RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

03/21/2006

CT: GLAD argues gay marriage ban is illegal; 80's: HEFTY argued GLAD was 'wimpy, wimpy, wimpy'

by Jeremy Hooper

  In Connecticut today, the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) argued on behalf of eight gay couples that the state's marriage laws are illegal, while assistant AG Jane Rosenberg defended the current ban on gay marriage. It remains to be seen who laid the smack down most effectively.

No matter whose argument proves more persuasive, however, the outcome will undoubtedly be appealed to the state Supreme Court, so think of this case kind of like a practice match. Now, that doesn't mean GLAD can slack off and daydream about how much nicer it would be if they were sitting at home watching "Thundercats" instead of sweating their arse off in the hot sun waiting for the coach to get around to hitting them some...uhm, wait, what were we talking about? Oh, CT gay marriage -- right. Sorry, one mention of the word practice and your humble scribe is right back at Charlie Daniels Park circa 1987 begrudgingly fielding ground balls in his poly-cotton blend shorts, "Where's the Beef" tee, and cheap "Stagg's Pharmacy" team-issued cap. But yea, this CT Superior Court tête - à - tête is kinda like rehearsal for the big-daddy Supreme Court match to ultimately follow, so don't get too downtrodden or overjoyed when a unfavorable/favorable ruling is issued. Just like when Coach Hale called the team to home plate -- making you think you were done and could drink your Gatorade and go home, but in actuality you had to run two laps first -- a positive ruling in this case could lead to a false sense of excitement, with a "DANG IT, my legs hurt and I have lots of homework"-style disappointment to follow.

We'll keep you posted on when a ruling is expected, wherein we'll also lie on a figurative couch and tell you the life lessons we drew from "She-Ra." Who needs therapy when you have a website?

Kerrigan & Mock et al. v. Connecticut Dept. of Public Health, Questions & Answers [GLAD]
Gay Couples Challenge Conn. Marriage Laws [AP via Yahoo! News]

space gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails