Recent Blogs
Blog Archive
Blog Archive
Friday, October 10th, 2008
VICTORY!!!!
Today is a very happy day in my book!
Sadly, I know people will disagree and that's fine everyone can have their own opinion on this subject but for me I'm just bursting through my skin and can't help but share because I'm so excited!
SO THE NEWS:
The CT Supreme Court held that Connecticut's current system of civil unions unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. The court held that gays and lesbians are a quasi-suspect class for the purposes of the Equal Protection Clause, and therefore any discrimination must meet an intermediate level of scrutiny.
Finally, marriage is a right for all in CT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Things like this make me feel positive about becoming an attorney!
A little political background with the Kerrigan case is that the Connecticut Supreme Court has been holding onto this decision for awhile and it was pretty clear that they weren't going to release the decision until after the election because they didn't want it to become national news in the sense that it would effect the election or voters. So then when it came out that the Court was going to give their decision today my first thoughts were really doubtful and I assumed that if they're letting the decision be known before the election that just means no equality in marriage....BUT I guess in the VP debate last week when both sides made it clear that they oppose gay marriage the CT Supreme Court realized that it wouldn't effect the election!
Its a good day when we can recognize that all should be given the same privileges under law!
VICTORY!!!!
Today is a very happy day in my book!
Sadly, I know people will disagree and that's fine everyone can have their own opinion on this subject but for me I'm just bursting through my skin and can't help but share because I'm so excited!
SO THE NEWS:
The CT Supreme Court held that Connecticut's current system of civil unions unconstitutionally discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. The court held that gays and lesbians are a quasi-suspect class for the purposes of the Equal Protection Clause, and therefore any discrimination must meet an intermediate level of scrutiny.
Finally, marriage is a right for all in CT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Things like this make me feel positive about becoming an attorney!
A little political background with the Kerrigan case is that the Connecticut Supreme Court has been holding onto this decision for awhile and it was pretty clear that they weren't going to release the decision until after the election because they didn't want it to become national news in the sense that it would effect the election or voters. So then when it came out that the Court was going to give their decision today my first thoughts were really doubtful and I assumed that if they're letting the decision be known before the election that just means no equality in marriage....BUT I guess in the VP debate last week when both sides made it clear that they oppose gay marriage the CT Supreme Court realized that it wouldn't effect the election!
Its a good day when we can recognize that all should be given the same privileges under law!
The man is a genius. He may be a AARP card carrying member, but he can see into the future. I don't even have students. Like he knows something I don't know.
This weekend Mrs. S and I are headed to Walmart to pick up a gun and one of those sexy magazines so she can read up on Clay. I haven't told her Britney and K Fed broke up yet. She'll be devastated.
When people asking to have sexual relationships with children come 'down the pipes' there will be conversations about that.
Please do not put adult marriage in the same boat with pedophiles. It is a very hateful thing to do.
Brian, we've discussed this before. A consenting adult relationship is completely different from an adult taking advantage of a child who doesn't have the cognitive ability to make this choice. So, no, quite frankly, it doesn't demand it.
And yes, the majority of the people in Illinois are not for gay marriage. In fact I would be willing to go along with what the liberal voters of California decide next month. Gay marriage is on the ballot in that state.
I know that we have had this conversation before and I support civil unions. To me, allowing gay people to marry actually infringes upon my right as a normal heterosexual. It is basically saying that we dont have standards anymore. How can a society continue to function if it doesnt have standards. Oh well, good for the gays in Connecticut. I hope it makes them "feel" better. I sure would not want them to come under anymore emotional distress because they couldnt marry.
RM, Standards?!?!?! Do you think mixed race marriages should be illegal? - I mean they really f$#%ed with the standards, too. And, how, exactly, does a gay couple getting married infringe on your right as a "normal" (that could be questionable) heterosexual? How does it effect your life AT ALL - except in your mind?
I have no problem with mixed race marriages. But I do have a problem when JUDGES change the definition of marriage from one man/one woman to just 2 people, it certainly dilutes the definition and standards.
If you read the case, part of the lawsuit had to do with "feelings'. The gays "felt" insecure. I will ask you,how is a civil union with full legal rights different than "marriage" accept in the gays' mind. How would leaving the term as just "civil union" effect their lives at all?
I say let the voters decide. Watch the California ballot initiative closely. I will predict that they will not allow same sex marriages.
Furthermore, a marriage between a man and woman is not the same as a man and a man or a woman and woman. And yet somehow these judges claim that it is? Sad.
I have feelings too and I take pride in the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman. Maybe I will become emotionally distressed about this ruling. I mean that was one of the issues that was brought up during the case. So, if gays can use emotional distress as an argument, why cant I?
Seriously though, I am tougher than that and can deal with it but why cant they have their own legal definition of a relationship in the form of a civil union. How does not being able to be "married" affect them one way or the other?
Brian, I am very disturbed by your comments in#25. Its this kind of irrational thinking that just brew hatred and mistrust.
Like I said earlier, I have a sense of pride about marriage and it is emotionally disturbing and stressful to have the definition of marriage to include people who are not heterosexual. I say this in a respectful manner. I am probably one of the few conservatives who fully support comprehensive civil unions.
So, by allowing a man and a man to marry it degrades to a certain extent, traditional "marriage".
I think marriage was brought about by our species' need to procreate and to grow. By definition, this is impossible with homosexuals. I know that some people cannot have kids and some marriages fail, but the basic ingredients are there for them to at least have a chance to live up to the standards of a traditional marriage.
Now I ask you, why cannot homosexuals be satisfied with comprehensive civil unions?