quote:The Connecticut Supreme Court in Hartford ruled Friday that the state must allow gay and lesbian couples to marry.
quote:To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others. The guarantee of equal protection under the law, and our obligation to uphold that command, forbids us from doing so. In accordance with these state constitutional requirements, same sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry.
There's not much more, it's just a quick blurb on the cnn wire. I'm surprised it's not a bigger deal.
My home state makes me proud today!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
Cool. Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
Yay! Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
YAY!!!!!! *happy dance!* Some good news in a very very dark year.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Awesome.
Posted by naysayer (Member # 11778) on :
This is ridiculous. An abomination I tell you.
ABOMINATION!!!
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I don't know if that was serious or not, but either way I smiled.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
wow, either a lurker registered, or an oldtimer created a new alt just to deface my thread. How exciting! I feel privileged.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
The fact that it's their very first post tells me it's probably for real.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: My home state makes me proud today!
Weird. We're both in the Philly area, and it's my home state too.
Are you trying to steal my identity or something?
Oh, and congrats to the Nutmeg State!
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: The fact that it's their very first post tells me it's probably for real.
Can you really call something an abomination with an emoticon? Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
Javert, I hate to have to be the one to break this to you. But you don't exist. You're just my alternate persona when I don't feel like actually driving down to Philly, and just imagine myself there instead.
Don't let it get you down! You've got a rich and fulfilling imaginary life going. And if helps, you actually DID go to the AAI convention last year, and you had a great time!
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: Javert, I hate to have to be the one to break this to you. But you don't exist. You're just my alternate persona when I don't feel like actually driving down to Philly, and just imagine myself there instead.
Don't let it get you down! You've got a rich and fulfilling imaginary life going. And if helps, you actually DID go to the AAI convention last year, and you had a great time!
Oh, and yay. Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Why, of all things, is there a banner at the bottom listing McCain and Palin as the original mavericks?
Perhaps they want to go to CT and get hitched themselves.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
lol...what are you implying? What don't we know about John and Sarah?
Holy...John and Sarah...Conner!
Why didn't I ever put this together before? Something wacky is definitely going on here. Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Strider: lol...what are you implying? What don't we know about John and Sarah?
Holy...John and Sarah...Conner!
Why didn't I ever put this together before? Something wacky is definitely going on here.
No wonder she can't name any periodicals she's read...she's from the future and they don't exist any more! Of course!
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I don't know. If the government recognizes same sex marriages, it cememts the governments role in legitimizing marriage. With ssm and the whole equal rights thing, eventually the government would either have to recognize ssm or get out of the marriage business all together. I was kinda hoping that the government would take the getting out option.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I'd like them to get out of it too but if they won't then I'm happy that they are recognizing it in a more equitable way.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Gay marriage is a potentially devastating social experiment.
Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.
Giving legal recognition to gay marriage marks the end of democracy in America.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
Connecticut is a big banking state, and this happens at the exact same time as the financial meltdown...
Anyone want to lay odds on how long before some televangelist puts 2 and 2 together?
Oh, and hooray! Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
see naysayer, that's how you fish a thread
Posted by Stephan (Member # 7549) on :
Now, I still don't understand why other states don't HAVE TO honor gay marriages made in other states. Wasn't there some law that said states must honor contracts made in other states?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Wait, serious question here.
quote:To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others. The guarantee of equal protection under the law, and our obligation to uphold that command, forbids us from doing so.
What kind of weight might this decision carry on a national level? Precedent of any sort?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: Gay marriage is a potentially devastating social experiment.
Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.
Giving legal recognition to gay marriage marks the end of democracy in America.
Scott, it's nice to see you back. By the way, you're wrong.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stephan: Now, I still don't understand why other states don't HAVE TO honor gay marriages made in other states. Wasn't there some law that said states must honor contracts made in other states?
Yeah, it's called the US Constitution. The point has been raised before. Even Scalia, who opposes SSM, seems to think that the FFaC clause can legitimately be used to force other states to accept SSMs performed elsewhere.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:from Samp: What kind of weight might this decision carry on a national level? Precedent of any sort?
None I would imagine. The CT Supreme Court is the highest court in CT, but it has no jurisdiction over any other court, and thus no other court is under the constraints of the precedents set in that court.
quote:from Lisa: The point has been raised before. Even Scalia, who opposes SSM, seems to think that the FFaC clause can legitimately be used to force other states to accept SSMs performed elsewhere.
It's my understanding that, while full faith and credit has to be given to the laws of other states, meaning, if you're married in CT then you're also married in Idaho, the US Government gets to decide, over and above the states, what being married means. Or at least, that's the interpretation I've seen used before to defend the separate but equal status we've got going on now.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:It's my understanding that, while full faith and credit has to be given to the laws of other states, meaning, if you're married in CT then you're also married in Idaho, the US Government gets to decide, over and above the states, what being married means. Or at least, that's the interpretation I've seen used before to defend the separate but equal status we've got going on now.
And that's where DOMA applies. Doma says basically that marriage is between a man and a woman and that no state need consider a marriage between two people of the same sex a marriage even if it is considered a marriage in other states. Even more so, DOMA says that the government cannot recognize a marriage between same-sex couples, which means federal benefits are illusory.
DOMA Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
YAY!!!
Victory!!!
Posted by aretee (Member # 1743) on :
So, if ssm is legal, why can't polygamy be legal?
(Is this a topic for another thread, or can it be pertinent here?)
Edit: The ad banner at the bottom was for "gaycupid" website. Ironic?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Relevant clause:
quote:Article. IV. - The States
Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others
Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.
There is a serious question as to whether the Defense of Marriage Act is a constitutional assertion of Congress's power to determine the effect of one state's act. This is the only federal decision I could find on point, which says DOMA does not violate the Full Faith and Credit clause.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
Yeah, I can't see a victory using the full faith and credit clause... The last 4 words kill us.
The banner ad at the bottom of the page is for Prop 8. Why do people who want to ban marriage insist they're "protecting" marriage instead of destroying it for people they don't like?
Thing is, we won't win until the older generation dies off. They've just had too many years of hate pounded into their heads.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by aretee: So, if ssm is legal, why can't polygamy be legal?
(Is this a topic for another thread, or can it be pertinent here?)
Edit: The ad banner at the bottom was for "gaycupid" website. Ironic?
I don't know about anyone else, but I see absolutely no reason why.
Provided it is consensual for all parties involved, of course.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
So let's get rid of all these silly bans. No reason a 12 year old shouldn't be allowed to have sex and get married.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't know about anyone else, but I see absolutely no reason why.
Provided it is consensual for all parties involved, of course.
I agree with it being legal, as in not a criminal offense.
I don't think it should be recognized by the state, though.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I think this is a wonderful step.
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Gay marriage is a potentially devastating social experiment.
Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.
Giving legal recognition to gay marriage marks the end of democracy in America.
quote:Originally posted by Orson Scott Card: Gay marriage is a potentially devastating social experiment.
Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition, and any government that attempts to change it is my mortal enemy. I will act to destroy that government and bring it down, so it can be replaced with a government that will respect and support marriage, and help me raise my children in a society where they will expect to marry in their turn.
Giving legal recognition to gay marriage marks the end of democracy in America.
So wait is Samprimary OSC?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
No. Lisa is confused.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
I can think of a few reasons polygamy probably shouldn't be legal; unlike SSM, polygamy might require some significant changes in the rights and legal status of marriage. It would create real complications in inheritance, child custody/support, and alimony laws, for a start.
I'm inclined to dismiss "no reason a 12 year old should get married" as slippery-slope nonsense, but I'll go there if we must...
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Changing marriage laws does not change statutory rape laws. You just don't get an exception for sleeping with a 12 year old even if you are married to her.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:I'm inclined to dismiss "no reason a 12 year old should get married" as slippery-slope nonsense, but I'll go there if we must...
If you are afraid of slippery slopes when it comes to ssm, then remember that mountains usually have two sides and two slippery slopes. So how about this, if ssm is illegal what is to keep the government from keeping mentally challenged people from marrying? What is to keep them from saying that any marriage entered into should be approved by the government?
I think both of those arguments are incorrect and unsound arguments. I remember studying a supreme court judge (I can't remember who so I apologize) who said that though he couldn't define pornography, he definitely knew it when it saw it, and I think that same principle applies here.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
Yay!
Marriage: Union shared between two humans. (true definition)
That means that no other creatures can be married. You could use other words though...
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: So let's get rid of all these silly bans. No reason a 12 year old shouldn't be allowed to have sex and get married.
Yes, because a 12 year old is the same as a consenting adult. Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Marriage: Any successful blending or union of seperate elements or parties.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Elmer's Glue: So let's get rid of all these silly bans. No reason a 12 year old shouldn't be allowed to have sex and get married.
Yes, because a 12 year old is the same as a consenting adult.
Well, yes, and on a strictly practical level, a 12-year-old is incapable of supporting a child. Consent laws are in place for reasons beyond sexual maturity.
quote:Originally posted by Humean316: If you are afraid of slippery slopes when it comes to ssm, then remember that mountains usually have two sides and two slippery slopes. So how about this, if ssm is illegal what is to keep the government from keeping mentally challenged people from marrying? What is to keep them from saying that any marriage entered into should be approved by the government?
I think you mistake me, Humean. I generally approve of long-term same-sex couples having the same rights as married heterosexual couples, whether that comes in the form of marriage or some kind of civil union. Frankly, I can't help but wonder if some generally recognized civil union couldn't spare the nation some headaches; you go from California to Wyoming and your marriage may not be recognized as a marriage, but it's at least recognized as a civil union there, and you know your rights remain.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition
This argument has always struck me as silly. The exact meaning of marriage means different things to different cultures all over the world and across time. The earliest sections of the Bible give specific instructions on how to go about marrying multiple wives, but by the New Testament that's clearly been changed. (I'm a little hazy on when precisely the change happened).
Differences in the number of people involved in a marriage contract and what the responsibilities of those people are strike me as far more significant than differences in whether the contract can be between two people of the same sex.
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
quote:Originally posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick: Marriage: Any successful blending or union of separate elements or parties.
That's it's literary definition. If those exact words were in a dictionary, it would be definition number two or three. Example: "My brilliant plan marries my expertise to your strength to make us unstoppable!" I'm not too interested in that becoming a political definition. Beryllium Fluoride is a successful blending of elements (excuse the pun), but do they really need a license from the state to share their electrons? This is what conservatives mean when they say "state should not redefine marriage." So far, the attempts to define it on this thread, which include including same-sex couples, have dangerous loopholes.
When it comes to a fundamental component of our social structure, we do need to be careful about legal definitions. If I were to write a new definition for marriage that included same-sex couples, I would mention that it's a social bond, add that there are only two "elements", but change that word to "humans" until we find sentient life on other planets that have similar marital practices, involved in a single marriage (polygamists just have multiple marriages), get rid of the term "parties" (Do we really want corporation marriage rights? I can see it now: McDonalds marries Fannie Mae), that it is made with the intent of keeping the bond until death (MADE with the intent; but not always successful, so this definition allows for divorces), and is recognized either by the state or by an organized religion. Is that satisfactory?
My point is that a marriage isn't a synonym for a bond or a union, but a subset of one.
Edited for correct italics
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:
quote:Regardless of law, marriage has only one definition
This argument has always struck me as silly.
You might think it silly, but it is precisely this argument - that is, that law is not what defines marriage - that makes many people think civil same sex marriage rights should be implemented.
In the Connecticut case, it is abundantly clear that the civil unions denied no concrete state benefits to same sex couples. Rather, it was the separate categorization that the majority found objectionable.
My argument has always been that, if the rights are really the same, it's stupid to make up a new legal category. That is, legal distinctions without a difference should be eliminated.
My preference is to explicitly acknowledge the principle that law does not define marriage by renaming civil marriage "civil unions" - for everybody. But, absent that, I object to making a legal distinction that has no legal effect, precisely because I think it entangles the legal entity of marriage with the actual institution of marriage.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
I do recall someone saying once that all "legal marriages" should be civil unions, and that "marriage" should be a non-legal term used by churches or whatever other groups want to use it based on their personal beliefs (I'm pretty sure this is what you were just advocating). I agree very much with this idea.
I suggested this to a friend opposed to same-sex marriage and his answer was an emphatic "no," still using the argument "marriage has only one definition and letting people define it however they want is wrong)." At the time I hadn't quite found words for why I thought that was a bad argument and now we have an unspoken pact about not arguing.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
The problem with that argument is that the definition of marriage has consistently changed over history. So for people now wanting the definition to be frozen as it has arbitrarily become now is a little silly.
Understandable that they'd not want change, but still a silly argument because the term has changed so many times.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
A few years ago a constitutional ban on ssm passed here in Kansas with flying colors. It is an abhorrent law, which not only bans gay marriage, but denies civil unions.
I'm going to echo those who say that government has no business defining marriage at all. They can handle inheritance, alimony, child custody, etc. without having to marry anyone. Personally, I got married in a church. The union has religious significance for me. All I did with the government was file paperwork.
Posted by Speed (Member # 5162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I do recall someone saying once that all "legal marriages" should be civil unions, and that "marriage" should be a non-legal term used by churches or whatever other groups want to use it based on their personal beliefs (I'm pretty sure this is what you were just advocating). I agree very much with this idea.
That's an increasingly popular idea, and I think it makes sense.
The ironic thing about it, in my opinion, is that it's most frequently espoused by the secular, socially progressive crowd, and dismissed by religious conservatives.
If I were a religious conservative, I wouldn't be nearly as upset with the government changing the definition of marriage as with them defining and administring it in the first place. The fact that some Elvis impersonator on the Las Vegas strip thinks he can sanctify your union in the eyes of God Almighty in exchange for $50 would be more offensive to me than gay people cohabitating.
I think if the government can decide who gets married, they should also be able to decide who gets baptized, and set up coin-op holy water vending machines in strip malls and movie theaters for the purpose.
Anyone who finds that idea offensive, but still wants to quibble over who the government will and won't marry, is fighting the wrong battle. IMHO.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: No. Lisa is confused.
No, Rivka. Lisa is not confused. Lisa deliberately attribed the quote to OSC because Sam was deliberately channelling OSC. If you recall, Scott said exactly those things in a recent article he wrote.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)