Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Court finds law discriminates by limiting marriage to heterosexual couples
HARTFORD, Connecticut - Connecticut's Supreme Court ruled Friday that same-sex couples have the right to marry, making that 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.
Justices overturned a lower court ruling and found in favor of the plaintiffs, who said the state's marriage law discriminates against them because it applies only to heterosexual couples, therefore denying gay couples the financial, social and emotional benefits of marriage.
"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. disagrees, but won't fight ruling
Connecticut already permitted same-sex civil unions that grant largely the same state rights as to married couples, but lack the full, federal legal protections of marriage.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell said Friday that she disagreed with the court's ruling, but will not fight the ruling.
"The Supreme Court has spoken," Rell said in a statement. "I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision — either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution — will not meet with success."
Because Friday's decision was based on the state constitution, the ruling cannot be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, NBC News reported. The ruling is to take effect shortly.
Eight same-sex couples sued in 2004, saying their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process were violated when they were denied marriage licenses.
The plaintiffs wanted the court to rule that the law discriminated against them because it applies only to heterosexual couples, therefore denying gay couples the financial, social and emotional benefits of marriage.
The only U.S. states that allow same-sex couples to marry are Massachusetts and California.
Peck said that as soon as the decision was announced, the couple started crying and hugging while juggling excited phone calls from her brother and other friends and family.
"We've always dreamed of being married," she said. "Even though we were lesbians and didn't know if that would ever come true, we always dreamed of it."
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Jon, we've had this discussion before. I know you are hellbent on getting 102 stopped, but IF it goes through (it may this time) it opens up the pathway to the SCOTUS. Just like in this instance, I believe the SCOTUS would rule similarly. The only way to get it to that level is to have a state constitution's anti-gay marriage amendment be challenged as to its constitutionality. The result will be the same as above.
All the money that people are throwing at it to get it passed will be the downfall of their goal.
__________________
Quote:
Mr. Garrison: Kenny, would you please climb that ladder and take down the star above the stage?
Jon, we've had this discussion before. I know you are hellbent on getting 102 stopped, but IF it goes through (it may this time) it opens up the pathway to the SCOTUS. Just like in this instance, I believe the SCOTUS would rule similarly. The only way to get it to that level is to have a state constitution's anti-gay marriage amendment be challenged as to its constitutionality. The result will be the same as above.
All the money that people are throwing at it to get it passed will be the downfall of their goal.
"as to its constitutionality"...you mean the Constitution of the US, not the state's, correct? How often (just curious--no clue at all) does the SCOTUS overturn a state's constitutional amendment?
Yes, the state's amendment being constitutional under the US constitution. A state has the freedom to do whatever they want but if they put something into their constitution that is in violation of the US constitution, the US one has the trump card.
__________________
Quote:
Mr. Garrison: Kenny, would you please climb that ladder and take down the star above the stage?
Oh, and it doesn't happen very often because rarely does a state succeed in putting bigoted amendments into its constitution. Even the anti mixed marriages laws in the 40s (I think the 40s) that the SCOTUS overturned basically all laws against it nationwide didn't have any amendments attached. Although several groups tried. I might be mistaken though, and there may have been some amendments.
The SCOTUS is reluctant to hear cases like this though, so IMO it has to be a very big issue to get them to move their butts and hear a case on the issue.
__________________
Quote:
Mr. Garrison: Kenny, would you please climb that ladder and take down the star above the stage?
"as to its constitutionality"...you mean the Constitution of the US, not the state's, correct? How often (just curious--no clue at all) does the SCOTUS overturn a state's constitutional amendment?
We're actually voting on that in NV this year - it seems that our constitution states that someone has to live in the Silver State for 6 months prior to an election in order to vote. SCOTUS has stated that this is unconstitutional and cannot be any more than 30 days.
The NV Constitution still says 6 months - the ballot initiative is to amend it to 30 days to have it conform with the SCOTUS ruling.
I'm pretty much tired of this coming up every election.
I don't care if gays get some sort of union to make the benefits equal to other couples. I actually wish they could just do so and think that's the right thing to do.
I do not want marriage redefined. Marriage is a man and woman period.
Why all this fuss?
Get the benefit's and the legal recognization but call it something different.
I'm pretty much tired of this coming up every election.
I don't care if gays get some sort of union to make the benefits equal to other couples. I actually wish they could just do so and think that's the right thing to do.
I do not want marriage redefined. Marriage is a man and woman period.
Why all this fuss?
Get the benefit's and the legal recognization but call it something different.
So Christian, God-loving couples should not be able to get married? I know several, and their dream is to get married, before God. Should be their right as it is everyone else's. I don't think it should be mandated that a church HAS to perform the service. If a church wants to say, "No, we won't marry same-sex couples", then that is within their rights. But I don't think the state should be able to say that a church CAN'T do it. jmnsho
I'm pretty much tired of this coming up every election.
Most of us are, its clearly a tactic to get the evangelical vote out to the polls
Quote:
Originally Posted by AzCards21
I don't care if gays get some sort of union to make the benefits equal to other couples. I actually wish they could just do so and think that's the right thing to do.
I do not want marriage redefined. Marriage is a man and woman period.
You say it like there is no conflicting opinions unfortunatly there are and on both sides.
Many like me see no reason that they can't get married and I'm nit going to judge them on what they want to call it. However that isn't the big deal. The big deal are the folks to the right of you, they think being gay is a choice, is evil and a sin. They don't want them to have any rights like this, so would go further than that.
So unfortunately its your own crowd that are holding this up as much as anybody. One thing I've been saying for a long time is that one of our problems is that the fundamentalist Evangelicals WILL NOT NEGOTIATE, to them it is a zero sum game, they must win and their opponent must lose as they are evil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AzCards21
Why all this fuss?
Get the benefit's and the legal recognization but call it something different.
Get them to compromise and we can talk unfortunately they aren't reasonable like you. Frankly I know they would never compromise as their opions come fromthier interpretation of the bible, hence any compromise is just a tactic to move the ball their way a little and not real
:c heers:
Cosmic Defender Champion!
dreamcastrocks--My Hero!!
Linear Mode
