"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.I have to wonder how this will affect CA? More Californians will feel like this is reason to grant equal protections, or more Californians will decide to hurt our families to get at those darn activist judges who actually follow the equal protection clauses of their state constitutions?
"To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others," Palmer wrote.
Anyway, Congratulations Connecticut!
Posts
13 comments:
Yeah, that was a total surprise to me - it wasn't on my radar at all.
I have to wonder how this will affect CA?
That IS the $1,000,000 question. Only time will tell.
Those darn activist judges are at it again!
According to an AP article, the governor of CT says that though he opposes the ruling he doesn't expect that it can be successfully challenged either legislatively or by constitutional amendment.
Good news indeed, and I hope that it ends up having a positive impact on the issue in CA.
(btw: Scott is Dichotomy)
An interesting thought occurred to me:
In MA and CA, and now in CT, the Supreme Court rulings were 4 votes for and 3 votes against. The Church's document The Divine Institution of Marriage refers to this as "the slimmest of margins", and I've seen other pro-8 literature refer to the CA Supreme Court decision as having been made by "a bare majority". Same-sex marriage opponents are eager to point out that these rulings that "overrode the will of the people" barely squeaked through.
It's my understanding that Prop 22 in CA (which expressed "the will of the people") won with 62% of the votes. If my math is right, four out of seven judges is 57%.
So apparently there's only a five percent difference between "the will of the people" and "the slimmest of margins"/"a bare majority".
(btw., Evan is Mohointx. lol)
I was completely surprised as well.
I'm betting this will have a positive influence (at least in our eyes)... that is, unless schools start teaching about gay marriage and kids trip out and start turning gay themselves ;)
As a gay Mormon in CT, I was also surprised. I knew the supreme court was considering this, but I didn't expect a decision this quickly. BTW, the CT governor is a Republican woman. But she supported civil unions, as did obviously a lot of other Republicans (yes, Republicans in CT are more progressive than Democrats in UT), and that legislation passed the CT legislature. The governor happily signed it. And now she promises not to fight this decision, but to support it (not entirely happily).
I think this decision will embolden both sides in CA. Opponents of gay marriage will say that this is proof why there must be constitutional amendments, and the proponents will say that this is proof that gay marriage can legally exist.
I am very proud to be from CT today.
Thanks for sharing the good news. Now there's one more state you can move to when Utah passes the Gay Extermination Act.
I needed some good news too. This is awesome.
Scott/aka Dichotomy "So apparently there's only a five percent difference between "the will of the people" and "the slimmest of margins"/"a bare majority"."
Hey, you're right!
"won with 62% of the votes."
And that was years ago.
Evan "that is, unless schools start teaching about gay marriage and kids trip out and start turning gay themselves ;)"
I heard in a commercial that that can happen.
Anon. "I think this decision will embolden both sides in CA. "
Welcome Anonymous. That's a good point. It may likely be a wash... How do you like living in CT, just in case? :-)
Ben: "Now there's one more state you can move to when Utah passes the Gay Extermination Act."
Oh please, Ben; that's just fear mongering.
Now they may pass the Protect the Ideal Family Act; it does the same thing as the Gay Extermination Act, just with a more pleasant, loving demeanor.
You should be on the PR committe for the other side, Scot. You know their tricks so well.
its a toss up, voters might be energized to amend the constitution now, or they will say i guess we aren't that off base since other states are following suit.
Indigo Incarnates
Y'know... whenever I hear about these far-right "family" groups, I always have to wonder: Don't *normal* families want their gay kids to lead happy, fulfilled lives too?
It seems that these religious "pro-family" groups are little more than highly-financed PACs that funnel money into hard-right Republican officials.
A dissenting judge in this case:
Justice Peter T. Zarella wrote that he believes there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage, and the court’s majority failed to discuss the purpose of marriage laws, which he said is to "privilege and regulate procreative conduct."
Zarella added, "The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry. If the state no longer has an interest in the regulation of procreation, then that is a decision for the legislature or the people of the state and not this court."
Ok, first of all, when did we start to "regulate" procreation? As far as I remember, that was something the government had no say in, besides the abortion issue.
Secondly, if marriage is dependent upon the natural ability to procreate, why don't we make people prove they can procreate before we let them have a marriage license? I mean, infertile people get married all the time.
No, procreation has never been a prerequisite to making a family, and judges who say so are doing some "redefining" of their own.
Fob: "You should be on the PR committe for the other side, Scot."
I'd love to have that job, if only for the potential to be horrible at it :-).
qu: "its a toss up, voters might be energized to amend the constitution now, or they will say i guess we aren't that off base since other states are following suit."
Yeah, I agree.
indigo: "Don't *normal* families want their gay kids to lead happy, fulfilled lives too? "
I'm afraid most even see an emotionally tortured gay man trying to be straight and having illicit gay affairs on the side as more desirable than being out and proud in the most stable of gay marriages. As a parent, it's hard for me to understand too.
Ophidimancer:
Good points. You may be interested in this or this.
"Ok, first of all, when did we start to "regulate" procreation?"
The odd part is that even if this was the sole intent for marriage, it has been long shown to not work. Marriage is not stopping gay couples from becoming parents. Gay couples do so, in fact, more often in states with anti-gay marriage legislation.
Post a Comment