Today a judge cleared the way for gay couples to be legally wed in the state of CT. I couldn't be be more happy for these fellow brothers and sisters who are now granted the same benefits as other heterosexual married couples. This is all about civil liberties & these indivudals absolutely have the right to have their unions recognized by law. If America can elect an African American President, then hopefully Connecticut & Massachusetts will be remembered as the 1st of all states to allow people to be legally wed to the one's they love.
6 comments:
My only problem with this ruling... activist judges decided. Same thing happened in CA, and the people were finally given a vote and they rejected the original ruling. It's the same thing as Conservative judges trying to overrule roe v. Wade. It should be UP TO THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE. NOT ACTIVIST JUDGES. I am not even going to debate the subject of the blog. That's not my concern. It's very scary that Judges are deciding StateMatters. On all subjects. Let the people of THAT STATE DECIDE.
And I don't mean to rain on this particular post.
BUT ZERO mention of Veterans Day on this blog?
ZERO? Never too late to make up for it.
"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression" - Thomas Jefferson
Guy - I hear what you are saying. But in my own opinion this should is about ones civil liberites - in step with blacks & woman being allowed allowed to vote. If states in the rural south back in the 1950's had voted on segragation / voting - you know how it would have turned out. Yes, the power is with the people - but sometimes government needs to protect the people from themselves.
4 Judges decided. Who are they protecting us from? They have an agenda and are pushing it.
IMO- comparing this to Civil Rights movement is a stretch. They have the same rights as married people do. Property rights, taxes, etc. People objected to calling it " marriage", not objecting to them being able to live their lives together.
4 judges DO NOT speak for the people of CT.
WE need protection from those motherF*ckers. On all sides of issues. You can bet your eastvillage a$$, Thomas Jefferson WOULD NEVER ENVISION Activist Judges speaking for the people of the state. Where do we draw the line?
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." -10th Amendment. No Where in there does it state, 4 judges who clearily have an agenda, Speak for the Good people of Connecticut.
I can't stress enough, it's not the issue at hand for me. It's the precident. When you have judges making decisions like this, when it's not even given a vote, by that individual state...where does it end? A certain party can appoint certain judges and basically run rampid. Again, I doubt Thomas Jefferson would of envisioned this....and IMO he SURELY WOULD NEVER OF ENDORSED IT.
Tim - I do see your point. But we ELECT these officials whom create policy for us. We as the people choose our Governers & Senators as well as the state's Supreme Court judges. This is done in concert with the constitiution, so our elected officials can create laws and make sure the people act in accordance with them. Now I get having judges pushing certain policy based on their personal beliefs. But I'm not really sure how states can avoid this. Maybe put all the laws passed the year before inside the voter booths? I just don't think that will work - Case in point: California. The vast majority of the popluation is hispanic. They really had no idea what the Prop 8 was about - but still voted for it, thus the margin by which it passed.
A broken sytem indeed
"The vast majority of the popluation is hispanic. They really had no idea what the Prop 8 was about - but still voted for it, thus the margin by which it passed. "
Well, I would actually venture to say most of them were probably Catholic, that's why they voted that way. Not just for Sh*ts and Giggles.
All good buddy. The vast majority of the people who voted for Obama in CT, also voted for Jim Hines as our Congressmen. Asked why? Most said cause it was the same party as Obama.Even though the most liberal of liberals would admit Shays was good for DC, cause he actually worked for both sides.
Works both ways.
Post a Comment