Conneticuit ok's Same-Sex Marriage

[mexitucky]

If you'd like the whole opinion, I can provide you w/ the link. Here is a newspaper story. This was decided 10/10/2008. I am not gay, but I do not care who a person marries. As far as I'm concerned, as long as we are all held to the same marital standards, legally, I'm all for it. I'm also for any religion denying the right to perform the ceremony. I am not for the Government denying people the rights to consentually pick their spouses.

 

http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-samesexmarry1028.artoct28,0,1202939.story

[Pancake]

I don't care who someone else gets married too. I don't think it hurts the marriage institution (no pun there ), I think the high divorce rate has already made marriage institution a joke...

[Wireman]

I don't care who someone else gets married too. I don't think it hurts the marriage institution (no pun there ), I think the high divorce rate has already made marriage institution a joke...

 

I hate today's standard train of thought - we can't get along so let's get a divorce...

 

Noone ever wants to face the true problems and fix their marriage - they just look for the easy way out.

[Hoot Gibson]

Connecticuit did not okay gay marriage, its Supreme Court did.

[mexitucky]

Connecticuit did not okay gay marriage, its Supreme Court did.

 

Exactly, which basically means that their legislation was unconstitutional due to infringing on a homosexuals fundamental right to marriage and pugnant against their equal rights as it designated homosexuals as "2nd class citizens." Therefore, the state can't continue its civil union legislation and must allow for same sex marriage.

[Hoot Gibson]

Exactly, which basically means that their legislation was unconstitutional due to infringing on a homosexuals fundamental right to marriage and pugnant against their equal rights as it designated homosexuals as "2nd class citizens." Therefore, the state can't continue its civil union legislation and must allow for same sex marriage.

What it means is that liberals have managed to pack enough like minded people to our courts to thwart the legitimate actions taken by the people's elected representatives.

[mexitucky]

Look, I'm Catholic. It's not a lifestyle that I approve of. However, there is a seperation of church and state in this country. The Bible is not the law of the land. It has influenced the law of the land, but it is not the final word. The court felt that homosexuals as a class deserved more protection than is granted by the federal government. Viewing it from this point, they felt that their state's statute took away a fundamental right of liberty, that to be married. We don't have to agree with it. Up until the mid-60's it was a crime in Virginia for white people and black people to marry, another long held belief. Many people still believe that races shouldn't mix. However, who are you or I to say that they can't? Also, God gave individuals free choice, that is what seperates us from the animals. The church gives us parameters by which to live our lives, but it is still our choice on how to interpret those rules and implement them into our lives. Taking that right away, takes away the greatest power that God gave humans. In a way, that's what we do when we create laws that take away liberties from individuals who don't believe as we do. If you find it wrong, that's your perogative. Your faith tells you that God will sort it out in the end.

[mexitucky]

What it means is that liberals have managed to pack enough like minded people to our courts to thwart the legitimate actions taken by the people's elected representatives.

 

Apparently they weren't legitimate actions.

[cch5432]

Look, I'm Catholic. It's not a lifestyle that I approve of. However, there is a seperation of church and state in this country. The Bible is not the law of the land. It has influenced the law of the land, but it is not the final word. The court felt that homosexuals as a class deserved more protection than is granted by the federal government. Viewing it from this point, they felt that their state's statute took away a fundamental right of liberty, that to be married. We don't have to agree with it. Up until the mid-60's it was a crime in Virginia for white people and black people to marry, another long held belief. Many people still believe that races shouldn't mix. However, who are you or I to say that they can't? Also, God gave individuals free choice, that is what seperates us from the animals. The church gives us parameters by which to live our lives, but it is still our choice on how to interpret those rules and implement them into our lives. Taking that right away, takes away the greatest power that God gave humans. In a way, that's what we do when we create laws that take away liberties from individuals who don't believe as we do. If you find it wrong, that's your perogative. Your faith tells you that God will sort it out in the end.

I am Catholic as well and I don't the Bible is the law of land. I don't know why the government has any say in marriage. I don't understand why the government should be encouraging or discouraging homosexuality

 

Check this thread out It describes my feelings (and some others) on how to balance my religion and my feelings on government

[halfback20]

I am Catholic as well and I don't the Bible is the law of land. I don't know why the government has any say in marriage. I don't understand why the government should be encouraging or discouraging homosexuality

 

Check this thread out It describes my feelings (and some others) on how to balance my religion and my feelings on government

 

:thumb:

 

I am a Christian and I see no reason why the government should have any say as to who can get married.

[cch5432]

:thumb:

 

I am a Christian and I see no reason why the government should have any say as to who can get married.

Here is the thing though- the government (while it should have no hand in what is or is not marriage) encourages heterosexual marriage for the future tax revenue of what a child is. I don't think they should encourage homosexual marriage that serves no benefit to the state.

 

The other thread is a more full expansion on my feelings of this issue.

[Pancake]

I hate today's standard train of thought - we can't get along so let's get a divorce...

 

Noone ever wants to face the true problems and fix their marriage - they just look for the easy way out.

 

Thank you! :thumb:

[titletownclown]

Meanwhile, a petition is being circulated to change the name of the state to Connectabut.

[mexitucky]

Here is the thing though- the government (while it should have no hand in what is or is not marriage) encourages heterosexual marriage for the future tax revenue of what a child is. I don't think they should encourage homosexual marriage that serves no benefit to the state.

 

The other thread is a more full expansion on my feelings of this issue.

 

I read the other thread. Here's the question that you haven't answered. How is the state encouraging homosexual marriage? Is the state offering incentives for homosexuals to marry that heterosexuals can't qualify for? The way I read it, Conn. is giving the same rights to homosexual couples that you and I enjoy.

[Hoot Gibson]

Apparently they weren't legitimate actions.

Contrary to prevailing liberal wisdom, the fact that a panel of liberal judges ignores their oath and rules based on its members' political beliefs does not mean that the ruling was just or correct. As a matter of fact, the only restraint on the US Supreme Court is the remote possibility of impeachment. That is why placing a person such as Obama, who has shown little respect for the US Constitution as it is written, would be such a big mistake.