Another State Legalizes gay Marriage

[woad&fangs]

Conneticut this time....

link

I didn't even know they were debating it

Anyway's it makes me happy. So what do you guys think? Is the # of legalizing states going to snowball or is it going to be confined to staunch blue states like the current 3?

[m52nickerson]

I think for awhile it will be confined. The pull point will be when a other states do not recognize these marriages. That is the issue that may drive it to the supreme court.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Conneticut this time....

link

I didn't even know they were debating it

Anyway's it makes me happy. So what do you guys think? Is the # of legalizing states going to snowball or is it going to be confined to staunch blue states like the current 3?

Debate??!!! No, No, No. That's not how it works anymore. They did debate it when they decided in favor of civil unions a few years ago in order to keep marriage between one man and one woman.

The current decision was by the Supreme Court of the State who has decreed that the people of CT shouldn't have the power to decide things that the court has a strong opinion of.

The only State to legitimately allow Gay Marriages is Mass. Others only allow it because the courts decided to overturn the law.

[m52nickerson]

Debate??!!! No, No, No. That's not how it works anymore. They did debate it when they decided in favor of civil unions a few years ago in order to keep marriage between one man and one woman.

The current decision was by the Supreme Court of the State who has decreed that the people of CT shouldn't have the power to decide things that the court has a strong opinion of.

The thing is a vote of the people only trumps a state constitution when that vote adds an amendment. In this case it did not.

[ICantSpellDawg]

The thing is a vote of the people only trumps a state constitution when that vote adds an amendment. In this case it did not.

Shame on them for thinking the amendment wasn't necessary, eh? It's funny how some people can say "I don't want an amendment, but I want marriage to remain between one man and one woman.". This should show them that that outcome isn't realistic.

Make up your minds or the Supreme Court will make it up for you. It will be nearly impossible to undo their decision once it has been made.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Another session of legislation from the court. Great. Constitution be darned, let's rule based on what we want to be!

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The purpose of the courts is to interpret the law and the constitution. They did that. The people have the power to overturn it by amending the constitution. This is how america works

[ICantSpellDawg]

The funny thing is that Slavery - arguably the most egregious breach of human rights and dignity was never ruled as unconstitutional. They recognized that it was acceptable during the writing of the Constitution and thereby acceptable practice. It took a few amendments to push black rights into the Constitution as it should have. They did it the right way because they recognized that the Constitution IS the perception that governs our legal reality.

If they had added an amendment FOR gay marriage or abortion, I would disagree, but I would understand. The current practices are so far beyond the ideals enshrined in the Constitution that it is laughable. They make a mockery of everything the Document stands for. We could probably hook up a few wires under the oldest cemetery in America and power every power grid in the world from all of the perpetually rolling caskets.

The Supreme court has become a modern version of The Oracle. "Truths are constantly revealing themselves to us that illuminate the TRUE meaning of the Constitution!"

[m52nickerson]

The purpose of the courts is to interpret the law and the constitution. They did that. The people have the power to overturn it by amending the constitution. This is how america works

Exactly!

Making laws are much easier then amending a constitution, so it is easier to pass unfair laws. The state's and US constitutions protect us from quickly passed laws and regulations.

[m52nickerson]

The funny thing is that Slavery - arguably the most egregious breach of human rights and dignity was never ruled as unconstitutional. They recognized that it was acceptable during the writing of the Constitution and thereby acceptable practice. It took a few amendments to push black rights into the Constitution as it should have. They did it the right way because they recognized that the Constitution IS the perception that governs our legal reality.

If they had added an amendment FOR gay marriage or abortion, I would disagree, but I would understand. The current practices are so far beyond the ideals enshrined in the Constitution that it is laughable. They make a mockery of everything the Document stands for. We could probably hook up a few wires under the oldest cemetery in America and power every power grid in the world from all of the perpetually rolling caskets.

The Supreme court has become a modern version of The Oracle. "Truths are constantly revealing themselves to us that illuminate the TRUE meaning of the Constitution!"

In Connecticut the state constitution guarantees equal protection for all people under the law. Not the separate but equal civil unions, but equal.

Not only that, but if you do not allow some liberal churches to perform gay marriages is than not taking peoples right to religious freedom away?

[ICantSpellDawg]

Not only that, but if you do not allow some liberal churches to perform gay marriages is than not taking peoples right to religious freedom away?

What are you talking about? You believe that the law against gay marriage impacts the ability of religious institutions to perform gay marriages?

[PanzerJaeger]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

That's one unfortunate looking woman.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

That's one unfortunate looking woman.

She's actually a well know model

[m52nickerson]

What are you talking about? You believe that the law against gay marriage impacts the ability of religious institutions to perform gay marriages?

If a church preforms a standard marriage it is recognized as legal, if people had the license. Another church performs a gay marriage a state may not recognize the marriage as legal. I believe in some states if a priest/pastor preforms a marriage without a license they can loss the ability to marry people.

What about the fact that two people of the same sex can't marry is sexually discrimination. The only reason they can't marry is because of there gender. Sounds like sexual discrimination.

What about the fact that allowing Gay couples to marry will not affect you or me, or anyone else. So much fro freedoms.

I don't understand how at this point this can even be an issue. Please explain to me why Gay couples should not be given the same rights as straight couples?

[ICantSpellDawg]

If a church preforms a standard marriage it is recognized as legal, if people had the license. Another church performs a gay marriage a state may not recognize the marriage as legal. I believe in some states if a priest/pastor preforms a marriage without a license they can loss the ability to marry people.

What about the fact that two people of the same sex can't marry is sexually discrimination. The only reason they can't marry is because of there gender. Sounds like sexual discrimination.

What about the fact that allowing Gay couples to marry will not affect you or me, or anyone else. So much fro freedoms.

I don't understand how at this point this can even be an issue. Please explain to me why Gay couples should not be given the same rights as straight couples?

Gay marriage diminishes marriage in general. I withdraw my support for state sanctioned marriage if gay marriage exists. We should have a national discussion about what marriage in is and what it is not.

[m52nickerson]

Gay marriage diminishes marriage in general. I withdraw my support for state sanctioned marriage if gay marriage exists. We should have a national discussion about what marriage in is and what it is not.

How does it diminish marriage in general? Why would you withdraw your support, are you a bigot?

Letting two people of the same sex marry id not going to affect your marriage, or any one else's, because marriage means something different to each couple.

Tuff, I doubt you are a bigot. You are more likely holding on to some feeling that being gay is somehow wrong.

[woad&fangs]

please don't bandy about words like "bigot". Tuff is certainly not one.

[m52nickerson]

please don't bandy about words like "bigot". Tuff is certainly not one.

I say I did not think he was one. I was using that word to try and get Tuff to really look at why he is against something that will not affect him in any way.

[Koga No Goshi]

Conneticut this time....

link

I didn't even know they were debating it

Anyway's it makes me happy. So what do you guys think? Is the # of legalizing states going to snowball or is it going to be confined to staunch blue states like the current 3?

Thumbs up, welcome to the club Connecticut!

*California, here*

Edit: That didn't express my sentiment well enough.

WELCOME, CONNECTICUT! Glad to have ya.

[ICantSpellDawg]

How does it diminish marriage in general? Why would you withdraw your support, are you a bigot?

Letting two people of the same sex marry id not going to affect your marriage, or any one else's, because marriage means something different to each couple.

Tuff, I doubt you are a bigot. You are more likely holding on to some feeling that being gay is somehow wrong.

If a State wants gay marriage, I believe that they can legislate the change.

I my view is that homosexuality is a fetish. I do not believe that there is anything inherent about it. My opposition to supreme court decisions that repeal laws is different. I hate the idea of making things up about constitutions - projecting morality into them that is not there.

Here are two examples of laws that can be viewed as unconstitutional:
A. Miscegenation laws were clearly unconstitutional after the adoption of the 14th amendment, but not before.

B.Women had been citizens since the nations inception - yet they required the 19th amendment in order to get the right to vote - no court should have overturned laws that did not allow women to vote until after that amendment was ratified.

The current trend in the judicial system is radical and unacceptable. It is clearly far outside of the jurisdiction that the founding fathers had envisioned and should cease. If you want something put into the Constitution you should go for it, but we have a process that I trust much more than making things up and disenfranchising the electorate.

[PanzerJaeger]

She's actually a well know model

Doubt it, but either way, my post still stands.

[Koga No Goshi]

If a State wants gay marriage, I believe that they can legislate the change.

You're against it as a matter of principle, though. Would you really feel any better about it if it were legislated?

I my view is that homosexuality is a fetish.

You're wrong. Can't really say it better than that. You are entitled to your opinion but I've known a lot of gay people and I'll take their word on the nature of being gay over a straight person's.

The current trend in the judicial system is radical and unacceptable. It is clearly far outside of the jurisdiction that the founding fathers had envisioned and should cease. If you want something put into the Constitution you should go for it, but we have a process that I trust much more than making things up and disenfranchising the electorate.

I believe existing Constitutional rights already reflect the rights of gay people to pursue happiness and form families. It is the people who want to encode a removal of rights for a specific part of the population who go after a Constitutional Amendment.

[m52nickerson]

If a State wants gay marriage, I believe that they can legislate the change.

I my view is that homosexuality is a fetish. I do not believe that there is anything inherent about it. My opposition to supreme court decisions that repeal laws is different. I hate the idea of making things up about constitutions - projecting morality into them that is not there.

Here are two examples of laws that can be viewed as unconstitutional:
A. Miscegenation laws were clearly unconstitutional after the adoption of the 14th amendment, but not before.

B.Women had been citizens since the nations inception - yet they required the 19th amendment in order to get the right to vote - no court should have overturned laws that did not allow women to vote until after that amendment was ratified.

The current trend in the judicial system is radical and unacceptable. It is clearly far outside of the jurisdiction that the founding fathers had envisioned and should cease. If you want something put into the Constitution you should go for it, but we have a process that I trust much more than making things up and disenfranchising the electorate.

So if people are being discriminated against then we need to make laws that eliminate those discrimination when it is against the law to discriminate in the first place?

Plus you never answered any of my other questions. Does that mean it your state passed a law allowing gay marriage you would be alright with it?

[GeneralHankerchief]

This issue is not going to go away, one way or another.

Early reports show that Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative designed to reverse the recent state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage is probably going to be passed. Now, this most likely isn't going to happen in Connecticut, but assuming that gay marriage is banned in California then it will galvanize the bases of both sides - culture war reinvigorated.

Personally, I think if we see a cascade of courts doing what those in California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut have done, the conservative outcry (against judicial activism, NOT gay marriage) will be so great that there will be ramifications.

[ICantSpellDawg]

So if people are being discriminated against then we need to make laws that eliminate those discrimination when it is against the law to discriminate in the first place?

Plus you never answered any of my other questions. Does that mean it your state passed a law allowing gay marriage you would be alright with it?

My State has the most absurd abortion laws in the world. I view them as evil, but since they were unaffected by the Roe ruling and democratically enacted - They are democratically legitimate. Supreme court rulings like this rub salt into already open wounds and are no way to maintain a functional government and system.

This decision is a disgrace. I understand the idea of dialogue on the topic, but the strong-arming of the majority is unacceptable. Civil Unions were a distraction and simply fed the fire in Connecticut. The electorate in that State should feel betrayed by their government.

[Big_John]

good for connecticut, i guess. honestly, i don't really care that much. i've given up on the northeast, a cold and dreary place.

[m52nickerson]

My State has the most absurd abortion laws in the world. I view them as evil, but since they were unaffected by the Roe ruling and democratically enacted - They are democratically legitimate. Supreme court rulings like this rub salt into already open wounds and are no way to maintain a functional government and system.

This decision is a disgrace. I understand the idea of dialogue on the topic, but the strong-arming of the majority is unacceptable. Civil Unions were a distraction and simply fed the fire in Connecticut. The electorate in that State should feel betrayed by their government.

All well and good, but you are not answering my questions to you.

Why do we need a dialogue? Not allowing gay marriage is discrimination.

Allowing gay marriage will not adversely affect anyone. No dialogue needed.

[Lemur]

Here's what I want to know -- why do they always do this right before an election? Didn't MA's supreme court do much the same thing exactly four years ago? It's like they want to turn out the anti-gay-marriage base. I'd say it's almost as suspicious as the National Journal discovering that the Dem candidate for Prez is teh most lubrul person evar every four years like clockwork ...

[Koga No Goshi]

This issue is not going to go away, one way or another.

Early reports show that Proposition 8, a California ballot initiative designed to reverse the recent state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage is probably going to be passed. Now, this most likely isn't going to happen in Connecticut, but assuming that gay marriage is banned in California then it will galvanize the bases of both sides - culture war reinvigorated.

Personally, I think if we see a cascade of courts doing what those in California, Massachusetts, and Connecticut have done, the conservative outcry (against judicial activism, NOT gay marriage) will be so great that there will be ramifications.

This is not the first time the issue has been overturned in CA, btw. A lot of fear tactic radio ad spots have been flooding the voters, too, just in the last week or so. They make this really grandiose, cue theatrical stinger music claims about how the sanctity of marriage won't be protected... but they never say how. And "we don't have to accept this." Accept what? The icky gay people? *Shrug*

[ICantSpellDawg]

All well and good, but you are not answering my questions to you.

Why do we need a dialogue? Not allowing gay marriage is discrimination.

Allowing gay marriage will not adversely affect anyone. No dialogue needed.

Its just that your side seems to use that argument for nearly everything. Before you know it we won't have the right to decide much at all. There will be arguments that, since incomes are not equal people are being discriminated against. Since there is discrimination, why do we need to discuss economic legislation?

Your side thinks that it is O.K. to tax the wealthy at a profoundly higher rate than everyone else. Is that discrimination? Should there be no more dialogue about tax rates? If you change one should you be constitutionally bound to change them all equally? That would go against the graded system that everyone supports.

The Supreme court is used way to frequently as an outlet for bratty jerks to get their way when their arguments arn't getting the traction they wanted. We should use the courts when we need it and they should have the foresight to avoid massively shattering decisions.

Am I the only one who still thinks this battle is worth fighting? Is everyone else just exhausted or realize that our opinions no longer matter and that they will all be overturned anyway? We could put the ban into our State Constitution - but they would be overturned at the federal level. The misconception is that if we give them civil unions it will keep them at bay. It won't. This is appeasement for the ravenous wolves. We need to get the balls to put a silver bullet in the heart of their movement and pass an amendment now.