RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: AFA's Fischer urges FLOTUS to fight obesity by fighting lesbians' sexual orientation » Um, but he lost to another pro-equality candidate, Tony » Video: Man misapplies personal trauma to sexual orientation science » WND's editor fundamentally misunderstands nondiscrimination law (part 3 of 3) » Video: Why is this shockingly anti-gay (among other things) speech happening in a Connecticut public school? » Fined NY event space to host same-sex wedding receptions (*but no ceremonies for anyone) » Another day, another far-right pastor pushing Christians to civil war » Joseph Farah still clueless about nondiscrimination law » Hobby Lobby president to join extremely anti-gay activists at 'Star Spangled' event » FRC's Sprigg admits his side put up 'weak defense' in 7th Circuit  

« 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