, only a man and a woman can do this) and then any religious ceremony is totally optional (yes, a religious ceremony is optional in the US but you do go through vows of some kind that seem to be mostly based on religious vows).

So just go register your union, no emotionally-charged vows, no ceremony. Then do what you like privately.

Yes, I realize it's not going to happen that way but I do think it would be lot more neutral and keep quasi-religious issues out of the joining together (legally) of two partners (of whatever gender).

[Plekto]

Exactly. Then you can effectively be joined together, but whether you can call yourself "married" - well, that would be more of a religious thing. Like calling yourself a follower of a religion or other group.

The thing most of the religious types who have a problem with this can't seem to get past is that the real issue here isn't stepping on your religious toes or offending you, but that there isn't a civil union in most states that carries exactly the same weight as a marriage. They just want equal *legal* rights, the same as anyone else(and according to The Constitution, are entitled to).

But they all see "Gay" and "Marriage" in the same sentence and their eyes glass over. It's all about having buttons and certain trigger phrases and words with them.

[Fred]

That makes sense to me.

The outcome I want is for the Federal government to stop distinguishing between different-gender and same-gender “marriages”.

I would not object if the Federal government abolished the use of the word “marriage” all together in its statutes and used something like “civil union”

[Roxie]

I understand what Plekto is trying to say and I kind of agree. I know that, currently, marriage certificates do say "marriage" but it could be made more neutral- some kind of term like "union." I think it would make everyone happier. Then everyone has the same kind of "civil union" and the more emotionally-charged term "marriage" could be reserved for private (not state-endorsed) commitments.

That's kind of what happens in countries like Japan (not an expert here but it seems that everyone goes down and gets a registration of a union, no vows or anything, no ceremony required). So you get registered (yes, only a man and a woman can do this) and then any religious ceremony is totally optional (yes, a religious ceremony is optional in the US but you do go through vows of some kind that seem to be mostly based on religious vows).

So just go register your union, no emotionally-charged vows, no ceremony. Then do what you like privately.

Yes, I realize it's not going to happen that way but I do think it would be lot more neutral and keep quasi-religious issues out of the joining together (legally) of two partners (of whatever gender).
But it's kind of like that now..Except for the fact that it's called a marriage license. You get married at the courthouse. As fair as I know, you don't have to exchange vows--and if you do you can write your own.

Why make it some "nuetral" term? Marriage is legal. Anything in addition to the legal recognition is a marriage ceremony

[Plekto]

Because while marriage is the same across the nation, pretty much, civil unions are a complete cobbled together hodge-podge from state to state.

[sOkU]

I know it sounds like I was getting all Libertarian Curmudgeon on it there for effect, but I really do believe that. Separation of Church and State wasn't just about keeping the two political institutions apart, but it went to a deeper problem as far as the people who founded this nation were concerned. That the State should govern and the Church(es) should deal with morality and religion.

Legislating morality or preaching laws both end up with equally disastrous outcomes.

What I am getting at is that you do realize that pretty much ALL laws legislate morality, right?

And to say "legislating morality is bad" (in essence) is rather disenegenous, because after all, you want to legislate the morality that you agree with.

Plus, honestly... aren't there more important things to deal with than crap like this?

Yes, there are. On that I agree.