RECENT  POSTS:  » Miami-Dade Circuit judge rules state marriage ban unconstitutional; stays ruling » Video: With marriage equality, Texas could put in a pool at the Alamo » CWA ably demonstrates ludicrousness of American Christian right's persecution complex » Video: CBS News hosts '50 Years Later, Civil Rights;' includes marriage equality, obviously » Audio: White House? Nah. But in race for most anti-gay House member, Bachmann a strong contender » Brian Brown is the victim, y'all. How many times does he have to tell you? » Congrats, gay activists—Bryan Fischer has found new group for his weekly 'Nazi' branding » Maggie Gallagher: Sexual orientation is 'more akin to religion' than to race » NOM is totally popular (*in Ethiopia) » What constitutes 'absolute pure evil' in the eyes of Liberty University dean?  

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

10/10/2008

Massachusetts, California, AND Connecticut? We'll know soon enough

by Jeremy Hooper

694Px-Flag Of Connecticut.SvgToday. 11:30 AM (ET). Connecticut Supreme Court to rule on marriage equality.

Stay tuned.

Decision Today! Marriage Equality in Connecticut [GLAD]

***UPDATE: This is what we know right now:

Picture 13-57

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)

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


Your thoughts

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 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails