Conneticuit ok's Same-Sex Marriage

[mexitucky]

Then I'm against it.

 

You and a vast majority of the country. I am in the minority here, but after researching everything I could for my paper, I am not willing to say that majority is correct. I went into my paper not caring one way or the other, but after researching all I could about cases, both federal and state regarding homosexuals, I just can't be ok w/ saying that they shouldn't be able to marry. Reading the legislative history behind the DOMA showed me that it had less to do with liberty rights, and more to do with religious ideals. You can't run a diverse democracy on the religious ideals of the majority. Actually, you can, but it just makes a joke out of the word "LIBERTY."

[Hoot Gibson]

It's not prevailing liberal wisdom, it is the way the constitution was written. The state supreme courts use the power given to them by the US Supreme court to decide a constitutional question that the US Supreme Court has left to the states to decide. Nothing is more constitutional than that. They found that it infringed on their liberty rights. Have you read the opinion, or are you letting your personal beliefs cloud your judgment?

The US Supreme Court did not grant power to the Connecticut Supreme Court. That power was granted by the Connecticut Constitution. Hopefully, in four years a conservative president will start the process of amending the US Constitution to stop the insanity of state supreme courts vetoing the legislation enacted by substantial majorities of citizens across the country to deal with the gay marriage issue.

[Hoot Gibson]

You and a vast majority of the country. I am in the minority here, but after researching everything I could for my paper, I am not willing to say that majority is correct. I went into my paper not caring one way or the other, but after researching all I could about cases, both federal and state regarding homosexuals, I just can't be ok w/ saying that they shouldn't be able to marry. Reading the legislative history behind the DOMA showed me that it had less to do with liberty rights, and more to do with religious ideals. You can't run a diverse democracy on the religious ideals of the majority. Actually, you can, but it just makes a joke out of the word "LIBERTY."

Total personal liberty is also known as anarchy. I find the personal liberty argument in defense of gay marriage a particularly weak one. Most of the same people who make this argument are also in favor of an aggressive redistribution of wealth in this country. There is no right of any citizen to have the state recognize his or her marriage. Otherwise, then every citizen would have the right to define his or her marriage as they see fit, including polygamists. If marriage is not an inherent, natural right, then it is a legislative and religious creation that governments may choose to recognize or not.l

[mexitucky]

Total personal liberty is also known as anarchy. I find the personal liberty argument in defense of gay marriage a particularly weak one. Most of the same people who make this argument are also in favor of an aggressive redistribution of wealth in this country. There is no right of any citizen to have the state recognize his or her marriage. Otherwise, then every citizen would have the right to define his or her marriage as they see fit, including polygamists. If marriage is not an inherent, natural right, then it is a legislative and religious creation that governments may choose to recognize or not.l

 

There is a right, according to the Kentucky Constitution 233(A). It very much defines that marriage is b/n 1 man and 1 woman. They also have 3 statutes defining marriage, defining what will not be recognized as marriage, and also what punishments will be given to those conduction marriage ceremonies that violate the unrecognized marriages. The US Supreme Ct. has also ruled that states must recognize marriages, Loving v. Virginia. Everyone knows that you need laws. The question becomes, when are the laws unequal. I believe that this is one of them.

[mexitucky]

The US Supreme Court did not grant power to the Connecticut Supreme Court. That power was granted by the Connecticut Constitution. Hopefully, in four years a conservative president will start the process of amending the US Constitution to stop the insanity of state supreme courts vetoing the legislation enacted by substantial majorities of citizens across the country to deal with the gay marriage issue.

 

State Supreme courts can not "veto" state legislation. They can only rule on the constitutionality. The majority isn't always right. The US has a very long history of proving this out. To this day, on this issue, no state court has overruled any state's enactment of the DOMA. Not one.

[hoopboy]

Forgive me if I can't shed tears to the wedding ceremony of Doogie Howser and John Smith. Maybe the law's unequal, but if it makes the majority sick, it should be law, IMO.

[Hoot Gibson]

State Supreme courts can not "veto" state legislation. They can only rule on the constitutionality. The majority isn't always right. The US has a very long history of proving this out. To this day, on this issue, no state court has overruled any state's enactment of the DOMA. Not one.

More often than not, the majority opinion, as expressed through legislation has proven to be right. Just because that is not always the case does not mean that gay marriage is "right" because a few judges deem it to be so. Gay marriage is not a civil right, it is a matter for the majority to decide the same as the majority should dictate laws governing polygamy and incest.

[mexitucky]

More often than not, the majority opinion, as expressed through legislation has proven to be right. Just because that is not always the case does not mean that gay marriage is "right" because a few judges deem it to be so. Gay marriage is not a civil right, it is a matter for the majority to decide the same as the majority should dictate laws governing polygamy and incest.

 

Polygamists may try to ride in if Gay marriage ever passes, but incest is way out in rightfield. There are legitimate health issues regarding children coming from incestual relationships. Regardless, in CT it is a civil right. In Kentucky it is not. I'm saying that what is driving this is a religious fundamental moralism, and many court cases, including Wasson v. Commonwealth, (Kentucky was 10 years ahead of the Supreme Ct. in finding that homosexuals had a privacy right that was unequally infringed by the sodomy laws, b/c the laws were aimed at only homosexuals.) have stated that what may be considered morally pungant to the majority doesn't mean that there isn't a liberty being infringed upon. Remember, the majority outlawed alcohol in a moral fervor. Until 1967, KY wouldn't recognize interracial marriages. Slavery permeated in the state until 1864, and women weren't deemed worthy enough to vote until the early 20th century. The majority fears change.

[mexitucky]

More often than not, the majority opinion, as expressed through legislation has proven to be right. Just because that is not always the case does not mean that gay marriage is "right" because a few judges deem it to be so. Gay marriage is not a civil right, it is a matter for the majority to decide the same as the majority should dictate laws governing polygamy and incest.

 

Just so I understand your point of view, what is the legitimate state interest in excluding gay marriage? How does it benefit the state?

[hoopboy]

Just so I understand your point of view, what is the legitimate state interest in excluding gay marriage? How does it benefit the state?

 

It doesn't freak everyone else out.

[ladiesbballcoach]

Just so I understand your point of view, what is the legitimate state interest in excluding gay marriage? How does it benefit the state?

 

Government already prohibits some forms of marriage because of what society has said.

This is just a continuation of society determining what a marriage should be.

[Hoot Gibson]

Polygamists may try to ride in if Gay marriage ever passes, but incest is way out in rightfield. There are legitimate health issues regarding children coming from incestual relationships. Regardless, in CT it is a civil right. In Kentucky it is not. I'm saying that what is driving this is a religious fundamental moralism, and many court cases, including Wasson v. Commonwealth, (Kentucky was 10 years ahead of the Supreme Ct. in finding that homosexuals had a privacy right that was unequally infringed by the sodomy laws, b/c the laws were aimed at only homosexuals.) have stated that what may be considered morally pungant to the majority doesn't mean that there isn't a liberty being infringed upon. Remember, the majority outlawed alcohol in a moral fervor. Until 1967, KY wouldn't recognize interracial marriages. Slavery permeated in the state until 1864, and women weren't deemed worthy enough to vote until the early 20th century. The majority fears change.

Homosexual relationships do not produce offspring - at least not naturally. Incestuous relationship do not necessarily produce children either and with the Obama plan to make abortion available to all American women with almost no restrictions, could people involved in such relationships not make just as compelling argument for marriage between same-sex partners who are not related? I favor leaving the line where it is because once it begins moving, it will really become much easier to redefine marriage to fit one's personal situation.

[Hoot Gibson]

Just so I understand your point of view, what is the legitimate state interest in excluding gay marriage? How does it benefit the state?

You are asking the question in a backward sort of way. I would ask how it benefits society for government to recognize gay marriage and convey upon gay spouses the same benefits as heterosexual couples receive?

 

It is clearly in society's best interests to minimize children growing up in single parent homes and marriage encourages that beneficial behavior. What similar purpose do state expenditures on the institution of gay marriages confer on our society?

[mexitucky]

You are asking the question in a backward sort of way. I would ask how it benefits society for government to recognize gay marriage and convey upon gay spouses the same benefits as heterosexual couples receive? [/Quote]

 

Not really. The state has banned same sex marriage. The courts ask when scrutinizing the law, what legitimate state interest is advanced by banning same sex marriage? That is how it works. You can't say it doesn't benefit the state so we can outlaw it when a group is trying to get rights recognized. Banning same-sex marriage does not advance a legitimate state interest. Why you say? Because this law does nothing to promote heterosexual marriages. Marriages can go on w/ or w/out homosexuals marrying. What it does do is create a law biased particularly against one group.

 

 

[/Quote]It is clearly in society's best interests to minimize children growing up in single parent homes and marriage encourages that beneficial behavior. What similar purpose do state expenditures on the institution of gay marriages confer on our society?

 

Everyone will cede that is in the best interests of the child, and marriage does benefit that...which is exactly the point. While not applying to KY b/c KY does not recognize same-sex adoption, neighboring state Indiana does. In fact the Supreme Court ceded the validity of studies showing that children raised in same-sex marriages aren't as messed up as one would think. In fact, they do just as well, in not better. Finally, what additional "expenditures" would the state have to make that it does not make already? I would think that a child would be better off being raised by two professionals that love a child, rather than two people who got drunk and knocked up one night, but that's just me.

[mexitucky]

Government already prohibits some forms of marriage because of what society has said.

This is just a continuation of society determining what a marriage should be.

 

According to who's definition? Here is another major point. The moral views of the majority have infringed on the rights of a politically powerless group, who's definition of marriage is different than what Christianity says it is.