A sharply divided Connecticut Supreme Court struck down the state’s civil union law on Friday and ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Connecticut thus joins Massachusetts and California as the only states to have legalized gay marriages.
The ruling, which cannot be appealed and is to take effect on Oct. 28, held that a state law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, and a civil union law intended to provide all the rights and privileges of marriage to same-sex couples, violated the constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law.
Striking at the heart of discriminatory traditions in America, the court ”” in language that often rose above the legal landscape into realms of social justice for a new century ”” recalled that laws in the not-so-distant past barred interracial marriages, excluded women from occupations and official duties, and relegated blacks to separate but supposedly equal public facilities.
“Like these once prevalent views, our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection,” Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote for the majority in a 4-to-3 decision that explored the nature of homosexual identity, the history of societal views toward homosexuality and the limits of gay political power compared with that of blacks and women.
Read it all and the full text of the ruling itself is there (85 page pdf).
I will be voting “yes” this November for a constitutional convention. The court has overstepped it’s bounds and “we the people” need to correct the situation.
[blockquote]Like these once prevalent views, our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection . . . . [/blockquote]
In Connecticut a court gets to decree what is and is not conventional.
In Florida Amendment 2 is coming up before the people for a vote to define marriage STRICTLY as being between one man and one woman.
The opponents to the amendment claim that since we already have laws on the books to this effect, an amedment to the State Constitution is not needed.
Connecticut is the latest example that disproves this claim.
In His Peace
Jim Elliott <><
The connection between black civil rights and homosexual civil rights is simply a fraud. Being black is not radically abnormal nor a handicap and homosexuals are both. Their status before the law must necessarily be different because their conditions are radically different. Larry
ACtually, it’s
… homosexuality is only normal and NOT a handicap when one looks at it from a radically abnormal and handicapped (i.e., sinful, fallen nature) point of view.
You are wrong clearly in this case if statistics mean anything to y ou. The bell shaped curve defines normality as it always has. Humans simply group this way. The curve is not a matter of opinion and pays little attention to your next door neighbors. Human sexuality places those without sexual drive at one end of the curve and homosexuality at the other end. It is by definition abnormal, and its location of the curve makes it radically abnormal. LM
Well of course “discrimination” is not fixed. Illegal discrimination is whatever people like Hopper says it is. Thus it is always fluid and some how seems to fit what ever contemporaty liberals say it is. Of course unlike older forms of discrimaination which involved fixed trates like eye color or race, homosexuality involves a behavior, but never mind. Unfortunately that is no guiding principle to define what may be properly discriminated against, the only rationale is the ever shifting feelings of liberals.
But tell us Hopper, just what sort of relationships should the state recognize and why? Why should we even have marriage? What sort of benefits, privileges or responsibilities should the state recognize? Upon what basis does the state limit these benefits, privileges or responsibilities to just two (number) people (species) blood closeness (incest)?
If we are going to make up something new why limit ourselves to old forms, why not create something new? Something more in keeping with modern lifestyles as reflected in the San Francisco Gay Pride parade?
No, Hopper, it’s NOT all relative. The Scriptures have spoken clearly and plainly on the subjects of marriage and sexual relations, and, if we claim to be Christians, that MUST be the final word on the subject.
Glad to see that social conservatism in the U.S. is crumbling. Sometimes it takes a controversial court opinion (Brown vs Borad of Education or Loving vs Virginia) to drag the slowest along. BTW, opposition to mixed-race marriage was fiecer than to same-sex marraige now (I’m assuming now that someone will challenge this fact, but look it up first, kids). However, people “got over” the mixed-race marraige issue after a few years.
So hooray for the Connecticut court in doing the right thing. Don’t like it? You’ll get over it, too, in time. Or at least your children and grandchidren will.
Oops: “fiercer”
Plinx, care to answer any of the question posed?
Facism. Example: “Don’t like it? You’ll get over it, too, in time. Or at least your children and grandchidren will.”
Gay marriage and the full inclusion of GLBT folk is representative of a larger cultural shift as Postmodernity gains ground against modern and pre-modern worldviews. The same folk who use the Bible, Church Tradition and the Natural Law to condemn homosexuals are theologically equivalent to those churches and God fearing, Orthodox Christians who supported slavery and opposed Abolitionists by holding up the witness of scripture in support of it’s God intended rightness and had Tradition on their side as well. Christians kept slaves for centuries not because they were horrible, terrible people but because it has been present in most cultures for ages and nowhere does the Bible condemn it. Have the Scriptures changed on this issue? On the role of women? NO. The Church shifted to a new intrepretation as doctrine developed.
That issue, just as the treatment of GLBT folk, split this country in half and many denominations too.
The good news is this:
“When talking about social issues of interest to evangelicals, we tend to lump abortion and homosexuality together. But the politics are actually different, especially among young evangelicals.
Basically, young evangelicals are just as conservative as their parents on abortion but significantly more liberal on homosexuality. A few point of proof:
John Green at the Pew Religion Forum reports:
Abortion: 62.3% of white evangelicals overall are pro-life; 69.2% of those under the age of 30 are pro-life. Pretty similar.
Homosexuality: 65.4% of white evangelicals say homosexuality should be discouraged while 54.9% of those under 30 believe homosexuality believe that.
A Beliefnet.com survey found the same thing:
Abortion: 63.9% of those over the age of 60 said ending abortion was very important; 66% of those under 29 agreed.
Homosexuality: 61.8% of the oldest group said “stopping gay marriage” was very important, while only 34% of the younger group said so.
Finally, Barna Research found:
Abortion: The percentage of “born again Christians who believed abortion is a “major problem”:
Age
18-21 — 69%
42-60 — 72%
61 + — 67%
While the breakdown for those saying “homosexuality” was a major problem was:
Age
18-41 — 35%
42-60: — 52%
61+: — 71%”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-waldman/abortion-vs-homosexuality_b_111921.html
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_slav1.htm
“Gay marriage and the full inclusion of GLBT folk is representative of a larger cultural shift as Postmodernity gains ground against modern and pre-modern worldviews.”
If that is true, why is it that the issue is forced on the people by the courts? Surely if the majority feel this way, then it would pass by an easy margin in the legislature.
17, if so then it can shift back. But is there any aspect of sexual behavior where you draw the line? If so where?
I caution our post-modern brothers and sisters not to base the idea of absolute truth on cultural norms. They are constantly shifting and can (and do) shift back.
If morality is solely determined by cultural norms, then it is not immoral to hate what a culture hates. Nor is it immoral to kill what cultures determine to be less than human (such as old people, people not yet born, people just past birth). That can include people of a certain race or people with certain behavioral tendencies.
However, Scripture teaches us that there is an objective truth and that morality is fixed and not based on cultural norms. Just because a society says that something is moral (or immoral, that does not make it moral (or immoral).
As Christians, we believe that the standard for morality is given by God in His revelation and recorded in Holy Scripture, not determined by a majority vote of 7 or 9 judges.
YBIC,
Phil Snyder
It is my belief that gay “marriage” requires a semi-authoritarian government. For proof, just look at every jurisdiction in the world which has mandated gay “marriage.” In every single situation, gay “marriage” has been accompanied with a loss of liberty and freedom, and an increase in state-sponsored indoctrination. Accordingly, gay “marriage” may take hold and grow for a while, but only until the next “revolution” when the people rise up and throw off their authoritarian masters.
“If that is true, why is it that the issue is forced on the people by the courts? Surely if the majority feel this way, then it would pass by an easy margin in the legislature.”
If you applied the same litmus test to African Americans they would enjoy none of the freedoms they currently have. From the emancipation of the slaves on down to desegregation, voting rights and non-racial discrimination… every bit of this was legislated because the majority (especially in the South) were absolutely and emphatically opposed to the granting of these freedoms and even violently resisted them. The majority of those in the South opposed to cilvil rights for blacks were Bible believing, church going, Jesus loving Christians as non-Christians then made up a much smaller segment of society.
Important Civil Rights Legislation and Court Decisions
Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857)
Decreed a slave was his master’s property and African Americans were not citizens; struck down the Missouri Compromise as unconstitutional.
Civil Rights Cases (1883)
A number of cases are addressed under this Supreme court decision. Decided that the Civil Rights Act of 1875 (the last federal civil rights legislation until the Civil Rights Act of 1957) was unconstitutional. Allowed private sector segregation.
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)
The Court stated that segregation was legal and constitutional as long as “facilities were equal”—the famous “separate but equal” segregation policy.
Powell v. Alabama (1932)
The Supreme Court overturned the “Scottsboro Boys'” convictions and guaranteed counsel in state and federal courts.
Shelley v. Kraemer (1948)
The justices ruled that a court may not constitutionally enforce a “restrictive covenant” which prevents people of certain race from owning or occupying property.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954)
Reversed Plessy v. Ferguson “separate but equal” ruling. “[S]egregation [in public education] is a denial of the equal protection of the laws.”
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964)
This case challenged the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The court ruled that the motel had no right “to select its guests as it sees fit, free from governmental regulation.”
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
This decision ruled that the prohibition on interracial marriage was unconstitutional. Sixteen states that still banned interracial marriage at the time were forced to revise their laws.
#17 illustrates the difficulty that we face in navigating the political aspects (both church politics and government politics.) As someone on the genrational “cusp”, I would tend to agree that homosexuality per se is not the biggest problem we face. By and large, I don’t perceive a great threat to myself or society from any specific homosexuals (except perhaps Barney Frank as he “leads” us out of financial distress! 😉 ). Abortion has grave consequences for individuals, perpetrated by specific individuals.
My problem is that it is NOT a question of how “major” the problem is, but rather that the political forces of the church have assaulted scripture and tradition, and sometimes reason, in their pursuit of a political agenda. The violence they do to the Church, and the several other manifestations of that assault, are the real issue. Not homosexuals as people, but church politicians breaking from church teaching; it just happens that homosexuality was the frontier they chose, so that’s where we dig in our heels.
Actually, the California legislature has TWICE voted to approve SSM, only to have the governor veto it. So in that case, Phil, you have ONE person deciding instead of “six or seven unelected judges” (or whatever the standard claptrap is among conservatives these days for any ruling they don’t like).
When Loving v Virginia was handed down, there were plenty who decried “liberal judges” blah, blah, blah, but the reality was simply that they didn’t LIKE the decision. Of course, their dislike was irrelevant since history rolled over them, and the thing they decried as “the end of civilization” turned out to be nothing of the kind.
You can’t stop change, boys and girls. You can try, but you’ll be history’s doormat.
“If you applied the same litmus test to African Americans [i.e., having the legislature, rather than the courts, decree a right to marry], they would enjoy none of the freedoms they currently have” —Archangelica [#]
Not exactly. Three major constitutional amendments promoted racial equality. The Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery. The Fourteenth Amendment conferred citizenship regardless of race and guaranteed everyone (regardless of race) due process of law and the equal protection of the laws. The Fifteenth Amendment guaranteed the right to vote regardless of race. Courts didn’t read these rights into the Constitution; the Constitution was amended to specify the rights. Indeed, the Fourteenth Amendment in part responded to the misguided judicial activism of Dred Scott v. Sanford.
Nor were the Civil Rights Acts of 1866, 1870, 1871, 1875, 1957, and 1964 judicial creations. The courts helped eviscerate the first four.
Judicial activism has had a mixed record in U.S. race relations.
Hopper, it is also obvious that you cannot or will not answer the questions.
Irenaeus you are exactly right. What I was trying to convey, in response to “Sick and Tired of Nuance” is that civil rights for African Americans would not exist as they do today if the issue was not “forced by the courts.”
Archangelica [#30]: But the Constitution actually was amended to make fundamental changes in law: e.g., by creating a federal guarantee against race-based discrimination by the states.
Br. Michael wrote:
“But tell us Hopper, just what sort of relationships should the state recognize and why? Why should we even have marriage? What sort of benefits, privileges or responsibilities should the state recognize? Upon what basis does the state limit these benefits, privileges or responsibilities to just two (number) people (species) blood closeness (incest)?
If we are going to make up something new why limit ourselves to old forms, why not create something new? Something more in keeping with modern lifestyles as reflected in the San Francisco Gay Pride parade?”
This question has been answered many, many, many times Br. Michael. Start with this appetizer knowing a seven course meal of an answer comes after at ( Biblical, Theological, Pastoral, Moral, Ethical, Anthropoligical, and Sociologiocal). A dessert course follows too. I will be more than happy to provide you with links that answer your question from each of these disciplines should you really want your question/provocation answered in a robust way. This blog is simply not the appropriate format for a serious and detailed review of the material.
Please know too that I have read/studied most of the brightest and the best from the anti-GLBT camp. Only reading, listening and speaking with those who mirror your own convictions is to forever play in puddles and sea froth. A spiritual director once told me to be willing to read against my own spiuritual temperment and theological disposition if I wanted a mature and vibrant faith. So this reasserter reads, studies and learns from reappraisers 75% of the time. Best advice for spiritual growth I was ever given!
“If you want to argue that a lifetime of loving, faithful commitment between two women is equivalent to incest or child abuse, then please argue it. It would make for fascinating reading. But spare us this bizarre point that no new line can be drawn in access to marriage–or else everything is up for grabs and, before we know where we are, men will be marrying their dogs. It is intellectually laughable.
You also know that the rules of marriage have changed beyond recognition in the West over the past few thousand years. For 800 years after Christ, for goodness’ sake, the church didn’t even celebrate marriage! For over a thousand years in the West, arranged marriages were common, as were marriages between minors and adults. For hundreds of years, slaves could not marry at all, women were the legal property of their husbands, blacks could not marry whites, Christians could not marry Jews, divorce was illegal, and so on and on. Were all these changes the result of people “making up” the rules for themselves against thousands of years of tradition? Did they all represent a choice between order and the abandonment of all moral limits? Of course not. Each of them was the result of social change, of people looking at the institution and asking if reform made sense or did not.
Incest disqualifies someone from marriage because incestuous relationships destabilize and destroy the trust that is essential to family life, a trust that marriage is designed to affirm, indeed create. It is, in fact, an abandonment of the responsibility marriage demands. Fathers should therefore be barred from marrying their sons as much as their daughters. Being a minor disqualifies someone from marriage because the kind of consent and responsibility that marriage demands can only be achieved by adults. Polygamy disqualifies because the marital bond is designed to be so deep and profound that it can only be felt between two human beings, not more than two. Bestiality disqualifies because the kind of responsibility, love, and consent that marriage demands is unavailable to animals. All these rules vitally preserve and protect the very integrity of the marital bond; they are integral, I think, to the central meaning of marriage; they can and should apply to homosexual marriages just as much as to heterosexual ones. This is why I think it is true that the proponents of same-sex marriage have been defining marriage by what it includes, and the opponents of same-sex marriage have been defining marriage by the people it excludes.”
(Andrew Sullivan)
“If you applied the same litmus test to African Americans they would enjoy none of the freedoms they currently have. ”
That is not necessarily true. It was the legislatures of the northern states that originally ended slavery in those states. The people made those decisions, not the courts. So your assertion is false on the face of it. The very fact that many of the states [in some cases the majority of states – viz. Loving v. Virginia (1967)] had already decided through their legislatures in favor of equal rights, belies your assertion that these issues needed to be resolved in the courts.
Further, it is a spurious line of reasoning to equate behavior which is a matter of will with ethnicity which is not a matter of will.
#18 wrote:
“If that is true, why is it that the issue is forced on the people by the courts? Surely if the majority feel this way, then it would pass by an easy margin in the legislature.”
More and more the majority DOES feel this way as is evidenced by polls, votes and denominational meetings and conventions. Every year the votes for full inclusion of GLBT folk get closer to the tipping point (Methodists, Presbyterians, ELCA, etc) Some places (cities, counties, states and nations) and churches/religious groups (United Church of Christ, The Episcopal Church, The Anglican Church of Canada, Reform and Conservative Judaism) have already reached readiness for full inclusion even in the face of great opposition and sacrifice. Will these churches get smaller? Some will & some won’t but who cares! God said to feed his sheep not to count them.
In fifty years all of this will have played out enough for history to judge who were the oppressors and who was the oppressed. I have no doubt that Christians will look back with shame (as we have done so many times before) and ask forgiveness for our condemnation, exclusion and treatment of GLBT people.
Here I stand. I can do no other. God’s will be done and may God have mercy on us all. May it be said of us again one day, “What marks us in the eyes of our enemies is our loving kindness. ‘Only look,’ they say, ‘look how they love one another'” (Tertullian/Apology 39).
Archangelica all you offer is rationalization all of which could equally be applied to homosexual sex. You offer us the morality of the barnyard.
Br. Michael:
“Therefore, as the elect of God, holy and beloved, put on tender mercies, kindness, humility, meekness, longsuffering; 13 bearing with one another, and forgiving one another, if anyone has a complaint against another; even as Christ forgave you, so you also must do. 14 But above all these things put on love, which is the bond of perfection.”
( Colossians 3: 12-14)
I am always blessed by how often your posts here reflect this noble spirit. I am curious as to which Religious Order of the Church you belong? I should like to know more about them and their charism.
“The very fact that many of the states [in some cases the majority of states – viz. Loving v. Virginia (1967)] had already decided through their legislatures in favor of equal rights, belies your assertion that these issues needed to be resolved in the courts. ”
This is nonsense. Many states would still embrace miscegenation laws if the high court didn’t impose it on them. Sometimes you have to use a 2×4 to get the donkey’s attention.
And sometimes the people need to unite and pass a constitutional amendment so that their will is not thwarted by a tyranical court of unelected despots.
Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, 10 nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10
“And sometimes the people need to unite and pass a constitutional amendment so that their will is not thwarted by a tyranical court of unelected despots.”
I guess you’re still unhappy about Loving v Virginia, then?
Oh and when you write things such as “tyranical court of unelected despots,” it’s time to stop watching Fox News and listening to Rush.
Hopper, you owe me no response. Archangelica peace to you.
“Oh and when you write things such as “tyranical court of unelected despots,†it’s time to stop watching Fox News and listening to Rush. ”
So, I take it that you would be fine with whoever John McCain picks for the Supreme Court? I mean, the court can rule from the bench, right? So, if conservatives manage to pack the court, that will be just fine with you, right? If they rule that a fetus is in fact a person with rights and over turn Roe v. Wade, you will have no problem with that because…the Court has spoken, right?
Give me a break!
Act Like A Lady Think Like A Man, is a must read e-book for both women and men. If you’re trying to get over the hurt of a broken heart, trying to get out of a bad relationship or hoping not to get into one, this is the book for you. If you are lonely and haven’t been able to find Mr. Right, wouldn’t know him if you met him or if you’ve found him and are worried about keeping him, folks this is the book! If you are unhappy, suffer from low self esteem, are over weight and don’t feel good about yourself or just feel like your life is going no where, this book can help put your life on the right track. It’s a life changer for both single and married women. Do yourself a favor and preview the e-book at; actlikealadythinklikeaman.com