Gay Patriot Header Image

Connecticut Supreme Court Mandates Gay Marriage

Posted by GayPatriotWest at 12:26 pm - October 10, 2008.
Filed under: Gay Marriage

Earlier today the Connecticut Supreme Court became the third such state supreme court to overturn the state’s marriage laws and mandate gay marriage. (H/t the Corner.)

My sense is this couldn’t come at a better time for gay marriage opponents. Whenever a state court acts against the will of the people who, in this case, through their elected representatives, had actually already passed landmark civil unions legislation, it increases popular support for initiatives banning gay marriage as are now on the ballot in California, Arizona and Florida.

In 2004, the year after Massachusetts’ Goodridge decision mandating gay marriage in the Bay State, such propositions appeared on thirteen state ballots (eleven in November, two earlier in the year). They all passed by comfortable margins, even in such “blue” states as Michigan and Oregon.

Two years later, however, after the highest courts in Washington and New York State respectively failed to mandate gay marriage, leaving such matters to state legislatures, initiatives and referenda on various state ballots saw much smaller margins of victory, with the draconian proposal in the Grand Canyon State defeated.

The Connecticut decision may well have sealed the deal for Proposition 8 in California and not the way those who cheer the decision today would like.

UPDATE:  The Connecticut Supreme Court just created a great fundraising appeal for “Yes on 8” and reminded voters of the CA court decision.

UP-UPDATE:Â To show you just how clueless are the folks running the campaign against Proposition 8, Geoff Kors, NO on Prop 8 Executive Committee Member, just released a statement:

Today, another state recognized that same-sex couples have the fundamental right to marry . . . .  This is another indication that more and more Americans are recognizing the fundamental right of loving couples to marry.

Sorry, Geoff, it’s not. It’s not an indication that Americans support same-sex marriage, but that another court does.

Aren’t you familiar with the backlash against such decisions? Or how this decision will galvanize supporters of Proposition 8 and increase their fundraising?

Share

78 Comments

  1. Apparently for you it is fine and dandy that someone speaks so disdainfully about LGBT relationships.

    Dave, to paraphrase you, “I would enjoy seeing the look on your face when you realize that you have to eat every single word you’ve said about me. But even if that opportunity arose, your attitude on here shows me you wouldn’t be man enough to do it anyway.”

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 11, 2008 @ 3:03 pm - October 11, 2008

  2. #46 “That’s about as logical as saying all conservatives are crazy religious holy rollers that wish gays were dead.”

    NOTE TO SELF: remember to pick up tickets for the crazy-religious-holy-rollers-that-wish-gays-were-dead pride festival.

    It sells out every year and I wouldn’t want to miss all the fun.

    Comment by Sean A — October 11, 2008 @ 3:20 pm - October 11, 2008

  3. ILC, you show me an instance on here where you have called any of the “conservatives” on their putrid generalizations and attacks on the “liberal” LGBT communities for the actions/beliefs of a few and I will admit that my statement was wrong and apologize to you.

    AE, I can always trust you to throw out the bs of the toxic right. No one is being asked to subsidize anything. The fact that you believe that and repeat it is just more evidence that you are firmly in the “queers are evil” camp. Which of course is totally your right, but you, like them, are unable to admit that your concerns have NOTHING to do with “protection” of society or family.

    “I couldnt give a rats hairy ass ”

    Yup, that’s true – all that matters to you is toxic right wing dogma no matter who it hurts. You got yours so f*ck the rest, the foundation of the Republican party.

    Comment by Dave — October 11, 2008 @ 3:30 pm - October 11, 2008

  4. #50 Sean A, actually they do usually sell out so you’re very wise to think ahead

    Comment by Dave — October 11, 2008 @ 3:31 pm - October 11, 2008

  5. Interesting, my longer comments appear and then disappear. It’s a vast right wing conspiracy I’m sure 🙂 of course #51 gets through. I was kidding, mostly anyway.

    #47 So V, you think that site represents the “vast majority” of gay men? or liberal gay men. I’m not about to register to get in and see the hit counter so I can’t say how popular it is but I imagine that for some of you it’s sufficient evidence to condemn us all yet again. Remind me how it is that because there segments of the LGBT communities who participate in dangerous, self-destructive acts somehow indicates that none of us should have the right to marry? And clarify for me, if you will, what is the line between acceptable homosexual behavior and depravity? For a significant number of people the line is crossed as soon as two men hold hands or kiss. For others, like the g0y groups, as long as there is no penetration it’s ok and so on. Yes, there is clearly a line, what is your definition.

    Comment by Dave — October 11, 2008 @ 4:08 pm - October 11, 2008

  6. I think acceptance and tolerance of that barebacking website represents the morality embraced by a majority of gay men: “If it feels good, do it. Who are we to judge? People who object to any form of sexual expression are repressed Puritans.”

    Comment by V the K — October 11, 2008 @ 4:57 pm - October 11, 2008

  7. Also, the self-destructive tendencies of gay men is a separate issue from the issue of marriage. An analogy can be made however, between extending marriages to people unable to uphold the tenets of marriage, and giving out mortgages to people who lack the financial responsibility to sustain home ownership.

    Comment by V the K — October 11, 2008 @ 4:57 pm - October 11, 2008

  8. When two adults do whatever together in private, it may or may not be depraved, but it’s private.

    Doing in public what ought to be private is a very bright line between normal and depraved.

    Comment by V the K — October 11, 2008 @ 5:01 pm - October 11, 2008

  9. And the only place C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n-s are calling for all teh gheys to d-i-e is in Dave’s fevered, paranoid imagination.

    Comment by V the K — October 11, 2008 @ 5:07 pm - October 11, 2008

  10. Finally! Six tries to get that past the filter!

    Comment by V the K — October 11, 2008 @ 5:07 pm - October 11, 2008

  11. Remind me how it is that because there segments of the LGBT communities who participate in dangerous, self-destructive acts somehow indicates that none of us should have the right to marry?

    Because, Dave, there are not only participants, but condoners and enablers like yourself.

    Since you aren’t even able to condemn the behavior of those engaging in self-destructive acts, but instead shriek that those who do are engaging in “sick, obsessive hate”, why should you be given any more responsibility? Why should you be allowed to have children when you are screaming that there is nothing wrong with dressing up children as sexual slaves and taking them to sex fairs and criticizing those who do condemn such behavior as practicing “sick, obsessive hate”?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 11, 2008 @ 5:39 pm - October 11, 2008

  12. And clarify for me, if you will, what is the line between acceptable homosexual behavior and depravity?

    Actually, I think V the K has clarified his very nicely.

    the problem is, Dave, that liberals like yourself are unable to distinguish between acceptable homosexual behavior and depravity, and end up screaming that anyone who criticizes the behaviors that I outlined in comments 30 through 32 has “sick, obsessive hate” for gay people.

    No one believes that you oppose these things, Dave, because you adamantly refuse to condemn them and insist that anyone who does condemn them is homophobic and antigay. Thus, there is no need for someone like yourself who will turn a blind eye to child sexual abuses and destructive promiscuity rather than to admit that another gay person is doing something wrong to ever have children or be allowed to be married.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 11, 2008 @ 5:46 pm - October 11, 2008

  13. And before this argument chases it’s tail again, straight people are not allowed to have sex in public at Mardi Gras, if they do they are subject to arrest and prosecution, no one will attack those who condemn heterosexual depravity as being anti-straight, and outside of some parts of Hollywood, San Francisco, and New York, the majority of people find public sex depraved and are willing to say so.

    Comment by V the K — October 11, 2008 @ 5:53 pm - October 11, 2008

  14. Gee V, you actually managed to be rational for 3 whole comments, making intelligent points in a civil manner. I guess you couldn’t keep that up. Too bad. Anyway, for the time being I’m done fighting the filter, too much time wasted. Not that anyone here is going to be too depressed by my disappearance 🙂

    Comment by Dave — October 11, 2008 @ 5:57 pm - October 11, 2008

  15. In other words, Dave, you can’t cite or link to any examples where C-h-r-i-s-t-i-a-n-s wish for teh gheys to d-i-e. And since you aren’t m-a-n enough to admit that you m-a-d-e t-h-a-t s-h—t u-p, you’re punking out.

    Comment by V the K — October 11, 2008 @ 6:06 pm - October 11, 2008

  16. NO ONE wants SPECIAL treatment…Just EQUALITY!

    Phil

    No one is preventing you from having equality Phil. Go marry a woman. You are just as free as anyone else to marry a person of the opposite sex. Dont want to marry a woman? Fine. Have a relationship with whomever you want. You are free to do so.

    But you are not asking for equal treatment. youre asking for society to give you the same benefits it gives to encourage one behavior for exhibiting an entirely different behavior.

    And dont give the that bullshit about being able to marry the person you love. Find the marriage statute anywhere in the United States that mentions ANYTHING about love, and you will have an argument.

    But none of them do! Because society’s interest in marriage has nothing to do with love. Its why there is no test to see if a couple is really in love before marrying. There is no requirement. Blood tests? Yes. Love tests? No. People who dont love eachother get married all the time and have for millenia.

    Marry a woman and be treated the same as any other man who marries a woman. Until then, you are absolutely demanding special rights.

    Comment by American Elephant — October 11, 2008 @ 6:31 pm - October 11, 2008

  17. V, 4 or 5 of my comments have been trapped. What’s the point?

    Comment by Dave — October 11, 2008 @ 8:17 pm - October 11, 2008

  18. You can always post the links on NDT’s blog. He doesn’t have a filter.

    Comment by V the K — October 11, 2008 @ 8:41 pm - October 11, 2008

  19. No one is preventing you from having equality Phil. Go marry someone of your own race. You are just as free as anyone else to marry a person of the same race. Dont want to marry another black/white/colored? Fine. Have a relationship with whomever you want. You are free to do so.

    But you are not asking for equal treatment. youre asking for society to give you the same benefits it gives to encourage one behavior for exhibiting an entirely different behavior.

    And dont give the that bullshit about being able to marry the person you love. Find the marriage statute anywhere in the United States that mentions ANYTHING about love, and you will have an argument.

    But none of them do! Because society’s interest in marriage has nothing to do with love. Its why there is no test to see if a couple is really in love before marrying. There is no requirement. Blood tests? Yes. Love tests? No. People who dont love eachother get married all the time and have for millenia.

    Marry a black and be treated the same as any other black who marries a black. Until then, you are absolutely demanding special rights.

    Comment by qqq — October 12, 2008 @ 3:13 am - October 12, 2008

  20. Why stop there? What if you love two people? Or three people? Or six? How dare the state limit you and say only one of those relationships is valid? How oppressive? Are the polyamorous not also entitled to equality in terms of state recognition of their relationships?

    And what if you love your sister, or your brother, or you mother, or your grandfather? How dare the state enforce religious-based strictures against people’s love? Aren’t those involved in incestuous relationships also entitled to state recognition of their relationships?

    Unless you’re trying to argue that gender doesn’t matter in marriage, but numbers and biological relationships do.

    Comment by V the K — October 12, 2008 @ 12:07 pm - October 12, 2008

  21. To American Elephant: so YOU’RE the one who keeps saying “just marry a woman” to a gay man who wants to get married. This will be the strongest comment yet I’ve submitted to this site. You bastard! Oh sure, tell a gay man to marry a woman. What about the poor woman who will be lied to! Huh? don’t you care about the deception the guy will be doing to the woman & kids (if they have any). YOU DON’T EFFIN DO THAT!!! A friend of mine (a woman) was married to a guy for 10 freakin’ years. Then he comes out of the closet. He only married her because he wanted to get married. He LIED to her!! You don’t have a problem with that!? If a gay guy wants to get married, let him marry a guy or be in a civil union. It’s NOT OK for a gay guy to marry a woman & lie to her!! EVER!!!

    Comment by Jimbo — October 12, 2008 @ 11:17 pm - October 12, 2008

  22. Why stop there? What if you love two people? Or three people? Or six? How dare the state limit you and say only one of those relationships is valid? How oppressive? Are the polyamorous not also entitled to equality in terms of state recognition of their relationships?

    I don’t see why not, only it’s not practical to have polyamorous marriage, and if polyamorous marriage were allowed, many two people marriage would suffer.

    Let me explain. Same sex marriage is easy to implement (at least talking from a legal point of view). A simple word replace can be done, for example changing “one man and one woman” to “two people of any sex” and boom, it’s done. All the rights and responsibilities, by and large can apply to same sex couples. The ones that can’t (IE having children biologically), while they don’t apply there isn’t the possibility they can be abused.

    Polyamory is a different matter. If you allow polyamory, and everyone in, say, a city got into a massive polyamorous marriage, there would be nothing to stop every single person from getting employment benefits (IE healthcare), and from filing joint taxes. The cost to business and government would be massive.

    And what if you love your sister, or your brother, or you mother, or your grandfather? How dare the state enforce religious-based strictures against people’s love? Aren’t those involved in incestuous relationships also entitled to state recognition of their relationships?

    It does. Any two people in Hawaii can get state recognised benefits. Even if they are related.

    Unless you’re trying to argue that gender doesn’t matter in marriage, but numbers and biological relationships do.

    Point me to where it is forbidden to discriminate against a group of people based on the number of participants in said group or because of one’s biological connection.

    Comment by qqq — October 13, 2008 @ 12:13 am - October 13, 2008

  23. Jimbo, if a gay guy wants to get married, he needs to decide which is a higher priority: marriage or gay sex.

    Sounds like your friend was more interested in gay sex than he was in being married, keeping his promise to his wife, and standing by his children.

    Why is that anyone’s fault but his? Better yet, what makes you think that, if this guy was willing to lie to your friend for his own personal gratification, that he wouldn’t also lie to anyone or anything else he married?

    Like AE said above: “Don’t want to marry a woman? Fine. Have a relationship with whomever you want. You are free to do so.”

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 13, 2008 @ 12:16 am - October 13, 2008

  24. Jimbo, I’m not sure American Elephant is encouraging any gay man to marry a woman. But I agree with you that gay men should be discouraged from marrying women.

    It’s possible that, at the time of the marriage, he decided (wrongly) that being married was more important than seeking a relationship with a man. And it appears that he may have been pressured to marry. No, it doesn’t absolve responsibility from this guy who lied to his wife. Unfortunately, that doesn’t help your friend, whose marriage was doomed from day one.

    Comment by Pat — October 13, 2008 @ 9:52 am - October 13, 2008

  25. Pat, thank you for injecting your sense and calmness into the debate. You always seem to keep a cool head and have a willingness to look at things from several angles.

    Dave, thank you for going out on a limb and expressing yourself. I agree with you about the tone of the language used to discuss (fellow?) members of the LGBT community in the comments.

    As for you, NDT, well, it’s saddening to see that some things never change. Your comments are still just as spiteful and full of hate as ever. I can scarcely believe that one human being could say the sort of things you say and still sleep at night.

    And I’m not talking about condemning behaviours. I’m talking about attributing them to anyone who disagrees with you, and then somehow to every gay person you don’t even know.

    Comment by PSUdain — October 14, 2008 @ 3:08 am - October 14, 2008

  26. You say utterly unfounded, libelous, and spiteful things about other people:

    You and yours refuse to grow up and put responsibility and common sense ahead of your sexual needs. You refuse to think farther than your next hit or trick. You refuse to stop lying to confused teenage boys and infecting them with a deadly disease.

    How can you say that Dave has done any of these things, especially as he states that he’s celibate.

    And then, I’m also talking about spiteful crap like this:

    Jimbo, if a gay guy wants to get married, he needs to decide which is a higher priority: marriage or gay sex.

    Sounds like your friend was more interested in gay sex than he was in being married, keeping his promise to his wife, and standing by his children.

    Why is that anyone’s fault but his? Better yet, what makes you think that, if this guy was willing to lie to your friend for his own personal gratification, that he wouldn’t also lie to anyone or anything else he married?

    You don’t even know the guy! And yet you’ve made him into yet another ghastly homo-scarecrow for you to beat on some more.

    Comment by PSUdain — October 14, 2008 @ 3:08 am - October 14, 2008

  27. You say the most utterly and completely unloving things to people. As a person of faith–hell, just as a person–that saddens me. I hate to see when people are cruel. But things you say again and again are both cruel and vile. Please take a minute to consider treating others with the respect you seem to think you deserve. Just because it’s the web and you never have to meet any of us face to face doesn’t give you free reign on the matter of decency.

    Comment by PSUdain — October 14, 2008 @ 3:09 am - October 14, 2008

  28. […] themselves too thin. They are what the Reps are not. It’s always been a bugging factor. Connecticut Supreme Court Mandates Gay Marriage While typically this seems like a great thing, and I know there would be enough celebration. I […]

    Pingback by The Personal is Political « How May I inconvenience You Today? — October 16, 2008 @ 12:41 pm - October 16, 2008

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.