Connecticut Legalizes Gay Marriage!

[AGBF]

Connecticut has just become the third state to legalize marriages between homosexuals. The following is excerpted from, "The New York Times".

October 10, 2008
Connecticut Ruling Overturns Ban on Same-Sex Marriage
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 12:01 p.m. ET

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) -- "Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry, making the state the third behind Massachusetts and California to legalize such unions.

The divided court ruled 4-3 that gay and lesbian couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry under the state constitution, and Connecticut's civil unions law does not provide those couples with the same rights as heterosexual couples.

'I can't believe it. We're thrilled, we're absolutely overjoyed. We're finally going to be able, after 33 years, to get married,' said Janet Peck of Colchester, who was a plaintiff with her partner, Carole Conklin.

Connecticut will join Massachusetts and California as the only state to allow same-sex couples to marry.

'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 Richard N. Palmer wrote in the majority opinion that overturned a lower court finding.

'To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others,' Palmer wrote.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Friday that she disagreed, but will not fight the ruling."


Deborah

 

[Lauren8211]

I read that also!

I couldn''t be more excited!

 

[MoonWater]

Yay!!!!!!

 

[goobear78]

WOOT WOOT WOOT!!!

 

[Erin]

 

[Kaleigh]

That''s great news!!!

 

[Loves Vintage]

Thanks for the news, Deborah. It''s funny to learn this news about my own state on pricescope, prior to hearing about it anywhere else.

Here''s the opinion and three dissenting opinions if anyone is interested.

http://www.jud.ct.gov/

 

[AGSHF]

Viva love and marriage!

 

[Black Jade]

It''s so nice when judges make these decisions for the people of a state based on--well, on what exactly? Not on the Constitution and certainly not on the wishes that voters keep CLEARLY expressing whenever this is actually brought up for a vote.

Excuse me for not joining in the jubiliation on this thread. Everyone should have their civil rights, but MARRIAGE is not a civil right. It is intended for the protection of women who give up prime earning years to become pregnant and have children and raise them to be future citizens, and to allow the children to grow up in stable families with their needs met by having a mother and a father. Granting the protections meant for mothers and children to homosexual couples is as silly as granting the ''right'' to people under five feet tall to play in the NBA--but marriage, unfortunately, has a lot more long-term implications for society than sports games.

 

[MoonWater]

Well gosh darnit. Ban marriage for those heterosexual couples that have absolutely no intention of having children!!!!

And don't forget those women that can't even have kids. Ban marriage for them too!!!!

And those mothers that turn right around and go back to work, losing no prime earning years....well heck, they shouldn't be getting married either!!!!!

 

[AGBF]

Date: 10/10/2008 1:23:54 PM
Author: Loves Vintage

Thanks for the news, Deborah. It''s funny to learn this news about my own state on pricescope, prior to hearing about it anywhere else.

I don''t know how comfortable you are getting specific about where you are from, LV, but I am interested. Connecticut is my home state, too, although I am currently living in Virginia. If you are comfortable sharing, I''d love to know where you''re from.



Deborah

 

[Lauren8211]

Sorry, but I can''t wrap my head around actively denying rights to anyone in this country in the year 2008. It''s the saddest thing I''ve ever heard anyone defend.

People under 5 feet tall do have the right to play in the NBA, if they''re good enough. I''d love to see how it would go down if we started denying heterosexual couples the right to marry because the government determined their love wasnt good enough.

People are people. They all deserve protection. End of story.

 

[AGBF]

Date: 10/10/2008 3:30:28 PM
Author: Black Jade

It is intended for the protection of women who give up prime earning years to become pregnant and have children and raise them to be future citizens, and to allow the children to grow up in stable families with their needs met by having a mother and a father.

Well...if you had studied the history of the family you would know that that is not so. Marriage evolved as a method of keeping land in the hands of the same man once there was agriculture and land had some value. In a hunter gatherer society no one needed to own land. In an agricultural society where someone worked the land, he had a stake in owning it. By the creation of marriage a man could keep land in his hands and the hands of his children, an idea that had had no importance before inheriting land.


Deborah

 

[Beacon]

I think it''s very nice. My husband is Japanese American and once upon a time the laws of our country would have prohibited our marriage. I always think about how laws change and how society changes. I am happy that gay people are getting more equal rights.

 

[Black Jade]

Date: 10/10/2008 3:33:29 PM
Author: MoonWater
Well gosh darnit. Ban marriage for those heterosexual couples that have absolutely no intention of having children!!!!

And don''t forget those women that can''t even have kids. Ban marriage for them too!!!!

And those mothers that turn right around and go back to work, losing no prime earning years....well heck, they shouldn''t be getting married either!!!!!

Not going to get into a big song and dance here about this.
But you are wrong.
I am not slamming you--it is admirable to want to be fair. But what looks like its fair sometimes needs a little more thought.

Many a heterosexual couple has started out not wanting to have kids and had them anyway. People change their minds, have ''accidents'' (and then find out that an accidental baby can be a wonderful thing), and then they go on and raise their kids.

It''s tragic for a woman to want kids and not be able to have them. They CAN, however, adopt kids and be mothers, as part of a couple that includes a mother and a father, the time-tested best way for children to be raised.

A working mother is still a mother. IF you did a survey of the women on this board, or of women anywhere who work, you would find that having children impacted their careers, earning power, promotions. What I stated before would still apply.

 

[Loves Vintage]

Date: 10/10/2008 3:41:18 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 10/10/2008 1:23:54 PM
Author: Loves Vintage

Thanks for the news, Deborah. It''s funny to learn this news about my own state on pricescope, prior to hearing about it anywhere else.

I don''t know how comfortable you are getting specific about where you are from, LV, but I am interested. Connecticut is my home state, too, although I am currently living in Virginia. If you are comfortable sharing, I''d love to know where you''re from.



Deborah

I guess I''m comfortable being county-specific. I''m in New Haven county. I love New Haven, although I''ve never lived in the city, just in surrounding towns. I used to work in New Haven and loved it for its great restaurants, and my office was across from the green, which could not be beat.

How about you? How do you like being in Virginia?

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 10/10/2008 3:58:52 PM
Author: Beacon
I think it''s very nice. My husband is Japanese American and once upon a time the laws of our country would have prohibited our marriage. I always think about how laws change and how society changes. I am happy that gay people are getting more equal rights.

About 50 years ago my soon to be and I wouldn''t have been able to get married in the good ol'' USA. Marriage just wasn''t for interracial couples.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 10/10/2008 4:00:04 PM
Author: Black Jade

Date: 10/10/2008 3:33:29 PM
Author: MoonWater
Well gosh darnit. Ban marriage for those heterosexual couples that have absolutely no intention of having children!!!!

And don't forget those women that can't even have kids. Ban marriage for them too!!!!

And those mothers that turn right around and go back to work, losing no prime earning years....well heck, they shouldn't be getting married either!!!!!

Not going to get into a big song and dance here about this.
But you are wrong.
I am not slamming you--it is admirable to want to be fair. But what looks like its fair sometimes needs a little more thought.

Many a heterosexual couple has started out not wanting to have kids and had them anyway. People change their minds, have 'accidents' (and then find out that an accidental baby can be a wonderful thing), and then they go on and raise their kids.

It's tragic for a woman to want kids and not be able to have them. They CAN, however, adopt kids and be mothers, as part of a couple that includes a mother and a father, the time-tested best way for children to be raised.

A working mother is still a mother. IF you did a survey of the women on this board, or of women anywhere who work, you would find that having children impacted their careers, earning power, promotions. What I stated before would still apply.

How exactly am I wrong? I used your logic. Maybe you want to re-read your post. I matters not if the couple changes their mind, they should be banned from marriage if their intention, when getting married, is not to have children. The same goes for women that can not have children. The same goes for women who have lost little to NO income when having children (and I know plenty of women that did not miss a beat, the little time they did take off was covered by their employers).

And did you not notice the sexism in your post at all? Protection only for women aye? Men don't need time off. Screw those guys that decide to be stay at home dads and lose prime earning years! Oh wait, let's stick with women. What about those lesbian couples, one of them gets pregnant and stays at home to raise the kid. No protection for her, nope, nosiree Bob.

But really, why don't you read AGBF's post.

 

[brazen_irish_hussy]

Yeah, does happy dance!

I am always amazing at arguments against it since they are the exact same ones as were used against interracial marriages.

As for the kids thing, I know quite a few couples who never had kids and are now far too old, should they not be allowed to be married?

 

[WishfulThinking]

I'm really pleased about this. It's annoyed me for years now how ridiculous the situation in CT was. The legislature was poised to pass legislation legalizing same sex marriage, but because of the inevitable veto from the governor, they didn't bother wasting time to do it. Can't say I blame them. Even the governor agrees there's not much that can be done about it. It's unlikely that even a popular referendum to change the constitution would be successful, considering current popular opinion in the state. How incredible, huh, that people have managed to get over themselves on this issue?

The Equal Protection argument is spot on, too.

Marriage is a work in progress, and always has been. It's meant many things over the years. AGBF is correct in terms of the history of the subject. Marriage was economic before it was anything else. Any other representation of it is moral editorializing.

Anyways, not that it affects me personally [I'm biting my nails about CA currently], but I'm happy for everyone in CT who can get married starting at the end of the month, and glad for them that they will no longer have to deal with the nightmare which was the Civil Union benefits. There have been so many problems with them over the last few years. I am sure they will be relieved not to have to worry about whether someone will arbitrarily try to deny them their rights at any given point in time.

 

[Miranda]

I''m not sure why the government has the right to say who should and should not get married. IMO, the individual states should be in charge of keeping records. It should end there. All legal adults should have the right to marry whoever they choose. I just don''t get the governments claws in EVERYTHING. It is so maddening to my ''leave me alone and I''ll leave you alone'' mind.

Ah well, good for Connceticut! Here in CA we will be voting on this issue in Nov. I have such mixed feelings ONLY because I wonder how this will affect discrimination laws. Will a pastor who believes the marriage of homosexual couples to be wrong be accused of discrimination? If that''s the case, rights are taken from one group of people and assigned to another.

 

[WishfulThinking]

Date: 10/10/2008 4:26:16 PM
Author: Miranda
I''m not sure why the government has the right to say who should and should not get married. IMO, the individual states should be in charge of keeping records. It should end there. All legal adults should have the right to marry whoever they choose. I just don''t get the governments claws in EVERYTHING. It is so maddening to my ''leave me alone and I''ll leave you alone'' mind.


Ah well, good for Connceticut! Here in CA we will be voting on this issue in Nov. I have such mixed feelings ONLY because I wonder how this will affect discrimination laws. Will a pastor who believes the marriage of homosexual couples to be wrong be accused of discrimination? If that''s the case, rights are taken from one group of people and assigned to another.

No one can sue churches, don''t worry!

The proposition 8 people in support of banning same sex marriage keep trotting that out as an excuse not to keep it legal, but it isn''t going to happen. Also, same sex marriage has been legal in MA for over 4 years and no one has done anything of the sort, not even tried.

Incidentally, the same separation of church and state that makes it not okay for governments to refuse to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples for religiously based reasons makes it not okay for anyone to sue a church for refusing to marry them. They have discretion there. They can refuse to marry anyone for any reason, basically, regardless of the reason. The same sex marriage proponents just want the GOVERNMENT to issue the same license to everyone, equally, fairly.

Hope that helps! I am really hoping ss marriage stays legal in CA because I am so, so looking forward to getting married in May. I would have to have that right taken away from me... again.

 

[Black Jade]

Date: 10/10/2008 3:46:31 PM
Author: elledizzy5
Sorry, but I can''t wrap my head around actively denying rights to anyone in this country in the year 2008. It''s the saddest thing I''ve ever heard anyone defend.

People under 5 feet tall do have the right to play in the NBA, if they''re good enough. I''d love to see how it would go down if we started denying heterosexual couples the right to marry because the government determined their love wasnt good enough.

People are people. They all deserve protection. End of story.

Homosexuals do have the right to marry people of the opposite sex.
Which is what marriage is.
Please point out to me where I said that homosexuals weren''t people. OR that they didn''t deserve protection.

 

[E B]

That''s wonderful news!

 

[WishfulThinking]

Date: 10/10/2008 4:48:50 PM
Author: Black Jade

Date: 10/10/2008 3:46:31 PM

Author: elledizzy5

Sorry, but I can't wrap my head around actively denying rights to anyone in this country in the year 2008. It's the saddest thing I've ever heard anyone defend.


People under 5 feet tall do have the right to play in the NBA, if they're good enough. I'd love to see how it would go down if we started denying heterosexual couples the right to marry because the government determined their love wasnt good enough.


People are people. They all deserve protection. End of story.

Homosexuals do have the right to marry people of the opposite sex.

Which is what marriage is.

Please point out to me where I said that homosexuals weren't people. OR that they didn't deserve protection.

Actually, that first argument is exactly what the Supreme Court today decided was UNconstitutional. Do you think it does me any good to say that I *could* marry a man? For real? That is literally the same argument that racist people used to justify bans on interracial marriage before 1967, when the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia made interracial marriages legalized nationwide. At the time, people argued that Mr. Loving, a white man, was NOT being discriminated against because he *could* choose to marry a white woman. But he didn't want to marry a white woman. He wanted to marry Mildred and she was black. He won that case, and just like is happening now when courts legalize same sex marriages, everyone freaked out about how our society is going to be in moral decay because the "activist judges" were overturning the "natural order."

This might be a good time for people to think about what they're supporting. Would you advocate that interracial marriage be left up to the states to decide? That Mr. Loving should have sucked it up and chosen a parter who was white? That interracial marriage should be put up to popular vote? In 1967 there were many states in which racist populations would have GLADLY voted to oppress people based on race by denying them marriage rights. Which is exactly what they're doing now to same sex couples.

ETA: "which is what marriage is"
Yes, and marriage used to be "a union between a man and woman of the same race." It evolved. Now people like you try to claim that the definition should remain "between a man and a woman" because it has always been that way. Well, besides the obvious historical fallacy there, it hasn't always been that way at all. There were all sorts of caveats having to do with race and gender that we no longer have. We call that the ability of societies to change and adapt and grow to be more inclusive and enlightened rather than trying to live in the dark ages where oppressing people is thought to be a-okay.

 

[Black Jade]

Date: 10/10/2008 3:51:03 PM
Author: AGBF

Date: 10/10/2008 3:30:28 PM
Author: Black Jade

It is intended for the protection of women who give up prime earning years to become pregnant and have children and raise them to be future citizens, and to allow the children to grow up in stable families with their needs met by having a mother and a father.

Well...if you had studied the history of the family you would know that that is not so. Marriage evolved as a method of keeping land in the hands of the same man once there was agriculture and land had some value. In a hunter gatherer society no one needed to own land. In an agricultural society where someone worked the land, he had a stake in owning it. By the creation of marriage a man could keep land in his hands and the hands of his children, an idea that had had no importance before inheriting land.


Deborah

I am a history professor. I have studied the history of the family in the ancient world (Egypt, Greece, Rome) in Medieval and Early Modern Europe, and in Ancient and Modern Chinese. I have heard this theory that you are putting forth here, but never in historical works based on actual documents (which would be sort of scarce from the hunter-gatherer period, Hm?) This is a feminist theory with no basis in any verifiable facts (and no, I''m not against feminist, just against poorly supported theories).

 

[Irishgrrrl]

Date: 10/10/2008 4:51:34 PM
Author: EBree
That''s wonderful news!

Ditto, Bree! Hopefully it won''t be long until this is legal in all 50 states!

 

[Lauren8211]

Date: 10/10/2008 4:48:50 PM
Author: Black Jade

Date: 10/10/2008 3:46:31 PM
Author: elledizzy5
Sorry, but I can''t wrap my head around actively denying rights to anyone in this country in the year 2008. It''s the saddest thing I''ve ever heard anyone defend.

People under 5 feet tall do have the right to play in the NBA, if they''re good enough. I''d love to see how it would go down if we started denying heterosexual couples the right to marry because the government determined their love wasnt good enough.

People are people. They all deserve protection. End of story.

Homosexuals do have the right to marry people of the opposite sex.
Which is what marriage is.
Please point out to me where I said that homosexuals weren''t people. OR that they didn''t deserve protection.

How generous of us to allow homosexuals the right to marry people they don''t love. That really solidifies the sanctity of marriage.

Where did I say that you said they weren''t people? I simply said all people are the same, and all deserve protection, including the protection of marriage.

Two people in love should have the same rights. Since when is it OK for us to decide whose love is worthy of marriage? Regardless of the history of marriage. Is that even relevant anymore? Everything has a history, and things change. I can''t imagine this country if we blindly followed traditions that have been around since the formation of marriage, half the people in the country couldn''t vote, and your husband could still legally hit you. Sounds like a GREAT world to me.

Awesome.

 

[Black Jade]

Congratulations on your marriage. I wish you every happiness.
However, I''m confused, I''m aware of no laws in the US that ever banned Japanese and American marriages. I could be wrong, I know that there was plenty of anti-Japanese discrimination, particularly during the SEcond World War, but I am aware of no such laws.

 

[MoonWater]

Date: 10/10/2008 4:53:46 PM
Author: WishfulThinking

Date: 10/10/2008 4:48:50 PM
Author: Black Jade

Date: 10/10/2008 3:46:31 PM

Author: elledizzy5

Sorry, but I can''t wrap my head around actively denying rights to anyone in this country in the year 2008. It''s the saddest thing I''ve ever heard anyone defend.


People under 5 feet tall do have the right to play in the NBA, if they''re good enough. I''d love to see how it would go down if we started denying heterosexual couples the right to marry because the government determined their love wasnt good enough.


People are people. They all deserve protection. End of story.

Homosexuals do have the right to marry people of the opposite sex.

Which is what marriage is.

Please point out to me where I said that homosexuals weren''t people. OR that they didn''t deserve protection.

Actually, that first argument is exactly what the Supreme Court today decided was UNconstitutional. Do you think it does me any good to say that I *could* marry a man? For real? That is literally the same argument that racist people used to justify bans on interracial marriage before 1967, when the Supreme Court case Loving v. Virginia made interracial marriages legalized nationwide. At the time, people argued that Mr. Loving, a white man, was NOT being discriminated against because he *could* choose to marry a white woman. But he didn''t want to marry a white woman. He wanted to marry Mildred and she was black. He won that case, and just like is happening now when courts legalize same sex marriages, everyone freaked out about how our society is going to be in moral decay because the ''activist judges'' were overturning the ''natural order.''

This might be a good time for people to think about what they''re supporting. Would you advocate that interracial marriage be left up to the states to decide? That Mr. Loving should have sucked it up and chosen a parter who was white? That interracial marriage should be put up to popular vote? In 1967 there were many states in which racist populations would have GLADLY voted to oppress people based on race by denying them marriage rights. Which is exactly what they''re doing now to same sex couples.