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 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
