Revisit Same-Sex Marriage

very well said.
thank you.

Now that there is a Democratic super majority maybe we can respect equal rights for all people. Hopefully our politcal leaders will have the courage to pass a same sex marriage bill knowing they have the power to over ride the Governors veto if necessary.

Thank you for your further attempts to delude the purpose and meaning of marriage so that you may promote immoral and intolerable behavior in our culture. Go ahead, impose your moral judgements on the rest of society, and then we'll see whose philosophy leads to facism.(As if we have not before)

And please don't give your high and mighty tolerance is the highest virtue crap since you have already stipped away the meaning of that word while you blindly ignore your own diluted form of tolerance. You apply it only to reprobate behavior while you disdain true virtue, which you can neither understand nor tolerate in your fanciful little world.

The Hartford Courant has done a great service for society with this editorial. Standing in line behind the radical homosexuals, waiting their turn for a sympathetic editorial, are the NAMBLA Members (North American Man/Boy Love Association) and the bestiality crowd... After all, it's just "love that makes a family" - right? The Courant is just one more reason to despise living in Connecticut.

Very well said, Michael. Thank YOU.

Excellent editorial. However, what really needs to be revisited are the myriad silly, hypocritical, and downright intelligence-insulting reasons that have been offered so far for banning same-sex marriage. For example, "Same-sex marriage will bring about the end of civilized society'; while divorce, adultery, and out-of-wedlock childbirth are excused away with lame cop-outs like "Nothing's perfect." "Same-sex marriage will lead to acceptance of incest and even bestiality!" Which is like arguing (pre-19th Amendment) "If we let women vote, we'll have to let children and animals vote." Anyway, limiting marriage to male-female couples doesn't necessarily proclude incest or even bestiality. All the rant about "changing the [dictionary] definition of marriage" conveniently ignores how the word "marriage" is frequently used to describe the merger of two companies, and even the combination of ingredients in a recipe, without people becoming hysterical over which is the man and which the woman. "Marriage is important for procreation," usually spoken by politicians who themselves are in childless second or third marriages. Then there's "Let the people decide." No other civil rights issue has been determined by "the people," otherwise, we'd still have segregated and "restricted" communities.

Worst of all, of course, is the pretense that this is about "protecting and preserving the traditional family unit" when it's really about the further demonization of an already unpopular minority.

The Untied States Of America has recognized the civil right to marry. That right does not preclude same sex marriages.

The Supreme Court has noted that if you stop people from marrying on the basis of their sexual preference, you are going against the 14th amendment.

Those who oppose same sex marriage are opposing equal Civil Rights for all people in the United States.

California has domestic partnerships which like civil unions are marriage in all but name.Soon the CA Supreme Court will be taking up this issue and it's a good bet they will rule in favour of marriage equality.So goes CA ,so goes the nation.

Personally I find it heartening to see some good old-fashioned romantics and believers-in-marriage in the gay community. I wish I could find more of that attitude in the straight gene pool too! God bless those who believe in love!

This is exactly why my partner and I have not received a "civil union". After being together for 31 years, we simply feel that applying this second-class status of a "civil union" to our relationship, is simply beneath it's dignity.

We worry about the future and about what protections we don't have, as a gay couple. We worry about this every time we take a trip, with our legal papers in hand, hoping that, if something should happen, they would be honored. But what price do you put on the dignity of yourself, and your relationship, if you are willing to apply a second-class arrangement to it?

If civil unions are so equal, how many heterosexual married couples would be willing to trade in their marriage for a civil union?

Michael wrote:

Go ahead, impose your moral judgements on the rest of society, and then we'll see whose philosophy leads to facism.

Michael, you seem to be very willing to "impose your moral judgments on the rest of society", at the expense of a minority who just want equality.

Michael wrote:

And please don't give your high and mighty tolerance is the highest virtue crap since you have already stipped away the meaning of that word while you blindly ignore your own diluted form of tolerance.

Michael, gay couples have not "already stripped away the meaning of that word" (I assume you mean the word "marriage"). I would remind you that it is heterosexual couples who have no fault divorce. And the last time I checked, that divorce rate was right around 55%. More than half of heterosexual marriages end in divorce. As much as you would like to blame gay couples for this, heterosexuals did this all by themselves.

Missing from the discussion is all sense of logic and civility. Those opposed to equal rites/rights have never presented a single argument other than "I don't like Gay people" or "My God doesn't like them either" As the Supreme Court ruled in Colorado v Romer, animus toward a group may not be a basis for public policy. This animus is shown by the gratuitous ban on civil unions in most of the state constitutional amendments.

If it were about preserving the traditional family (is that a code word for 'barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen'?), then we would ban no-fault divorce and allow polygamy. If it were about children, then a marriage license would be conditional until a couple has reproduced.

Marriage has changed numerous times over the past, and opening it to equality on the basis of sexual orientation is not a radical change, as long as you accept the underlying premise that being Gay or Lesbian is as much a part of humanity as being left-handed or blue-eyed.

This said, the LGBT community does need to be courteous and sensitive to the discomfort that change imposes on traditionalists. Sensitive and courteous, not tolerant. The bottom line remains: equal marriage rights/rites does not harm anyone else's marriage. This is about equality in the benefits and protections that a civil marriage license grants, not about any religious issue.

Romer v Evans and Lawrence v Texas are the actual cases.

I believe that the lesbian and gay community are being extremely sensitive and courteous, considering the fact that we are being denied 1500 Federal rights afforded to marriage and hundreds of State rights.

We pay full taxes and we aren't afforded the simple basic dignity for our most intimate possession; our relationship to our life partner. Most groups in this country would deal with that with riots and violence.

We deal with it with integrity of what we are, and hold on to the belief that eventually people will see the good in us. What else are we to do? We are an unpopular minority, and this country has shown vividly that it has no qualms about rolling right over that unpopular minority.

The real question is, just how long are we supposed to be patient and courteous? I've had friends who have lost their homes because after the death of one, the blood family (you know, the ones who haven't spoken to them for 15 years) suddenly appear out of nowhere to claim "their half" of the property. And, I've watched as they have succeeded because the will was not honored.

It's honestly getting very difficult for me to stay civil about this.

I know some are afraid of change but same sex marriage is a change we as a civil society should all embrace. Many years ago, the same type of hatred and bigotry was uttered against people of color. I read where Republican Larry Cafero said there does not appear to be enough votes to override a veto. I think it is a little presumptuous to assume the Governor will not support same sex marriage. Even so, I ask Mr. Cafero to count the votes and if the Democratic “super” majority stays true to it’s commitment of fairness and equality than there are enough votes to adopt this necessary right.

Bill Cannon, I understand your feelings: "It's honestly getting very difficult for me to stay civil about this." But unfortunately in politics that's exactly what you must do, else be written off as completely marginal and shrill, even though you are exactly right and even though the public policy is atrocious. As you know, you are the target of a culture war.

So too are the consumers of certain drugs that have been prohibited. That culture war targets a million people for arrest every year in this country, has resulted in mass incarcerations (with all the brutality and degradation inherent to that experience), ruined careers of competent and respectable people, led to home and other property confiscations even without criminal convictions (or even without criminal charges in some cases), resulted in newspaper and media shaming of decent people.

These are also huge travsties of justice. These are also minority (not at all limited to racial definitions) subcultures being ruthlessly targetted for state violence and loss of rights simply for their private lifestyle. After watching some of my friends --gentle and hard-working people-- go to jail, after seeing so many of the other problems I noted above...it is also difficult for me to remain civil while speaking out against this travesty of justice on a mass scale.

Yes Bill, it can be frustrating to appreciate what Hannah Arendt has called "the banality of evil."

Timemachinist, I suppose you are right... we have to remain civil about this and take the high road.

This fight is the most frustrating fight I've ever gone through in my entire life, because I see for myself that we are not One Nation. We are a bunch of sub-groups who claim superiority by pushing another group down. Gays have always been at the bottom of this. And now, we just want a chance like everyone else. We want to be a whole part of society. We are not asking for anything that anyone else doesn't have access too. And we sit and listen to our foes as they state that if we allow gays to get married, the next thing they will have to allow is for people to be able to marry horses and goats. My relationship to my partner is compared to dangers of allowing such relationships because bestiality can't be far behind. The arguments go way beyond offensive.

It's not just about what the gays don't have. This fight is about what America stands for. You cannot have a great nation if you have sub-classes of people, and have that enshrined in law (civil unions, or constitutional amendments that prevent us from having access to the law for relationship protections).

But I do realize that this is not just our issue. I'm also very concerned about other groups. I'm concerned about government intrusion into privacy. And, I'm concerned that most Americans feel that it's simply ok for information the government collects to freely be given to anyone the government wishes. But we are too busy going to shopping malls and spending money to worry about these things. It's like continuing to clean your house as it burns down around you.

When will people wake up? It's not as if this was a new concept. It was thought of before...

"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly." - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Bill, my heart goes out to you. Don't worry, there are some good people in the legislature like Senator McDonald and Rep Lawlor that will continue to fight for all of us. With a Democratic super majority I believe the time is right. I also have a lot of faith in Senate President Don Williams and House Speaker Jim Amann. These guys will line up the votes and we will finally have a fair law that treats everyone as equals.

Vyxyn wrote:

The Untied States Of America has recognized the civil right to marry. That right does not preclude same sex marriages.
The Supreme Court has noted that if you stop people from marrying on the basis of their sexual preference, you are going against the 14th amendment.
Those who oppose same sex marriage are opposing equal Civil Rights for all people in the United States.

Don't lie. The United States Supreme Court has expressly decided the Same-Sex Marriage issue over 30 years ago. Albeit with a Summary Decision.

I'd lay out the exact details of the decision for you, but I doubt you would understand them, So I'll let Justice Kennard of the California Supreme Court explain it for me:

"There is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, binding on all other courts and public officials, that a state law restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not violate the federal Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process of law. After the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minnesota laws preventing marriages between persons of the same sex did not violate the equal protection or due process clauses of the United States Constitution (Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 1971) 191 N.W.2d 185), the decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, as federal law then permitted (see 28 U.S.C. former § 1257(2), 62 Stat. 929 as amended by 84 Stat. 590). The high court later dismissed that appeal “for want of substantial federal question.”(Baker v. Nelson (1972) 409 U.S. 810.) As the United States Supreme Court has explained, a dismissal on the ground that an appeal presents no substantial federal question is a decision on the merits of the case, establishing that the lower court’s decision on the issues of federal law was correct.(Mandel v. Bradley (1977) 432 U.S. 173, 176; Hicks v. Miranda (1975) 422 U.S. 332, 344.) Summary decisions of this kind “prevent lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions.”(Mandel v. Bradley, supra, at p. 176.) Thus, the high court’s summary decision in Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, prevents lower courts and public officials from coming to the conclusion that a state law barring marriage between persons of the same sex violates the equal protection or due process guarantees of the United States Constitution. The binding force of a summary decision on the merits continues until the high court instructs otherwise.(Hicks v. Miranda, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 344.) That court may release lower courts from the binding effect of one of its decisions on the merits either by expressly overruling that decision or through “‘doctrinal developments’” that are necessarily incompatible with that decision.(Id. at p. 344.) The United States Supreme Court has not expressly overruled Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, nor do any of its later decisions contain doctrinal developments that are necessarily incompatible with that decision... Until the United States Supreme Court says otherwise, which it has not yet done, Baker v. Nelson defines federal constitutional law on the question whether a state may deny same-sex couples the right to marry."

You may not like the law, but Baker is the law of the land, and you are going to have to deal with it.

Vyxyn wrote:

Romer v Evans and Lawrence v Texas are the actual cases.

Court after Court have ruled both Romer and Lawrence inapplicable. Please study law before commenting on things like this.

Take Lawrence for example, the Court was very careful to ensure that the opinion didn't cover marriage or any governmental relationship. Holding:

"[The case]does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter."

Further, Justice O'Connor's concurring opinion pointed out that marriage IS something that can be protected by the State without violating the Constitution:

"That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review. Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations–the asserted state interest in this case–other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group."

Baker is the Controlling precedent. Like it or not.