AztecLady speaks: Bravo, Connecticut!
Monday, October 13, 2008Posted in: Azteclady Speaks
Tags:Equality, Gay Marriage, Human Rights
On Friday, Connecticut’s Supreme Court ruled that the ban on same sex marriage was unconstitutional. The majority opinion says, in part:
“Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same sex partner of their choice,” Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote in the majority opinion that overturned a lower court finding.
Congratulations to Connecticut! As someone else said, three down and only forty seven more to go. Yay!
But I’m mystified, I confess, by this:
Justice Peter T. Zarella wrote that he believes there is no fundamental right to same-sex marriage, and the court’s majority failed to discuss the purpose of marriage laws, which he said is to “privilege and regulate procreative conduct.”
Zarella added, “The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry. If the state no longer has an interest in the regulation of procreation, then that is a decision for the legislature or the people of the state and not this court.”
Yeah well… the ancient definition of marriage probably didn’t take into account taxes, insurance, medical and funeral arrangements, property issues, wills, and all the other red rape that modern marriages face.
Plus, it’s not as if people started reproducing only after the concept of marriage was introduced, nor as if they stopped reproducing outside of it, after it was.
(Full msnbc.com article here)
Scott
October 13
11:38 am
So much has to do with religious beliefs being put upon those that don’t have the same beliefs. It really bothers me. Even though I consider myself a Christian, my beliefs are mine and shouldn’t be force-fed on others. And besides, I don’t have a problem with same-sex marriage! If it came to a vote of the citizens, I would vote to allow it.
BevQB
October 13
1:30 pm
Heh, good points.
If only that were true.
Roslyn Holcomb
October 13
2:04 pm
I don’t get opposition to same sex marriage at all. What is the big freaking deal? Certainly same-sex marriage in no way undermines my own marriage. And why on earth does the state have an interest in regulating procreation?
Marianne McA
October 13
3:05 pm
It’s not an obvious argument to make.
If you refuse marriage to same-sex couples on the basis that they can’t procreate as a couple, how do you allow older or infertile couples the right to marry?
Sparky
October 13
4:03 pm
“regulating reproduction?!” Pleasee like marriage has ANYTHING to do with reproduction. You can be infertile, you can be 90, you can be many things that would make you unable or unacceptable as a parent and still get married so long as you’re a heterosexual – so this argument is beyond bunk and commonly used by bigots trying to hide their bigotry. And it’s not like marriage and procreation only happen together.
To say nothing that the “traditional” marriage was more about transfering property (woman) from father to husband.
Sam
October 14
3:54 pm
I am glad Connecticut ruled this way. I have to agree with Roslyn. Having a gay couple marry in no way changes my marriage.
As a matter of fact, the people undermining marriage are the ones that a) beat their partner (or kids), b) cheat on their partner (repeatedly) or C) abandon/leave/divorce (repeatedly) their partner(s).
Sam