Slog - Comments on Connecticut Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage

Comment by Dave

Dave — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:26:08 -0800

Awesome. Now let's make sure Prop 8 doesn't pass, because this is sure to fire up the zealots.

Comment by Providence

Providence — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:26:16 -0800

Great. Now Connecticut can pass an anti-gay marraige constitutional amendment too! How nice of the courts to set us up for that yet again.

Comment by onion

onion — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:28:50 -0800

AWESOME!!!!
My first Friday-after-work-beer will be dedicated to Connecticut.

Comment by boxofbirds

boxofbirds — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:29:22 -0800

Yay for Connecticut!

Boo (again) for Washington!

Comment by It's Mark Mitchell

It's Mark Mitchell — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:29:57 -0800

I am really starting to get impatient for my marriage rights. The spouse and I want to get married in our own state, not travel somewhere else. My friends are getting married, and I am JEALOUS.

Also, we need a new toaster.

Comment by AMB

AMB — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:30:13 -0800

Awesome. Maybe now they can allow stores to sell beer on Sunday.

Comment by Jayzor

Jayzor — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:30:48 -0800

Good work Connecticut. Way to ensure the Bush ancestral home will have joyfully wedded homos as neighbors.

Comment by mkyorai

mkyorai — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:33:08 -0800

The Justice who penned the opinion was Dick Palmer.

huh...huh...huh... Dick Palmer... huh.. huh...

Comment by K

Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:38:31 -0800

Reason #23654128395 why New England ownz.

Comment by Julie in Chicago

Julie in Chicago — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:39:11 -0800

So, excuse my ignorance of the legal system here, but... is this going to have to happen entirely on a state by state basis? What is the easiest way for gay marriage to be legalized on a federal level? Repeal of DoMA and/or passage of a new law? A supreme court case?

It just seems like it will take a very long time if gay couples need to bring suit in every state.

Comment by Ziggity

Ziggity — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 09:41:03 -0800

Great - there goes Ohio.

Comment by Jayzor

Jayzor — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:01:26 -0800

This will have to be a state by state decision. Laws regarding marriage and family are reserved by the Constitution and case law for the individual states. Each state has autonomy and control over its own laws. It would take a Constitutional Amendment akin to the Bill of Rights to effect nationwide change.

Comment by Elizabeth

Elizabeth — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:06:45 -0800

HURRAY!!

Comment by Richard

Richard — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:12:00 -0800

@1 & 2:

God I know. Let's all not forget that Prop. 8 is ahead by almost 5 points.
Is it really that big of a deal that the courts think it's unconstitutional but the voters don't give a fuck?
I'm a little bitter this morning. Anyways, Woo Hoo.

Comment by shub-negrorath

shub-negrorath — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:20:38 -0800

Ah, states' rights at its finest. No wonder the GOP's all for it.

Comment by Joe

Joe — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:27:58 -0800

Holy crap. I'm from Connecticut (Seattle now) and I *never* saw this coming down this way. Maybe my home state isn't as stealth Conservative as it pretends to be...

Comment by meh

meh — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:28:16 -0800

While this is, of course, great news... I wish they had waited until after the election. This is going to rally the conservative base into a McCain-voting frenzy.

Comment by Greg

Greg — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:32:56 -0800

This is great news.

Comment by patrick

patrick — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:34:54 -0800

Imagine a country like America actually accepting the fact that:

"To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others. The guarantee of equal protection under the law, and our obligation to uphold that command, forbids us from doing so."

And to think that there would be a question about our ability to elect a candidate that could support that basic constitutional principle.

Oh, why can't those gays wait for justice until a time more convenient?

You whiners should get on your hands and knees and kiss the ass of any judge willing to take an independent view in support of equal protections and if you had one brain in your empty chicken shit heads, you'd demand the next leader of the crumbling free world to do the same.

Comment by Sil

Sil — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 10:46:05 -0800

Obama wants to repeal DoMA. He believes marriage should be decided on a state by state basis. As it is right now gay marriages don't have all the rights of straight marriages. I can't marry and try to give immigration rights to someone else. I can't take all of the same federal benefits as straight people.

Obama may say he doesn't believe in same sex marriage, which is his right. However, he doesn't believe in discriminating against same sex marriages either, which the McCain and Palin do.

Comment by keshmeshi

keshmeshi — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:04:24 -0800

@12,

Loving v. Virginia didn't require a Constitutional amendment. But it will have to happen state by state, until there are just a few extremist holdouts. Then, hopefully, the Court will strike the last bans down.

Comment by um

um — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:14:47 -0800

October Suprise!

Comment by whatevernevermind

whatevernevermind — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 11:47:17 -0800

Is it not at all possible that instead of The Dreaded Backlash, that the Connecticut decision will make some voters think "Gee, looks like marriage equality is inevitable and all these people really want it, so maybe I'm wrong and/or I just won't vote against it, after all"?

Comment by jcricket

jcricket — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:01:18 -0800

DailyKos pointed out the paltry number and size of donations to the No on 8 campaign - where is the national gay community on this?

Where are the local people in CA with all their money?

I gave $50 (and I'm neither gay nor from CA). This is a key moment in American history, where we get to implement Jim Crow laws for decades, or turn the scale toward equal rights.

Comment by jcricket

jcricket — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:02:00 -0800

DailyKos pointed out the paltry number and size of donations to the No on 8 campaign - where is the national gay community on this?

Where are the local people in CA with all their money?

I gave $50 (and I'm neither gay nor from CA). This is a key moment in American history, where we get to implement Jim Crow laws for decades, or turn the scale toward equal rights.

Comment by Ben

Ben — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:44:09 -0800

@16: Well, this was a 4-3 decision. So there are at least 4 people in Connecticut who did the right thing.

Comment by Gay Seattle

Gay Seattle — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:46:17 -0800

Obama wants to repeal DoMA. He believes marriage should be decided on a state by state basis.

What am I missing here? Can you repeal DoMA and decide marriage state by state?

The message certainly should be that gay marriage is inevitable. Just ask the future of this country, the under 30 crowd.
Sort of how most of us under 50 sit back and think about racial segregation just a few decades ago and really don't get it. WHY did blacks have to use separate facilities, drinking fountains, etc.? And whatever with all those racists from the 1960's. Glad that most of them will all soon die of old age.

Comment by Tim K.

Tim K. — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:49:18 -0800

All of you who are upset by the timing should relax. Fact is, same sex marriage is an issue on many states agendas on Nov. 4 and the CT ruling is just one more. More visible has been the California vote (Prop 8). I'm amazed and relieved that the Repugnicans have not exploited it more. I don't think it is going to upset the apple cart anymore than these ballot initiatives have already done. Palin brought the fundamentalist Conservative base without help from California, CT or Florida (where an anti-gay prop is on the ballot). Dems and fair-minded Republicans just need to focus on the economy.

Comment by Will in Seattle

Will in Seattle — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:50:42 -0800

This was mostly missed in the news today, while the world economic crisis threatened civilization.

Economics matters - which is why divorce lawyers know the most likely problem leading to gay divorce will be differing views on money.

And then sex.

Comment by Tim K.

Tim K. — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 13:50:52 -0800

Comment by Mike in MO

Mike in MO — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:36:12 -0800

I love the word canard. That is so what it is.

I still can't believe the WSSC upheld the gay marriage ban.

Comment by Vince

Vince — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:51:17 -0800

Because eventually this will be decided by the Supreme Court Of The U.S.A., I am not as optimistic as I once was. But any good news is reason to celebrate. Yea!

Comment by Brad

Brad — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:25:18 -0800

My home state of Arkansas is one of those that passed a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. And a religious organization, the Arkansas Family Council, has gained enough signatures to put an initiative on the next ballot that bans gay adoption. It will most likely pass by a wide majority. The Religious Right has dug its claws deep into the psyche of my fellow Arkies.

Comment by whatevernevermind

whatevernevermind — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 16:25:35 -0800

@32 In the future, DOMA or something like it will be decided by SCOTUS, but they have no jurisdiction over state Supreme Courts.

We already have DOMA and that hasn't stopped three states' courts from ruling for equality.

It's important, obviously, for the federal government to recognize that all of its citizens are equal, but, even if don't for a very long time, individual states still can and do. It's not ideal, but it's a good start.