look at me i firsted and seconded !!!

"Homosexuals we're held to be a suspect class."

?????

AHA! Elie finally admitted he was gay! - "Homosexuals[,] we're held to be a suspect class."

"Homosexuals we're held to be a suspect class."

?????

"we're"?

Does this mean Elie is gay?

maybe now Elie will start proofreading before posting.

ConnecTTTicuTTT

"Does this mean Elie is gay?"

- isn't that a job requirement at ATL?

Best. Quote. Ever. "It is not enough they (Israelis) are stealing our land. They are also stealing our civilization and our cuisine" (cause its true)

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/10/07/news/ML-Lebanon-Israel-Hummus-Lawsuit.php

"Homosexuals we're held to be a suspect class."

Do you make these glaring, regularly-recurring editing errors on purpose? An irony, too, that your title is "editor."

I'm not even one of those "grammar police" types, either. Typos happen, but when it's this often, it really makes me wonder how you even graduated from high school, let alone law school.

Damn it Elie, get rid of that apostrophe. It's "were," not "we're."

Seriously, this isn't 1982, and unless you're a bigot, the more common parlance is "gays and lesbians," not "homosexuals."

I'm shocked. ATL has scooped Fox News. I really thought there would be a "breaking news" diatribe regarding this decision posted immediately.

"Homosexuals"???

Who are you, Jerry Falwell?

And now it's up on Fox. But not a big headline.

[T]he state's "understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection."

I.e., the law must change to match what we deem to be society's evolving acceptance of gay marriage. I thought that was what elected lawmakers were for, no?

Once again, a state court of ALL Republican Justices comes down with an election-eve decision about gay rights. These socially-liberal Rs get a two-fer: to indulge their socially-liberal policy preferences and further their R political preferences. Same as MA in 2004 (though, to be fair, the MA court had ONE D). Too bad it's not going to work this time fellas, as the S&P heads for territory last seen in 1997. And yes, I am that cynical.

Homosexuals should have the same right to be as miserable as the rest of us.

Honestly, who gives a rat's ass about the rights of gays to shack up under the "M" word - the freaking markets are crashing before our eyes. Economic Armageddon is upon us, people. The Humanity!!!

The court didn't "uphold" a damn thing. It struck down a statute limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

Yay Connecticut!

Californians - NO ON 8!!!

21: It upheld the equal protection rights of gays and lesbians by at least subjecting them to "intermediate scrutiny"

No, it is homosexuals. gays and lesbians is a redundancy because lesbians are gay as well. Stop with the insane PC crap.

I can't read the news anymore. It makes me too sad.

The court didn't "uphold" a damn thing. It struck down a statute limiting marriage to a man and a woman.

18 : What are you talking about? Palmer was appointed by an independent and at least two of the concurring justices are democrats

Way to go, Connecticut! Turns out you are more than just the grundel of Massachusetts!

Congrats, CT! Glad to have you join us.
Love,
Californian who will be voting no on prop 8

I can't wait until they rule heterosexual marriage is unconstitutional.

27, CT hasn't had a D governor since 1990. Weicker was a liberal Republican, regardless of his technical affiliation in the Gov race. Since 1994 it's been Rowland and Rell, and they have appointed the vast majority of the present court.

As a non-lawyer, there's something I've never understood about gay marriage:

Marriage is essentially an omnibus contract, granting a lot of rights and responsibilities in one shot ( I am probably using 'omnibus contract' wrong, but you know what I mean).

Why should the State give a crap what the genders are of the people signing this contract?

Granted, I am one of those people who believe that all marriages performed by the State should be converted in to Civil Unions, and leave "marriage" to whatever religious groups want to perform them. At the same time, religious groups could then perform "marriages" that have no legal standing, just as Bar Mitzvahs and Confirmations have no legal standing.

Good, now all those Connecticut queers will stop having to come to Massachusetts. I guess Yale and Brown will be installing wedding chapels now.

@33: Brown's in Rhode Island, idiot.

I believe that gays should have the right to marry, but I think it should be left to the people and their elected representatives to decide. I know, I know: the people are too dumb and ignorant to do the right thing. That may be the case right now, but that does not justify circumventing the legislative process and the principle of separation of powers in order to achieve the supposedly more desirable or just objective. Two wrongs do not make a right. And I believe that ultimately, society evolves and eventually does the right thing. And allowing them to do so achieves the right result without engendering the bitterness and hate that results from having the judiciary shove controversial mandates down their collective throat.

32 - All excelent points. There are just a lot of people out there who think that The State should make tradition part of the law, that promoting heterosexual law (by making it special) is something the state should be doing etc.

They bristle at the idea that marriage is "just a contract".

31 is right. Rs have no standing to bitch about this. They own this decision.

Amen, 32. Civil Unions for all. Leave the marriage business to the states.

Though if you buy the dissent (I think it was Zarella but I forget) in Kerrigan, the purpose of regulating marriage as between a man and woman is so the state can regulate procreation.

35 - Marriage between blacks and whites was illegal in some states untill I think the late 60's when the Supreme Court struck those laws down.

Should they have left that alone untill all the state legislatures decided to come around?

Your points on bitterness, voting etc are well taken, though you have a lot more faith in people to "eventually do the right thing" than I do. =P

Amen, 32. Civil Unions for all. Leave the marriage business to the churches.

Though if you buy the dissent (I think it was Zarella but I forget) in Kerrigan, the purpose of regulating marriage as between a man and woman is so the state can regulate procreation.

28 -You're a tool. If anything we're the grundle of New York. Massachusetts wishes it were OUR grundle.

Love,

Connecticut

Thank you very much, 34. Did everybody get that? Brown is in Rhode Island.

Ah, #35, with logic like yours, "Brown v. Board" would have never happened and we would still have segregation south of the Mason-Dixon. The people are too dumb to decide the constitutional fate of their peers. Conservative judges aren't much better, but at least they use big words and lofty phrases when they strip away your rights. And that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

17 -- read Marbury v. Madison.

does this mean i should request to be moved to WILDMAN HARROLD'S Connecticut office so I can marry my lover?

32 is absolutely spot on. Whatever that piece of paper that you fax to your HR/benefits department to prove you're "married" should be available to homosexual couples too. The other bit of paper from the Catholic church or whatever you can frame or put in your "treasured memories to keep" book. Any other approach is nonsense in my opinion.

Assuming that society catches up and homosexual/heterosexual rights are finally the same in the eyes of the law, I also think changing the name for everybody to civil unions is fine as long everybody gets a "civil union" license/certificate. I think it would be preferable just to keep the word "marriage" but whichever it is, I don't think gay people should have to put up with the "separate but equal" crap implied by having two names for what should be the same bundle of rights.

33 - I think everyone has known about that whole "Yale" thing for quite some time . . .

Patrick Bateman

32 is absolutely spot on. Whatever that piece of paper that you fax to your HR/benefits department to prove you're "married" should be available to homosexual couples too. The other bit of paper from the Catholic church or whatever you can frame or put in your "treasured memories to keep" book. Any other approach is nonsense in my opinion.

Assuming that society catches up and homosexual/heterosexual rights are finally the same in the eyes of the law, I also think changing the name for everybody to civil unions is fine as long everybody gets a "civil union" license/certificate. I think it would be preferable just to keep the word "marriage" but whichever it is, I don't think gay people should have to put up with the "separate but equal" crap implied by having two names for what should be the same bundle of rights.

17: Marbury v. Madison

13 - what is it about the term "homosexual" as a noun that is so offensive? this is the first time i've heard anyone voice objection over it, so i'm somewhat curious.

43 - The whole point is that the things conservative judges are stripping away are not "rights." They're benefits that pragmatists think the federal government needs to ensure, but they aren't rights.

Incidentally, did anyone else catch it in the last debate when Obama said he thought public health care was a right? Um, really Barry? Public education isn't even a right, but public health care is?

Are you people serious? Homosexual is the scientific term. What else is next?

43: the analogy to Brown is the most intellecutally lazy argument I've ever heard. Here's a clue: Brown actually had a strong basis in the Constitution (namely, the equal protection clause). While the originalist argument for Brown is debatable, there is certainly a strong justification for asserting that the equal protection clause was ratified for the manifest purpose of stopping invidious racial discrimination. No one ever consented to having any constitution (state or federal) guarantee gay "marriage."

So, I'm curious: what exactly should guide judges' decisions, in your view? If you think it's fine for them to graft their own personal moral philosophy onto it to correct the "stupidty" of the people, I fail to see why Lochner would ever be illegitimate. If you want to give judges a license to codify their personal philosophical ruminations into binding law, you can't limit it to situations where the outcome happens to conform to the prevailing left-wing orthodoxy of the day. Why can't the constitution "evolve" to, e.g., guarantee protection of unborn life or actually forbid gay marriage?

It doesn't matter Butters! You never shoot a guy in the dick.

43: the analogy to Brown is the most intellecutally lazy argument I've ever heard. Here's a clue: Brown actually had a strong basis in the Constitution (namely, the equal protection clause). While the originalist argument for Brown is debatable, there is certainly a strong justification for asserting that the equal protection clause was ratified for the manifest purpose of stopping invidious racial discrimination. No one ever consented to having any constitution (state or federal) guarantee gay "marriage."

So, I'm curious: what exactly should guide judges' decisions, in your view? If you think it's fine for them to graft their own personal moral philosophy onto it to correct the "stupidty" of the people, I fail to see why Lochner would ever be illegitimate. If you want to give judges a license to codify their personal philosophical ruminations into binding law, you can't limit it to situations where the outcome happens to conform to the prevailing left-wing orthodoxy of the day. Why can't the constitution "evolve" to, e.g., guarantee protection of unborn life or actually forbid gay marriage?

This decision is an abomination. Let's just hope that these blasphemous, legislating judges are themselves judged in the same way as all homosexuals come their time.

According to liberal logic, Brown should never have happened on stare decisis grounds.

56 you are a "genius" and by genius I mean quasi-suspect.

Abomination? Actually it is completely secular. I hate to go back in time with the old argument, but without judges "legislating" as you refer to it, miscegenation would still exist. Maybe you disagree with Loving v. Virginia too, and if so, no need to argue the point.

please, it's not homosexual or gay or lesbian vs. hetero or straight.... it's breeders vs. non-breeders.

Does this mean bigamy is now also legal in Connecticut?

I am a "multisexual", which means I prefer to have more than one life partner at a time. Can I get intermediate scrutiny under Connecticut law and marry both of my wives?

Pushing strongly for specific terminology, especially when it is verbose, redundant, illogical, etc is an attempt to sneak in moral/social superiority and dominance by having support on some substantive issue and trying from there to control the entire debate and discourse on the subject generally.

wtf, when did "homosexual" become non-PC?? it used to be the PC term for certain other colorful terms.

n word --> colrored --> black --> african american --> person of color.

i seriously can't keep up.

God, when I was younger, sucking up to fags and dykes like this got your ass beat. And I can tell this board could use a beatdown.

Homosexual relationships are not the same as hetero ones and should not be treated as such. marriage is an interest of the state because it needs stable families to have a productive society. Sorry that's over the head of you lefty hacks who want everything equal.

And btw, if a state wanted to prohibit interracial marriage, why not? That's their right. You'll probably save a few white women's lives in the process.

CT Repubs are not real Repubs

64: Fail Troll

64: wow. just wow.

I have noted the inference to homosexuals as a "Minority Class status;" - this is a myth

I have linked to your post in the side bar from

http://www.jeremiahfilms.com/released/marriage/why8.html#sky (as I have already seen this come up in the comments)

* The sky will not fall ... if we are at war 100 years in Iraq - We are at war today, people can buy gas, go to work, buy food and watch a movie.
* The sky will not fall ... if we do not drill for oil - gas stations are open.
* The sky will not fall ... if the housing market bursts - It has and the sky is still there.
* The sky will not fall ... if we don't cure AIDs.
* The sky will not fall ... when you die.
* The sky will not fall ... if Gays get married - No it has not but devaluation of other people's rights has taken place; Children will suffer if it is allowed to stand; The ACLU will use the court ruling and the fact people are "legally" married to change marriage across the country ... more

If taking action is only done when the sky falls, there will never be a time to take action. If speaking out is only done when the sky falls, then there will never be a need to speak out. If getting involved is only needed when the sky is falling, nobody needs to get involved. If voting is done only when the sky is falling, then there will never be a need. The "Sky will not fall" argument is an argument for you to go climb under a rock.

So much ado about the legal status of sucking another guy off. Let's talk about something more important please.

RE: 35. If states were allowed to decide this and other similar issues without judicial intervention, African Americans would still be sitting in the back of the bus in Alabama.

Get over yourselves. Civil rights are not something legislated. They are already protected by the Constitution. Equal protection bitches. You don't like it, give up your federal marriage benefits and we'll call it even.

1. While race plays no role in defining "marriage," sex and number do. When a state creates a law prohibiting interracial marriage, it is ancillary to the definition of marriage; when a state creates a law prohibiting certain sexes or certain numbers from marrying, it is part and parcel of the definition of marriage.

2. One strategy for all "minority" groups is to try to align themselves most closely with minority racial groups in order to garner sympathy. This tired tactic is transparent. Not all groups can try to tie their claims of "oppression" to race. In fact, it's abhorrent that homosexuals would insist that their inability to live in a particular state and receive the title "marriage" (while still receiving all the incidents of a domestic union) is akin to racial segregation. I'd like to see the reaction of an African-American ten-year-old, daughter of sharecroppers, escorted by national guard troops to the schoolhouse door in the midst of "n-" epithets and rocks hurled at her, simply for the chance to step a foot in the door of a white school, talk with an "oppressed" homosexual woman who could travel to Massachusetts for a marriage license but, instead, sits at home with a religious marriage license and a civil union recognized by the state, asserting that she's treated so shockingly unequally.

3. If anything, we're concerned with politically powerless minorities, whereas homosexuals are generally fare more affluent and politically connected than any other minority group.

#71: you're an idiot. I'm not sure there is anything more to be said and certainly not worth the time to even try to counter your ridiculous arguments.

Do us a favor and throw yourself in front of a bus.

The fact is that all of you people who are arguing that gay people should not be entitled to the same rights/benefits as straight couples in terms of marriage are losing. Get over it. Sadly for you, the sky isn't falling and there is no evidence at all other than the shit you make up to say that there is any negative effect to allowing gay couples the same benefits you receive. None. Oh other than God will be angry. Let him/her deal with that.

Go judicial activism. Sometimes it takes a few fair and just judges to change the way the world works. I'm all for it. I'd imagine most black people in Alabama and Mississippi would be fairly sympathetic to judicial activism.

How enlightened, 72! I, for one, am impressed.

gay marriage is okay in CT!!!!

this iths thsuper!!!!

"The fact is that all of you people who are arguing that gay people should not be entitled to the same rights/benefits as straight couples in terms of marriage are losing."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Marriage_amendment_animation.gif

How's that for an evolving standard of decency?

47 - brilliant....

71 (and others), do you honestly believe that "marriage" has been around, unchanged, since the beginning of time?

Until 41 years ago, "marriage" was defined in many states as a union between a man and a woman exclusively of the same race. Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967). (Curse that Supreme Court for its liberal judicial activism!)

Until roughly 100 years ago, "marriage" was defined as a husband's de facto ownership of a woman of the same race.

Until roughly 150 years ago, "marriage" was defined in Southern states as the union of a white man and a white woman. (No slaves allowed.)

Ditto to the comments that the government should just get out of the business of attempting to define "marriage." Make it a religious ceremony. Until it does, congratulations for Connecticut.

In response to the update and comments:

Really, we're not supposed to say "homosexual"? Is this like the whole negro, black, African American thing? And, seriously, which is correct today, black or African American? I get the feeling that we're moving toward African American, then my wife comes home and tells me about this woman with whom she works, originally from Jamaica. The woman says, "I'm black, or I'm Caribbean, but I'm sure as hell not African American." I'm so confused (yet, sadly, very serious in my inquiry).

68: It’s not that “the sky would not fall” if gays get married. It’s that “the rest of our lives will feel no impact whatsoever – none in the slightest.” Nobody has ever explained to me how the sanctity of my marriage will be diminished by legalizing gay marriage. It’s just code speak for bigots.

78, I don't think you quite get it. State definitions of "marriage" are not normative definitions of "marriage." The normative definition of "marriage" demands two things: opposite sexes, and a sum total of two. That's not to say that, at other periods in time, people have attempted to tack on additional State qualifications (e.g., blood relations, race, etc.), or attendant legal qualifications (e.g., "de facto ownership," as you put it), or even perversions of the definition itself (e.g., polyamory, etc.). But a simple normative discussion of "marriage" is "one man and one woman."

Also, serious comparisons to Loving are laughable. Let's summarize what happened to the Lovings:
---
Mrs. Loving and her husband, Richard, were in bed in their modest house in Central Point in the early morning of July 11, 1958, five weeks after their wedding, when the county sheriff and two deputies, acting on an anonymous tip, burst into their bedroom and shined flashlights in their eyes. A threatening voice demanded, “Who is this woman you’re sleeping with?”

Mrs. Loving answered, “I’m his wife.”

Mr. Loving pointed to the couple’s marriage certificate hung on the bedroom wall. The sheriff responded, “That’s no good here.”

The certificate was from Washington, D.C., and under Virginia law, a marriage between people of different races performed outside Virginia was as invalid as one done in Virginia. At the time, it was one of 16 states that barred marriages between races.

After Mr. Loving spent a night in jail and his wife several more, the couple pleaded guilty to violating the Virginia law, the Racial Integrity Act. Under a plea bargain, their one-year prison sentences were suspended on the condition that they leave Virginia and not return together or at the same time for 25 years.

81: That's your normative "definition" of marriage, not mine. Your argument is nothing more than "I know it when I see it."

Also, can you even attempt to separate the facts of Loving from the holding? The holding is that it is unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of race with respect to marriage.

You can argue that "race" does not equal "gender" all you want. You're entitled to your opinion, but that that and two bucks will get you a cup of coffee.

People 50 years ago were making same "normative" arguments about mix-raced marriages. ("It's not a real marriage." "It's contrary to the Bible.")

Times change. Get over it.

Two common threads here:

Conservatives using reason and logic (64 and 71)

Liberals using attacks and name calling (72, et al)

You "educated" people who claim gay marriage makes no difference and that government should be out of the business of marriage fail to understand what average people all over this country do - marriage (one-on-one, man-woman marriage) is the basis for our, and basically all other, productive societies. WIth marriage comes stable families, ones like the families most of us grew up in. The families which enabled us to become at least somewhat successful. That's why government has an interest in marriage. You live in a nation, not a vacuum. We have a duty to the next generation to keep these values alive for them. Gay people have rights like everyone else, but the marriage contract is a special one. Its basis is procreation, and procreation isn't man-man or woman-woman. I have no problem with Adam and Steve living together, but they aren't a family.

There is a slippery slope - first gay marriage, then polygamy. Why not right? If everyone wants it, go for it! Plenty of societies actually have polygamy, but those societies tend to be backward and violent...and also very prejudiced against gays and women. Be careful what you wish for.

Next, you fuckers can tell me why you're voting for a guy whos mentor said we deserved 9/11.

Lynching should be legal again - that's the way to deal with monkeys and white women.

- 80 ... most people in the US had no personal impact on 9/11. Are you suggesting that if something has no impact to you then you should do nothing about it. This begs the question, do you live in New York, or Connecticut?

"WIth marriage comes stable families, ones like the families most of us grew up in. The families which enabled us to become at least somewhat successful. "

Uh huh. Excellent point. Resonates with the masses. Sound logic. I guess we can close the books on this issue.

...The sky's the limit "my friend."

#84 – – I agree with you that marriage and stable families are vital components of a productive society. I also support gay marriage. Nowhere in your post did you explain how allowing two men or two women to get married weakens the institution of marriage or destabilizes families. You just jumped right to the “slippery slope.” That’s not good enough.

I think you can measure the logic of his argument by the following:

"Liberals using attacks and name calling... you fuckers"

Everything between the ellipsis needs no response.

71 - Regarding you comment about how gay people don't know what it's like to have people throw rocks at them while those people shout the N-word, I'm sure people like Matthew Sheppard would disagree.

90, yes, that's exactly it, Matthew Sheppard was walking to get his civil union license, when he was murdered. I get it now.

I can't keep pretending it never happened! Lucas and Spielberg raped Indiana Jones, and we just watched!

90, you are a homo, like Elie before you.

92: wow, you saw south park the other night, too?

"Homosexuals?" What decade are you editors from? Nobody uses that term anymore. Please, refer to them as cocksuckers. Thank you.

NIGGGGGGGGGEEERRRRRRRRRRR

I'm sick of all of the tired liberal tolerance police here.

News Flash: If you are opposed to bay marriage that does not make you a bigot, intolerant, or even homophobic.

You lefties need to come up with a good reason why the majority should be forced to call a gay relationship a "marriage" other than to call everyone a homophobe.

And the racial/slavery/interracial arguments fail on so many levels I am surprised to see anyone even remotely educated resort to using them. Then again, that just may be the product of years of indoctrination from left-wing professors...

So if you lefties come up with any rational arguments for gay marriage, I am all ears. And while you are at it, send those arguments to Barack Obama and Joe Biden, who both oppose gay marriage ;)

Yes on Prop 8!!! (It now leads in the polls!)

*edit the above post to say "gay marriage."

Still waiting for a logical reason to recognize two dudes who sodomize each other as a marriage...

A suspect class, for all of you who went to your state university law school and have no idea what the Supreme Court does, is a designation that requires a heightened level of scrutiny when taking a right or privilege from them. In the Civil Rights cases, black people were determined to be a suspect class and so, the state had to show a compelling governmental interest in screwing them.

Numb-er 98, I really would like to know why you care. Haven't you realized the two fundamental truths in this argument? 1. Banning gay marriage does NOT make people stop being gay and 2. It is more about property rights and living your life the way you want than some people are willing to admit. I am sorry that seeing people happy upsets you and your Republican buddies. But fear not. You will soon be able to slap a "Don't blame me, I voted for McCain" sticker on that battleship of an SUV you drive to your hooker's motel room to satisfy the perverted desires your uptight, repressed wife won't and then you can sit around the clubhouse, drinking Michelob talking about how the queers and liberals are ruining the country. That should make you happier. For a minute.

97/98: The point is that unless you think there is something wrong with homosexuality then no special reasons to support gay marriage are necessary. If you truly are not “bigoted, intolerant or homophobic” as you say then the reasons you seek are all those that favor any marriage between a loving and committed straight couple.

Still waiting for an explanation as to how a marriage between a same-sex couple weakens marriages between straight couples or destabilizes families…

84 - so if marriage is the basis for our productive, stable societies, we should have less of it?

First of all, we did, on some level, have 9/11 coming. The individuals whose lives were tragically lost will always be remembered, but part of the blame falls on the actions the United States government has been taking overseas for decades. Do you really think they wanted to come attack us because we have the "freedom" to buy Playboy at the 7/11 down the street? How many of you really want to spend your time and effort on a suicide mission to stop certain Islamic groups from encouraging women to wear burkas? I'm guessing most of you don't. Now imagine if their military and economy were immensely more powerful than ours, and they were here in force (and in Mexico and Canada as well), changing the entire dynamic of our society to be more like theirs, without our assent. There's a reason why Osama bin Laden was called a "freedom fighter" when he was fighting against the U.S.S.R.

Secondly, what's the big deal with polygamy? I don't care if someone wants to marry 2 people instead of 1.

@51: Public education is a right at the state level. SCOTUS simply said it wasn't a federal right but all states says it is a right.

@98: If a married opposite sex couple sodomizes each other it is still marriage. Why should gays have to meet that burden?

The reason any gay marriage folks keep throwing around is procreation but no one ever goes so far as to say that marriage is null and void the moment a woman hits menopause or a man gets vasectomy/loses his balls.