Freedom Wins Again
There’s some good news from Connecticut.
In the 4-3 opinion, the court wrote “the state has failed to provide sufficient justification for excluding same sex couples from the institution of marriage.”
Massachusetts, California and now Connecticut have ended marriage discrimination. Vermont, New Jersey and New Hampshire have civil unions. Oregon has domestic partnerships. New York recognizes out-of-state marriages (and will soon start performing them in-state).
All these places where marriage discrimination is declining and yet the world hasn’t ended! How’s your relationship holding up under the strain? I’m wondering when reality will intrude on the delusions of the bigots. I won’t hold my breath.
October 10th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
I’m just waiting for Tennessee to legalize same-sex marriage, so I can divorce my wife and go live the gay-married life of sin of my dreams…
October 10th, 2008 at 2:59 pm
Personally I want to know WHY the government even needs to recognize marriage. Anything you can do married, you can do single. There should not be any benefits from being married or unmarried – all benefits shouls be granted for just “being.” I am really sick of tax dollars fighting over what is at its heart, a religious issue.
October 10th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
You might be surprised, most gun owners I know (including myself) support gay rights. We see it similar to the gun rights issue, if I have a right to own a rifle and use it, why should you not have a right to live your life with who you chose. The real problem in this country is with those who tell others what to do, because they aledgedly know what is best for society.
Owning a firearm is not good for society so we need to regulate it more. Or, same sex marriage is bad for society so we need to regulate it more. Neither statement should be tolerated in this Country. Congradulations on you victory in Connecticut. You should buy a new rifle to celebrate!
October 10th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
No doubt that promoting abnormal marriages are an abomination to humanity and only promotes a civilization’s downfall. It would be better to abolish marriage than bastardize it’s meaning.
October 10th, 2008 at 4:30 pm
Yep, I support the government allowing and acknowledging gay marriage at least as far as I support government allowing and acknowledging any marriage.
Yet New York, California, Massachusetts and New Jersey won’t recognize my right to carry a handgun, and often to own an effective rifle.
Why is it those who claim they support civil rights with an open mind frown on some bigotry, and not other bigotry?
Perhaps they don’t really support civil rights, but only specific rights?
October 10th, 2008 at 5:47 pm
I agree that government should have no stake in marriage. But it does, and I don’t see much possibility of getting it out. Given that, the benefits should be offered in a non-discriminatory matter.
Let the churches discriminate, but not our government.
October 10th, 2008 at 5:59 pm
gays have the same rights as everyone else… the legal ability to marry a member of the opposite sex… why are they demanding special status?
so far as any medical studies have shown, homosexuality is not hereditary or pathological… so it is a choice… so how come a special allowance needs to exist for people that make a choice to be different from normal society?
October 10th, 2008 at 8:51 pm
gays have the same rights as everyone else… the legal ability to marry a member of the opposite sex… why are they demanding special status?
That’s a good question…do you really not know why?
October 10th, 2008 at 9:39 pm
Chris, I’d be curious to know at what age it was you decided to be heterosexual.
October 10th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Chris,
Gays are not demanding special status. They are fighting to increase the freedom of ALL Americans. When they win recognization of the right to marry whomever they want, they also increase the number of potential partners you could marry, too. You should thank them.
I mean, seriously, what if someone claimed “gun nuts have the same rights as everyone else… to be safe by not having guns… why are they demanding special status? so far as medical studies have shown, gun owning is not hereditary or pathological… so it is a choice…” etc etc.
October 11th, 2008 at 12:30 am
I don’t have any problem with gay marriage. In fact, I think there’ll be several benefit for the standard model: since daddy pays child support, and mommy gets the kids and the house, in a homosexual couple, which will be the mommy and which will be the daddy? Gay marriage my help to make the resolution of this problem more fair. But I have no particular dog in this hunt: luke-warm support.
That being said, I do have a problem with process. Gay marriage should be pushed through the Legislature, not the Judicial branch! And while it continues to be pushed through the judicial branch, I’d support a constitutional amendment to define marriage 1 man and 1 woman. (Can you tell I’m livid that courts instead of legislatures are driving this? Particularly since they tend to be the same courts that look at their constitutions and find rights to abortions but couldn’t find individual rights to firearms… If they were consistent on individual rights, I wouldn’t be nearly as annoyed.)
That’s my 2 cent. Probably not worth even that.
October 11th, 2008 at 12:48 am
“Freedom” my ass. The only thing that won here was the right of activists to accomplish in courts what they can’t (or perhaps can, but won’t try to) accomplish with the electorate. We are no more or less free because of gay marriage. The only loser here is democracy.
October 11th, 2008 at 2:23 am
Democracy is not the be-all-end-all. Freedom is. If it takes a court to support your rights, then so be it. Just look at Washington D.C. and the Heller case. Did democracy lose there because a court (the Supreme Court) declared a law (passed through a democratic government process)unconstitutional? There are three branches with checks and balances for a reason. If we depended on the Legislative branch solely to define our rights, I doubt we would have many.
October 11th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Freedom does not mean do whatever you want whenever you want. I bet even gay activists have their limits.
Anyway, this court decision in just another in a line of wrong decisions by courts in general. And I assume that if it were the reverse, we would hear how wrong the courts are from the gay activists, ignoring the will of the people.
October 11th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
I have never understood why people object to gays marrying–Other than forcing a particular brand of religion on others, there’s no harm until they start requiring equal opportunity dating.
October 11th, 2008 at 4:12 pm
mass, cali, and ny…yeah those are the bastions of freedom and personal responsibility all right…
follow the money, boys and girls…or boys and boys…it’s all about the money.
jtc
October 11th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
It has nothing to do with bigotry and EVERYTHING to do with the the war or words and their redefining.
“Gay” people have ALWAYS had the opportunity to marry, so long as that person was of the opposite sex, just like straight people, because that is what marriage IS.
civil unions that come with all the other benefits and penalties as marriage are fine with me, but marriage is not. This is coming from someone who has gay friends, coworkers, and works in the movies. MANY people agree with my position.
One last thing, on the religion/government issue. It is a religious issue, so government should be far removed from every marriage, or even civil union. When we have “republicans,” who were allegedly in favor of smaller government, like McSame, pushing the democrat platform it should come as no surprise.
October 12th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
“Gay” people have ALWAYS had the opportunity to marry, so long as that person was of the opposite sex, just like straight people, because that is what marriage IS.
Of course…gay people can marry as long as they marry someone they don’t actually love. Doesn’t love play into marriage somehow? Isn’t love what marriage IS?
October 14th, 2008 at 6:34 am
Sorry, but while I have nothing against homosexuals, I have everything against redefining a word with centuries of tradition and meaning behind it. We are doing that far too much already as it is, there is no need to add to that idiotic tendency.
Civil union – more power to you. Domestic partnerships – have at it. Marriage – nope.