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. I really think most people who are in the middle-not really opposed but not really in favor get turned off by the court decisions. I think this people are persuadable, but when it looks like the courts are going to start mandating stuff, they get uncomfortable and perhaps even hostile-not so much to the concept of gay marriage but to the concept of it coming about through judicial fiat rather than the legislative process.

    I am willing to bet the proponents of the measure will be using this decision in an ad sometime over the next few weeks.

    Comment by just me — October 10, 2008 @ 12:31 pm - October 10, 2008

  2. I sent in a few posts on this issue, here, a year ago, and I still think I’m correct.

    It is – barely – possible to use the courts to advance a civil rights issue, but its proponents had better be very very careful. If you manage to use the courts to advance an agenda where, in almost every single state there is a majority against you, you are going to suffer an inevitable backlash that will set your cause back perhaps decades.

    Advocates of gay marriage point to civil rights as their template. Who are they kidding? There was significant support for civil rights across *much* of the country at the point the court pushes got serious. The Democrats in the Deep South were the region of core resistance, but the point is: It was not nationwide!

    The advocates of gay marriage made a serious mistake in not realizing this. The price is continually now being paid. Because I consider the current “gay marriage advocacy” to be NOT about gay marriage, but actually part of a larger liberal assault on traditional values itself, I have not and do not support it in its current form.

    Perhaps some day, when the major proponents of gay marriage are focusing their argument on the fact that monogamy is essential for a civilization to thrive, and gays are fighting for gay marriage solely in support of monogamy… and when they focus their efforts on convincing the people first, and only once that battle is won, then the courts, THEN I will be able to support the endeavor.

    Comment by Mike Devx — October 10, 2008 @ 12:37 pm - October 10, 2008

  3. With friends like these…

    Comment by Clint — October 10, 2008 @ 12:46 pm - October 10, 2008

  4. Connecticut Governor Jodi Rell (R) has issued a statement:

    I disagree with today’s State Supreme Court ruling but as governor, I will uphold it. I continue to believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman.

    I also believe that the historic civil union law that I proudly signed in 2005 is equitable and just. We were the first state to enact such a law through legislative action and not a court mandate.

    The Supreme Court has spoken. 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. I will therefore abide by the ruling.”

    With the anticipated change in the Federal Congress, the Congress and the House are expected to be heavy on the Democratic Side. And with the anticipated turnover in the Supreme Court with a very heavy Democratic force including the anticipated win of Obama, things might not seem so dark.

    Seems like we won’t have to succumb to ‘Dark Side’, and we will be faced with some hard economic times for a while but with 25 days left, boy oh boy, we are all in for a ride.

    Comment by rusty — October 10, 2008 @ 1:18 pm - October 10, 2008

  5. Dan, I agree. My first reaction was that this will only energize opponents, especially so close to a national election.

    Comment by Mike — October 10, 2008 @ 1:49 pm - October 10, 2008

  6. People, this is the function of a Supreme Court: to determine if our laws are consistent with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In 1958, only 4% of whites approved of interracial marriage. When interracial marriage was finally made legal ten years later, only 17% of whites approved. Why was it made legal? Because a few “imperialist activist judges,” oh, I mean the U.S. Supreme Court, ruled that it was fundamentally unconstitutional to deny citizens the right to marry the person of their choice. I quote from the court’s decision from this case (Loving v. Virginia, 1967): “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.”

    Comment by Sandy — October 10, 2008 @ 2:25 pm - October 10, 2008

  7. I actually don’t mind court decisions regarding these issues. Asking the electorate through the balloting process is demeaning and pathetic. I do not need to ask permission if it’s okay to marry. Honestly, the government should not be in the business of regulating anything let alone personal, private relationships.

    Comment by OutliciousTV — October 10, 2008 @ 2:40 pm - October 10, 2008

  8. When the courts strike down a law, the social conservatives come out of the woodwork in outrage. It’s what they do. The problem? This now puts John McCain at a disadvantage. He has to decide whether or not to make it an issue, which he’s been great at not doing so far, or to capitalize on it. I’m hoping he takes the better road by making an issue out of the court’s activism…and not out of the outcome of the decision. That’s the only way he’ll be able to keep up his current message without alienating voters.

    Comment by MR Newman — October 10, 2008 @ 2:44 pm - October 10, 2008

  9. Actually, MR, it puts John McCain at an advantage if he points out the court’s activism. That’s all he needs to to appeal to social conservatives in this case.

    Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 10, 2008 @ 3:25 pm - October 10, 2008

  10. Every citizen of this Earth should have the freedom to CHOOSE a partner in life. I have for 23 years. With all of the gloom and dispare that is see everyday, it is nice to see people actually doing some good in this world. NO ONE wants SPECIAL treatment…Just EQUALITY!

    Phil

    Comment by Phil — October 10, 2008 @ 3:40 pm - October 10, 2008

  11. Even if it is legalized, gay marriage will always be a joke. Mainly because of freaks like this. Gay marriage will always be the camp, drag show version of real marriage. You can get all the government paperwork you want, but if it isn’t about two people committing to build a life together, it’s still a joke. And there may well be gay couples who cling (bitterly) to an old-fashioned ideal of commitment and building a life together, but most gay marriages are going to be regarded as freaky, as long as freakiness … i.e., promiscuity, gender-bending, public fetish displays … is accepted as “normal” within gay culture.

    Comment by V the K — October 10, 2008 @ 3:53 pm - October 10, 2008

  12. I mean, come on, gay marriage is the subprime mortgage of marriage. It’s the Community Reinvestment Act of marriage. I mean people whine about equality, but then they try to claim that Folsom Street Fair is exactly the same thing as (i.e. EQUAL to) Mardi Gras. Equality? I don’t think that word means what you think it means.

    Comment by V the K — October 10, 2008 @ 4:06 pm - October 10, 2008

  13. Speaking of ‘bitter’ V the K. . .Big Table for 1.
    Like straight folk have such a grand standing in the realm of Marriage. Oh and those wonderful social events such as Mardi Gras–topless folk and public sex–the professional wrestling wonder, oh and my favorite, women’s mud-wrestling. Oh and even though he said his good bye’s Larry Craig and public toilets along with Ted Haggard paying for gay sex. . .etc. etc. etc. Oh the last, public displays on a horrid level, extrememly overweight sports fans who paint their bodies in team colors and all you want to say is ‘put a bra on’

    But I forgot, You, V the K, is in charge, oh so omnipotent or is that impotent one — sans the ‘r’

    HAPPY COMING OUT DAY everyone. 10-10

    Comment by rusty — October 10, 2008 @ 4:13 pm - October 10, 2008

  14. [...] Connecticut Supreme Court Mandates Gay Marriage [...]

    Pingback by GayPatriot » Why I was Wrong about Prop 8’s Impending Defeat — October 10, 2008 @ 4:25 pm - October 10, 2008

  15. I am completely in support of SSM but utterly opposed to having it imposed on me (or anyone) by a court. My wife and I disagree on this point – she thinks that sometimes social change needs to be forced. I, on the other hand, worry about all of the other things that might be imposed on me by the changing winds that blow new judges into courtrooms.

    Comment by SoCal — October 10, 2008 @ 4:30 pm - October 10, 2008

  16. Notice how Rusty’s only rejoinder is to a) smear all straight people and b) insult V the K’s sex life.

    The difference is, Rusty, that among straight people, sex in toilets, Mardi Gras, rejecting monogamy, nude dancing, and sexual mud wrestling are considered far outside the mainstream, are regularly protested, and are looked down upon by the vast majority.

    Among gay and lesbian people the reverse is true; these behaviors are considered not only normal, but essential and a “right”.

    Every citizen of this Earth should have the freedom to CHOOSE a partner in life.

    Then start pushing for legalization of child marriage, of animal marriage, of incestuous marriage, and plural marriage.

    If you come back with reasons why those shouldn’t be allowed, then you have just completely contradicted your own statement.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 10, 2008 @ 4:33 pm - October 10, 2008

  17. Sandy,

    The problem with your asinine anaology, and it is staggeringly asinine, is that there is no consequential difference between one pigmentation and another. There is a fundamental difference between making babies and butt-f*cking.

    There is no equality issue. period. you are not doing the same thing and you are asking to be treated like you are. Its a lie. Its make believe. Its delusional. Society should not humor delusion.

    Comment by American Elephant — October 10, 2008 @ 4:36 pm - October 10, 2008

  18. Dishonorable straight marriages are also a joke. (e.g. Michael Jackson and Lisa Marie Presley, Liza Minelli and that creepy weird dude, Bill and Hillary).

    And it isn’t that straight people don’t engage in depravity, it’s that straight people don’t celebrate depravity as intrinsic to their culture. In fact, it’s regarded as aberrational.

    And when I say that gay marriage is a joke, I’m saying that as a humorist. I get a lot of mileage out of stuff like this, and Enumclaw.

    Comment by V the K — October 10, 2008 @ 4:40 pm - October 10, 2008

  19. Gay dude blogs about having unsafe sex behind his boyfriend’s back.

    Comment by V the K — October 10, 2008 @ 4:54 pm - October 10, 2008

  20. Sex addiction is not exclusive to homosexuals. Peter Cook.

    The lovely world of the hetero sex porn industry certainly doesn’t fit into the category of aberational.

    But you go ahead in being a humorist, but for some, your humor is quite sharp and inflamatory.

    Comment by rusty — October 10, 2008 @ 5:15 pm - October 10, 2008

  21. American Elephant, you never did say much about Dick and Lynne Cheney’s grandson, son of Mary and Heather. or about the other children from families where they relied on the wonderful benefits of invitro fertilization. Families are families.

    Now go play with your dogs.

    Comment by rusty — October 10, 2008 @ 5:18 pm - October 10, 2008

  22. He is not the son of Mary and Heather. Sorry. Mary and Heather cannot have a baby together, period. He/she is the son of one of them and a complete stranger — a father that that child will never know.

    And sorry, families are not families. A single parent is not just as good as two parents. A mom and her lesbian lover is not as good as a mom and a dad. These things are not equivalent. Its another lie.

    Comment by American Elephant — October 10, 2008 @ 5:35 pm - October 10, 2008

  23. Filtered

    Comment by American Elephant — October 10, 2008 @ 5:37 pm - October 10, 2008

  24. Ah yes, Rusty, the same baby that gay-marriage-pushing liberals were wishing would die of SIDS.

    Furthermore, your analogy demonstrates your usual problem; you are incapable of seeing the difference between a tiny minority of heterosexuals and the vast majority of homosexuals. Indeed, you seem quite incapable of acknowledging the fact that no same-sex couple is capable of producing a child that is genetically and biologically related to both of its members — one of the simplest and most common things that the vast and overwhelming majority of heterosexual couples are capable of doing.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 10, 2008 @ 5:41 pm - October 10, 2008

  25. But you go ahead in being a humorist, but for some, your humor is quite sharp and inflamatory.

    Yeah, I totally rock.

    Comment by V the K — October 10, 2008 @ 5:58 pm - October 10, 2008

  26. I think it is a bridge too far. And the backlash is going to hurt prop 8 in CA and help Prop 2 in FL

    Comment by The Livewire — October 10, 2008 @ 6:27 pm - October 10, 2008

  27. California will never change as far as Proposition 8 goes, so for all you Gays in this fine state want to have same sex marriage you should think about packing up and moving out to Massachusetts.

    Comment by VIncent — October 10, 2008 @ 6:56 pm - October 10, 2008

  28. This decision also gives fuel to those here in CT who are pushing to have a Constitutional convention pushing for “direct initiative”, the ability to force popular votes on the people for certain issues. I call it chaos and just as dangerous as the courts overstepping their purpose.

    One thing it also did, and I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised, is brought out the “all queers are evil, except for the conservative ones” crowd. AE – is that all gay male relationships are to you “butt-f*cking” and all heterosexual relationships are is making babies?? How sad that you are unable to see the value of emotional attachment, the desire to form a family unit and to have those in it legally protected. It’s all about sex? Gee, that’s what the other haters on here claim. The “vast majority” of gay men are sex addicts and amoral animals says NDLaberbera, also claiming that one sick individual praying for SIDS of course represents all LGBT communites and people. Oh, right except for the conservative ones. And V the K says “most” gay marriages will be freaky. As one post above said “with friends like these…”

    I can totally understand LGBT people advocating conservative views about politics, economics, the courts etc. but I will NEVER accept that the venom that pours from a few on here towards the LGBT communities is “conservative” It is nothing more than sick, obsessive hate and NO gay person should be subjected to it (ok, I know it’s a blog and anyone can choose not to read it )whether they are conservative, liberal or whatever. The fact that those who run this blog allow it to happen without the slightest comment is appalling. I’m absolutely not saying that such people or attitudes should be banned, though I’m sure some have been – liberals of course, but sitting silent is the same as condoning it. Are these extremes truly representative of “gay conservative”? I think not and I hope not, because the LGBT communities have enough enemies to deal with without having a cancer on the inside too. There is so much that needs to be addressed in the communities to insure our survival and to impact the views of those around us. Borrowing lines of those who have proudly defined themselves as our enemy can NEVER have a positive impact. Perhaps the person throwing such shit gets a cheap thrill or a sense of power but to the rest of us it is deadly.

    Anyway, back to the decision. What I’ve read of it I agree with, I also agree that the timing sucked and using the courts to gain equal legal status is not the best way to do it. We may indeed regret this, for now, ultimately we will be successful in changing attitudes towards AND WITHIN the gay communities for the better.

    Comment by Dave — October 10, 2008 @ 7:34 pm - October 10, 2008

  29. comment on my comment. The LGBT communities indeed already have a cancer on the inside – substance abuse, promiscuity, dangerous sexual practices, demeaning relationships etc. These all need addressing, not from the outside, but from within. And whether you want to believe it or not, it is happening. Wouldn’t it make more sense to try and be part of the solution rather than joining the condemnation choir?

    Comment by Dave — October 10, 2008 @ 7:44 pm - October 10, 2008

  30. How sad that you are unable to see the value of emotional attachment, the desire to form a family unit and to have those in it legally protected.

    Oh, we all see the value of that; I myself have a wonderful partner, and we have taken legal steps to make sure that our estates are appropriately dispersed, that we can make healthcare decisions for each other, and so forth.

    However, Dave, gays like yourself are using marriage and your sexual orientation as an excuse for your inability to stop yourself from using drugs, from having promiscuous sex, from spewing antireligious bigotry, from wishing death on a newborn child because you don’t like his mother’s political affiliation, from taking children to sex fairs dressed as sexual slaves to show off — and from your utter inability to admit that these behaviors are wrong.

    It amuses me, Dave, that you can talk about forming a family unit when you aren’t even able to state publicly that gays and lesbians who dress up children as sexual objects and take them to sex fairs are sick and wrong. It amuses me that you can talk about emotional attachment when you can’t bring yourself to say that gays and lesbians who have promiscuous, disease-spreading sex with multiple partners are sick and wrong. And finally, it amuses me that you whine about the necessity of marriage, but refuse to take advantage of the numerous legal protections that already exist for gay and lesbian people.

    In short, Dave, since you and yours have demonstrated nothing but contempt for morality and values, society sees no need to include you in institutions that reward and perpetuate them.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 10, 2008 @ 8:21 pm - October 10, 2008

  31. Filter, GPW.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 10, 2008 @ 8:22 pm - October 10, 2008

  32. It is nothing more than sick, obsessive hate and NO gay person should be subjected to it

    Such as condemning the behavior of liberal gays like Dave who dress up children as sexual playthings and take them to sex fairs to show off.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 10, 2008 @ 8:23 pm - October 10, 2008

  33. It is nothing more than sick, obsessive hate and NO gay person should be subjected to it

    Such as condemning the behavior of liberal gays like Dave who claim that sex with children half your age is normal and “common” for gay people.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 10, 2008 @ 8:24 pm - October 10, 2008

  34. It is nothing more than sick, obsessive hate and NO gay person should be subjected to it

    Such as condemning the behavior of liberal gays like Dave who have promiscuous, disease-spreading sex with multiple partners.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 10, 2008 @ 8:26 pm - October 10, 2008

  35. And finally:

    The LGBT communities indeed already have a cancer on the inside – substance abuse, promiscuity, dangerous sexual practices, demeaning relationships etc. These all need addressing, not from the outside, but from within.

    But, when you address them by condemning the behavior and making it clear that it is wrong, Dave shrieks about your doing that:

    It is nothing more than sick, obsessive hate and NO gay person should be subjected to it

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 10, 2008 @ 8:29 pm - October 10, 2008

  36. The fact that those who run this blog allow it to happen without the slightest comment is appalling.

    That probably has to do with the fact that GP and GPW know quite a bit more about the other commenters than you do, Dave.

    For example, what they know and you don’t is how much of my life and time I have given to organizations that help people who are a) desperately down and out because of HIV and b) wanting to get back into the workforce after years of being disabled by horrible choices they made and now regret.

    I’ve spent years cleaning up the shit you and your fellow promiscuous liberals have created, Dave, and I’m sick of it. 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. But all this time, you whine and cry about how you aren’t getting adult responsibilities and privileges when you resolutely refuse to take responsibility for your behavior like adults do and scream about how anyone who criticizes you is saying “sick, obsessive hate”.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 10, 2008 @ 8:37 pm - October 10, 2008

  37. 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.”

    WHAT?????

    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.”

    Um, since when does Marriage equal Biology? Sex equals biology, for sure, but marriage is a man-made concept.

    This shows part of the problems that we are facing: the judges often don’t have a clue, either. Apples and oranges are both fruit, yes, but…

    Comment by Leonidas — October 10, 2008 @ 9:53 pm - October 10, 2008

  38. perhaps it was good my response disappeared into the ozone, the grammar was horrible :) NDT, I realize that I can never say anything that you would actually read and understand how you completely wrong about me you are. And actually, there’s little reason why I should care about that and I’ve wasted too much time on it. I know you are wrong about me and wrong about the “vast majority” of LGBT people, so I’m content with that.

    Comment by Dave — October 10, 2008 @ 10:56 pm - October 10, 2008

  39. I know you are wrong about me and wrong about the “vast majority” of LGBT people, so I’m content with that.

    And, once again, Dave reverts to “everything’s fine, nothing’s wrong, nothing bad is going on in the gay community”.

    How things change.

    The LGBT communities indeed already have a cancer on the inside – substance abuse, promiscuity, dangerous sexual practices, demeaning relationships etc.

    Perhaps if you had a little bit more training or insight, Dave, you would recognize your status as an enabler; that is, you acknowledge the existence of the problems in one situation, but you frantically deny, bury, and cover them up rather than being publicly straightforward about them.

    I don’t expect you to care. Honesty and facts are not in what you’re interested; your concern is getting the acceptance of other gays by covering up and making excuses for their behavior as appropriate and normal for being gay. You would rather allow children to be dressed up and taken to sex fairs, or gay men to have sex with teenagers and promiscuously spread disease, than to say it’s wrong and risk being called a “sick obsessive hater” for criticizing that behavior.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 11, 2008 @ 1:12 am - October 11, 2008

  40. AE – is that all gay male relationships are to you “butt-f*cking” and all heterosexual relationships are is making babies?? How sad that you are unable to see the value of emotional attachment, the desire to form a family unit and to have those in it legally protected.

    No, but thats all marriage is to society.

    Your “emotional attachement” is fucking insignificant to society! Really it is. I couldnt give a rats hairy ass about your “emotional attachment” or the “emotional attachment” of any straight couple for that matter.

    Society subsidizes marriage because it reproduces society. You are perfectly capable of legally protecting yourself and your partner, if you indeed have one, already.

    But let’s quit the lies. Gays arent lining up to get married in MA. Very few gays have availed themselves of it. The whole push for gay marriage isnt because they want to partake of the institution, its because liberal gays are deeply insecure and want to force society to tell them that being gay is just as good as being straight.

    So dont ask me to subsidize your “emotional attachment”. I couldnt care less about whoever you are emotionally attached to this week. Get therapy and learn to accept yourself. Get therapy and learn to value yourself and quit trying to use government to force others to approve of you.

    Comment by American Elephant — October 11, 2008 @ 2:59 am - October 11, 2008

  41. ARRRGH. Filtered again!

    Comment by American Elephant — October 11, 2008 @ 3:00 am - October 11, 2008

  42. when it looks like the courts are going to start mandating stuff, they get uncomfortable and perhaps even hostile-not so much to the concept of gay marriage but to the concept of it coming about through judicial fiat rather than the legislative process.

    Getting it through courts raises the questions, “When is it going to end? What will it end with?”

    This is why the claims of California’s “Yes on 8″ people (the anti-gay-marriage people) have a ring of truth. They claim that unless their proposition passes (so that gay marriage is defeated), gay activists will be suing people and churches whose beliefs aren’t pro-gay enough for them. The “No on 8″ people say no, that’s a liiiiiiiiiie, because California law says exempts or protects religious institutions from being sued over this issue. But I don’t buy their argument. I am *pro* gay marriage, and I don’t buy it!

    I don’t buy it because I have a brain. I’ve watched their campaign (now and over the years). I *know* that Left gay activists are out for revenge on any church or religious person they feel slighted by. And I *know* they rely on courts and lawsuits. And I *know* that, at times, some of them will file suits even when the law is against them (a.k.a. nuisance lawsuits). Now, if I know all that… why shouldn’t everyone else?

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 11, 2008 @ 9:49 am - October 11, 2008

  43. Every citizen of this Earth should have the freedom to CHOOSE a partner in life.

    Phil, you already did, before gay marriage. And you still will, if gay marriage is defeated in California or elsewhere. Get a grip.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 11, 2008 @ 9:56 am - October 11, 2008

  44. [Dave to AE:] How sad that you are unable to see the value of emotional attachment, the desire to form a family unit and to have those in it legally protected.

    AE and I disagree strongly about gay marriage (I’m for it), but let me say this, Dave: You already had powerful legal protections in California and in Connecticut – if you lived there, and wanted them – before the courts imposed gay marriage by fiat. So, cut the false dichotomies.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — October 11, 2008 @ 10:08 am - October 11, 2008

  45. Now, if I know all that… why shouldn’t everyone else?

    They do, ILC.

    And what they also know is that a) gays like Dave can’t even condemn people for having promiscuous disease-spreading sex, so it’s pretty obvious that they will neither condemn or curb people who file frivolous and harassing lawsuits and b) that California is chock-full of judges who will order the most ludicrous things regardless of law or constitution.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 11, 2008 @ 12:06 pm - October 11, 2008

  46. NDT, 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.

    So ILC, in #6 Sandy says:

    “People, this is the function of a Supreme Court: to determine if our laws are consistent with the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.” and then goes on to give examples of cases where the courts were ahead of the opinions of the people. In response to that AE goes into an attack rant and in the process implies that gay relationships are about “butt-f*cking”, continuing with the words: lie, make believe, delusional. And the best part: “Society should not humor delusion.” Wow, imagine all the pesky little freedoms could be denied or abolished using such words. Actually, no need to imagine, just look at history. If, as so many opponents claim, civil unions give the same protections as marriage, then they too are lies, delusions etc. using AE’s logic. Apparently for you it is fine and dandy that someone speaks so disdainfully about LGBT relationships.

    Actually ILC, I am fine with civil unions if they do provide equal protections, in reality that’s all a gov’t “marriage” is anyway. As I said in a comment that was captured in the protective screen around this blog (along with some of AE’s I gather by his frustration), I am single and celibate and not looking to change that status anytime soon. I think that fight over wording is nothing more than an energy drain and actually feeds the power of the toxic right because it allows them to screech far and wide their end of civilization nonsense. The only reason I ever get involved in the discussion is when I see blatant hostile and vicious attacks against LGBT relationships. Particlularly when the appear on a blog with “gay” in it’s name.

    Comment by Dave — October 11, 2008 @ 12:23 pm - October 11, 2008

  47. It’s rare, but I totally agree with AE:

    “ARRRGH. Filtered again!”

    Comment by Dave — October 11, 2008 @ 12:50 pm - October 11, 2008

  48. However, Dave, gays like yourself are using marriage and your sexual orientation as an excuse for your inability to stop yourself from using drugs, from having promiscuous sex, from spewing antireligious bigotry, from wishing death on a newborn child because you don’t like his mother’s political affiliation, from taking children to sex fairs dressed as sexual slaves to show off — and from your utter inability to admit that these behaviors are wrong.

    WOW!!! Full of gross generalizations about the gay community. That’s about as logical as saying all conservatives are crazy religious holy rollers that wish gays were dead.

    Comment by OutliciousTV — October 11, 2008 @ 1:07 pm - October 11, 2008

  49. NDT, this website will make your head explode.

    Comment by V the K — October 11, 2008 @ 1:51 pm - October 11, 2008

  50. Of course, Filth has been mainstreamed and is increasingly marketed at children. Gay apologists point to this to rationalize the depravity of their own culture. Good people say, “This has no place in anyone’s mainstream culture.”

    Comment by V the K — October 11, 2008 @ 2:27 pm - October 11, 2008

  51. 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

  52. #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

  53. 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

  54. #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

  55. 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

  56. 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

  57. 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

  58. 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

  59. 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

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

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

  61. 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

  62. 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

  63. 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

  64. 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

  65. 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

  66. 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

  67. 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

  68. 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

  69. 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

  70. 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

  71. 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

  72. 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

  73. 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

  74. 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

  75. 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

  76. 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

  77. 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

  78. [...] 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.