Connecticut Supreme Court overturns same-sex marriage ban

Honestly, as a denizen of CT, I think Rell's decision speaks more to the support for the ruling in the state than anything else. I don't have any solid numbers in front of me or anything, so that's simply my estimation, but it seems as if most of the reaction has been overwhelmingly positive.

 

Why don't we just execute or put under house arrest as hate-crime criminals or terroristic threat makers anyone who opposes gay marriage? After all, aren't they voting or stating their opinion out of hatred and bigotry? They should be shunned as pariahs, stripped of their voting rights and anything else you can think of. Yeah. That's the ticket.

 

Good, old Yawn. Always standing up for bigots and hate-mongers. Keep up the good fight.

 

As one of my best friends from high school said the other day: "I may not know how to spell Connecticut, but I CAN get married there."

 

What's really funny is that someone I asked what Yawn was about and told me said he got tossed and Dickens Cider became another guy, Fenian Bastard. But then I saw on a thread tonight that Fenian is a newbie. Oh well, maybe you will one day see Yawn really return.

In the meantime, back to the conversation:
I'm serious. I've read all the arguments on this topic in SportsJournalists.com. The left will simply not bend on this, and won't recognize any argument that the right has for this issue. So when they take over both branches of government, Obama ought to do what I said with all of those bigoted hatemongers and get them off Main Street. Me? Hey, I was lost but now am found. I'm all for it. If you can't bend them, surrender. Just think of it as the two-years-in democratic strategy in Iraq.

 

Well, let's take a minute and look at the "arguments" of the right:

• The biblical argument. Last I checked, this country was founded on separation of church and state -- that one's religious beliefs would have no deciding factors in the making of the law. So that argument is shot to hell.

• The majority argument. If the majority always got its way, the South would still be plantations, complete with slaves.

And my all-time favorite:

• Legislating from the bench. The winning side never complains that judges "legislated from the bench," but the losing side, especially if it's the right, always trots out that weak-assed crap. Using the case on this thread, the Connecticut constitution guarantees equal rights for all citizens. The judges used that guarantee to say that marriage, and the benefits that are given to it, cannot be held for just one group. That is not legislating from the bench, that is interpreting the constitution and saying that the law that was passed didn't meet the standard.

 

Putting it on the ballot is a plot by Republicans to get out the evangelical vote and flip California from blue to red .

 

Like I said, those against it should be muzzled and sent away. Does Russia still have some of those blueprints for "re-education camps?" These people need that or to simply not exist. Their voices are irrelevant and so is their vote. When they "get it" like the rest of us do, then come rejoin society.

 

Scribe, you miss the point (not that I should be too surprised)....
Why should you get to vote for someone's equal rights? The legislative branch (and by extension) the people get a say in lawmaking. But the courts are the checks-and-balances for laws that do not pass Constitutional muster.

I'm not saying that if you disagree you should be ignored. But if you disagree with someone being granted equal rights under the constitution of a state, then you are just flat out wrong.

 

Good for Connecticut.

 

You're arguing with the wind man. Your side has ignored any argument as relevant so what's the point of an open table of debate when you begin with the declaration that no argument against it is valid? Breeze, meet wind.

 

Anything you'd like to plagiarize for us on this matter?