The Imperial Judiciary strikes again, reinvents marriage in CT
Posted on October 10, 2008
MSNBC: Conn. court overturns same-sex marriage ban
(Note:please excuse the ridiculous headline, I didn’t craft it…the MSM stylebook demands these days that every marriage law is a “same-sex marriage ‘ban’” as if marriage was set up to deny something to people attracted to members of the same sex)
The Connecticut Supreme Court overturned a ban on same-sex marriage Friday in a victory for gay-rights advocates that will allow couples to marry in the New England state.
The court found that the state’s law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry.
From the majority opinion:
We conclude that, in light of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians, and because the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm. We also conclude that (1) our state scheme discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, (2) for the same reasons that classifications predicated on gender are considered quasi-suspect for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the United States constitution, sexual orientation constitutes a quasi-suspect classification for purposes of the equal protection provisions of the state constitution, and, therefore, our statutes discriminating against gay persons are subject to heightened or intermediate judicial scrutiny, and (3) the state has failed to provide sufficient justification for excluding same sex couples from the institution of marriage. In light of our determination that the state’s disparate treatment of same sex couples is constitutionally deficient under an intermediate level of scrutiny, we do not reach the plaintiffs’ claims implicating a stricter standard of review, namely, that sexual orientation is a suspect classification, and that the state’s bar against same sex marriage infringes on a fundamental right in violation of due process and discriminates on the basis of sex in violation of equal protection. In accordance with our conclusion that the statutory scheme impermissibly discriminates against gay persons on account of their sexual orientation, we reverse the trial court’s judgment and remand the case with direction to grant the plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment.
Yes, when Connecticut was founded, and in all societies and cultures for thousands of years prior, the powers-that-be got together to figure out ways to harm people who prefer same-sex relationships. “I’ve got it,” they all said. “We will invent marriage! That will stick it to the gays! We must make [sure] they are denied equal protection!”
No, that isn’t why marriage has been what marriage has been for the entire history of this country and most other societies in the history of mankind. Marriage is one man and one woman because there is unique thing that a union between a man and woman provides to society that no other relationship does…do we really need a birds and bees lesson? That is why it recognized as unique and apart from all other relationships…and why it should be. If marriage is about nothing other than getting a government stamp of approval on close relationships — then we must license best friends, old spinsters and any combination or number of people who run to the county clerk’s office to say they love each other. No honest argument exists anymore in California, Massachusetts and Connecticut anyway, to deny any couple or any group of any size a “marriage license.” After all, according to the court, “the state has failed to provide sufficient justification for excluding same sex couples from the institution of marriage.” What about everyone else?
One argument for redefining marriage is that “heterosexuals” are failing at marriage, so homosexuals should have a “right” to be married. That’s like arguing that the way to fix a flat is to slash the spare.
Yes marriage has suffered. No-fault divorce — an unmitigated disaster for children. The hyper-sexualization of children that has made sex nothing more than a rite of passage for middle-schoolers. Abortion on demand — which removed us further as a society from taking responsibility for our actions…you know, no one has to be “punished with a baby” anymore. A welfare system that still discourages marriage and encourages single motherhood, which keeps kids in poverty and makes them more likely to spend time in jail. Popular music and entertainment that savages the ideal of marriage and the “white picket fence” nuclear family that has made America the economic engine and the moral light of the world. Much more damage has been done to marriage and children, much of it very purposefully. Some of the very same groups who are agitating to redefine marriage are those who advocate for all the things mentioned above. Why should we continue to lemming-march with them over the precipice?
Here we have it. Once again, a single judge (it was a 4-3 decision) has taken a wrecking ball to laws that have existed since the founding of a state. Hopefully this decision injects new energy into the campaigns in California, Arizona and Florida to amend their constitutions to protect our most vital social institution from the capricious pens of radical judges.
» Filed Under ACLU, Activist Judges, Church And State, Government ethics/corruption, Homosexual Agenda, Judicial Impeachment, Liberal Media/Bias, Moral Relativism, Multiculturalism/PC, News, Parenting, Propaganda, Representative Government, Secular Humanism, Stupidity
Trackback URL
Comments
7 Responses to “The Imperial Judiciary strikes again, reinvents marriage in CT”
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Steal Me
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
More blogs about the ACLU
People, this is the function of a Supreme Court. In 1958, only 4% of whites approved of interracial marriage. When interracial marriage was finally made legal ten years later, only 17% of whites approved. Why was it made legal? Because a few “imperialist activist judges,” oh, I mean the U.S. Supreme Court, ruled that it was fundamentally unconstitutional to deny citizens the right to marry the person of their choice. I quote from the court’s decision from this case (Loving v. Virginia, 1967): “Marriage is one of the ‘basic civil rights of man’…. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law.”
Loving is irrelevant. Anti-miscegenation laws were set up IN ORDER TO discriminate. Marriage laws were not. The very founder of the Virginia colony himself was involved in an interracial marriage, so that law was a late-adopted racist perversion targeted at particular people for characteristics that had nothing to do with marriage. Loving was about affirming the MARRIAGE of one man and one woman and treating this MARRIED MAN AND WOMAN as equal to other MARRIED people.
There is no difference between blacks and whites. There are big differences between men and women and big differences between a man-woman union and a man-man relationship.
Man-woman unions are INHERENTLY beneficial to society in a way that NO OTHER RELATIONSHIP can possibly be. That is why the state has an interest in recognizing these relationships. There is no state interest in recognizing any other relationship as a “marriage.”
Marriage laws treat every person equally — any non-married, majority-aged person has the same exact access to the same exact pool of non-cosanguine Americans. The violation of equal protection in VA’s anti-miscegenation was what Loving addressed. What the SC of CT did was invent a brand new definition of marriage based on nothing but the desire to further the agenda of a wealth-drenched, pandered-to political movement. Equating this with the civil rights movement is insulting propaganda.
I don’t know what your unsourced public opinion poll references have to do with anything.
The comparison between the proper definition of marriage and miscegenation laws is as specious as any I’ve ever seen; nobody making that comparison deserves to be considered a thinking adult.
Nobody ever made the claim that the marriage between a black person and white person was not a marriage; they simply said it was improper because of race. What gays are attempting is not a breaking down of social barriers, but a complete redefinition of a social institution that has existed since the dawn of time.
By the way, the Supreme Court’s overturning of miscegenation laws was also an unconstitutional exercise of raw judicial power. Just because you like the outcome, doesn’t mean it’s proper. Tyranny always begins with illegal measures that the majority finds acceptable; it’s only later that the overweening power of government becomes odious even to the majority, but by then it’s too late.
Well said, Greg Scott!
Snicker, snicker…nice bit of projection there, KTK!
Doesn’t that mental picture kind of describe Michelle Obama, the ragin’ mama? She is one angry carbon unit. Doesn’t it also kind of describe the Hillary crowd, after the DNC ruling on MI and FL, after she was shed from the primaries, after…. well, some of them are still foaming at the mouth. But just IMAGINE all the rabid hatred and foaming the Obama gang will be displaying if Barry’s given two thumbs down in the Electoral College.
“Yes, when Connecticut was founded, and in all societies and cultures for thousands of years prior, the powers-that-be got together to figure out ways to harm people who prefer same-sex relationships. “I’ve got it,” they all said. “We will invent marriage! That will stick it to the gays! We must make [sure] they are denied equal protection!””
Way to highlight the insane worldview behind this ruling. How now can Connecticut rule anything is not a marriage? Two women, three women, that’s just an orientation, man! A sibling? A dog? A leather sofa? Hey, it’s a sexual orientation! You can’t discriminate.