Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 54

Thread: Gay Marriage Now Legal in Connecticut

  1. #1
    Active Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Skadi Funding Member
    Æmeric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    Britain, Ulster, Germany, America
    Subrace
    Dalofaelid+Baltid/Borreby
    Y-DNA
    R-Z19
    mtDNA
    U5a2c
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Indiana Indiana
    Gender
    Age
    59
    Family
    Married
    Politics
    Anti-Obama
    Religion
    Conservative Protestantism
    Posts
    6,350
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    643
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    885
    Thanked in
    475 Posts

    Thumbs Down Gay Marriage Now Legal in Connecticut

    As was the case in Massachusetts & California (also in Canada) it was the unelected judicial branch that "discovered" this previously unknow right for persons of the same gender to marry.

    HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) — A sharply divided Connecticut Supreme Court ruled Friday that gay couples have the right to get married, saying legislators did not go far enough when they approved same-sex civil unions that were identical to marriages in virtually every respect except the name.

    The 4-3 ruling will make Connecticut the third state, behind Massachusetts and California, to allow same-sex marriages, decisions that in all cases were made by the highest state court. The decision marks the first time that a court rejected civil unions as an alternative to granting gay couples the right to marry.

    Californians will vote next month on a ballot measure that would reinstate the gay-marriage ban, but Connecticut's governor and attorney general said there is little chance of a similar challenge to Friday's ruling.

    "The Supreme Court has spoken," said Gov. M. Jodi Rell, a Republican who opposes same-sex marriage. "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."

    Same-sex weddings are expected to begin in Connecticut in less than a month. Out-of-staters will be eligible, but few other states are likely to recognize the unions.

    The ruling was thrilling for the plaintiffs, eight couples who sued in 2004 after they tried to get wedding licenses.

    "I can't believe it. We're thrilled; we're absolutely overjoyed. We're finally going to be able, after 33 years, to get married," said plaintiff Janet Peck of Colchester.

    Peck said that when the decision was announced, she and her partner, Carole Conklin, started crying and hugging while juggling excited phone calls from her brother and other relatives and friends.

    "We've always dreamed of being married," she said. "Even though we were lesbians and didn't know if that would ever come true, we always dreamed of it."

    A year after the suit was filed, Connecticut's General Assembly approved a civil union law that gave same-sex couples the same rights as married couples. At the time, no other state had granted so many rights to gay couples without being ordered to do so by a court, but the plaintiffs declined to drop their lawsuit and said they wanted full marriage rights.

    In the majority opinion, Supreme Court Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote that denying marriage to same-sex couples would create separate standards.

    "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," Palmer wrote.

    Three justices issued separate dissenting opinions.

    Justice Peter T. Zarella wrote that he believes there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage, and that the court's majority failed to discuss the purpose of marriage laws, which he said is to "privilege and regulate procreative conduct."

    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."

    The ruling cannot be appealed to federal courts because it deals with state constitutional issues, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said.

    The ruling overturns a decision from New Haven Superior Court. It becomes effective Oct. 28, and weddings are expected to begin within days after the lower court holds a hearing to implement the high court's ruling.

    The White House reacted to the ruling by again raising the prospect of a federal constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

    "It's unfortunate that activist judges continue to seek to redefine marriage by court order without regard for the will of the people," Karl Zinsmeister, President Bush's domestic policy adviser, said in a written statement. "Today's decision by the Connecticut Supreme Court illustrates that a federal constitutional amendment may be needed if the people are to decide what marriage means."

    The Family Institute of Connecticut, a political action group that opposes gay marriage, called the ruling outrageous.

    "Even the legislature, as liberal as ours, decided that marriage is between a man and a woman," said executive director Peter Wolfgang. "This is about our right to govern ourselves. It is bigger than gay marriage."

    Getting a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage on Connecticut's ballot would require the approval of three-quarters of the General Assembly — a highly unlikely prospect, with both houses controlled by Democrats sympathetic to same-sex marriage.

    A gay marriage ban also could be approved by a constitutional convention. Connecticut law requires a state referendum every 20 years asking whether it should hold a convention at which delegates would consider rewriting anything in the state's Constitution. The referendum happens to be scheduled for next month, but there is little, if any, appetite for such a move among state leaders, regardless of party.

    State Sen. Michael Lawlor, chairman of the legislature's Judiciary Committee, said he expects the General Assembly to pass a gay marriage law next year codifying the Supreme Court ruling.

    "It's important that both the legislature and the court weigh in," he said. "The court is saying that it's a constitutional requirement that marriage should be equally available to gays and straights and the legislature should weigh in saying whether or not it's constitutionally required, it's the right thing to do."

    The couples who sued said the state's marriage law violated their constitutional rights to equal protection and due process, denying them the financial, social and emotional benefits of marriage enjoyed by heterosexual couples.

    The vast majority of states do not allow gay marriage. Voters in 27 states have taken the extra step of approving constitutional amendments to reinforce that prohibition.

    Civil unions and a similar arrangement, known as domestic partnerships, are offered to same-sex couples in Vermont, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Oregon, Hawaii, Maine, Washington and the District of Columbia.
    Source

    Laws that ban same-sex marrigage are not discriminatory. They apply to everyone, heterosexual & homosexual. And homosexuals are allowed to marry according to the laws that apply to everyone else - someone of the opposite gender, above the age of consent, single divorced or widowed & not a near relative. And most of the people who support this nonsense aren't even gay, they're idiots who have embraced multicultural-secular-progressivism as a newage religion & they support anything non-traditional that is warped & bizarre.

  2. #2
    American Couch Potato
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    AngryPotato's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Last Online
    @
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Subrace
    Norðvestrid/NW. Nordid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Amidst the brown horde
    Gender
    Occupation
    Ball Breaker
    Politics
    Hunting the Enemy
    Religion
    Children of Tyr
    Posts
    590
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Mad

    I live in Connecticut and was totally blind sided when I heard of the decision. I didn't hear one word about it in the news before hand, but barraged after the ruling. It wasn't very long ago that civil marriages were allowed and I thought it was the end of the debate. We have a vote this year of whether or not to revisit our states Constitution and hopefully that vote will pass and the true definition of marriage will be described.


  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Teuton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Last Online
    Friday, June 12th, 2009 @ 11:24 PM
    Ethnicity
    German-Dutch
    Ancestry
    Limburg-Germany
    Subrace
    Nordid
    State
    Teutonic Order Teutonic Order
    Location
    South Africa
    Gender
    Politics
    Right-Winger
    Religion
    Roman Catholic
    Posts
    342
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8
    Thanked in
    8 Posts
    Bugger, this day has been horrible for me.

  4. #4
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Ulf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 12th, 2010 @ 07:23 PM
    Ethnicity
    Deitsch
    Gender
    Posts
    774
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    13
    Thanked in
    13 Posts
    Really? Who cares.

    I'd like to hear if this actually has any affect on any heterosexual person's life in any way.

  5. #5
    Senior Member
    SineNomine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 9th, 2008 @ 05:25 AM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    Mediterranid
    Country
    England England
    Location
    Nord du pays
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    MYOB
    Posts
    2,132
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    Ditto the above, who cares? The only issue I see is whether one calls it a "marriage" or a civil union.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Pino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    Friday, January 30th, 2009 @ 07:30 PM
    Ethnicity
    English
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    Liverpool, England
    Gender
    Age
    33
    Family
    Single, looking
    Occupation
    Construction
    Politics
    National Socialism
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    259
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulf View Post
    Really? Who cares.

    I'd like to hear if this actually has any affect on any heterosexual person's life in any way.
    Thats of a blindfolded look at it isn't it?

    This is official state acceptence of complete social degeneracy, I've got fears for my children growing up in this homosexual promotion type society, society is breeding a breed of queers and I personally want it stopped.

  7. #7
    Senior Member
    BeornWulfWer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    Friday, February 8th, 2019 @ 10:19 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt
    Ancestry
    West Country Zider 'ead.
    Subrace
    Brünn/Keltic-Nordic
    Country
    England England
    State
    Wessex Wessex
    Location
    Brycзstow,Sumorsǣte
    Gender
    Age
    41
    Family
    Engaged
    Occupation
    Slinger
    Politics
    Uncer Dæg Willa Becuman
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    1,144
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10
    Thanked in
    10 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulf View Post
    I'd like to hear if this actually has any affect on any heterosexual person's life in any way.
    Me!

    I am affected by it. It is one more nail in the coffin of the society I wish to preserve.
    I do find it funny that people are on a preservation site and want to preserve things which are not in our interests, or history, to preserve.

    Anyway, found a couple of good blogs about homo marriage.

    I am not going to argue the merits of the case or the stretched use of precedence. And it is far too easy to poke holes at the California Supreme Court.

    But instead I ask one single question. Does anyone not see this as a sign of the on-going decline of our society?

    I’m not intending to be alarmist about this, and of course I’m going to be lumped with the extremist religious wackos that promote a “God hates the world” message (one that I vehemently oppose).

    I support the rights of all to life, liberty and happiness, even for those who carry on privately in sexual or other conduct that is repulsive to me.

    But for the government to establish a new order to marriage as if it were something that can be so carelessly rearranged into whatever structure suits the current group of people who would like behave differently for whatever reason, is wrong and now opens the door to family structures that are currently illegal and unthinkable (as this was a few decades ago). It is unfortunate, indeed symptomatic of the decline, and is not the beginning. Uncontrolled pornography, no-fault divorce, abortion on demand, licensed teenage sex and unsanctioned unions (”living together) were predecessors to this demise.

    It is also not the end. Legal polygamy, time-limit marriage contracts, elimination of minimum age requirements for marriage, legal bestiality, and marriage between species are yet to come… and who knows what else.

    ---(Indeed!)---

    Since the path began it has been hard to slow the decline. And impossible to stop, it seems. Worse yet is that more and more Americans are being convinced every day that gay marriage is not only appropriate, but “whatever you please” is appropriate. This will extend itself to other areas, and has already influenced the decline in integrity, increased lawlessness and a growing sense of discontent with any governmental controls to maintain a semblance of order in our society. Anarchy is peering its ugly head out of the shadows and we cannot allow it in. Indeed, those that would cut off religion and discard it as meaningless have no basis for moral influence and in many cases openly advocate disbanding our laws… or any laws.


    Source
    Except for the overly religious tone of the next blog, I agree with most of what he says.

    Please be tolerant of my 3:00am rant...

    What are the signs of a declining society? Rome eventually fell apart, mostly through a lack of national self-will. People were too interested in possessions and not interested enough in defending their own borders, and pretty soon they didn't have any borders to defend anymore. So yes, societies do sometimes fall apart, and there are reasons for the decline. I'd like to suggest some reasons:

    racism - causes strife within a society and means all members of that society are not able to fully participate. If you think you can achieve national greatness by denying the best efforts of 10 or 20 percent of your population, go ahead and try. You'll fail.

    antisemitism - see Genesis 12. The verdict of Scripture and history is that those who hate the Jews are eventually destroyed (remember the Thousand Year Reich?). But on the other hand, justice demands that we be compassionate also to the Palestinian people.

    lack of national self-will / lack of national confidence - as mentioned above. When a people cannot rouse themselves out of a stupor to accomplish anything, they will be destroyed by those who are more dynamic or who have a stronger national confidence

    lack of national identity - at some level a country is a group of people who have something in common, and who have loyalty to that common identity. If a country is filled with people who have no loyalty to that national identity then it is no longer a country; it is multiple groups of people who happen to live in the same geographic area

    national self-loathing - when a nation feels required to show our tolerance of others by hating our own nation, we're in trouble. For example, if we feel a need to show tolerance for other races by hating our own race, we are in trouble (real racial tolerance involves accepting all races, not in hating your own race). As another example, when we feel a need to deny the accomplishments of our own country, in an effort to atone for the mistakes our own country has made, that's a problem (e.g. if we are ashamed at the treatment of Japanese Canadians in World War 2, we shouldn't try to over-compensate by denying Canada did a noble thing in fighting German and Japanese aggression overseas). Deriding patriotism is one symptom of national self-loathing. A failure to teach history is another.

    rights without responsibility - when everyone has rights but nobody is held responsible and nobody is accountable, a society is in deep trouble

    failure to have children - the Romans realized this, actually had laws about it, but eventually gave up. Yes, children provide the next generation of workers and soldiers. They are the next generation of economic activity. But ultimately children are an expression of our confidence in the future. Societies that can't be bothered to have children (whether through lack of confidence in the future, or because it's too much work, or because we're too busy doing our own thing) and fail to provide those children with a proper family life... fall apart.

    denial of general revelation - General Revelation is a theological term, and it means the light that God grants all mankind. If a nation denies general revelation, they are in trouble. Now I don't mean they need to be Christians or understand Christian theology. But for example it should be clear from Special Revelation and General Revelation, that we live in a morally consequential universe. It should be clear that ideas are not harmless constructs, but that ideas have consequences. There is right and wrong. There is true and false. There is such a thing as morality. All moral choices are not equally valid. When we lose sight of this, we're in trouble.


    Source
    "The only way to get smarter is to play a smarter opponent."

    _________________

  8. #8
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Ulf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Last Online
    Saturday, June 12th, 2010 @ 07:23 PM
    Ethnicity
    Deitsch
    Gender
    Posts
    774
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    13
    Thanked in
    13 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BeornWulfWer View Post
    Me!

    I am affected by it. It is one more nail in the coffin of the society I wish to preserve.
    I do find it funny that people are on a preservation site and want to preserve things which are not in our interests, or history, to preserve.
    Which part of society are you preserving? The current society we live in, in my opinion, is not worth preserving. TV, ads, pollution, material BS all those parts of society are so much more morally bankrupt than a few homos getting married and being good members of society.

    I don't like homosexuals, but I don't think it's my decision as to what they do. Traditionalist and preservationists focus a lot of their attention on the homosexuals while a whole lot of other stuff gets passed by.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    SineNomine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    Sunday, November 9th, 2008 @ 05:25 AM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Subrace
    Mediterranid
    Country
    England England
    Location
    Nord du pays
    Gender
    Age
    35
    Family
    Single
    Occupation
    Student
    Politics
    Libertarian
    Religion
    MYOB
    Posts
    2,132
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Pino View Post
    Thats of a blindfolded look at it isn't it?

    This is official state acceptence of complete social degeneracy, I've got fears for my children growing up in this homosexual promotion type society, society is breeding a breed of queers and I personally want it stopped.
    Promote it how? At recruitment centres? It is a contractual relation between two individuals, who will perform the actions they do in its absence anyway.

  10. #10
    Senior Member
    BeornWulfWer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Last Online
    Friday, February 8th, 2019 @ 10:19 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-Celt
    Ancestry
    West Country Zider 'ead.
    Subrace
    Brünn/Keltic-Nordic
    Country
    England England
    State
    Wessex Wessex
    Location
    Brycзstow,Sumorsǣte
    Gender
    Age
    41
    Family
    Engaged
    Occupation
    Slinger
    Politics
    Uncer Dæg Willa Becuman
    Religion
    Pagan
    Posts
    1,144
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10
    Thanked in
    10 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ulf View Post
    Which part of society are you preserving?
    All the parts which are the complete opposite of what I see. All the parts which doesn't involve losing your soul.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ulf View Post
    The current society we live in, in my opinion, is not worth preserving. TV, ads, pollution, material BS all those parts of society are so much more morally bankrupt..."


    Quote Originally Posted by Ulf View Post
    I don't like homosexuals, but I don't think it's my decision as to what they do. Traditionalist and preservationists focus a lot of their attention on the homosexuals while a whole lot of other stuff gets passed by.
    It's not like I don't like homosexuals, I personally couldn't care less what two, three, or even four consenting adults get up to in the privacy of their home, but they are only one percentage of what is wrong in today's world, and one percentage that has now clasped one more finger around our youths minds and our society's acceptance levels.

    It is disgusting that something which is no more than a mental defect has become another stick to batter traditionalists with.

    We, as preservationists, should be more hardened against the minor changes, as they are the ones which accumulate much quicker than whole scale changes.
    "The only way to get smarter is to play a smarter opponent."

    _________________

Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Should Same Sex Marriage Be Legal?
    By Æmeric in forum Men, Women, & Relationships
    Replies: 230
    Last Post: Wednesday, June 3rd, 2009, 09:58 AM
  2. Gay marriage legal in Iowa for one day
    By Æmeric in forum The United States
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: Saturday, September 1st, 2007, 07:01 PM
  3. Spain approves gay marriage
    By RedJack in forum Men, Women, & Relationships
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Wednesday, July 6th, 2005, 01:35 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •