Connecticut Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban

[Rogue Nine]

Reuters link

 

HARTFORD, Connecticut (Reuters) - Connecticut's highest court on Friday unexpectedly struck down a ban on gay and lesbian marriage, making the New England state the third in the nation to allow full-fledged marriage for same-sex couples.

 

After four years of legal wrangling in the state court system, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4-3 that a ban on gay marriage constituted "cognizable harm" and infringed on a "fundamental right" of same-sex couples.

 

The decision, which overturns a lower court ruling, follows the legalization of gay marriage in California this year and in Massachusetts in 2003. It was hailed by gay rights advocates as a proud day after battles over the culturally divisive issue in several states.

 

Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell, a Republican, disagreed with the ruling but said she will uphold it.

 

"I continue to believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman," Rell said. "I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut."

 

She said she was convinced that any attempt to reverse the decision, either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution, would fail.

 

The decision came as a surprise after previous courts upheld the ban and lawmakers wrote specific language into a civil union measure defining marriage as between men and women.

 

Connecticut was one of four U.S. states that permits same-sex civil unions that grant rights such as insurance coverage, tax benefits and hospital visitations. But these lack the full, federal legal protections of marriage.

 

Opponents of gay marriage said they would seek to overturn the ruling by persuading voters to support a ballot measure next month that would open a state constitutional convention to address the issue of same-sex marriage.

 

"Then we will put a question on the ballot to allow the public, not our robed masters, to decide once and for all if marriage will be protected in our state constitution as the union between a man and a woman," said Peter Wolfgang, president of the Family Institute of Connecticut, a conservative Christian group.

 

Karl Zinsmeister, President George W. Bush's assistant for domestic policy, issued a statement criticizing the decision late on Friday.

 

"President Bush has always believed that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman.

 

"It's unfortunate that activist judges continue to seek to redefine marriage by court order without regard for the will of the people. Today's decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court illustrates that a federal constitutional amendment may be needed if the people are to decide what marriage means."

 

'WE ARE OVERJOYED'

 

The plaintiffs in the case -- eight same-sex couples -- challenged the lower court's ruling that civil unions give same-sex couples the same rights and protections as marriage.

 

They argued that their constitutional rights were denied when they were barred from getting marriage licenses.

 

"We are overjoyed to tell our twin boys that we will be married, just like their friends' parents," Beth Kerrigan and Jodie Mock, two plaintiffs in the case, said in a statement.

 

The date when the decision takes effect depends on a trial court order that is expected after October 28, said Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal.

 

"It won't take effect immediately but probably in the next month or so," he said in a telephone interview.

 

When Massachusetts' top court overturned a ban on gay marriage in 2003, opposition was so strong that it drove religious conservatives to the polls in 2004, a factor in the re-election of President George W. Bush.

 

But this year, just three weeks before the U.S. presidential election, national reaction was relatively muted as the news fought for air time with turmoil in financial markets, tumbling stock prices and signs of a possible global recession.

 

More than 25 states have constitutional amendments barring same-sex marriage, many approved in ballot measures in 2004.

Step in the right direction, I think. Gay people have every right to be as miserable with each other as straight people.

 

Hopefully Californians will take this to heart and not let Proposition 8 go through in November.

[True_Avery]

Glad to hear that Connecticut has overturned it.

 

I'm hoping Prop 8 wont pass here in Cali. I've got a wedding between two good family friends to help host tomorrow.

[Tommycat]

This is one thing that I tend to split from the Republican party on. At first I was all for banning gay marriage. Then I realized that there are other factors that civil unions do not cover. It is unfair to discriminate based on sex. And in fact it is unlawful in business to do so. So why do we allow for sexual discrimination in defining marriage. If a man wants to marry another man, it should be his right. If a woman wants to marry another woman it should be her right. It should be the right of parents of gay persons to hound their kids incessantly with questions of when are you getting married. Why should heterosexual couples be the only ones to face that haha?

[SW01]

Ahh the joys of the common law!

 

That is more or less what kicked the British government into legalising same-sex marriage over here, a House of Lords (equivalent to the Supreme Court) ruling that homosexual couple should enjoy some of the same rights (to inheritance, etc.) as a married couple. That was 2004, the case of Ghaidan v Godin-Mendoza. Just seems to be the way things are going.

 

It was discussed here that this was an unacceptable example of judicial activism, and that such social changes should be left to the government. But then, common law rulings can be much more efficient than waiting for the government to pass a Bill.

[Arcesious]

This is good news! Slowly but surely, I think the US Judicial system is helping defeat one of the final fields of discrimination...

[Litofsky]

Good for Connecticut! Everyone should be equal under the law (not always the case in today's world), and this is a step in the right direction. I've wonder what the southern, generally conservative states will do if they get motions to change the status of same-sex marriages?

[Det. Bart Lasiter]

Copycats

[El Sitherino]

[Web Rider]

People may argue that this is overturning the will of the people, but our system we aslo set up to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority. I'm glad to see this passed, and will make sure when I vote down Prop 8 here in California.

[Ctrl Alt Del]

*Applause*

[Achilles]

Hopefully Californians will take this to heart and not let Proposition 8 go through in November.

Same goes for Arizonans and Prop 102.

[Yar-El]

I don't believe people should loose the freedom of choice; however, I also don't believe someone should tell me that what their doing is morally acceptable. I'm glade to see a group of individuals having more freedoms, but I will not accept their behavior as being moral. Their issues are not between me and them, but it is between them and their own religion.

[El Sitherino]

I don't think anyone is telling you to morally accept this...

[Web Rider]

I don't believe people should loose the freedom of choice; however, I also don't believe someone should tell me that what their doing is morally acceptable. I'm glade to see a group of individuals have more freedoms, but I will not accept their behavior as being moral. Their issues are not between me and them, but it is between them and their own religion.

 

Nobody's saying you have to like it, they're only saying that a couple, regardless of sex, should be allowed to get married. I don't like a lot of things people do, but it's their right to have the freedom to do those things.

[Yar-El]

Gay marriage is a subject caught between religion and lawful freedoms. Most people I have talked to see gay marriage as a ethical issue. Do we ban gay marriage due to its moral implications, or do we allow individuals the right to choose? Marriage itself has feet in two worlds. Religious practices of marriage are subject to moral elements. Government practices of marriage are subject to individual freedoms. I'm glad to see freewill being encouraged and not surpressed.

[Achilles]

Nobody's saying you have to like it, they're only saying that a couple, regardless of sex, should be allowed to get married. I don't like a lot of things people do, but it's their right to have the freedom to do those things.

Within reason, yes. I agree with this argument.

[Astor]

If people have such aversion to same-sex 'marriage' - why not use a different word?

 

Over here, we use 'civil partnership' - it has the same rights as marriage, but it's technically not - this stops a lot of the arguments over the sanctity of marriage by not using the same word - because, the word itself carries a fair amount of weight.

 

I don't know if the same term is used in the US, so i'm only speaking from what I know of here in the UK.

[jawathehutt]

Good to hear, hopefully Wisconsin can wise up eventually.

[Darth333]

If people have such aversion to same-sex 'marriage' - why not use a different word?

 

Over here, we use 'civil partnership' - it has the same rights as marriage, but it's technically not - this stops a lot of the arguments over the sanctity of marriage by not using the same word - because, the word itself carries a fair amount of weight.

That is not the case for every jurisdiction. They tried that here (Quebec - Canada) and it didn't passed the test in front of the Courts. It was deemed that the characterization of marriage as a heterosexual institution in the law was an unjustified violation of the gender equality rights protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (which is part of our constitution) and that the "civil union" regime by which two adults could enter into and which was governed by basically the same rules as marriage ( such as solemnization, obligations, dissolution) was not quite the same as the institution of marriage. A summary of the history of sexual orientation and legal rights in Canada can be found here.

 

Step in the right direction, I think.

Indeed.

 

If two consenting adults, regardless of their gender, want to get married, it's their own business, not mine.

[True_Avery]

If people have such aversion to same-sex 'marriage' - why not use a different word?

 

Over here, we use 'civil partnership' - it has the same rights as marriage, but it's technically not - this stops a lot of the arguments over the sanctity of marriage by not using the same word - because, the word itself carries a fair amount of weight.

 

I don't know if the same term is used in the US, so i'm only speaking from what I know of here in the UK.

Its the concept and laws here that make the difference.

 

The concept of marriage has traditional means in society. The word 'married' implies you have "become one" with your selected spouse and would follow them to the ends of the earth. Being 'married' tells people you've sort of become an adult in some sense and have done your duty to care for another person, regardless of if you have children or not.

 

Its not that the term 'civil union/partnership' is bad. Its just that it doesn't hold the same power as a word and concept as 'marriage'. Over here the term civil partnership fits you into the view of room-mates, or business partners. We aren't identified as being 'married' as much as we are seen as two people that have signed a contract to share, regardless of love or not.

 

Now, at the core, that is what both really are but as has been said: marriage has feet in the world of politics and religion. In politics, being married is a union. You don't actually need a priest to get married. Go down to town hall, have someone bring out a paper and made you say an oath, and then you sign and are out in less than an hour.

 

In religion, that is when the word and concept start to truly flesh itself out. Though traditionally male/female, the spiritual idea of bonding your souls together is inspiring and heart warming. Despite popular belief, many homosexuals are religious people and consider marriage as the above concept. A civil union sounds cheap and shallow compared to something that is supposed to join your souls under the eyes of a god(s).

 

Now, that would be all fine and good if civil unions gave you the same rights as marriage in America. The battle to make them equal under the eyes of the law has been battled for awhile, but being married still out weighs being unionized.

 

For instance, this is what a Civil Union lacks compared to a marriage:

1. Joint parental rights of children

2. Joint adoption

3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions

4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains

5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries

6. Crime victims recovery benefits

7. Domestic violence protection orders

8. Judicial protections and immunity

9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will

10. Public safety officers death benefits

11. Spousal veterans benefits

12. Social Security

13. Medicare

14. Joint filing of tax returns

15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children

16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children

17. Child support

18. Joint Insurance Plans

19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits

20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs

21. Estate and gift tax benefits

22. Welfare and public assistance

23. Joint housing for elderly

24. Credit protection

25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

 

Number of Legal Benefits:

 

* Marriage: Over 1,049 federal and state level benefits (see list)

* Civil Unions: Over 300 state level benefits. *No federal protection (see benefit example)

 

Tax Relief:

 

* Marriage: Couples can file both federal and state tax returns jointly.

* Civil Unions: Couples can only file jointly in the state of civil registration.

 

Medical Decisions:

 

* Marriage: Partners can make emergency medical decisions.

* Civil Unions: Partners can only make medical decisions in the registered state. Partners may not be able to make decisions out of state.

 

Gifts:

 

* Marriage: Partners can transfer gifts to each other without tax penalty.

* Civil Unions: Partners do not pay state taxes, but are required to report federal taxes.

 

Death Benefits:

 

* Marriage: In the case of a partner's death, the spouse receives any earned Social Security or veteran benefits.

* Civil Unions: Partners do not receive Social Security or any other government benefits in case of death. In the case of the death of former Congressman Gerry Studds, his partner of 15 years was denied the government pension that would have gone to a legally recognized spouse.

 

Child/Spousal Support:

 

* Marriage: In case of divorce, individuals may have a legally-binding financial obligation to spouses and children.

* Civil Unions: In the case of dissolution , no such spousal or child benefits are guaranteed or required out of state.

 

Immigration Rights:

 

* Marriage: U.S. citizens and legal residents can sponsor their spouses and family members for immigration.

* Civil Unions: U.S. citizens and legal residents cannot sponsor non-legal spouses or family members. (more on gay immigration rights)

 

 

These are just a few of the 1400 state and federal benefits that we are denied by not being able to marry. Most of these benefits cannot be privately arranged or contracted for within the legal system.

 

Using a different word is insulting, and degrading. It says that I am not worthy of having the same title as you. It says I am less than you under some creed by some god that actually isn't technically allowed into the American political system by say of the Constitution. Especially marriage.

 

The reason civil union/partnership is a slap to the face is because the country has decided that it is going to legally define a minority as a minority. By giving us our own little system to play with, they are turning us into a state/government legally created minority. A minority that is being subjected to prejudice by its own government, and people, legally.

 

I don't know about the UK, but that is actually not allowed here in the United States anymore. That is why it was overturned in California, and has now been overturned in Connecticut.

 

They tried that here (Quebec - Canada) and it didn't passed the test in front of the Courts. It was deemed that the characterization of marriage as a heterosexual institution in the law was an unjustified violation of the gender equality rights protected by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (which is part of our constitution) and that the "civil union" regime by which two adults could enter into and which was governed by basically the same rules as marriage ( such as solemnization, obligations, dissolution) was not quite the same as the institution of marriage. A summary of the history of sexual orientation and legal rights in Canada can be found here.

My point exactly. Thanks for the info D3.

 

Gay marriage is a subject caught between religion and lawful freedoms. Most people I have talked to see gay marriage as a ethical issue. Do we ban gay marriage due to its moral implications, or do we allow individuals the right to choose? Marriage itself has feet in two worlds. Religious practices of marriage are subject to moral elements.

Its actually quite simple:

 

Marriage cannot be legally defined as a religious union under the American constitution due to Separation of Church and State.

 

It may have its foot in religion, but -technically- religion is not allow to grab at the foot on the political side. The religious can gripe all they want, but we do not live in a country that has identified a National Religion because the fathers of our country made sure that we would never turn into a Theocracy.

 

I don't believe people should loose the freedom of choice; however, I also don't believe someone should tell me that what their doing is morally acceptable. I'm glade to see a group of individuals having more freedoms, but I will not accept their behavior as being moral.

Luckily, if you live in a first world country like the United States, chances are the government cannot actually tell you to morally accept -anything-. Being that the Union States does not have a National Religion and is not a Theocracy or Dictatorship, the government is not allowed to tell you how to think directly and what morals you need to deem acceptable.

 

I personally find drinking and smoking "immoral", but believe that people have the privilege to indulge themselves in those vices responsibly.

 

Their issues are not between me and them, but it is between them and their own religion.

More accurately, it is not between you and us, but us and the government/people. Religion technically cannot have a say in this. And, if the two are willing to get married and share their life together, then I think they have accepted who they are enough to find a church that accepts them.

 

Finding religious acceptance isn't as difficult as some believe. It is having the acceptance of the people/government that gets difficult. And, most of all, it is accepting yourself.

 

The government is required to accept them as a citizen of the United States. The people can hate all they want, but shouldn't be allowed to legally identify a minority. And you don't need the people's acceptance to be able to accept who you are and what you want out of life.

 

"The Kingdom of god is within you."

[Darth Kalverys]

Reuters link

 

 

Step in the right direction, I think. Gay people have every right to be as miserable with each other as straight people.

 

Hopefully Californians will take this to heart and not let Proposition 8 go through in November.

 

<snipped flame bate> Homophobia is not acceptable, and despite the fact I'm a Christian, I think this post was very offensive, and query where the love of Jesus is in the snipped colours...

[Litofsky]

<snipped>

What if they're atheists? What if they don't believe in heaven? I realize that saying something is gross is your opinion, but why is it your opinion?

 

God makes no mistakes...

I seem to recall that, in the Bible, God destroyed early humanity. Noah and the Ark, if I'm correct. So please don't say that "God makes no mistakes." It's just incorrect- and that's not an opinion. I've got Biblical fact to back it up.

 

<snipped>

From what I gather, you're very into the Bible. That's fine by me: I've got a bunch of deeply religious friends. However, why should homosexuality be disgusting? I'm not homosexual myself, but I really don't care what people do with their bodies. Why should you?

 

Also, why is it "not possible" for someone to be born gay? If you believe in Fate/Destiny, then wouldn't that be the case?

 

I know that you will see this as my own personal views, but I assure you... I WILL have eternal life in my Father's glorious, beautiful kingdom!

Okay then, you enjoy Heaven. I'll take the headstrong way, and challenge the Biblical views.

[Darth Kalverys]

I seem to recall that, in the Bible, God destroyed early humanity. Noah and the Ark, if I'm correct. So please don't say that "God makes no mistakes." It's just incorrect- and that's not an opinion. I've got Biblical fact to back it up.

 

<snipped flame>

 

From what I gather, you're very into the Bible. That's fine by me: I've got a bunch of deeply religious friends. However, why should homosexuality be disgusting? I'm not homosexual myself, but I really don't care what people do with their bodies. Why should you?

 

<snipped unacceptable name calling>

 

Also, why is it "not possible" for someone to be born gay? If you believe in Fate/Destiny, then wouldn't that be the case?

 

 

Okay then, you enjoy Heaven. I'll take the headstrong way, and challenge the Biblical views.

 

 

I'm going to tackle the last two comments together. I do not believe in Fate nor Destiny... I believe that we have a chosen male for females, and a chosen female for a male, don't get me wrong, but it's not Fate... it's the Creator going about his buisness, doing what he originally intended mankind to be like. He makes us an actual soul mate of the opposite sex... not one of the same. Despite what you say, I know that you will be shown the light, I may not know who you are... but I will pray that God shows you the truth, and you will embrace it. That is my goal, both as a Christan teen, and as a member of our church's youth Drama Team, H2O. Ridicule me all you want, at least I know I'm not bound to the world and it's perverted ways.

[El Sitherino]

I know that you will see this as my own personal views, but I assure you... I WILL have eternal life in my Father's glorious, beautiful kingdom!

 

Good for you, we'll be dining on barbecue in Hell.

[Web Rider]

<snipped>

There is no passage in either the new or old testament that specically states "heterosexual". Now, if you're going to take the lines "made man and woman for each other", that can have all kinds of perfectly non-sexual meanings. They could be designed as best friends, or like brother and sister(which is the most correct since God would be Man and Woman's father). If God gave everyone free will, then regardless of the way God made them, isn't it that same free will that allows them to love who they want to love?

 

<snipped>

Really, please don't yell. There's no need for it. If you can't express yourself calmly, then you may not want to stick around as things can get really hot here really fast. And I don't mean "hot" in the Jessica Alba way.

 

There are plenty of women I know who I wouldn't want hitting on me. You know the best way to not have them do it? Don't show interest in them. If you don't act gay, and you don't give "interested" looks towards gay men, then you're not going to get hit on. God may have made you, but he also made you responsible for your own actions.

 

Did you know people used the same argument(that it's unnatural) for inter-racial and inter-religious couples(M&F)? Didn't hold up very well did it? Anyway, you love who you love. Can you say that it's wrong for you to love who you love, can you deny those feelings? Why do you think it would be any different for anyone else?

 

 

I'm going to tackle the last two comments together. I do not believe in Fate nor Destiny... I believe that we have a chosen male for females, and a chosen female for a male, don't get me wrong, but it's not Fate... it's the Creator going about his buisness, doing what he originally intended mankind to be like.

You mean like how he "made" us naked in a lovely garden and then gave us the boot when Satan tempted adam and eve into eating the forbidden fruit? Yes, we're so close to our original design, all 9 billion of us.

 

He makes us an actual soul mate of the opposite sex... not one of the same.

When you show me two souls that are a perfect match, and that you can reliably prove that this is the same all over, then I'll believe you.

 

And what of "soul mates" who never meet? Is that just God being an ass to people? I mean, if my "soul mate" is some girl in the outskirts of Mongolia, there's a pretty solid chance I'll never know her. Why would go do that? To "test" us? That's pretty harsh, a "test" that is we "fail" we'll never know true love. yeah....

 

Despite what you say, I know that you will be shown the light, I may not know who you are... but I will pray that God shows you the truth, and you will embrace it. That is my goal, both as a Christan teen, and as a member of our church's youth Drama Team, H2O. Ridicule me all you want, at least I know I'm not bound to the world and it's perverted ways.

Please, don't. I request you leave me out of those prayers. As it is your right to pray for whom you choose, it is my right to ask that you do not.

 

Would you want a devil-worshipper praying for you? no you wouldn't. So don't pray for me thank you.