Home | Community | Message Board


This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.


Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder

Jump to first unread post Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
InvisibleFerris
PsychedelicJourneyman
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/12/06
Posts: 11,529
Connecticut just became the third state to allow gay marriage
    #9061170 - 10/10/08 10:47 PM (15 years, 5 months ago)

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/nyregion/11marriage.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2&bl&ei=5087&en=a2b95ae23454dd8c&ex=1223870400&oref=slogin

Quote:

A sharply divided Connecticut Supreme Court struck down the state’s civil union law on Friday and ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Connecticut thus joins Massachusetts and California as the only states to have legalized gay marriages.

The ruling, which cannot be appealed and is to take effect on Oct. 28, held that a state law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, and a civil union law intended to provide all the rights and privileges of marriage to same-sex couples, violated the constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law.

Striking at the heart of discriminatory traditions in America, the court — in language that often rose above the legal landscape into realms of social justice for a new century — recalled that laws in the not-so-distant past barred interracial marriages, excluded women from occupations and official duties, and relegated blacks to separate but supposedly equal public facilities.

“Like these once prevalent views, our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection,” Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote for the majority in a 4-to-3 decision that explored the nature of homosexual identity, the history of societal views toward homosexuality and the limits of gay political power compared with that of blacks and women.

“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,” Justice Palmer declared. “To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others.”

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.

The opinion in Connecticut was hailed by jubilant gay couples and their advocates as a fulfillment of years of hopes and dreams. Hugs, kisses and cheers greeted eight same-sex couples as they entered the ballroom at the Hartford Hilton, where four years ago they had announced they would file a lawsuit seeking marriage licenses.

One of those couples, Joanne Mock, 53, and her partner, Elizabeth Kerrigan, 52, stood with their twin 6-year-old sons, choking back tears of joy and gratitude. Another plaintiff, Garret Stack, 59, introduced his partner, John Anderson, 63, and said: “For 28 years we have been engaged. We can now register at Home Depot and prepare for marriage.”

Religious and conservative groups called the ruling an outrage but not unexpected, and spoke of steps to enact a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, blamed “robed masters” and “philosopher kings” on the court. “This is about our right to govern ourselves,” he said. “It is bigger than gay marriage.”

But the state, a principal defendant in the lawsuit, appeared to be resigned to the outcome.

Gov. M. Jodi Rell said that she disagreed with the decision, but would uphold it. “The Supreme Court has spoken,” she said. “I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision, either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution, will not meet with success.”

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said his office was reviewing the decision to determine whether laws and procedures will have to be revised — local officials will issue marriage licenses to gay couples without question, for example — but he offered no challenge and said it would soon be implemented.

The case was watched far beyond Hartford. Vermont, New Hampshire and New Jersey all have civil union statutes, while Maine, Washington, Oregon and Hawaii have domestic partnership laws that allow same-sex couples many of the same rights granted to those in civil unions. Advocates for same-sex couples have long argued that civil unions and domestic partnerships denied them the financial, social and emotional benefits accorded in a marriage.

The legal underpinnings for gay marriages, civil unions and statutory partnerships have all come in legislative actions and decisions in lawsuits. Next month, however, voters in California will decide whether the state Constitution should permit same-sex marriage.

The Connecticut case began in 2004 after the eight same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses by the town of Madison. Reflecting the contentiousness and wide interest in the case, a long list of state, national and international organizations on both sides filed friend-of-the-court briefs. The plaintiffs contended that the denial of marriage licenses deprived them of due process and equal protection under the law.

While the case was pending, the legislature in 2005 adopted a law establishing the right of same-sex partners to enter into civil unions that conferred all the rights and privileges of marriage. But, at the insistence of the governor, the law also defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Arguments in the case centered on whether civil unions and marriages conferred equal rights, and on whether same-sex couples should be treated as what the court called a “suspect class” or “quasi-suspect class” — a group, like blacks or women, that has experienced a history of discrimination and was thus entitled to increased scrutiny and protection by the state in the promulgation of its laws.

Among the criteria for inclusion as a suspect class, the court said, were whether gay people could “control” their sexual orientation, whether they were “politically powerless” and whether being gay had a bearing on one’s ability to contribute to society.

A lower-court judge, Patty Jenkins Pittman of Superior Court in New Haven, sided with the state, denying that gay men and lesbians were entitled to special consideration as a suspect class and concluding that the differences between civil unions and marriages amounted to no more than nomenclature. The Supreme Court reversed the lower-court ruling.

“Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal rights under our law, they are by no means equal,” Justice Palmer wrote in the majority opinion, joined by Justices Flemming L. Norcott Jr., Joette Katz and Lubbie Harper. “The former is an institution of transcendent historical, cultural and social significance, whereas the latter is not.”

The court said it was aware that many people held deep-seated religious, moral and ethical convictions about marriage and homosexuality, and that others believed gays should be treated no differently than heterosexuals. But it said such views did not bear on the questions before the court.

“There is no doubt that civil unions enjoy a lesser status in our society than marriage,” the court said. “Ultimately, the message of the civil unions law is that what same-sex couples have is not as important or as significant as real marriage.”

In one dissenting opinion, Justice David M. Bordon contended that there was no conclusive evidence that civil unions are inferior to marriages, and he argued that gay people have “unique and extraordinary” political power that does not warrant heightened constitutional protections.

Justice Peter T. Zarella, in another dissent, argued that the state marriage laws dealt with procreation, which was not a factor in gay relationships. “The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry,” he wrote.

About 1,800 couples have obtained civil unions in Connecticut since the law was adopted three years ago, although gay-rights advocates say the demand has slowed. They cite complaints that the unions leave many people feeling not quite married but not quite single, facing forms that mischaracterize their status and questions at airports challenging their ties to their own children.

But marriage will soon be a possibility for gay couples like Janet Peck, 55, and Carol Conklin, 53, of West Hartford, who have been partners for 33 years. “I so look forward to the day when I can take this woman’s hand, look deeply into her eyes and pledge my deep love and support and commitment to her in marriage,” Ms. Peck said.




--------------------

Discuss Politics

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleFerris
PsychedelicJourneyman
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/12/06
Posts: 11,529
Re: Connecticut just became the third state to allow gay marriage [Re: Ferris]
    #9061184 - 10/10/08 10:50 PM (15 years, 5 months ago)

I honestly had no idea that their supreme court was making a ruling on this.  I wonder if it will have any effect on the other states with civil union laws.  I doubt it will have any direct effect since it was the state court and not the federal supreme court, but states DO pay attention to other states rulings.

Here's a very relevant recent thread, discussing among other matters, Prop 8 in California:

http://www.shroomery.org/forums/showflat.php/Cat/0/Number/9055096/an/0/page/0


--------------------

Discuss Politics

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Connecticut just became the third state to allow gay marriage [Re: Ferris]
    #9061265 - 10/10/08 11:14 PM (15 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

The ruling, which cannot be appealed and is to take effect on Oct. 28, held that a state law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, and a civil union law intended to provide all the rights and privileges of marriage to same-sex couples, violated the constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law.





What sorry journalism.


What constitution?  Why are articles on legal matters always written by what appears to be ignoramuses?


Quote:


“Like these once prevalent views, our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection,” Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote for the majority in a 4-to-3 decision that explored the nature of homosexual identity, the history of societal views toward homosexuality and the limits of gay political power compared with that of blacks and women.





Garbage, garbage, garbage.

Why would they say this crap?  I would not sign this opinion if I were on the court.  What does contemporary values have to do with what is written on some dead piece of parchament?

They are just asking for legitimate criticism that this is a social engineering decission.  It is not the court's job to determine how the constitution must chane- it doesn't change.  The constitution says what it says and this bullshit about a living constitution is crap and should be thrwon out the window as an ill-advised justification for giving courts the ability to do whatever they feel like. 

Quote:


In one dissenting opinion, Justice David M. Bordon contended that there was no conclusive evidence that civil unions are inferior to marriages, and he argued that gay people have “unique and extraordinary” political power that does not warrant heightened constitutional protections.





I thought sepperate but equal was decided long ago?  Or does that only count for physical facilities and not legal rights?  Garbage.

And I agree with him that the political power of gays is completely irrelevant.  The constitution, federal, was promulgated percisely to prevent the tyrany of the majority.

Quote:

Justice Peter T. Zarella, in another dissent, argued that the state marriage laws dealt with procreation, which was not a factor in gay relationships. “The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry,” he wrote.





I'd like to read that dissent.  Legislative intent much?  Oh, that deals with procreation so that's all you can do with that right.  Bullshit.  Rights are what they are.  Their intent of focus is irrelevant.  And at least this judge seems to identify a definition of marriage and where it comes from, kinda, unlike some posters in this forum.

And who says procreation is not a factor in gay relationships?  Have we not defined gay relationships or something?

What does the court do with xxy's?  If a rule of law leads to absurd and arbitrary results its a good bet its stupid.

So a 'woman' with xxy couldn't marry anyone at all?  Or is she considered a woman?  What about the male xxy's?  They can't marry then?  Or does it matter what genitalia they are born with?  What about ambiguous genitalia?  They can't marry?  Or does it matter what genitalia they have presently?  So transexuals can marry?  Total rubbish by a judge that seems to simplify a complex issue.

What does biology have to do with anything?  A court could say women can't buy cucumbers cuz that could violate a sex toy law but let men buy them?  That's based on biology too.  I understand the court doesn't consider hypotheticals, but this language is so unworkably vague and worthless I can't help but think the judge is an ignoramus.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleFerris
PsychedelicJourneyman
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/12/06
Posts: 11,529
Re: Connecticut just became the third state to allow gay marriage [Re: johnm214]
    #9061275 - 10/10/08 11:18 PM (15 years, 5 months ago)

They're talking about the state constitution.

I'll see if I can't address a couple other of your concerns sometime later tonight.


--------------------

Discuss Politics

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezouden
Neuroscientist
Male User Gallery

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Connecticut just became the third state to allow gay marriage [Re: johnm214]
    #9062094 - 10/11/08 06:43 AM (15 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

What does contemporary values have to do with what is written on some dead piece of parchament?



I could just as easily as: what does some dead piece of parchment have to do with contemporary society? Laws often need to be reconsidered in light of modern values.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Edited by zouden (10/11/08 06:49 AM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineSeussA
Error: divide byzero


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 1 month, 18 days
Re: Connecticut just became the third state to allow gay marriage [Re: zouden]
    #9062102 - 10/11/08 06:50 AM (15 years, 5 months ago)

> Laws often need to be reconsidered in light of modern values.

That is a dangerous attitude, at least within the US system of checks and balances, depending upon what you mean by reconsidered.  If a law no longer applies because modern values differ compared to when the law was enacted, then the legislative branch needs to repeal the law and enact a new one.  If by reconsidered, you mean that the judicial branch should have power to redefine the meaning of laws, then you are negating one of the checks and balances within the government, something I am completely against.


--------------------
Just another spore in the wind.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezouden
Neuroscientist
Male User Gallery

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Connecticut just became the third state to allow gay marriage [Re: Seuss]
    #9062116 - 10/11/08 07:00 AM (15 years, 5 months ago)

But does the constitution (CT or US) actually say that marriage is between a man and a woman? My understanding is that it doesn't specify, and any bans against gay marriage come from interpretations of the constitution. It's those interpretations that need to be reconsidered.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
Re: Connecticut just became the third state to allow gay marriage [Re: zouden]
    #9062886 - 10/11/08 12:18 PM (15 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Laws often need to be reconsidered in light of modern values.




By legislators, yes. By judges? Nope. State Supreme Court Judges don't get to rewrite the constitutions of their respective states. That is the job of the state legislatures and the populace as a whole (via referendum), not the state judiciary.

As Johnm214 points out, this decision clearly is not based on what the state constitution has to say. It is judicial activism as egregious as Roe v. Wade






Phred


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinecitricacidx
FunGuy
Male User Gallery


Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 07/23/07
Posts: 9,027
Loc: GA
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
Re: Connecticut just became the third state to allow gay marriage [Re: Phred]
    #9063443 - 10/11/08 02:48 PM (15 years, 5 months ago)

congrats to CT for legally recognizing that your sexual orientation does not make you less of a human than anyone else, and therefore you should be entitled to the same rights as other humans. Yay humans!


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
OfflineCoaster
Baʿal
Male User Gallery


Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 33,501
Loc: Deep in the Valley
Last seen: 12 years, 5 months
Re: Connecticut just became the third state to allow gay marriage [Re: citricacidx]
    #9063450 - 10/11/08 02:50 PM (15 years, 5 months ago)

it will become federal in no time


--------------------

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezouden
Neuroscientist
Male User Gallery

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Connecticut just became the third state to allow gay marriage [Re: Phred]
    #9064135 - 10/11/08 05:55 PM (15 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

Laws often need to be reconsidered in light of modern values.




By legislators, yes. By judges? Nope. State Supreme Court Judges don't get to rewrite the constitutions of their respective states. That is the job of the state legislatures and the populace as a whole (via referendum), not the state judiciary.





They aren't rewriting the constitution. They've declared that a law banning same-sex marriages is unconstitutional. That's exactly what supreme courts are supposed to do.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleFerris
PsychedelicJourneyman
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/12/06
Posts: 11,529
Re: Connecticut just became the third state to allow gay marriage [Re: zouden]
    #9064144 - 10/11/08 05:58 PM (15 years, 5 months ago)

and therefore, unless you read the opinion paper and point to the basis that does not use their state constitution as a guideline, then you're just spouting nonsense.  "If it allows gay marriage, it must be groundless" is your current argument.

They're almost always less than ten pages.  When the California ruling came out, I gave a fairly in depth analysis on the shroomery if I remember correctly.


--------------------

Discuss Politics

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Connecticut just became the third state to allow gay marriage [Re: zouden]
    #9064609 - 10/11/08 08:11 PM (15 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

zouden said:
Quote:

What does contemporary values have to do with what is written on some dead piece of parchament?



I could just as easily as: what does some dead piece of parchment have to do with contemporary society? Laws often need to be reconsidered in light of modern values.




No.

Laws should always be reconsidered in light of prudence, by the legislature, and in light of constitutionality, by everyone but especially the courts.


You think if we turn to a racist society somehow we can treat blacks as inferior?  NO.


Slavery was illegal even before it was declared such, it was treated as legal because of these "modern values" you speak of that allowed courts to ignore the prohibition on depriving people of liberty without due process.


And I suppose gays shouldn't be allowd to marry cuz of "modern values"?  Bullshit.


And what the hell does it matter what modern society has to do with the constitution?  Read it.  It means what it says.  That it is a poor fit for modern society, arguendo, has nothing to do with what it says.

If you want an monarchy/oligarchy go buy an island and live there.  I happen to like our constitutional system.


Quote:

zouden said:
Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

Laws often need to be reconsidered in light of modern values.




By legislators, yes. By judges? Nope. State Supreme Court Judges don't get to rewrite the constitutions of their respective states. That is the job of the state legislatures and the populace as a whole (via referendum), not the state judiciary.





They aren't rewriting the constitution. They've declared that a law banning same-sex marriages is unconstitutional. That's exactly what supreme courts are supposed to do.





What the hell does that have to do with the statment he disagreed with?

Appelate judges should not be concerned with purdence, modern society, or realism, they hsould be concerned with the law.


You seemed to suggest a judge should do whatever he wants so long as he can claim its the will of the people?  take a hike man, the law is what it is, and that's what I should be held to.



Edited by johnm214 (10/11/08 08:17 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisiblejohnm214
Male User Gallery

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
Re: Connecticut just became the third state to allow gay marriage [Re: Phred]
    #9064619 - 10/11/08 08:14 PM (15 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

Phred said:
Quote:

Laws often need to be reconsidered in light of modern values.




As Johnm214 points out, this decision clearly is not based on what the state constitution has to say. It is judicial activism as egregious as Roe v. Wade






Phred





I don't know yet.  I agree the excerpts quoted are pretty fucking ridiculous- both sides did it.


The conservatives said some matter of biology allowed discrimination and the liberals said bullshit about modern values and progression of our society.  Both are bullshit.

I've not read the decision yet, so I'll not commit to say its garbage.  You know I support gay marriage as constitution right in a state that allows heterosexual marriage, but these excerpts are the worst kind of policy analysis disguised, very thinly, as an opinion based on law.

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Invisibledemiu5
humans, lol
 User Gallery

Registered: 08/18/05
Posts: 43,948
Loc: the popcorn stadium Flag
Re: Connecticut just became the third state to allow gay marriage [Re: citricacidx]
    #9064627 - 10/11/08 08:16 PM (15 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

citricacidx said:
congrats to CT for legally recognizing that your sexual orientation does not make you less of a human than anyone else, and therefore you should be entitled to the same rights as other humans. Yay humans!




--------------------
channel your inner Larry David

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleGreen_T
 User Gallery

Registered: 10/02/08
Posts: 4,042
Loc: UK Flag
Re: Connecticut just became the third state to allow gay marriage [Re: citricacidx]
    #9064643 - 10/11/08 08:23 PM (15 years, 5 months ago)

*Deleted*

Edited by Green_T (08/02/11 03:48 PM)

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Offlinezouden
Neuroscientist
Male User Gallery

Registered: 11/12/07
Posts: 7,091
Loc: Australia
Last seen: 14 years, 5 months
Re: Connecticut just became the third state to allow gay marriage [Re: johnm214]
    #9064690 - 10/11/08 08:37 PM (15 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

johnm214 said:
Slavery was illegal even before it was declared such, it was treated as legal because of these "modern values" you speak of that allowed courts to ignore the prohibition on depriving people of liberty without due process.


And I suppose gays shouldn't be allowd to marry cuz of "modern values"?  Bullshit.



I don't know why you think I'm disagreeing with you, because we're both on the same side. Slavery is a perfect example: it was unconstitutional but that was overlooked because contemporary society said it was okay. In this case, gays should always have been allowed to marry because the constitution doesn't forbid it, yet they weren't allowed to because contemporary society didn't accept it. Essentially, the constitution was interpreted in such a way that gay marriage was banned (because that was the 'obvious' way to read it, at the time). Now that modern values have changed, that interpretation is no longer obvious - the 'correct' interpretation now is that gays should be allowed to marry. Hence, the courts have used the constitution to give the people what they want, without needing to actually change the constitution or write new laws. This is a perfect case of the system working.


--------------------
I know... that just the smallest
                                                part of the world belongs to me
You know... I'm not a blind man
                                                    but truth is the hardest thing to see

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleFerris
PsychedelicJourneyman
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/12/06
Posts: 11,529
Re: Connecticut just became the third state to allow gay marriage [Re: Green_T]
    #9064694 - 10/11/08 08:38 PM (15 years, 5 months ago)

CA is already a third of the way to legalization


--------------------

Discuss Politics

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleFerris
PsychedelicJourneyman
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/12/06
Posts: 11,529
Re: Connecticut just became the third state to allow gay marriage [Re: zouden]
    #9064713 - 10/11/08 08:42 PM (15 years, 5 months ago)

Quote:

zouden said:
Quote:

johnm214 said:
Slavery was illegal even before it was declared such, it was treated as legal because of these "modern values" you speak of that allowed courts to ignore the prohibition on depriving people of liberty without due process.


And I suppose gays shouldn't be allowd to marry cuz of "modern values"?  Bullshit.



I don't know why you think I'm disagreeing with you, because we're both on the same side. Slavery is a perfect example: it was unconstitutional but that was overlooked because contemporary society said it was okay. In this case, gays should always have been allowed to marry because the constitution doesn't forbid it, yet they weren't allowed to because contemporary society didn't accept it. Essentially, the constitution was interpreted in such a way that gay marriage was banned (because that was the 'obvious' way to read it, at the time). Now that modern values have changed, that interpretation is no longer obvious - the 'correct' interpretation now is that gays should be allowed to marry. Hence, the courts have used the constitution to give the people what they want, without needing to actually change the constitution or write new laws. This is a perfect case of the system working.




and thus the Council of Trent loses influence.

If you know what I mean, and you're protestant or atheist, you should be supporting this ruling.


--------------------

Discuss Politics

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
InvisibleFerris
PsychedelicJourneyman
Male

Folding@home Statistics
Registered: 03/12/06
Posts: 11,529
Re: Connecticut just became the third state to allow gay marriage [Re: Ferris]
    #9064748 - 10/11/08 08:47 PM (15 years, 5 months ago)

Short history lesson:

Marriage was a civil contract based on Roman law (where homosexualism was common), until the council of trent ~1600, made religion central to the practice.

So any argument involving common law, from which our marriage laws are based, has to look back a bit further to see that we were really in a 400 year conservative period that began at the end of the late middle age.


--------------------

Discuss Politics

Extras: Filter Print Post Top
Jump to top Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

Shop: Myyco.com Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale   Unfolding Nature Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order   Kraken Kratom Red Vein Kratom   PhytoExtractum Maeng Da Thai Kratom Leaf Powder


Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Massachusetts court upholds same-sex marriage silversoul7 912 3 02/16/04 05:16 AM
by Innvertigo
* Gay Marriage
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
GabbaDjS 8,822 109 03/04/04 02:15 PM
by afoaf
* Gay marriage.
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 all )
Phluck 4,170 116 08/19/03 02:14 AM
by Cornholio
* (True) Libertarians Battle the Corporate State Evolving 1,491 3 04/10/04 05:16 AM
by luvdemshrooms
* Canada Legalizes Gay Marriages Redstorm 987 9 07/21/05 04:21 PM
by zappaisgod
* Bush Plans $1.5 Billion Drive for Marriage, no gays
( 1 2 3 all )
daussaulit 5,902 41 01/23/04 12:21 PM
by Azmodeus
* GW Bush is disappointed that same-sex marriage wasn't banned
( 1 2 3 all )
daussaulit 6,188 56 07/28/04 08:23 PM
by Zahid
* Is marriage unconstitutional? Baby_Hitler 767 6 08/03/03 09:33 PM
by wingnutx

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Enlil, ballsalsa
3,660 topic views. 3 members, 11 guests and 21 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ]
Search this thread:

Copyright 1997-2024 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.03 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 16 queries.