New Haven Independent

Posted by: Cheri | October 10, 2008 3:03 PM

This is great news.
I think the words written below (from the Court's decision) are a very good example of why I tend to disagree about the difference between "legislating from the bench", which is something people usually only refer to when they're unhappy with an outcome, versus what is reality: the constitution and various laws many took for granted were not fair and right about many things, and therfore must be corrected, if not amended.
From the Court's decison:
"if we have learned anything from the significant evolution in the prevailing societal views and official policies toward members of minority races and toward women over the past half-century, it is that even the most familiar and generally accepted of social practices and traditions often mask unfairness and inequality that frequently is not recognized or appreciated by those not directly harmed by those practices or traditions."
The majority justices continued that "it is instructive to recall in this regard that the traditional, well-established legal rules and practices of our not-so-distant past barred interracial marriage, upheld the routine exclusion of women from many occupations and official duties, and considered the relegation of racial minorities to separate and assertedly equivalent public facilities and institutions as constitutionally equal treatment."

Posted by: cedarhillresident | October 10, 2008 3:17 PM

soo... does this mean gay marriage is finally legal?? Or just these few??

Posted by: Steve Ross | October 10, 2008 3:53 PM

It means that it's legal in Connecticticut.

"It is instructive to recall in this regard that the traditional, well-established legal rules and practices of our not-so-distant past barred interracial marriage, upheld the routine exclusion of women from many occupations and official duties, and considered the relegation of racial minorities to separate and assertedly equivalent public facilities and institutions as constitutionally equal treatment."

This is great.

Posted by: Edward_H | October 10, 2008 6:14 PM

"Love Is Legal"

When was love illegal? And since when does love have anything to do with marriage? :)

Posted by: che15 | October 10, 2008 6:30 PM

I hope this does not come out the wrong way so let me start by saying this. Gay marriage is not a big deal, if people want to be together so be it and congrats for the win. My problem is does CT legislature really need to spend so much time and resources on this subject. I mean I would personally rather have the Legislature work on lowering taxes, finding energy solutions, bringing jobs and businesses to the state, and LOWERING THE OUTRAGEOUS COLLEGE TUITIONS. All I wanna say to the Legislature is do something that will benefit ALL OF CT. NO offense to the supporters of gay marriage or the opponents for that matter, but did it really need to take this long and cost the amount it probably did.

Posted by: Josh Smith | October 10, 2008 9:18 PM

Awesome. Big win for Libertarians, Democrats, and all those who believe in freedom in its truest form. Congratulations to those who this affects most, the future newlyweds. The war's finally over. :)

Posted by: MORRIS COVE MF | October 11, 2008 1:16 AM

Great news! I never knew Robin Ritterman was so involved. She's so nice, devoted to her children, and so smart....and who knew she had the time and foresight to fight the good fight? Good for you...and congratulations.

Posted by: Steve Ross | October 11, 2008 8:57 AM

"All I wanna say to the Legislature is do something that will benefit ALL OF CT."

I'd say that they did, Che. In many ways it many times trumps things like lowering taxes and making college more affordable.

I see it as momentum away from theocracy, prejudice, and illogic. And I'm rather ashamed that I find myself surprised.

Posted by: Henry Lee | October 11, 2008 9:04 AM

Come on, all I want to say is that this is dispicable! And all you cronies are behind this? What is this world coming to?

Posted by: cedarhillresident | October 11, 2008 9:20 AM

Rell looked pissed :) The only reason it was denied in the first place was insurance company's bottom line (at least that is the way I see it)

Next step is universal Heath care!!!

Posted by: Muva | October 11, 2008 9:21 AM

This is a great relief!
For a long time (14yrs) my GF and I had abstained from marriage out of solidarity. We recently (and reluctantly) decided to wed out of the desire to start a family (and keep it legit in the eyes of out families). Some guilt was felt for abandoning our previous commitment to our LBGT friends.
This is great news!
Congrats!

Posted by: KofC | October 11, 2008 10:08 AM

Please note that the Knights of Columbus, based in New Haven, is attempting to destroy marriage equality in California. What does a theocracy look like? - suspiciously it looks like right wing, medieval Catholic dogma usurping civil law.

It's great to see the CT court defend the virtue of Justice from the lechery of the church...

Posted by: robn | October 11, 2008 10:43 AM

Awesome,

Hey gay couples! Move to New Haven ,buy a house and open a business...you're welcome here!

Hey conservative! chill out and don't worry. The same lefty liberals who support this also support separation of church and state so you won't have to perform gay marriage in your church if you don't want to.

Posted by: Evan S | October 11, 2008 11:42 AM

Another loving decision!

"Marriage is one of the basic civil rights of man"...

..."Like these once prevalent views, our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection. 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. To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others. The guarantee of equal protection under the law, and our obligation to uphold that command, forbids us from doing so. In accordance with these state constitutional requirements, same sex couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry."

Quotes from the CA decision here:
http://www.acsblog.org/equality-and-liberty-quotations-from-and-reactions-on-the-california-samesex-marriage-decision.html

Posted by: Walt | October 11, 2008 6:23 PM

Disagree with ruling, but do not really care what they do to and with each other.

Obviously at least half those folks with "their" kids are not really the kids' parents.

Is the use of the term "their" just poetic license or were the kids really adopted and the real parents legally tossed out??

Just curious. Does not seem to ring true, but may be legally so.

Posted by: Fedupwithliberals | October 12, 2008 8:31 AM

ROBN

"Hey conservative! chill out and don't worry. The same lefty liberals who support this also support separation of church and state so you won't have to perform gay marriage in your church if you don't want to."

Right. So we do not have to worry about the bigger issues like destruction of family, this culture and society. Since world history is not taught in the schools, we won't be alarmed by seeing America take the same path that other societies have followed along this route with disasterous ends.

Don't worry! Be happy! Who cares about morality anymore? Can't wait to see what we have become in another ten years. Polygamy is a certainty. Bestiality not far behind.

Posted by: KofC | October 12, 2008 9:12 AM

Hey Walt,

If you really "do not care" then why are you even bothering to read the article and comment? For a supposedly straight man, you do seem to have a lot of interest in all things Gay; where there's smoke there's fire... Also, please let all of us know when and how your marriage is (adversely) affected by this court ruling. Also, are you so pathetic that you have to attack someone's children? What a tough, straight guy!

Posted by: CatholicChurch | October 12, 2008 6:02 PM

I for one am looking forward to putting this question to a Constitutional Convention. Apparently our courts need to have marriage articulated clearly as a union between a man and a woman.

In justice, as a Catholic, I have no objection to civil unions, though I will confess that children should not be raised by homosexual couples (but that is another debate). The civil union statute gave homosexual couples everything but the distinction of marriage.

The Supreme Court, in its split decision, has forced the question for us all. From the beginning, marriage has been understood as the stable union between a man and a woman. Marriage is not some human invention but is an instition that transcends man made laws and fads.

You may want to attack the Catholic Church and the Knights of Columbus, that is your choice. There are many Catholics who will read these attacks and accusations against the Church and shrug their shoulders. But we shall see what will happen as this debate continues, and it will through a Constituional Convention. I am confident that the majority of people in this state, once they understand the civil union statute, will enshrine the defination of marriage as between a man and woman in our state's constitution.

God save Connecticut.

(I know some will throw the abuse of children and the crusades as their justification to tear down the Catholic Church. The failure of people do not mitigate for one moment God's law and presence, nor the Church's responsability to speak out on important issues such as this. So hack away.)

Posted by: Steve Ross | October 12, 2008 6:27 PM

Protesting this decision through obvious rhetorical devices falls flat. First, there's nothing persuasive about this alleged moral conviction when to someone like me, such a concept of morality is bankrupt and shallow. Second, why does your version of morality trump mine? Or these couples'? Do you think they went into this lightly? That they aren't sincere in their dedication to their children? Are they incapable of producing perfectly good, normal humans?

Clearly, this is what some of you contend. But I don't want to believe that anyone could be so blinded by their ideology, by their condescension, as that. It makes more sense that you simply fear or are disgusted by homosexuality.

But look, this is the way it's going to go. Homosexuality is represented in many other social species. In the duration of our own, it had existed before monotheistic tradition - even prior to historical tradition itself.

Belief systems change as society and culture steadily advance (or decline). Our opinion, one way or another, is superfluous. Within two-hundred fifty years our entire species will be twice replaced by its progeny, and it will look toward or lament its own future -- our ideas of morality will have been studied, argued over, disregarded, and reevaluated.

I'm proud that, in some way, our state will be remembered as a humanitarian one. That finally one group can enjoy the benefits that the other enjoys, as we should see in a pluralistic democracy.

I'm glad to be alive in such a pivotal time in US history; it is a time of great potential....

Posted by: William Kurtz | October 12, 2008 6:54 PM

Right on Steve Ross. I'm proud of Connecticut. For those of us happy to see all our friends able to form lasting unions with legal protections by the government, this is a great day.

Fedup, I can confirm that they are still teaching World History in at least some schools. But when exactly was is that they were teaching about the countries that were brought to "disasterous [sic] ends" by gay unions? Which countries were these?

Posted by: CatholicChurch | October 12, 2008 8:55 PM

"I'm proud that, in some way, our state will be remembered as a humanitarian one. That finally one group can enjoy the benefits that the other enjoys, as we should see in a pluralistic democracy."

Again, a warped sense of right and wrong. We live in the richest state in the country, yet we have the 3 poorest cities, Hartford, Bridgeport, and New Haven. Humanitarian state, I beg to differ. Hartford is the second poorest city in the country next to Brownsville TX with an ever increasing rate of infant mortality (not counting abortions).

We abort many children, offer abortion on demand to minors without the consent of their parent, and practice human experimentation on stem cells, with my tax money. And you say humanitarian state.

Sure the science is not clear on when life begins, but something so serious as a human life, should we not err on the side of caution? Or do you just brush away our concerns as if they are dribble?

Our humanitarian state takes all kinds of money from the federal government to build nuclear subs with the potential to destroy countless lives. Our humanitarian state produces and sells weapons that are used to keep the masses inline and under control.

Over the last few years, especially under Rowland, this state's legislature has dwindled away the social safety net of unemployment benefits and aid to families. Sure, some will argue that "those people" dont deserve this and that. But where is the justice for these little ones.

Seriously, we must ask ourselves do we really think driving religion and morality out of the public discourse has benefited our families, country and our world?

Since Nietzshe's proclaimation "God is dead", the world as seen 2 world wars, the holocaust, geneocide, ethnic cleansing, international paralysis in the face of huge humanitarian crisis (because it was happening to people who dont look like us or to countries where we have no interest), proliferation and use of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and more.

Faith is not a private affair. It is concrete and it is to be lived. To simply discount the Church's perspective is to ignore some 2000 years of wisdom. These essencial issues of life, marriage, and family are important to all people, not just Catholics.

I am unabashedly Catholic and a Knight of Columbus. I am politically active, and not just every 4 years. I am concerned about a widerange of questions that have an impact on life and the family, as was our founder, the Venerable Rev. Michael McGivney. Vivat Jesus!

Check out this organization that many attack to know its good works. http://www.kofc.org/un/index.cfm

Posted by: walt bradley | October 12, 2008 8:57 PM

O.K., um, first of all, i'm not "Walt" i use my real full name, i'm completely happy letting the world know what i think, otherwise who will know just how right i really am. so i thank those of you who've sent me hate emails i appreciate your passion and use of the "f" word in such creative ways, but it ain't me, so please, enough.
I'm good with the decision, it's time.
In 10 or 15 years i would be interested in finding out the percentage of same sex marriages that end in divorce vs. "traditional" marriages. my gut feeling is that same sex marriages will have a lower percentage of dissolution than people like, say, myself, who's union went down in flames in a very short time. Personally, i think the same sex couples will take this legal union much more seriously, and treat the relationship with with more purpose because it was such a battle to obtain.
It will be interesting to see what happens when, as with many loving couples who've promised themselves to each other for eternity, when some of the same sex marriages dissolve into custody battles and bitter lawsuits, which is only a matter of time.
Anyway, again, thanks for the hate mail, next time though, please, look for the full name.
xoxo
walt bradley

Posted by: Paul | October 13, 2008 9:00 AM

Oh for the love of God, Catholicchurch, do you actually know what happens to Zarathustra when he comes down from the mountain and proclaims God is dead? That's at the beginning of the book. Which I presume you've bothered to read, ever?

Stop acting like the demise of Christianity in Europe caused the horrors of the twentieth century directly, lest you want to take the same approach to the beginning of the 17th century. You have heard of the Thirty Years' War, haven't you?

Posted by: Steve Ross | October 13, 2008 9:22 AM

"Again, a warped sense of right and wrong."

Sir Knight of Columbus,

You evaded every single argument I made. You dressed up your bigotry with histrionics and appeals to your preferred dogma and its route, easy responses. You defaulted to arguments that have nothing to do with the very issue at hand.

This isn't about abortion or submarine bases or underfunded cities. It's about gay people getting married.

It is your sense of infallibilty, your refashioning the principles of your mysticism into a truncheon of prejudice, that flaw your assertions. That make you immoral.

Many disagree with you. Many of them Catholics themselves. And Jews and Muslims and polytheists. Atheists and agnostics. Cops and clowns and conspiracy theorists.

Millions of your fellow human beings. Are we all warped?

Posted by: LastStraw | October 13, 2008 9:24 AM

Oh boy, bring on the religious zealots!
These types of laws pass because you are outnumbered. Don't like it? Move.
(I've always wanted to be able to tell a conservative that!!!)
A good place to start looking for a home in a religiously active, hard moral-stance community, would be someplace like Afghanistan or Iran.

Posted by: Walt | October 13, 2008 11:14 AM

Just asked a simple legitimate question as to what "their" meant in the news article above and get attacked by the gay bigot.

"KOFC" above is obviously a fake name, but that does not bother Bradley, because the post favors his view on the topic.

No consistancy.

As said before, I don't care what those folks do to each other. Why demand that the rest of us cheer their lifestyle??

Inasmuch as none of those couples "begat" the kids in the photos myquestion still stands unanswered..

Posted by: robn | October 13, 2008 12:18 PM

CC,

The history of marrige is long an complex, but its core purposes is a contractual device related to property ownership. Your religion's interpretation of marriage is fine for you, but its just one interpretation. P.S...admit it...the KofC is mostly an insurance company for mostly catholics.

FUWL,

I'll admit that you seem to be more knowledgeable on the subject so please educate us more about the path to bestiality.

Posted by: Steve Ross | October 13, 2008 3:23 PM

"As said before, I don't care what those folks do to each other. Why demand that the rest of us cheer their lifestyle??"

By the mere syntax of your initial statement, clearly you do care what "those folks do to each other" (i.e. getting married).

No one is asking you to cheer anything. You received negative responses because you are arguing about semantics when this issue is much more important than that; your statements are demeaning.

For the record, "their" is merely a pronoun in the possessive case -- applicable and grammatically correct in the sentence you culled.

Posted by: Walt | October 13, 2008 4:07 PM

Robn

You are incorrect.

Knights of Columbus is not primarily an insurance company, but is primarily an organisation of Catholic men.

It is also a big insurance company originally founded because Catholic men (and women) were unable to get insurance coveerage.

Knights (me for instance) are not required to buy KofC insurance,

It is not mostly for Catholics as you state, but wholly so. as membership is limited to Catholic men.

Steve Ross

Your answer appears to favor "poetic license" rather than legal possession or responsibility for the kids.

Use in the article implies legal possession and responsibility as I see it, which may or may not be true.

Sorry for the kids, but recognize that in some cases they might be better off.

A mess.

Posted by: robn | October 13, 2008 5:49 PM

WALT,

Let me hip you to something brother. The KofC is worth about 14 Billion dollars....if that came from membership dues than that would mean that every one of its 1.7M members paid eight thousand in dues....but since that probably isn't the case, it leads me to believe that most of that income is derived from insurance and investments. So is is a fraternity or is it an insurance company wearing purple vestments?

http://www.kofc.org/un/eb/en/convention_2008/resources/highlights.pdf

Posted by: David Streever | October 13, 2008 6:13 PM

Walt,

interesting you'd refer to Steve Ross as a "gay bigot"

He is neither gay nor a bigot, but a good citizen & an active community member.

That's the difference when you go anonymous vs "real person": I can state I know Steve Ross, and I know your description of him is inaccurate & bigoted.

Do you believe anyone who is in favor of the HUMAN right to enter into a legal union is gay? If so, you're frequently wrong.

I'd also like to point out that Steve didn't even bother to correct you: it's clearly not something he's concerned about. How would you react if someone erroneously referred to you as a gay bigot?

Posted by: kofc | October 13, 2008 6:36 PM

Walt,

Again why are you, and apparently some of your fellow "knights" seemingly obsessed with all things Gay? Even all of the Gay guys that I know are not obsessed with GAY 24/7. Are the "knights" all on the "down low"? What's up with the "no women" thing; most straight guys that I know want to meet women - think about it...

Posted by: CatholicChurch | October 13, 2008 7:25 PM

The Connecticut Supreme Court in this matter is a practice of judicial activism, nothing less. The redefining of the institution of marriage by a mere 4 people is what is unjust. This was a decision for the legislature. They responded with a civil union statute. The Court has gone against the legislative assembly, so now we must turn this over to a Constitutional Convention.

Those who would brand us who oppose what the Supreme Court has done as a religious zealots and a bigot betrays your own bias. Marriage between a man and woman has its base in biology and not in bigotry (Justice Zarella for the minority).

Posted by: William Kurtz | October 14, 2008 3:27 AM

Walt & Catholicchurch,

The Connecticut Supreme Court did exactly what it's charged to do; interpret the laws as written in light of the state constitution and they ruled as they did. The fact that their ruling conflicts with regressive Catholic dogma simply doesn't matter for anyone who doesn't take their ideas about morality from the Vatican.

You're entitled to your personal opinions, and I wouldn't try to change your minds. Neither is anyone calling on the Catholic church to change its dogma, or to begin blessing same-sex marriages in opposition to their teachings. (Sorry, Fedup--it doesn't look like they're ready to endorse bestiality any time soon, either). In return, let's stop pretending that Catholic doctrine has a role to play in legislative affairs.

Posted by: Steve Ross | October 14, 2008 6:09 AM

Marriage does not have its roots in biology any more than its being a product of human culture, itself an evolutionary byproduct of our people: sentient, social animals capable of great wisdom and avarice. As our collective intellect and intuition grow more mature, we begin to see cracks form in our belief systems. They fragment and adapt to fit our particular group, our personal and social needs. You use litigiousness and pseudoscience to protect yours. What do I use, Catholic Church?

...Regardless, I believe that empirical evidence will find homosexuality is much more deeply ingrained in biology than marriage. It matters little even if this isn't the case. We are capable of abstraction, something a few spaces removed from physiology. Our nation's choices are written with a communal calculus, with a tenor toward progressive change. There will always be a force running counter to this as well.

It is on this level that our disagreement exists.

If someone wants to celebrate ritual -- any ritual -- as religious people do, or as sports fans in a stadium do, or as audiences at rock shows do, what gives you the right to deprive them of it? They harm no one and nothing but your narrow view of palatability.

The aptly named social activist judges are conscious of a changing current, and they are conscious of their role in history. Whether from a place of vanity or of altruism, they took a position; I am obviously not alone in agreeing with this decision.

I'm curious to see how your constitutional convention pans out, and I'm glad that our system of government allows for it. But know this: the vast majority people who oppose you on this issue will do so to the bitter end ... I don't think there's much wriggle room here for polemics or discourse. This both saddens and bolsters me.

We aren't "betraying biases," but staking territory. And if this is really the case, I believe I have the aerial advantage.

Posted by: Walt | October 14, 2008 7:02 AM

Streever

Term meant for KOFC, not Ross, and I agree it is not a nice term and that it could be read as you did.

Sorry. Apologies to Ross.

ROBN

Is a big insurance company as said earlier, but not the essence of the Knights as you claim. Optional, and rarely mentioned at Knights meetings.

You should try to stick closer to the truth.

KOFC

The terms you use may be a special code for you, but they are not understandable. .

Posted by: Deuce | October 14, 2008 8:28 AM

"Oh boy, bring on the religious zealots"!

Not everyone who opposes gay marriage is a religious zealot. There are those who oppose it who do not have any consideration for religion.

Posted by: Steve Ross | October 14, 2008 9:22 AM

"There are those who oppose it who do not have any consideration for religion."

Whose?

All? Some? The right one? Yours, Deuce?

What about gay couples'? Do their religions count?

Any of you arguing on religious grounds, I'm genuinely curious how you'd answer just the last two questions.

Posted by: Steve Ross | October 14, 2008 9:33 AM

Deuce,

I'm really sorry; I misread your post and responded heatedly. But allow me to offer a question to you specifically: why is marriage legislated at all? Wouldn't the answer ultimately circle back toward a religious conviction or taboo?

Posted by: Deuce | October 14, 2008 10:21 AM

What I meant was that a person can oppose gay marriage for reasons that have nothing to do with religious beliefs. A person can be opposed to both gay marriage and religion.

Posted by: Sally Joughin | October 14, 2008 10:56 AM

All loving couples were already free to commit to each other and be "married"-- it is just a word. Legal recognition is another story. If the whole country had civil unions, with legal rights for all couples recognized wherever they go, we could end this "marriage" debate. The states would guarantee every couple- both heterosexual and homosexual- all civil rights, and then you could also choose to have a marriage ceremony in your church, synagogue, back yard, living room, or public place. But at this point, we need a legal right to marriage even in a civil union state because all couples need to have their rights recognized when they travel to or move to other states. I don't understand why some people are hung up about other people's relationships or what they call it. Doesn't everyone deserve equal rights? Every increase in equal treatment of all residents is another victory for Connecticut. Congratulations to all who brought this about.

Posted by: Mr. Stephen Peter Ross | October 14, 2008 11:37 AM

Right, Deuce. I majorly gaffed! Attribute it to being awake all night or being dosed on serious amounts caffeine. But still, I'm trying to understand this (assuming that your speaking for your own religious convictions -- or lack thereof): if you're argument isn't a religious one, what is it?

I could understand being opposed to marriage in general, but your response doesn't seem to say this.

Posted by: kofc | October 15, 2008 8:31 AM

Wow what is it about the anti-gay marriage crowd that gets them (Walt, et al.) all bunched up? It's like they're trying to hide some part of themselves, kind of like some of the politicians featured on this site: blogactive
Of course enough has been said about the Catholic church heirarchy, but it always bears repeating...

Posted by: William Kurtz | October 15, 2008 10:04 AM

In the 20th century psychology has largely discredited some of Sigmund Freud' more outlandish ideas, but I think this is one he got right.

Posted by: Deuce | October 15, 2008 3:27 PM

Stephen Ross,

I oppose gay marriage. I oppose religion. I like pissing off liberals AND conservatives.