Recommend
7 
 Thumb up
 Hide
61 Posts
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Same-sex marriage now legal in CT rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/10/conne...

Interesting...the state I grew up in (from 9+) and the state I live in (MA). Maybe I should move to a red state and test the limits of my sorcerous powers?
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew M
United States
New Haven
Connecticut
flag msg tools
admin
8/8 FREE, PROTECTED
badge
513ers Assemble!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chad_Ellis wrote:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2008/10/conne...

Interesting...the state I grew up in (from 9+) and the state I live in (MA). Maybe I should move to a red state and test the limits of my sorcerous powers?


Better move soon...your red state options will be far more limited in a month

-MMM
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wray Cason
United States
Everett
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
Would anyone care to explain the justification for this? Does anyone actually think that the drafters of the Connecticut constitution ever meant to grant marriage rights to homosexuals? Or that a court should ever have power to create public policy? I know a lot of people like this result. I do not. Putting that aside, how is this justifiable?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wrayman wrote:
Would anyone care to explain the justification for this? Does anyone actually think that the drafters of the Connecticut constitution ever meant to grant marriage rights to homosexuals?


I doubt they even considered that. I also don't think that people who wrote the 14th amendment expected it to lead to the forced desegregation of schools, nearly a century later, let alone the repeal of miscegenation laws.

Quote:
Or that a court should ever have power to create public policy? I know a lot of people like this result. I do not. Putting that aside, how is this justifiable?


It's justifiable insofar as the state constitution prohibits discrimination based on gender (I haven't read the decision, so I'm just guessing). Denying people the right to marry their partner based on the partner's gender counts, just as miscegenation laws denied people the right to marry their partner based on race and fell afoul of equal protection.

If Massachusetts is any guide, a lot of the people who hate the idea of same-sex marriage will hate it less over time. I know my own marriage has somehow survived.
18 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Keith "Boaty McBoatface" C
United States
New Haven
Connecticut
flag msg tools
designer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
They could just open it to a public referendum, but I don't think either side wants that because neither side is that confident that they would win, and a lose like that would set them back. As far a justification, it was based on the notion that 'separate-but-equal' usually isn't, or at least isn't perceived that way. Not sure if that's enough of a reason, but then I'm not a political scholar.

The simple fact is that homosexuality is gaining acceptance. It's really inevitable that same-sex marriage or unions will eventually be recognized nationwide. It's rapidly becoming just a matter of semantics.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dickie Crickets
United States
Connecticut
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
Putting that aside, how is this justifiable?


Love is more important than the fucking government. MUCH more. As a Connecticutter, this is long overdue, and I'm glad that my state is one of the few lurching towards progress. I will now wait and see if gay marriages in my state cause irreperable harm to the one I share with my wife. Anyone want to take any wagers?
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Kandrac
United States
Grand Prairie
TX
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
eaglebeak wrote:
Quote:
Putting that aside, how is this justifiable?


Love is more important than the fucking government. MUCH more. As a Connecticutter, this is long overdue, and I'm glad that my state is one of the few lurching towards progress. I will now wait and see if gay marriages in my state cause irreperable harm to the one I share with my wife. Anyone want to take any wagers?


I agree. It's should be all about love. How about the love between a brother and sister, father and daughter, a man and three women, a little old lady and Jacque her French Poodle? Who's to say that any of them should not be entitled to the marriage state? If you redefine marriage to suit one group, why stop there?

Marriage for everyone, under any circumstances, without moral judgements should be our ultimate goal!

Gg
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Kloth
United States
Wausau
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gamegrunt wrote:
eaglebeak wrote:
Quote:
Putting that aside, how is this justifiable?


Love is more important than the fucking government. MUCH more. As a Connecticutter, this is long overdue, and I'm glad that my state is one of the few lurching towards progress. I will now wait and see if gay marriages in my state cause irreperable harm to the one I share with my wife. Anyone want to take any wagers?


I agree. It's should be all about love. How about the love between a brother and sister, father and daughter, a man and three women, a little old lady and Jacque her French Poodle? Who's to say that any of them should not be entitled to the marriage state? If you redefine marriage to suit one group, why stop there?

Marriage for everyone, under any circumstances, without moral judgements should be our ultimate goal!

Gg

I agree (except for the dog)! Family members, and loved ones should be able to be included on tax forms and allowed visitation rights...

Oh they already do get those things. Sooo, we're just leaving out the "non-standard" families. Guess we should include them then.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Kandrac
United States
Grand Prairie
TX
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Why exclude Aunt Edna and her dog? There is no love like doggy love, you know.

Gg
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John So-And-So
United States
Fresno
California
flag msg tools
badge
You and the Cap'n make it hap'n
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
"Human" is one of two operative words in the concept of "human rights".

Of course, if you don't understand the second part, I guess we can't expect you to understand the first.
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryan Johnson
United States
Salem
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Glad to see Connecticut do the right thing. We'll see more and more states follow-suit over the next few years (especially if Chad moves there ). I don't care about the ridiculous reasons people have for opposing same-sex marriages. I have a real problem when people try to tell others how to be happy. This is a step in the right direction.
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gamegrunt wrote:
eaglebeak wrote:
Quote:
Putting that aside, how is this justifiable?


Love is more important than the fucking government. MUCH more. As a Connecticutter, this is long overdue, and I'm glad that my state is one of the few lurching towards progress. I will now wait and see if gay marriages in my state cause irreperable harm to the one I share with my wife. Anyone want to take any wagers?


I agree. It's should be all about love. How about the love between a brother and sister, father and daughter, a man and three women, a little old lady and Jacque her French Poodle? Who's to say that any of them should not be entitled to the marriage state? If you redefine marriage to suit one group, why stop there?

Marriage for everyone, under any circumstances, without moral judgements should be our ultimate goal!

Gg


Consenting adults are consenting adults. Why should I care if a brother wants to marry his sister? Or if another man wants to marry another man? Its not my place to tell other people they can't be happy, and its not yours either.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Kloth
United States
Wausau
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Gamegrunt wrote:
Why exclude Aunt Edna and her dog? There is no love like doggy love, you know.

Gg

The dog has 0 income and can't make any decisions, so sure why not let the crazy lady marry her dog. She can already leave it all her money.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Wray Cason
United States
Everett
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
SwedeLad wrote:
Glad to see Connecticut do the right thing.


The thing is, Connecticut did not do this. A narrowly divided court did. Legislatures make laws. Courts do not. That is the way things work. I suspect that as a nation and a culture, we are in for some kind of show down. It is not entirely about "gay rights". It is about judges arrogating authority to themselves that they should not. This isn't proper and it will eventually lead to something more drastic to compensate. If any state legislature were to actually debate this and pass law, there would be no basis for argument, except on moral/religious grounds which has no bearing on the law of the matter. It seems very telling to me that this "movement" is repeatedly taking place in courts, not legislatures. If put to the people as this sort of thing certainly should be, I expect this wouldn't fly.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew M
United States
New Haven
Connecticut
flag msg tools
admin
8/8 FREE, PROTECTED
badge
513ers Assemble!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Slippery slopes are my favorite slopes.

-MMM
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Matthew Kloth
United States
Wausau
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wrayman wrote:
SwedeLad wrote:
Glad to see Connecticut do the right thing.


The thing is, Connecticut did not do this. A narrowly divided court did. Legislatures make laws. Courts do not. That is the way things work. I suspect that as a nation and a culture, we are in for some kind of show down. It is not entirely about "gay rights". It is about judges arrogating authority to themselves that they should not. This isn't proper and it will eventually lead to something more drastic to compensate. If any state legislature were to actually debate this and pass law, there would be no basis for argument, except on moral/religious grounds which has no bearing on the law of the matter. It seems very telling to me that this "movement" is repeatedly taking place in courts, not legislatures. If put to the people as this sort of thing certainly should be, I expect this wouldn't fly.

Do you know what Marbury v. Madison is? Judges are one of the three branches of government for a reason. We are not a democracy, we are a republic.

The denial of rights to gay citizens was deemed unlawful, so the judges fix the law. It's within their power to do so.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Tracy
United States
San Francisco
CA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wrayman wrote:
SwedeLad wrote:
Glad to see Connecticut do the right thing.


The thing is, Connecticut did not do this. A narrowly divided court did. Legislatures make laws. Courts do not. That is the way things work. I suspect that as a nation and a culture, we are in for some kind of show down. It is not entirely about "gay rights". It is about judges arrogating authority to themselves that they should not. This isn't proper and it will eventually lead to something more drastic to compensate. If any state legislature were to actually debate this and pass law, there would be no basis for argument, except on moral/religious grounds which has no bearing on the law of the matter. It seems very telling to me that this "movement" is repeatedly taking place in courts, not legislatures. If put to the people as this sort of thing certainly should be, I expect this wouldn't fly.


You must *really* hate Scalia then. I would agree with you there.

I "like" how you put "movement" and "gay rights" in quotation marks.

12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryan Johnson
United States
Salem
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wrayman wrote:
SwedeLad wrote:
Glad to see Connecticut do the right thing.


The thing is, Connecticut did not do this. A narrowly divided court did. Legislatures make laws. Courts do not. That is the way things work. I suspect that as a nation and a culture, we are in for some kind of show down. It is not entirely about "gay rights". It is about judges arrogating authority to themselves that they should not. This isn't proper and it will eventually lead to something more drastic to compensate. If any state legislature were to actually debate this and pass law, there would be no basis for argument, except on moral/religious grounds which has no bearing on the law of the matter. It seems very telling to me that this "movement" is repeatedly taking place in courts, not legislatures. If put to the people as this sort of thing certainly should be, I expect this wouldn't fly.


By saying Connecticut, I did not specify the citizens, the court, or anybody else. I just meant the legalization of same-sex marriage in the state is the right thing. Why does it upset you? You know with certainty that over the next few years, we will see many more states do the same. Is it because of your religious beliefs that gay couples should not marry? If so, you should keep in mind that most of these people do not hold the same religious beliefs as you and they can not be forced to follow any religion's doctrine or dogma. If not due to your religious beliefs, why does it matter to you one way or another? They are just people who wish to be married. They are people with the same exact capacity for love, happiness, sadness and all other emotion as you or I. Live and let live.

7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
flag msg tools
CHA was my dump stat
badge
Snob of the People
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Many congrats to CT for ending a discriminatory ban on the ability of certain consenting adults to enter into a specific legal contract.
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steve Cates
United States
Visalia
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
CapAp wrote:
"Human" is one of two operative words in the concept of "human rights".

Of course, if you don't understand the second part, I guess we can't expect you to understand the first.


Multiple human partners and siblings then, where is the line drawn if not one man and one woman?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
This Guy
United States
Durham
North Carolina
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
Wrayman wrote:
Would anyone care to explain the justification for this? Does anyone actually think that the drafters of the Connecticut constitution ever meant to grant marriage rights to homosexuals?

Probably not. I still can't believe we let women and black folk vote.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryan Johnson
United States
Salem
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
ironcates wrote:
CapAp wrote:
"Human" is one of two operative words in the concept of "human rights".

Of course, if you don't understand the second part, I guess we can't expect you to understand the first.


Multiple human partners and siblings then, where is the line drawn if not one man and one woman?


What is your real issue with homosexuals marrying? How is it going to affect your life one way or another? Oh, is it religious dogma telling you how to think??? Homosexuals marrying does not infringe on your rights in the least, but you would like to discriminate and deny them rights. Good going Steve.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wrayman wrote:
Would anyone care to explain the justification for this? Does anyone actually think that the drafters of the Connecticut constitution ever meant to grant marriage rights to homosexuals? Or that a court should ever have power to create public policy? I know a lot of people like this result. I do not. Putting that aside, how is this justifiable?


There's an 85 page decision from the court. Might be worth a read.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Wrayman wrote:
Legislatures make laws. Courts do not.


But courts decide whether the laws that the legislature makes are constitutional and therefore legal on their face. The state Supreme Court determined that laws on the books restricting the issuance of state marriage licenses to heterosexual couples was unconstitutional.

How is this not an appropriate exercise of their power?

Now if the legislature or population would like to amend the constitution/state charter (I can't remember which Connecticut has), then they'll change the way the court has to look at the issue.

But to me, this is no different than Brown vs. Board of Education. You may disagree with the outcome, but there's no legislating from the bench going on - they did not make new law, they struck down an action of the state they found incompatible with the state constitution.
8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I just told my wife about it. Her first response was a high five, her second was to make fun of me for finding out about it on BGG.

I'm a Justice of the Peace in CT and couldn't be happier about it.

Also, people complaining that it's "legislating from the bench" clearly have no idea whatsoever about how US government is structured and operates.
13 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.