So far we have raised 0% of our monthly running costs! Thanks for your generosity!

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Supreme Court of Connecticut has overturned a ban on gay marriage
#1
Taken from:

Connecticut Supreme Court overturns ban on gay marriage - from Pink News - all the latest gay news from the gay community - Pink News

The Supreme Court of Connecticut has overturned a ban on gay marriage saying that by stopping same sex partners from marrying was a violation of their constitutional rights.

The White House has condemned the court's decision and said the federal definition of a marriage as being between a man and a woman.

The state joins California and Massachusetts as the only three allowing full gay marriage.

Although it has allowed civil unions since 2005, unions do not have the full, federal legal protections of marriage.

The ruling can not be appealed and will come into effect on October 28th 2008.

The judgement follows a case that began four years ago when eight same-sex couples sued the state arguing that by not allowing them to marry, the state discriminated against them in volitional of their constitutional rights.

The majority 4-3 opinion said that the "segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognisable harm."

Justice Richard Palmer added: "our state scheme discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation… and the state has failed to provide sufficient justification for excluding same sex couples from the institution of marriage.

"In accordance with our conclusion that the statutory scheme impermissibly discriminates against gay persons on account of their sexual orientation, we reverse the trial court’s judgement and remand the case with direction to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgement.

"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,” Justice Palmer declared.

"To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others."

Republican state Governor Jodi Rell said that although she disagreed with the judgement, she would uphold it.

"I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut," the Governor said.

"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."

Karl Zinsmeister, President George W Bush's Director of Domestic Policy said: "President Bush has always believed that marriage is a sacred institution 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.

"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."

In November, Proposition 8 – calling for a ban on gay marriage goes before voters in California.

Whilst my last post is being moderated, I just thought I would let you know I have re-added it anyway

No worries SS

but thanks
xxxxxx

Reply
#2
Why has the link been taken away ?

I thought it was common etiquette for all on-line news articles quoted on forums to post the original link from where they originate


Please advise


Cheers

jamie

xxxx
Reply
#3
Star Twister Wrote:Why has the link been taken away ?

I thought it was common etiquette for all on-line news articles quoted on forums to post the original link from where they originate


Please advise


Cheers

jamie

xxxx

Sorry, I dont know why the link is not there, i didnt change anything. Pengy


Time spent being less than happy is time waistedWavey

[SIZE=3]

[/SIZE]

Reply
#4
spotysocks Wrote:Sorry, I don't know why the link is not there, i didnt change anything. Pengy


No worries SS
xxx


It's just that it's common etiquette on a forum so as people don't think that they are actually your words, plus if there is anything libelous in the article it doesn't come back to the poster and is actually seen as "quoted"


My older post still has the link on, strange will try and re add it xx
Xyxthumbs
Reply
#5
Star Twister Wrote:Taken from:

Connecticut Supreme Court overturns ban on gay marriage - from Pink News - all the latest gay news from the gay community - Pink News

The Supreme Court of Connecticut has overturned a ban on gay marriage saying that by stopping same sex partners from marrying was a violation of their constitutional rights.

The White House has condemned the court's decision and said the federal definition of a marriage as being between a man and a woman.

The state joins California and Massachusetts as the only three allowing full gay marriage.

Although it has allowed civil unions since 2005, unions do not have the full, federal legal protections of marriage.

The ruling can not be appealed and will come into effect on October 28th 2008.

The judgement follows a case that began four years ago when eight same-sex couples sued the state arguing that by not allowing them to marry, the state discriminated against them in volitional of their constitutional rights.

The majority 4-3 opinion said that the "segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognisable harm."

Justice Richard Palmer added: "our state scheme discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation… and the state has failed to provide sufficient justification for excluding same sex couples from the institution of marriage.

"In accordance with our conclusion that the statutory scheme impermissibly discriminates against gay persons on account of their sexual orientation, we reverse the trial court’s judgement and remand the case with direction to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgement.

"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,” Justice Palmer declared.

"To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others."

Republican state Governor Jodi Rell said that although she disagreed with the judgement, she would uphold it.

"I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut," the Governor said.

"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."

Karl Zinsmeister, President George W Bush's Director of Domestic Policy said: "President Bush has always believed that marriage is a sacred institution 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.

"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."

In November, Proposition 8 – calling for a ban on gay marriage goes before voters in California.

Whilst my last post is being moderated, I just thought I would let you know I have re-added it anyway

No worries SS

but thanks
xxxxxx

good article Star!!!!

I still think we are fighting the wrong fight but this is the fight before us

I'm honestly starting to wonder what this is all about

I get it .. don't misunderstand me

but we're losing sight of the foul things that go on

people are still being condemened for being gay

even in the US

that's the first fight

this marriage thing is only making those opposed to it angrier

I'd sooner protect someone being beaten because they were gay

than someone that wants to get married because of the benefits built into our laws

does that make sense???
Reply
#6
The MOST important line .............

"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."
Reply
#7
AGREED!

"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."
Reply
#8
volitional or violation???
Reply
#9
Apparently I was told that's three states out of 50 that have same sex marriages

:frown:
Reply
#10
doesnt belong in government

lots of things don't

I thought this was a good fight for a long time .. now I don't

abolish governments intervention into marriage (which is all about taxes)

and the problem will go away
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  European Rights Court Orders Russia to Recognize Same-Sex Unions CellarDweller 4 50 07-16-2021, 11:37 PM
Last Post: InbetweenDreams
  The Netherlands celebrates 20 years of gay marriage andy 0 134 04-01-2021, 01:32 PM
Last Post: andy
  Biden changed his mind about gay marriage after meeting this guy andy 1 241 01-22-2021, 06:45 PM
Last Post: eastofeden
  Church Of England Paves Way For Same-Sex Marriage andy 0 236 11-11-2020, 09:04 PM
Last Post: andy
  Nevada becomes first state to constitutionally protect gay marriage andy 1 254 11-08-2020, 07:05 AM
Last Post: eastofeden

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)