Connecticut Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage
posted at 2:05 pm on October 10, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
A done deal, and given Connecticut’s deep blue electorate, one not likely to be overridden by amendment.
Probably good for McCain, though.
The Supreme Court released its historic ruling at 11:30 a.m. Citing the equal protection clause of the state constitution, the justices ruled that civil unions were discriminatory and that the state’s “understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection.”…
In a statement released minutes after the decision was announced, Gov. M. Jodi Rell said she disagreed with it, but uphold it. She said she was proud to sign the state’s civil unions law in 2005, the first in the nation enacted without a court mandate, and thought it was “equitable and just.”
“The Supreme Court has spoken,” Rell said. “I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision — either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution — will not meet with success. I will therefore abide by the ruling.”…
The opposition will now turn its sights to the November election, when voters will be asked whether the state should convene a constitutional convention. “Connecticut voters will have one opportunity on Nov. 4 to reassert their right to self government. We must vote yes.”
Here’s the opinion. Skip ahead to page 21 for the crux of it, declaring gays a “quasi-suspect class” for purposes of the state’s equal protection jurisprudence. What “class” you are pretty much determines as a rule whether you can be discriminated against by law; if you belong to a class that’s “suspect,” i.e. historically powerless and persecuted, then the legislature has virtually no leeway against you. The Connecticut Supremes decided they couldn’t call gays a fully “suspect” class because the U.S. Supreme Court hasn’t declared them that (yet), so they opted for “quasi-suspect” based on four factors: (1) historic discrimination, (2) whether sexual orientation is related to one’s ability to contribute to society (this is here to give the state extra power to regulate the disabled), (3) immutability of sexual orientation, i.e. is it a choice or is it inborn and thus unchangeable, and (4) whether gays lack political power, which starts on page 28 and is the most interesting section of the four.
All in all, the analysis is similar to the California Supreme Court’s, which also used an equal protection argument to strike down their state’s marriage statute. The fatal blow for gay marriage opponents is the fact that the state already allows civil unions for gay couples; I think laypeople look at that and assume that that means the state, having acted in good faith, will be given the benefit of the doubt when gays inevitably sue for full marriage rights, but as I’ve tried to explain before, it doesn’t work that way. To discriminate by law, you need a good reason. Admitting that gays should be entitled to all the same rights as married couples but not the label of “marriage” itself forces the court to conclude that the distinction is purely semantic, and semantics simply ain’t good enough as a “good reason.” From page 62:
Although we acknowledge that many legislators and many of their constituents hold strong personal convictions with respect to preserving the traditional concept of marriage as a heterosexual institution, such beliefs, no matter how deeply held, do not constitute the exceedingly persuasive justification required to sustain a statute that discriminates on the basis of a quasi-suspect classification. ‘‘That civil marriage has traditionally excluded same-sex couples—i.e., that the ‘historic
and cultural understanding of marriage’ has been between a man and a woman—cannot in itself provide a [sufficient] basis for the challenged exclusion. To say that the discrimination is ‘traditional’ is to say only that the discrimination has existed for a long time. A classification, however, cannot be maintained merely ‘for its own sake’ [Romer v. Evans, supra, 517 U.S. 635]. Instead, the classification ([that is], the exclusion of gay [persons] from civil marriage) must advance a state interest that is separate from the classification itself [see id., 633, 635]. Because the ‘tradition’ of excluding gay [persons] from civil marriage is no different from the classification itself, the exclusion cannot be justified on the basis of ‘history.’ Indeed, the justification of ‘tradition’ does not explain the classification; it merely repeats it. Simply put, a history or tradition of discrimination—no matter how entrenched—does not make the discrimination constitutional . . . .’’ (Citation omitted.) Hernandez v. Robles, supra, 7 N.Y.3d 395 (Kaye, C. J., dissenting)…It is only because the state has not advanced a sufficiently persuasive justification for denying same sex couples the right to marry that the traditional definition of marriage necessarily must be expanded to include such couples. If the defendants were able to demonstrate sufficient cause to deny same sex couples the right to marry, then we would reject the plaintiffs’ claim and honor the state’s desire to preserve the institution of marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In the absence of such a showing, however, we cannot refuse to follow settled equal protection jurisprudence merely because doing so will result in a change in the definition of marriage.
Exit question: Time to start talking about Obama’s judicial appointments?
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 17 Next »
On the regular?
Again, one more badge… I’m sure we agree on some issues, but on this one, you’re just too one dimensional to be taken seriously.
Esthier on October 10, 2008 at 6:20 PM
you’re obviously too busy bending over..
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 6:21 PM
What middle eastern country was it, a few months ago, where the Muslim woman doctor…the only doctor attending that night…refused, on the basis of her religious belief, to examine a man’s “privates”…and the guy ended up having to have one of his nuts cut off because the woman doctor didn’t examine him…again, citing religious beliefs?
Sounds like you’re the one promoting some sort of “Christian sharia”…
JetBoy on October 10, 2008 at 6:21 PM
please, you cannot dispute anything I have said.
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 6:21 PM
You mean gay?
Esthier on October 10, 2008 at 6:21 PM
Why’re you tormenting me like this, Miss Hornet?
ManlyRash on October 10, 2008 at 6:21 PM
ffs, its even googlabale.
http://www.google.com/search?rls=ig&hl=en&q=right4life+gay+sharia+agenda&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
your_worst_enemy on October 10, 2008 at 6:21 PM
I believe that a cab driver has the right to refuse to do business with anyone for any reason. But the same will not be said soon about churches.
petunia on October 10, 2008 at 6:21 PM
Why would I? You’re the best argument against yourself yet to be presented.
Esthier on October 10, 2008 at 6:22 PM
HornetSting on October 10, 2008 at 6:22 PM
inseminating someone isn’t a life saving procedure now is it? I mean you have to lie to try to make a point…laughable.
should a doctor be forced to perform an abortion?
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 6:22 PM
Not true. Acceptance of homosexuals rose after the mid-90s to a higher level. Recently it has sunk back to mid-90s level after Californian homosexual marriage. Two steps forward, five steps back I’d call that.
aengus on October 10, 2008 at 6:22 PM
yadayadayada yawn.
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 6:23 PM
Sorry, my dander is up.
HornetSting on October 10, 2008 at 6:23 PM
if they own their cab, they can do whatever they want. if they work for someone else, they should just quit.
as far as I know these doctors had their own private practice.
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Quite frankly, “right,” I doubt your sincerity here. What would you be saying now if the people of CT voted for gay marriage. You would probably be sanctimoniously condemning them all to hell. You come across here as a “fire and brimstone” Christian. I do not sense much Christian love or mercy in you.
DCGamer on October 10, 2008 at 6:24 PM
We’ve been reduced to this, huh?
HornetSting on October 10, 2008 at 6:24 PM
Unless her name is Tara Sue and she lives in Louisiana, in which case it would have to be 17 or possibly 21, depending on the IQ test.
ManlyRash on October 10, 2008 at 6:25 PM
I do enjoy tormenting you libs with this…seeing y’all get flustered, and irrational is a lot of fun!
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 6:26 PM
I might be out of date, but I think they are in California. As a graduation requirement.
Count to 10 on October 10, 2008 at 6:26 PM
why don’t we let them try? I know thats a novel solution…the rest of your drivel is just BS. so nice of you to judge me!! I know anyone who disagrees with the gay agenda is ‘hateful’ and is guilty of a hate crime….so predictable….can’t you ‘evolve’ any other lines?
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 6:27 PM
I’ve been here over two years and for your information right4life’s favourite topic on this blog is tearing down the “hairygod Darwin”, another point of agreement I share with him.
My point was that his railing the “gay agenda” does not include the corollary that all homosexuals are in on said agenda as a “monolith” as has been unfairly suggested.
aengus on October 10, 2008 at 6:27 PM
|| if they own their cab, they can do …
I do give you credit for being consistent then, if thats what you believe.
your_worst_enemy on October 10, 2008 at 6:28 PM
thats very scary.
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 6:28 PM
No problem.
aengus on October 10, 2008 at 6:28 PM
LOL. Yeah…I’m a lib. C’mon guys, tell R4L what a left-leaning lib I am.
ManlyRash on October 10, 2008 at 6:28 PM
very true!! have you noticed that the supporters of gay marriage tend to be evolutionists? and that libs in general tend to be evolutionists?
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 6:29 PM
btw: are you british? the way you spell favourite?
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 6:30 PM
I hear, during a full moon, Manly Rash likes to do the “coyote” with Megyn Kelly.
HornetSting on October 10, 2008 at 6:30 PM
Oh please. I accept that life on this planet evolved (in my opinion, under the direction of God).
ManlyRash on October 10, 2008 at 6:31 PM
I hear, during a full moon, Manly Rash likes to do the “coyote” with Megyn Kelly.
HornetSting on October 10, 2008 at 6:30 PM
He WISHES!!!!!
kareyk on October 10, 2008 at 6:31 PM
LMAO.
HornetSting on October 10, 2008 at 6:32 PM
I am suspicious of the word “evolutionist,” but I would offer myself as a counterexample.
Count to 10 on October 10, 2008 at 6:32 PM
thats not evolution, thats theistic evolution, which isn’t taught, or believed by anyone who isn’t trying to have his cake and eat it too….
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 6:33 PM
Unless her name is Tara Sue and she lives in Louisiana, in which case it would have to be 17 or possibly 21, depending on the IQ test.
ManlyRash on October 10, 2008 at 6:25 PM
I know a girl named Tara Sue- she would disagree Manly-
kareyk on October 10, 2008 at 6:33 PM
I said in general, not every last person obviously. but look at the leading evolutionists like Dawkins Myers etc…
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 6:33 PM
We’ll soon see in California. The vote will clarify things one way or the other.
I still do not believe, however, that the majority deserves a vote on this. I see this purely as a civil rights issue ala Brown vs. the Board of Education.
If you believe that the majority deserves a vote on this, aengus, let me test your consistency.
Let’s assume that the state of Massachusetts decided that in order to promote the common good, all people with an IQ lower than 80 are prohibited from marrying (in order to prevent the birth of more stupid children). The legislature passed this bill and put it to the people for a vote. A majority of the voters of Massachusetts (51%) supported this measure. Does that make it right? Moral? Legal? Would the state supreme court be justified in overturning the law?
DCGamer on October 10, 2008 at 6:34 PM
I’m afraid that doesn’t qualify. While right4life does use the phrase “you gays” he is talking to advocates of homosexual marriage on a political discussion group in the midst of a heated discussion.
There are plenty of homosexuals, as well as plenty of straight people, who don’t follow politics awfully closely. Also if you follow Mark Steyn’s writings and letters page there were lots of homosexuals who voted for Bush when he was at the height of his opposition to homosexual marriage in 2004.
aengus on October 10, 2008 at 6:34 PM
Funny, I thought that was the position of the Catholic Church. Not that I’m any reliable reference on the subject.
Count to 10 on October 10, 2008 at 6:35 PM
Tell me, what’s your opinion on judicial activism?
I’ll guess: it’s bad when you disagree, and good when you agree.
misterpeasea on October 10, 2008 at 6:36 PM
It’s quite clear you’re one sadistic f**k, trust me.
MadisonConservative on October 10, 2008 at 6:36 PM
I am not calling anyone who disagrees with the “gay agenda” hateful. I am calling you hateful. There is a difference. Respectful people can disagree respectfully.
DCGamer on October 10, 2008 at 6:36 PM
Being a man of the Isle, you’ll also need to have at least one Irish Car Bomb. Don’t worry about the taste. Once you get it down it’s nice and smooth.
MadisonConservative on October 10, 2008 at 6:38 PM
Is this all catholics? 80%?, 50%?, 20%?, someone you know?
The bigotry of blanket generalizations. Do you know once a white man raped a little girl? aren’t white man awful?
neuquenguy on October 10, 2008 at 6:39 PM
Because democracy has no place in the land of the free.
AbaddonsReign on October 10, 2008 at 6:39 PM
I stand by my prediction this Spring the Connecticut will be in play…standing on one leg anyways.
SouthernGent on October 10, 2008 at 6:40 PM
I’m just against his absolute “gay sharia law” stance.
HornetSting on October 10, 2008 at 6:41 PM
Because democracy has no place in the land of the free.
AbaddonsReign on October 10, 2008 at 6:39 PM
AMEN!
kareyk on October 10, 2008 at 6:41 PM
Majority rules, minority rights. Didn’t you learn your grade school civics?
DCGamer on October 10, 2008 at 6:41 PM
Still not clarifying. Giving examples doesn’t really tell me how you are defining the word. I live my life on the assumption the theory is valid, and find it indispensable in life sciences. I put no stock in any creation myth. I will not, however, say that any of this is “proven.” Would you label me an “evolutionist?”
Count to 10 on October 10, 2008 at 6:42 PM
Oh yes. Its all of piece generally.
I’m Irish.
aengus on October 10, 2008 at 6:42 PM
Over the months we have tangled over biblical interpretation…and when you have “lost your way” that is what you have resorted to.
The others who haven’t read your past posts don’t understand, your limited knowledge of the bible makes you dangerous.
I have picked you out months ago as someone who is fighting their latent homosexuality…you are way too obsessed by this topic. It intrigues you, interests you, you are more engaged about this topic then any other…doesn’t that make you wonder why you are drawn so closely, so intimately to this topic. I remember the Florida politician who was so adamant against child porn, and what was he found guilty of?
Yes, you have a similar obsession, you want to be involved in every post regarding this “sin”, this horrible repulsive sin that you are so drawn to. It is like a magnet,isn’t it? You are safe because there is only the monitor, and you can’t physically be with your posters, you would like to be with them, wouldn’t you? Maybe look them in the eyes, maybe touch them, if you could hold them maybe you cold convince them, just a quick hug, a squeeze, a reassuring touch. Maybe you could link to a special site you know and pretend you are posting to “him”, yes, he would like that, and find you so interesting. And he is such a bad boy, you would admonish him, you would teach him the right way…you would like that wouldn’t you. To teach some other man the “right” way to love…you will have your chance.
Open up, let your feelings go, it is alright, we won’t judge you, it is alright…it is safe, you will feel better, and that dark burden you have carried for so long will be lifted.
right2bright on October 10, 2008 at 6:42 PM
But this is not true. The Catholic Church, while leaving to science many details about the history of life on earth, proclaims that by the light of reason the human intellect can readily and clearly discern purpose and design in the natural world, including the world of living things.
Evolution in the sense of common ancestry might be true, but evolution in the neo-Darwinian sense – an unguided, unplanned process of random variation and natural selection – is not. Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.
link
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 6:44 PM
you sure are obsessed with me…guess you need a real man huh?
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 6:45 PM
How many of you here who are screaming for allowing the majority to decide the fate of gay marriage willing to cheer for the same majority who chooses to raise taxes to redistribute wealth to welfare-receiving socialists?
DCGamer on October 10, 2008 at 6:45 PM
That will not clarify the issue. I do not mean California specifically but rather the effect that the events in California have had on the nation as a whole.
aengus on October 10, 2008 at 6:45 PM
why would you live your life according to the theory? when its basically useless, as coyne admits:
To some extent these excesses are not Mindell’s fault, for, if truth be told, evolution hasn’t yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasn’t evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of `like begets like’. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 6:47 PM
How many of you here who are screaming for allowing the majority to decide the fate of gay marriage willing to cheer for the same majority who chooses to raise taxes to redistribute wealth to welfare-receiving socialists?
DCGamer on October 10, 2008 at 6:45 PM
HornetSting on October 10, 2008 at 6:48 PM
No, eugenics is immoral.
I suppose so.
I’m not sure. I’d hope so.
aengus on October 10, 2008 at 6:48 PM
This is the Left working toward Communist Goal Number 26, which states:
To see all Communist Goals for America follow this link.
Maxx on October 10, 2008 at 6:50 PM
Not that I’m one to jump to the defense of right4life, but what are you thinking? Is this a fetish for you?
Count to 10 on October 10, 2008 at 6:51 PM
Good to know. Swallowing is sometimes difficult. I often need help finishing.
Esthier on October 10, 2008 at 6:52 PM
This, aengus, is my point. I see this as a civil rights issue. I do not see an activist court, or at least, an out-of-control activist court.
I think this decision is proper the same way that the Brown vs. the Board of Education decision was proper.
You do not agree. I understand that. I doubt we will persuade each other.
DCGamer on October 10, 2008 at 6:52 PM
yeah, taking away the civil rights of christians.
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 6:54 PM
That wasn’t the question I asked. What am I, a debate moderator?
Count to 10 on October 10, 2008 at 6:54 PM
Thats the oldest trick in the book. Anyone who objects to homosexuality in any way is really… homosexual and in denial. How can you expect anyone to take you seriously when you use this lame, over-used tactic? Its amazing to me that this silly pseudo-Jedi mind trick has survived into the 21st century instead of being left back in 1980s from whence it came.
aengus on October 10, 2008 at 6:54 PM
yeah it is kind of creepy!! thank God for right to carry laws…
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 6:54 PM
Weren’t we fighting just weeks ago?
This is how it always ends up.
Not that I’m complaining…
MadisonConservative on October 10, 2008 at 6:56 PM
See…the slippery slope.
HornetSting on October 10, 2008 at 6:57 PM
This thread is 7 pages? What the heck? I poked my head in to see what was up (last time I checked gay rights were not a big issue in the presidential election so I couldn’t imagine why this thread took off). Imagine my “surprise” to find the all-too-familiar Catholic-bashing.
Let me know when you get to the Mormons…
Y-not on October 10, 2008 at 6:57 PM
Blame right4life. He got everyone’s dander up.
HornetSting on October 10, 2008 at 6:58 PM
This has absolutely no effect on Christians. This decision does not force any church to change their policies regarding marriage. This only affects the civil institution of marriage.
If you are opposed to gay marriage, then don’t have one.
I would absolutely agree with you if this decision in any way affected churches. I would stand with you in the protest lines and sign any petition against forcing churches to do anything against their beliefs. You cannot make the argument, though, that this decision does that.
DCGamer on October 10, 2008 at 6:59 PM
yeah the truth hurts…
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 6:59 PM
It isn’t a civil rights issue. I don’t expect you to understand the difference between civil rights, political rights and radical new concepts granted willy-nilly seeing as nowadays hardly anyone does but I won’t accept your confusion as a point.
aengus on October 10, 2008 at 7:00 PM
Good to know. Swallowing is sometimes difficult. I often need help finishing.
Esthier on October 10, 2008 at 6:52 PM
Don’t we all?!
kareyk on October 10, 2008 at 7:01 PM
No, see, you have to read through the thread so that you find out about the gay sharia projekt that is planning to put all straight people into FEMA camps and gas us to death.
I’m not kidding. There are a couple of loo-loos here actually claiming this. Seriously.
MadisonConservative on October 10, 2008 at 7:03 PM
obviosly it does. I’ve already posted several examples.
no they only lose their tax exempt status, their ability to participate in adoptions, their ability to hire and fire people they choose…
really?
A ministry associated with the United Methodist Church is suing New Jersey officials who threatened to prosecute the ministry for refusing to allow a same-sex civil union ceremony in one of its worship facilities.
The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association of the United Methodist Church filed the federal lawsuit Aug. 11 after a lesbian couple filed a complaint with the state’s civil rights office. The Camp Meeting Association prohibited the lesbians from using its facility for a civil union ceremony.
“Religious groups have the right to make their own decisions without government interference. The government can’t force a private Christian organization to use its property in a way that would violate its own religious beliefs,” said Brian Raum, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which is representing the Camp Meeting Association.
The ministry argues that civil union ceremonies are specifically prohibited according to the doctrines and beliefs of the United Methodist Church.
Furthermore, the Camp Meeting Association says the New Jersey Division on Civil Rights, which has threatened to prosecute the ministry over the civil union, has violated its First Amendment rights to free speech, freedom of expressive association, and free exercise of religion.
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 7:03 PM
Yawn…
HornetSting on October 10, 2008 at 7:03 PM
So are you telling me, aengus, that you know law better than a justice on Connecticut’s supreme court? Where did you study law? What gives you the ability to make such a bold statement? You do realize that better minds than yours argued your side in this case and they lost, right?
DCGamer on October 10, 2008 at 7:03 PM
You say that as if it’s impossible to be one and have the other. >:(
*eats*
Grue in the Attic on October 10, 2008 at 7:05 PM
Pretty popular sport, there must be healthy population of KKK kindred spirits around here.
neuquenguy on October 10, 2008 at 7:05 PM
yeah like the kelo decision…the constitution means whatever some judge wants it to mean..or the recent joke ruling about the death penalty for child abusers…
oh yeah the court knows best….
these ruling are NOT about law, they are an exercise in judicial power.
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 7:06 PM
Like fun it doesn’t
Yeah, right. Its already effected churches in Sweden, Britain, Canada, Holland and…. Boston.
If it can affect Christians in Boston then its not exactly slippery-slope abstract fear-mongering to say it might affect Christians in Connecticut or the rest of the U.S.
That would be nice.
You’re lying.
More bull$hit.
aengus on October 10, 2008 at 7:06 PM
Prove it or shut up. I’m sick of you cretins who think you’re god’s envoy.
MadisonConservative on October 10, 2008 at 7:08 PM
Peacocks!
Sink me!
Think ye, sir,
How those feathered boys love to flaunt their tails!
Stallions!
Zounds, sir!
Hounds sir! Stags!
Of the goosie and the gander, sir
Which gender is the grander, sir?
To render total candor, sir, the spendour is the male’s!
Be an example to your sex
Give your boot a dapper strap
And it’s smarter if your garter has some snap!
Cravats should be flounced about our necks
Wear a nightcap when you nap
Be bewitching with some stitching on your cap!
Now, drape your cape
And puff your cuff
Embroider those lapels!
Be the king of the beasts in pastels!
La, but someone has to strike a pose
And bear the weight of well-tailored clothes
And that is why the Lord created men
Strut, sir!
What, sir?
Roosters do!
Give a cock his comb and the hens will pale!
Bucks! Bulls!
More, sir!
Boars, sir! Rams!
Of the nanny goat and billy, sir
Whose beard is fully wooly, sir?
It’s bully for the billy for he’s willy-nilly male!
Sir, be a lion-hearted prig
Fill those pantaloons with light!
Dangle down a spangle out of sight!
Oh, yes! Be bold, sir!
When it’s cold, slap on that wig
Draw your britches in quite tight
Even more so, and your torso will ignite
Now, smock your frock
Perfume your plume
Let my waistcoat swing!
And the jungle will bow to its king!
La, but someone has to strike a pose
And bear the weight of well-tailored clothes
And that is why the Lord created men
Yes, that is why the Lord created men
Remember what we’re here for
Why we must be dressed to kill
If we have to look like Cleopatra
Then we will!
If you’re out to make a splash, cheri,
Do know your haberdashery!
Buttons, buckles, ruffles and lace
Represent the human race!
La, but someone has to strike a pose
And bear the weight of well-tailored clothes
Each species needs a sex that’s fated
To be highly decorated
That is why the Lord created men
Tav on October 10, 2008 at 7:09 PM
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 7:03 PM
I am unfamiliar with this case, and I will withhold comments since I have only your side of the story. If true, however, I would be very troubled. It should be immediately thrown out of court.
Likewise, I would probably agree with you on your other examples if your presentation of the cases is true.
I do see a trend in this country that attacks Christianity. You come across a bit hysterically, so I have not commented on this, but this trend does trouble me.
DCGamer on October 10, 2008 at 7:09 PM
Yeah, the truth about FEMA death camps and gay agendas that are in league with the blacks to wipe out white devils and of course the Jews are in on it and…wait, where have I heard this before?
Oh yeah.
MadisonConservative on October 10, 2008 at 7:10 PM
Bravo!
HornetSting on October 10, 2008 at 7:10 PM
I just see where it all leads to…
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 7:10 PM
Maybe I missed something, but the Catholic bashing has been minor. Accusations of hatred, on the other hand…
Count to 10 on October 10, 2008 at 7:11 PM
you need to take your blood pressure medicine, and your anti-psychotic pills…
oh and take off the tin-foil…
thanks!
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 7:11 PM
After reading the opinion I can say that I know logic better than any of them. Do they know more isolated facts about law? Sure. But they can’t reason their way out of a paper bag.
Of course, I’m the sort of non-lawyer who thinks the question of “what the definition of ‘is’ is” is a total farce and makes a mockery of the notion of reason.
progressoverpeace on October 10, 2008 at 7:12 PM
Of course you see it that way. Doesn’t make it so. And Brown v. BOE was poorly written. The SCt actually gave school districts 10 years to give people their civil rights. That’s…um…unusual, to say the least. Usually people get their civil rights immediately.
But at least it was based on the Constitution. And logic. It said “you know, separate isn’t equal, and equal is what is demanded.”
Not “hey, for the very first time, we’re going to read this section of this 220 year old document in a completely new way.”
Texas.
So, you aren’t bothered by activist courts. How about Rule of Law, generally?
misterpeasea on October 10, 2008 at 7:12 PM
Um…
MadisonConservative on October 10, 2008 at 7:13 PM
…don’t tell me, let me guess…it was the left one…it’s always the left one….
…this is a grossly simplified story…do we have details? She couldn’t get a man in the area to do it?
Is that anywhere in the report?
Muslims, as well as traditional Christians, are as often tarred with the backwards brush as with the narrow minded brush…to both their credits, they teach modesty, as opposed to flagrant exhibitionism. This should be thought commendable…but in a society such as ours, as full of voyeurs as it is of exhibitionists, it doesn’t compute….
Maybe medical ethics are different in her country. That’s another detail not mentioned.
It’s perilous as well as insulting when not only people but the forces which make life meaningful to them are tossed in the sausage grinder….
Puritan1648 on October 10, 2008 at 7:13 PM
Yeah. It was strange even then though since we generally agreed and seemed to fight over inconsequential things. I’m glad you suggested burying the hatchet when you did. I prefer it this way.
Esthier on October 10, 2008 at 7:14 PM
Nope.
I studied law under the Vicar of Bray in Berkshire. No I’m only joking – I haven’t studied law.
Its not a bold statement. It would even need to be articulated for any human society for the past 5000 years. The most revolutionary-minded Whig or Jacobin would shrink at the thought of such a radical reconfiguration of human society as is being proposed now.
Better minds than mine and the judges who authorised this sham had prevailed for at least 2,500 years.
aengus on October 10, 2008 at 7:14 PM
That’s not a hatchet.
Okay if I bury it still?
MadisonConservative on October 10, 2008 at 7:15 PM
I can’t believe how tortured the logic of these decisions are.
Buy Danish on October 10, 2008 at 7:17 PM
and you are unable to dispute what I said. I have posted several examples to back up what I say, you have done nothing. you’re just a legend in your own mind.
try doing a little research, and maybe a little independent thought, though I doubt thats possible in your case.
right4life on October 10, 2008 at 7:19 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 5 6 7 8 9 ... 17 Next »