Protestors march against marriage ban

Okay, since you put it that way, yes, that is a possibility, but it doesn't change the fact that they DID have the opportunity and chose not to vote on it. Which is unlike what some people here are suggesting. They are suggesting they didn't have a voice like they did in California. They did. They didn't use it, or they used it in a way that didn't matter on that issue. But all the polls in CT show a wide line of support for same-sex unions. I don't think a straight vote on that one issue would have changed anything. Even in California where they had just that question the vote was very close. A lot closer than it would have been ten years ago. Times are changing and the majority are changing with it, leaving behind religious persecution and rhetoric probably because the majority now have at least one Gay friend and don't see why they should be denied equal rights under the law. Marriage is NOT a right. As such, it should not be for some legal adults, but not others.

Again the simple answer to this is we as a astate decided that no majority should be able to impose rule over any minority no matter what the issue.

The catch is we decided to do so as a majority, so does that mean we should allow the minority of voters, who voted yes, the chance to vote on the other topics due to the intent being not to impose the rule of majority on the minority???

lol, good point, but no, personally I believe that change has to be by the majority. They might make laws I don't like, but hopefully, if they're bad laws, the minority will lobby for change. In this issue, the voters were pretty clear that times have changed and they're tired of hearing about something that at the end of the day, doesn't affect them personally :)

valkyrie35 wrote:

<quoted text>
You did get the chance, but you're obviously another idiot that didn't know what it meant when the question said should the state constitution be changed to make new laws. Duh. That was your chance.

Hold on - I voted yes for the constituition question.

What I meant was that the voters of CT did not get a chance to vote on the gay issue like those in CA, FL and AZ.

Mr_Responsible wrote:

Hold on - I voted yes for the constituition question.
What I meant was that the voters of CT did not get a chance to vote on the gay issue like those in CA, FL and AZ.

You may have voted yes, but the majority of CT voters voted no, which is why it didn't pass. However, CT residents have been polled again and again. The jury keeps coming back: liberal and no worries for Gay rights. It wouldn't have mattered if the question was on the ballot. We still would have allowed it. As it should be. But the opportunity to change the constitution was there in that other question. If some voters can't put two and two together, that's their fault. Had the majority voted to amend the constitution, another vote would have taken place about marriage.