Connecticut Supreme Court Backs Gay Marriage

HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - A divided Connecticut Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples have the right to marry in Connecticut.
The court ruled 4-3 Friday that gay and lesbian couples cannot be denied the freedom to marry under the state constitution, and Connecticut’s civil unions law does not provide those couples with the same rights as heterosexual couples.

fox61.com/pages/landing_news/?Conn-Supreme-Court-rules-in-favor-of-sam=1&blockID=91807&feedID=341

Same sex marriage/same sex civil unions…whatever one likes to call it…will happen one state at a time…maybe not in my lifetime…I’m in my mid-50’s, but it will happen.

I’m sure we’ll see a good amount of “flip-flop” back and forth on the issue from our government before it becomes a reality…but it will happen…eventually.

Correct. Polls show that the younger generation highly favors gay marriage. Religious leaders who oppose gay marriage should have concentrated on separating religious marriage from civil marriage. They didn’t and it is backfiring.

Conservative religious leaders should spend far less time imposing their will on others and instead spend time setting examples. :clapping:

  • Kathie :bowdown:

So just throw out moral law because the new generation doesn’t like God’s law? :confused:

No, moral law works well for religious people who ascribe to it…but in this section concerning itself with “secular news”, secular issues should not be determined by a dominant religious view…equality under the law is a secular constitional matter, if one’s religious beliefs do not allow same sex marriage, that’s ok, it should stay in the realm of “religion”…but religious views should not govern a secular nation, we are not a theocracy. One’s view of “God’s law” has no place when not everyone holds the same view of “God’s law”.

I am very happy for the state of CT. :thumbsup: :cool:

Publisher has it correct, the social similarities to the 50’s are comparable to today.

So what if two people of the same gender get married? It effects me as two different gender people getting married with my relationships, which is a zero effect. My relationships rise and fall by myself and the other person involved, no more, no less, anything else is scapegoating.

:thumbsup: for Connecticut.

The next step is for a someone to try to use the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Consitutions to try to force another state that doesn’t recognize them to accept one of these purported “marriages.”

The time is coming where the immorality and perversions forced on the people by the activist judiciary will make the Government “unjust” and thus unworthy of being obeyed.

If I remember right, this reminds me of the “Barney Miller” episode that had the “Time Travel” who stated that, in the future, homosexual activity was encouraged as a way of “population control”.

I seriously doubt anyone will be willing to wage civil war over two men or two women receiving government recognition of their marriages/unions. The only thing that will spur civil war is if one’s pocket books are being effected in any significant way.

If one’s religious group does not wish to recongnize any “sacramental” status for same sex unions, that is there religious perogative…but same sex unions are being recongnized by the government…there is no stopping it…equality under the rule of law…not religious belief is what is being determined in these cases.

At some point governments will cross that linee. Whether it trying to force the Church to perform so called “gay weddings” or something else, they will cross it. At that time, everyone will have to make a decision whether to obey or ignore that government.

That is ironic as we have these hard left judges imposing their will on society.

Usually more religious acceptance happens over time in a generational change. Different race marriages are much more acceptable in many more churches today. It is only a very small minority that explicitly does not allow it today. The same thing will happen with same-gender marriages. The incoming generation who accept it more and more will come of age and willfully let in. There will be no forced government action.

Acceptance does not mean it is correct. In fact, when you are dealing with the rampant Liberalism and Relativism of today, it is a certainty that it is incorrect. Man-made “Positive Law” cannot override God’s Natural Law no matter how you try to spin it.

Well, I’m not so sure…the CC will not perform marriages for opposite sex couples civilly divorced, I seriously doubt the government will step in and demand they perform sacramental marriages for those same sex couples who want it when they won’t step in and force the opposite sex couples “marriages” to be performed in Catholic churches.

We can discuss what “may happen” at some future date if you want…but it should be in a different thread I’d think…what “might happen” even though there’s no precedent for it as of today, really gets us no where…it “might not happen” too!

But Conneticut, Massachusettes and Californias rule of law are not based on “God’s Natural Law”, but on a secular constitution…not theocratic.

And your point is?

When man-made “positive law” is in opposition to God’s Natural law, we not only have the right, but we have the obligation to oppose the “positive law”.

Why? Isn’t that when the law requires you to do something unjust? In this case, the law is requiring nothing of you, it is not requiring that your Church perform gay marriages. It is not requiring you to recognize personally gay marriages. It is simply opening the door to other people choosing to get married. If there are tax breaks that go to married couples, then you will be paying towards them, but on the same token, if you are receiving tax breaks, they’re paying for them too, so even steven on that score.

The Church does recognize the difference between civil marriages and Sacramental marriages. I’ve never understood why it bothered to protest civil marriages for gay folk given that it has always recognized that distinction.

So if a government soley uses “natural law” you would be happy?

But I don’t believe your position reflects “God’s Natural Law”, so we are at odds from the outset…they may overlap some in certain areas, but sexuality isn’t one of them…not all Quakers are “liberal”, but this one is…I belong to a Meeting that struggled for 5-6 long years on whether to allow gay men and lesbian women into the life of the Meeting as “full members”, the final “sense of the Meeting” was they are worthy to be called Friends, and take their place among the Meeting as such.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.