|
The best quote however, comes from Rep.Michael Lawlor: |
|
» Safe!
Connecticut's same-sex marriages are safe as a potential constitutional convention failed to gain public traction during yesterday's election. [Hartford Courant] |
|
» Set The Date…
"Gay marriages in Connecticut can start Nov. 12. Superior Court Judge Jonathan Silbert on Monday scheduled a hearing on that date to enter the final judgment in the case that allows same-sex marriages in the state. The proceeding is scheduled for 9:15 a.m. Attorneys in the court case say that once the hearing ends, couples can pick up marriage license forms at town and city clerk's offices." [AP] |
|
|
|
» Equality, For Real.
"[Connecticut's] justices of the peace can no longer refuse to perform a same-sex ceremony simply because the couple is gay Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said in a legal opinion released Tuesday. "Although no state law requires justices of the peace to marry any particular couple," as public officials they "cannot refuse to perform a marriage for discriminatory reasons," Blumenthal said in a statement." [Stamford Advocate] |
|
Now that the state's Supreme Court has given the green light to gay marriage, lawyers and their ilk are making all the preparations necessary to getting same-sex nuptials up and running: A lawyer involved in the case say paperwork will delay any actual ceremonies until next month. Yeah, a month may seem like a long time, but just think of how long we've waited. What's another few weeks going to hurt? This gives you time to beef up your registry! Update: State officials are saying nuptials could start as soon as November 10th. Hoorah! (This is all assuming, of course, that Connecticut's conservatives don't vote on a Constitutional Convention and screw the whole thing…) |
|
Activists and politicians have long decried the "separate, but equal" institution, but the Connecticut decision put unions' deficiency in stark relief, concluding, "…Because the institution of marriage carries it it a status and significance that the newly crated classification of civil unions does not embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm." With that ruling, Vermont's progressive leaders are looking to break their own "civil" bonds. That state passed civil unions eight years ago, when the political climate was far more foreboding, but are feeling rejuvenated and ready to roar into the future to institute gay marriage there:
The big difference between Vermont and Connecticut - and, in fact, California and Massachusetts - could be that lawmakers take the reins on this one, rather than leaving it to the court. If that happens, the state would be the first to legislatively pass gay marriage, thus poking holes in that tired, old "activist judges" argument the right likes so much. |
» Queer Failure (Amended).
The Log Cabin Republicans got some flack this week for not sending out a message congratulating Connecticut on its gay marriage win. Spokesman Scott Schmidt informs us, however, that California's No on 8 asked supporters not to send out individual releases. Schmidt also directed us to the Republicans Against 8's message, which isn't congratulatory, but informative. |
|
» The Right's Conundrum…
"In order to argue that Connecticut's civil union law did not discriminate against gays and lesbians, lawyers for the defendants were forced to contend that civil unions are basically the same as marriage… Marriage, they end up arguing, is nothing so special that it can't be replicated by a parallel institution–in this case, civil unions. Yet the entire point of creating civil unions is to preserve what is allegedly special about the institution of marriage. There is a pretty blatant contradiction here. Either there is something special about the label 'marriage' or there isn't."[TNR] |
» Queer Failure.
"Log Cabin Republicans – the gay Republicans – have failed to congratulate Connecticut on becoming the third state in the United States to recognize the right of gay couples to marry… As of Tuesday morning, even as the Log Cabin Republican website ushered visitors to the group's pro gay marriage Republicans Against 8 website, which features quotes, bios and interviews of prominent Republicans who oppose Proposition 8 – the November ballot initiative that seeks to forbid gay marriage in California, neither the group's website nor blog mentioned Connecticut's historic decision." [On Top] |
» Big Split…
"Fifty-three percent of Connecticut residents support Friday's historic ruling by the state Supreme Court that legalizes gay marriage, while 42 percent of residents polled said they do not. The weekend poll, taken for The Courant by the Center for Survey Research and Analysis at the University of Connecticut, showed a wide difference of opinion among Democrats and Republicans over an emotional social issue. Democrats said they support the court's ruling by 72 percent to 24 percent, while Republicans have nearly the opposite view: 29 percent favor the ruling and 69 percent are against." [Hartford Courant] |
|
Connecticut's social conservatives announced plans to reverse the state Supreme Court's ruling that the state must allow gay marriages. And, to that end, they will urge voters to support a constitutional convention, an event that come around every 20 years. The court's "robed masters" must be stopped, says the Family Institute of Connecticut's Peter Wolfgang, seen here in an ill-fitting suit.: "The Court's willingness to undemocratically impose same-sex marriage on Connecticut has made it necessary for us to demand the right to Let the People Decide," said [Wolfgang]. Wolfgang's not the only one speaking out against the same-sex decision. Supreme conservative leader James Dobson this weekend described the ruling as "another tragic example of runaway judges trampling on citizens' right to decide public policy for themselves." And the award for drama queen goes to… |
|
Today, the Connecticut Supreme Court took an historic step by joining California and Massachusetts in the fight to provide marriage equality for gay and lesbian couples. The Court’s decision to overturn Connecticut’s ban on equal marriage rights indicates that all across the country, communities are reaching the conclusion that separate is not equal, and that we should not harm our friends, neighbors and coworkers by denying them equal treatment under the law. Newsom's words couldn't be more important - we're sure California's right will use the Connecticut decision to scare up more supporters. |
|
I disagree with today's State Supreme Court ruling but as governor, I will uphold it. I continue to believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman. Though she doesn't approve - and says the ruling doesn't "reflect" her constituents' views - Rell made clear that she will not support any efforts to reverse the ruling. She also thinks any fight would fail, which is good to hear. |
|
» Amending?
Since Connecticut doesn't have voter-driven ballot initiatives, the only way for the right to reverse the state's Supreme Court's enactment of gay marriage would require a change to the constitution. And, by some queer political coincidence, residents will be able to decide this November if they want to hold a constitutional convention, an event that comes around every twenty years. No word on whether people are going to push for amending the document. We hope not, obviously. [Bilerico] |
|
The decision came after eight gay citizens filed a lawsuit claiming civil unions were not the same as marriage and qualified as discrimination. And the Court agreed, as Justice Richard Palmer writes in 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 it it a status and significance that the newly crated 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 our state scheme discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation, for the same reasons that classifications predicated on gender are considered quasi-suspect for the purposes of the equal protection provisions of the United States constitutions… This is good news for those of you in New York and New Jersey, because you don't have to be a Connecticut resident to marry there. Here's the PDF of the ruling. |