i am glad the courts are starting to reject the radical right wing view of the world .
On Oct 11, 6:12 am, rigsy03 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I hope these gay couples wear wedding rings. Time to sift through > those attractive males/females with some assurance of unavailabilty. > > On Oct 11, 4:08 am, "[ the last patriotic Republican ]" > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Gay Marriage Is Ruled Legal in > > Connecticuthttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/nyregion/11marriage.html?th&emc=th > > 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. > > > “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,” Justice Palmer declared. > > “To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of > > constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others.” > > > The ruling was groundbreaking in various respects. In addition to > > establishing Connecticut as the third state to sanction same-sex > > marriage, it was the first state high court ruling to hold that civil > > union statutes specifically violated the equal protection clause of a > > state constitution. The Massachusetts high court held in 2004 that > > same-sex marriages were legal, while California’s court decision in > > May related to domestic partnerships and not the more broadly defined > > civil unions. > > > The Connecticut decision, which elicited strong dissenting opinions > > from three justices, also opened the door to marriage a bit wider for > > gay couples in New York, where state laws do not provide for same-sex > > marriages or civil unions, although Gov. David A. Paterson recently > > issued an executive order requiring government agencies to recognize > > same-sex marriages performed in other states. > > > The opinion in Connecticut was hailed by jubilant gay couples and > > their advocates as a fulfillment of years of hopes and dreams. Hugs, > > kisses and cheers greeted eight same-sex couples as they entered the > > ballroom at the Hartford Hilton, where four years ago they had > > announced they would file a lawsuit seeking marriage licenses. > > > One of those couples, Joanne Mock, 53, and her partner, Elizabeth > > Kerrigan, 52, stood with their twin 6-year-old sons, choking back > > tears of joy and gratitude. Another plaintiff, Garret Stack, 59, > > introduced his partner, John Anderson, 63, and said: “For 28 years we > > have been engaged. We can now register at Home Depot and prepare for > > marriage.” > > > Religious and conservative groups called the ruling an outrage but not > > unexpected, and spoke of steps to enact a constitutional ban on gay > > marriage. Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute > > of Connecticut, blamed “robed masters” and “philosopher kings” on the > > court. “This is about our right to govern ourselves,” he said. “It is > > bigger than gay marriage.” > > > But the state, a principal defendant in the lawsuit, appeared to be > > resigned to the outcome. > > > Gov. M. Jodi Rell said that she disagreed with the decision, but would > > uphold it. “The Supreme Court has spoken,” she said. “I do not believe > > their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. > > However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this > > decision, either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution, > > will not meet with success.” > > > Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said his office was reviewing the > > decision to determine whether laws and procedures will have to be > > revised — local officials will issue marriage licenses to gay couples > > without question, for example — but he offered no challenge and said > > it would soon be implemented. > > > 1 2 Next Page- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
