Victory In Maryland, A Setback In Iowa…But What About Connecticut?
September 18th, 2007 by Peter
From the summary posted at Marriage Debate:
The Court of Appeals of Maryland (the state’s highest court) today issued a decision in a case brought by nine same-sex couples and others challenging the state’s definition of marriage. A trial court had ruled that the marriage law was a form of sex discrimination but today’s decision reversed that ruling. The majority in today’s decision consisted of four justices, two of whom had retired but were recalled to participate in the decision.
As to the sex discrimination argument, today’s majority said that the state’s Equal Rights Amendment was intended only to end discrimination against men or women as a class and “to remedy the long history of subordination of women in this country.” Since the marriage laws “do not separate men and women into discrete classes for the purpose of granting to one class of persons benefits at the expense of the other class” and the statute does not “place men and women on an uneven playing field” it is not sex discrimination.
The court then ruled on whether a sexual orientation classification should require the court to subject the marriage law to more exacting scrutiny. The court noted the prejudice and legal disabilities experienced by gays and lesbians but pointed out that they are not politically powerless, having experienced a number of legislative gains in past years. The court also said it could not assume “that gay, lesbian, and bisexual persons display readily recognizable, immutable characteristics that define the group” based on “the scientific and sociological evidence currently available to the public.”
Connecticut’s high court could reach the same conclusion as Maryland’s. Like Maryland, the pro same-sex “marriage” attorneys are making arguments based on equal protection–an argument that seemed not to impress our state’s Justices.
Then again, our Justices seemed more favorably disposed to same-sex “marriage” on an argument also rejected by Maryland–that ssm is a “fundamental right” based in what the excerpt above calls “a more exacting scrutiny.”
DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) – Same-sex marriage was legal here for less than 24 hours before the county won a stay of a judge’s order on Friday, a tiny window of opportunity that allowed two men to make history but left dozens of other couples disappointed after a frantic rush to the altar.
At 2 p.m. Thursday, Judge Robert Hanson ordered Polk County officials to accept marriage license requests from same-sex couples, but he granted the stay at about 12:30 p.m. Friday. By then 27 same-sex couples had filed applications, but only Sean Fritz and Tim McQuillan of Ames had made it official by getting married and returning the signed license to the courthouse in time…
Accepting marriage licenses from same-sex couples has been illegal under a 1998 state law that permitted only a man and a woman to marry.
Hanson, ruling in a case filed by six same-sex couples who were denied marriage licenses in 2005, declared the law unconstitutional Thursday. He ruled that the marriage laws “must be read and applied in a gender neutral manner so as to permit same-sex couples to enter into a civil marriage.”…
Language defining marriage as being between a man and a woman has been written into the constitutions of 27 states, according the National Conference of State Legislatures. Most other states have laws to the same effect; Iowa’s was approved overwhelmingly by the Legislature in 1998.
Some say Judge Hanson issued a stay on his own ruling because even he expects to be overruled by Iowa’s Supreme Court.
And Connecticut? Will the traditional definition of marriage–and self-government itself–survive the fall here in “the Constitution State” or be eviscerated by Connecticut’s Supreme Court? The Court is expected to say sometime in the next few weeks whether it will impose same-sex “marriage” on Connecticut by judicial fiat.
It seems to me that the end result of same-sex marriage, should it become law, is to marginalize and even destroy religion. It would be against someone’s civil liberties to believe in basic tenets of Catholicism any many other religions. Attacks against religion, particularly Christianity, have been going on for quite some time. Just look at some of the movies that have been produced.
What would happen should the Connecticut court rule in favor of same-sex marriage? In other words, what would be the next step? What about the concept of peaceful resistance?
“Equal protection”? Somebody please remind me to look up one of those esteemed lawyers come Christmas time the first time a Nativity scene is either refused or dismantled in a public place. As a Catholic in a state that has come full circle since its historical founding of persecuting Catholics, and returned to doing same, I’m just dying to find out just how “equal” that alleged “protection” is!
Yes, indeed…we are the “Constitution State.” Gee, I thought I knew the Bill of Rights. Which one guarantees same sex marriage again?
Perhaps we should choose one state motto and stick to it. More and more it seems that far too many of the “Nutmegs” are subverting the “Constitution”!!
These gay couples remind me of the schoolyard weakling who gets a bloody nose by the school bully and then runs home to get his big brother to come beat him up. If they had a legitimate case, they would not be circumventing our constitutionally created government structure to win their case via judical activism, but it takes two to tango. What we have here is sadly a case of both supply and demand. Equal shame and blame should also go to these hacks for judges who allow this judicial travesty to be upheld in their kangaroo courts. If the wise old men in the black pajamas, playing with the little wooden hammers kick this back to the General Assembly, I will truly be impressed….but I’m not holding my breath, either!
If the gay so-called lifestyle is so “mainstream,” then why don’t these gutless cowards legitemately make their argument at the front door and in the light of day via even a non-binding public referendum? Put up or shut up! Hint: they know better, contrary to their false bravado and empty hyperbole.
We despertaely need a Constitutional Convention in this state. My only hesitation however, is that a Constitutional Convention is like fully opening a window instead of putting in a screen; you never know what else may come in from the other side. With that tactic, we may win this battle but lose nine other ones. That may very well be the only way to go, but we better first do a thorough risk assessment before even attempting it.
Wait a minute…what am I saying? What could possibly get any worse in this state???????
Doug
Doug, which of the documents you mentioned guarantees heterosexual marriage?
The Roman church being persecuted? You mean not allowing you to force the rest of us to participate in your religion is persecution? Not putting up cute little Bible scenes on tax payer supported property is persecution? I believe that you clearly don’t even know what persectuion is. When there are laws passed against you, when there are millions of dollars spent by organizations with the one goal of blocking your ability to live your life, when some folks express their distaste for you with baseball bats, knives and guns, then come back and we can talk about persecution. Take a look at what is happening to Christians in some of the predominately Muslim or former communist countries, you are experiencing nothing like that here and there’s no indication that things are leading in that direction. No one is attempting to impede the practice of your religion in this country at all. Perhaps if you didn’t believe that your religion should be in control you might see it differently. It’s exactly that attitude that is the cause of much distress and bloodshed in the world today. Your beliefs are for you and you are more than able to live your life in a manner that conforms to that belief. But that doesn’t seem to be enough. Apparently we all are supposed to conform to your beliefs. That may be acceptable in some countries, though I don’t think you can point to one example of a theocracy ever working for the good of all the people, but it is not acceptable in the USA. What makes us strong and sets us apart from much of the world is that we are filled with an amazing variety of people and belief systems and have managed to function as one country. It is only when one group seeks dominance over all that this balance is threatened. Is that truly what you want? Is the fact that you disagree with two people of the same sex wanting the legal protections for their family that you have really worth trying to tear down a system that has protected all of us for so long? You ask what could be worse in this state? Open your eyes to the world Doug, I think you can answer your own question.
You once accused me of posting “vitriol”, I would suggest that you reread what you have written above and see if you can honestly say that it is not over the top name calling and historically incorrect. If you are the thinking man that you have always seemed to be you will not be able to defend your words and your attitude. You say you want a civilized discussion based on an intelligent exchange of ideas but then you launch this unwarranted attack. You can’t have it both ways.
Moderating comments is, alas, more an art than a science, & David’s comment above came the closest to be post-worthy of the handful of responses to Doug that appeared in the moderation queue.
Just a reminder: arguing against our message is fine, attacking the messenger is not. If you feel that we’re being unfair and giving more leeway to the folks on our side…well, it is our blog. Feel free to register your complaint on one of the endless number of liberal blogs in the nutmeg state.
David,
I don’t need a reminder in writing to carry in umbrella when it rains. Likewise, our country’s framers did not find it necessary to define in writing that which hundreds of years of humanity, procreation of every species, and the basic understanding of the mechanics of human anatomy all make very plain.
I know full well what persecution is, and it exists on various levels, and not necessarily with weaponry.
Like it or not, those “cute little Bible scenes” are in fact supported by the 1st Amendment and can be put on taxpayer supported property. The amendment is only violated when one faith is favored over another.
Your erronious understanding regarding the 1st Amendment also brings me back to my point about Catholic persecution, of which you are also wrong. This state elected a governor in the 1850’s on the “Know Nothing ” Party to resist Catholics. The “American Protective Association” was formed in this state in the 1890’s to resist Catholics, the Puriatans here resisted Catholics back to the 1630’s and anyone not belonging to the Congregational Church was fined and lost several rights. The amended state constitution of 1818 separated the Church from the state, at least on paper, not that it prevented further anti-Catholic prejudice and oppression from being carried out.
You advocates of the “separation of church and state” often don’t even relaize what that was all about. The Danbury (CT) Baptists wrote to then newly inauguarated President Thomas Jefferson in 1803 to ask him to intervene in religious discrimination in CT. Jefferson compromsed and assured them that the federal governement would not make matters worse. Jefferson’s words were misinterpreted in the 1950’s by a Supreme Court Justice ruling on a case of bussing Catholic school children in New Jersey.
So yes, there is a history of persecutrion here, by whatever individual definition, and it is continuing, so no, I am not historically incorrect.
And your inane inference that the US is a “theocracy” does not even warrant a response.
And who did I specifically “attack,” David? If you don’t like my stance on the isue, that’s your perrogative, but I did not attack anyone, and I stand by what I wrote. Your minions are afraid of a referendum and you are subverting the legislative process to get what you want, and if we did, you would scream bloody murder. That’s not what the courts are for, and that is why we have three branches to government, each with a sepcific function, or at least until advocates of a politically correct cause find a sympathetic ear willing to legislate from the bench and subvert the constitutional process.
And by the way, no one is forcing you to participate in our religion, much unlike this state’s forefathers once did to members of my faith.
And yes, your minions are impeding my religion. When it is considered a hate crime in Canada and for that matter, Pennsylvania for preachers to speak against homosexuality, from the pulpit, that is impeding my faith. But I suppose you folks, seeking special laws and special victim class recognition would consider that “tolerance.”
And don’t put words into my mouth. I never said I thought my religion should be in control, but it should not be impeded either.
And my attitude causes the problems of the world today? Look at the scores of abandoned children adopted by gays in Scandanavia, the broken and dysfunctional relationships, and yes, divorce, too, the advent of AIDS and it’s increase, broken families, which trickles down to troubled kids, crime, etc…Homosexuality, like many other of society’s ills has been a contributing cause of the fall of our culture when radicals snub nature and God and do their own thing for their own personal and hedonistic gratification. Tell me about the “distress and bloodshed” in the world today. 50 years ago, did we have as many broken families, AIDs, as many divocrces, troubled kids, infedlity, other STD’s, and on the hetrosexual side, so many children born out of wedlock, or for that matter, aborted? Close your eyes, David, because you won’t like this, but back then, more church pews weer filled, and priests had lines to hear confessions, and when people did go to church, they actually dressed like something slightly more than a beach bum. The bottom line is when we drifted from God and started caring more about ourselves than each other, that’s when we started going to hell, both figuratively and literally. Go ahead and tell me how wholesome and productive your heathen, selfish so-called lifestyle is for humanity. That dog just won’t hunt.
And yes, despite all our faults, our country is (somewhat) strong because of our true tolerance for differneces among us. For all your “woe is me” crying into your beer, David, George W. Bush is no Mahmoud Aminedinejad, and no one here is threatening you either, so stop the drivel about “therocaracies.”
And yes, we did have, albeit to a lesser extent, a”theocracy” in Ct many years ago, and for many years, but for all our faults, we certainly don’t have one now. That little gem of a word was your choice, not mine.
Am I angry about gays, or for that matter, anyone else, cowardly, and yes, I do mean “cowardly” subverting our form of government for their own personal agenda? Yes, I am angry, David, but there is a difference between being angry and being vitriolic.
Obviously, my last comment in that regard struck a chord. If I offended you, I am sorry, for such was not my intent, but it was an observation that I felt necessary to call to your attention. I still feel that way, whether I am right or wrong, and if I am right, your reasons are your business, but our last dialouge, while dissenting, was civil until a point when you lost it and started using gay infalmmatory rhetoric that those posting with you did not use. That’s a crossed line far beyond sarcasm that won’t hold up with your “tit for tat” based argument. And again, you put also words in other people’s mouths then, as you did now with me.
If gay marriage is legalized via the legislative process in this state, David, it will be the law of the land. I still won’t like it, I’ll still vehemently disagree with it, but I will accept it as law. I have no problem tolerating people of any differences, yes, some people, do, and I beleive they are a minority as I have stated before, but I am not in that crowd and I don’t think most people are. But if gay marriage proponents force their agenda down my throat by subverting the process of the very same law that they expect to supposedly reform, then I am going to yell plenty loud, and I will keep yelling as long as there is breath in my lungs.
See the differnce now?
Doug