Connecticut recognizes human rights! Okays gay marriage!

[Theben]

Originally posted by Arrian
Apparently it's an 85-page decision. Eighty five pages? Damn. All that paper to say a pretty simple thing...

-Arrian

Why not? We've got 1200 pages saying McCain is gonna drop faster than the DOW.

[Arrian]

From the Times article:

The state also argued that the plaintiffs had no case because they were free to marry, just not someone of the same sex

So THAT's where Ben's been. I'd been wondering.

-Arrian

[-Jrabbit]

Originally posted by Riesstiu IV

Little does Ben realize that Alec Guinness was at one point arrested for a homosexual act in a public bathroom when he was younger. Close friends acknowledged he was bisexual.

The force was with him.

[Jon Miller]

While I am in favor of gay marriage, I don't think it is a human rights issue and I think this is a bad decsision.

Hopefully it will have no additional effects.

JM

[Asher]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
While I am in favor of gay marriage, I don't think it is a human rights issue and I think this is a bad decsision.

Hopefully it will have no additional effects.

JM

That's fine, you'll be right on this issue eventually. Just not yet.

[Arrian]

Link to the decision itself:

http://www.jud.state.ct.us/external/supapp/Cases/AROcr/CR289/289CR152.pdf

-Arrian

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles
Unfortunately, down here in Florida, the anti-gay marriage amendment might pass.

Someday, the courts will state enforcing the Full Faith and Credit provision of the U.S. Constitution.

[Arrian]

We recognize, as the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial
Court did in Goodridge v. Dept. of Public Health, supra,
440 Mass. 309, that ‘‘our decision marks a change in
the history of our marriage law. Many people hold deepseated religious, moral, and ethical convictions that
marriage should be limited to the union of one man and
one woman, and that homosexual conduct is immoral.
Many hold equally strong religious, moral, and ethical
convictions that same-sex couples are entitled to be
married, and that homosexual persons should be
treated no differently than their heterosexual neighbors.
Neither view answers the question before [the
court]. Our concern is with [our state] [c]onstitution as
a charter of governance for every person properly
within its reach.’’ Id., 312.

The drafters of our constitution carefully crafted its
provisions in general terms, reflecting fundamental
principles, knowing that a lasting constitution was
needed. Like the framers of the federal constitution,
they also ‘‘knew [that] times can blind us to certain
truths, and later generations can see that laws once
thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to
oppress. As the [c]onstitution endures, persons in every
generation can invoke its principles in their own search
for greater freedom.’’ Lawrence v. Texas, supra, 539
U.S. 579. Not long ago, this court made the same essential point, explaining that ‘‘as we engage over time in the interpretation of our state constitution, we must consider the changing needs and expectations of the citizens of our state.’’ State v. Webb, 238 Conn. 389, 411, 680 A.2d 147 (1996). This admonition applies no less to the guarantee of equal protection embodied in our constitution than to any other state constitutional provision. Even though the right to marry is not enumerated in our constitution, it long has been deemed a basic civil right. E.g., Loving v. Virginia, supra, 388 U.S. 12 (‘‘[m]arriage is one the basic civil rights of man’’ [internal quotation marks omitted]); Skinner v. Oklahoma ex rel. Williamson, 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S. Ct. 1110, 86 L. Ed. 1655 (1942) (same). Although we traditionally have viewed that right as limited to a union between a man and a woman, ‘‘if we have learned anything from the significant evolution in the prevailing societal views and official policies toward members of minority races and toward women over the past half-century, it is that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions. It is instructive to recall in this regard that the traditional, well-established legal rules and practices of our not-so-distant past (1) barred interracial marriage, (2) upheld the routine exclusion of
women from many occupations and official duties, and
(3) considered the relegation of racial minorities to
separate and assertedly equivalent public facilities and
institutions as constitutionally equal treatment.’’ In re
Marriage Cases, supra, 43 Cal. 4th 853–54.
Like these once prevalent views, our conventional
understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection. 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. To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others. 83 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.84

The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded
with direction to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for summary
judgment and application for injunctive relief.

I don't know why it took so long to get to that very basic point, but whatever.

-Arrian

[Theben]

The need to quote precedence.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Not just quoting precedence, but in a controversial decision, which is going to be overly scrutinized, you want to cite just about everything you possibly can and deflect any possible criticism, by having good precedent.

You also need to talk about the history of marriage and gay rights. They may have also discussed international action on the issue as well.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
While I am in favor of gay marriage, I don't think it is a human rights issue ....

JM

I see the issue as one of equal rights under the law.

[Jon Miller]

But there is no right to get married. It isn't just a contract.

JM

[Asher]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
But there is no right to get married. It isn't just a contract.

JM

So you're saying it's a privilege one must earn?

[Jon Miller]

No, it is an encouragement for a practice that is beneficial for soceity. Sort of like how we give tax write offs if you give to charity. That isn't a right, it is something we wish to encourage and so we give legal benefits for it.

Which is why it should be extended to homosexual couples but not to polygamous couples.

JM

[Jon Miller]

If you want to think of it one way. Heterosexual marriage is a priveleged state which the country wishes to encourage, and so does so legally.

I would argue that homosexual marriage is also a privileged state tha the country should encourage.

There isn't any right for people to receive these benefits though.

JM