Analysis: Connecticut Gay Marriage Ruling "groundbreaking in various respects"

Analysis: The ruling was groundbreaking in various respects. In addition to establishing Connecticut as the third state to sanction same-sex marriage, it was the first state high court ruling to hold that civil union statutes specifically violated the equal protection clause of a state constitution. The Massachusetts high court held in 2004 that same-sex marriages were legal, while California's court decision in May related to domestic partnerships and not the more broadly defined civil unions.

The Connecticut decision, which elicited strong dissenting opinions from three justices, also opened the door to marriage a bit wider for gay couples in New York, where state laws do not provide for same-sex marriages or civil unions, although Gov. David A. Paterson recently issued an executive order requiring government agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

[mixed]

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", "Liberty and justice for all" and "Equal protection under the law" each took another step forward in Connecticut.

[Daniel P from Long Island]

mixed wrote:

"Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", "Liberty and justice for all" and "Equal protection under the law" each took another step forward in Connecticut.

I agree. I believe the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is completely inlusive and protects all people regradlass of sexual orientation. The relevant part of the U.S. Consititution is: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within it's jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

[WeTheSheeple]

Hey "Pete", come out of the closet already.

[Mikey]

WeTheSheeple wrote:

Hey "Pete", come out of the closet already.

I agree... he woke up again this morning and guess what... he is still gay, and he still hates that he is gay. What a sucky existance he has...spending day after day on gay forums. It's a bit like an alchoholic spending day after day at a bar.

[SaveUsFromGOP]

Mikey wrote:

<quoted text>
I agree... he woke up again this morning and guess what... he is still gay, and he still hates that he is gay. What a sucky existance he has...spending day after day on gay forums. It's a bit like an alchoholic spending day after day at a bar.

And he also discovered that his name is still "Wil"...

[Daniel P from Long Island]

Pete wrote:

No homosexual relationship is the "equal" of a real marriage.
Marriage is indeed very different from any homosexual relationship:
Here are some MAJOR differences between real marriage and any sort of homosexual relationship, especially regarding any governmental involvement:
Like it or not, marriage and family are the basic building block of American Society. No significant percent of homosexuals has "married" in ANY country that allows the contrived oxymoron and only about 1.6% of the US population claims to be GLBT anyway, so homosexual "marriage" fails on this one!
Children are the usual and natural result of real marriage. No child will EVER be born as a direct result of a homosexual relationship, so homomarriage fails on this one, too!
Having both a mother and father in the home is one of the best statistical predictors of a child's future success in life. No homosexual relationship can provide this.
Marriage is recognized as moral and necessary by nearly all Americans. Americans overwhelmingly reject homosexual "marriage" and most find homosexual acts to be immoral and damaging.

Pete, Your arguments make no sense. The U.S. Constitution gurantees ALL people the EQUAL protection of the law. It doesn't matter if gay people are 1.6% of the population or a millionth of one percent of the population. EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW IS GUARANTEED TO EACH PERSON.

Also, some major Protestant denominations, such as the Episcopal Church and The United Church Of Christ ALLOW gay marriage in their churches. By not recognizing the marriages in those churches, you are violating the First Amendment's guarantee of Freedom Of Religion.

Or should we only recognize marriages performed in the churches that you like ?

Also, what about non-Christians, such as Hindus, Buddhists, and atheists who do not believe in God at all ? Should their marriages also not be recognized because the specifially reject Jesus Christ and God The Father ?

The United States is a secular republic, not a theocracy.

PEACE !:)

[Jason1]

Please folks, do not quote this person who has posted and pasted this same non-message countless times under many names (But almost always from the same town.). Report it as abuse which it is, mark it as spam and pass on.

You really can't change "Wil's" mind since he doesn't have one. Don't answer him!