Massachusetts, California, AND Connecticut? We'll know soon enough
Today. 11:30 AM (ET). Connecticut Supreme Court to rule on marriage equality.
***UPDATE: This is what we know right now:
Three dissents set to be released. What does this mean? Your guess is as good as ours.
***UPDATE: WE WIN!!!!!!!! (*with "we" being all fair-minded people)
Gosh, I wish they would delay until after the election. I know LGBT folk in CT are eagerly awaiting the verdict, but this happening right before the election can topple the CA, FL, and AZ ballot inatives against us.
I know fearing backlash isn't a good enough motive, but I can't help but wonder if issuing a yes to marriage will only hurt iniatives in other states. They'll say "see, we have to stop this before it comes to our state!!!"
I'm hoping for the best, despite it, freedom doesn't come without a price tag.
Posted by: Jason D | Oct 10, 2008 11:09:44 AM
On the Connecticut Supreme Court's Advance Release page they are showing 3 dissenting opinions in this case. That would seem to indicate that the decision of the court is somewhat contentious.
Posted by: Dick Mills | Oct 10, 2008 11:16:03 AM
Haven't reaqd the whole thing, Jeremy, but this looking GOOD. tom
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.
83 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.84
The judgment is reversed and the case is remanded
with direction to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for summary
judgment and application for injunctive relief.
In this opinion NORCOTT, KATZ and HARPER, Js.,
Posted by: tom | Oct 10, 2008 11:35:49 AMcomments powered by Disqus