According to MSNBC and other outlets, the Supreme Court of Connecticut has taken it on itself to redefine "marriage" to include the union of two homosexuals.
Justices overturned a lower court ruling and found in favor of the plaintiffs, who said the state's marriage law discriminates against them because it applies only to heterosexual couples, therefore denying gay couples the financial, social and emotional benefits of marriage.
"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.
"To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others," Palmer wrote.
Actually, what these activist judges are doing is awarding a special right to do what has never and should never be allowed: to call something "marriage" when by nature it can never be "marriage."
Homosexuals already have the same right as everyone else to marry someone of the opposite sex. However, they don't want the same right that everyone else has; they want to engage in an unnatural, immoral, unhealthy and illegitimate sexual behavior and have society slap a label of legitimacy on it by calling it "marriage."
If we are going to allow homosexuals to counterfeit marriage, we might as well allow people to counterfeit U.S. currency; the latter would actually do less damage to the moral fiber and health of our society than would the former.
Governor M. Jodi Rell is a gutless wonder at best for stating she will not fight the ruling. She could actually ignore it. She is only obligated to obey the law and the Constitution, and since neither allow this kind of assault on marriage and family, she is under no obligation to obey the lawless, made-up dictates of a bunch of self-appointed social engineers.
As for these black-robed oligarchs, it really is overdue for Americans to start impeaching judges who overstep their bounds and play legislator. The people have a right to call for the impeachment of officials who abuse their power--and this is an abuse of power of the highest order.
There is nothing in the Connecticut constitution to justify allowing two homosexuals to call their union "marriage" any more than there is something to justify a man marrying three women or a woman marrying an elm tree.
Marriage is and has always been between a man and a woman. Marriage is an institution designed by God to bring a man and a woman together in committed physical and emotional union for the purpose of creating a family. Homosexual couples by their very nature cannot create a family; at best, they could only adopt a child into their immoral and unhealthy environment.
Marriage also provides a vital benefit for the state, and the state has a compelling interest in guarding marriage from being hijacked by homosexual activists and their "useful idiots" on the court.
Marriage produces the next generation to carry on a society, along with the economy and everything else that sustains that society. Marriage provides a safe, stable, healthy and loving environment in which that next generation can be nurtured and raised into healthy, well-adjusted adults.
Homosexuals have much higher rates of promiscuity, AIDS, syphilis, gonorrhea, hepatitis, herpes, HPV, depression, substance abuse, suicide and domestic violence. Even among homosexual relationships where monogamy is claimed, the reality bears no resemblance whatsoever to what any reasonable person would recognize as monogamy.
Not only can children not naturally result from homosexual unions (even if you slap the label "marriage" on it), placing children into an environment like this, even by adoption, is an act of profound dereliction for the safety and welfare of the child.
What's more, placing a child into a homosexual home deliberately deprives the child of either a mother or father. I think Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) Senior Legal Counsel Brian Raum said it best when he said today: “We ask, which parent doesn’t matter: a mom or a dad?”
Only those more concerned about their own fulfillment than the welfare of a child would advocate such insanity, and only those afraid of being called "intolerant" or "homophobic" would tolerate it.
Marriage is NOT, as homosexual activists and activist judges seem to think, a label to slap on a sexual relationship to give it an air of legitimacy.
Though this imposition of judicial will on the people of Connecticut is 100% wrong, given our current environment of homosexual and judicial activism, the people of Connecticut really should have known better and moved to defend themselves earlier.
We have examples from Massachusetts and California already that, in the absence of spelling out the obvious in the constitution, unelected black-robed oligarchs have shown their eagerness to re-engineer society and will squash law and mere common sense as easily and thoughtlessly as you or I might squash an ant on the sidewalk.
Currently 27 states have amendments in their constitutions which spell out what used to be so universally understood that it didn't even need to be said: that marriage can only be between a man and a woman. The remaining 23 states--especially those not yet besieged as California, Massachusetts and Connecticut are--should take heed and immediately begin efforts to put marriage into their constitutions if they haven't already begun.
These judges should be impeached immediately and removed from power, and replaced with judges who will respect the constitution, law, morality and the people they ostensibly serve.
And if Governor Rell participates in this hijacking of marriage and family, she should be removed as well.
The American people and the people of their respective states are going to have to rise up and take back their states, their country and their society if they don't want to see them literally go down the toilet.
For too long we have slumbered under the illusion that morality in public life didn't matter, and for too long we have naively trusted our officials to do the right thing.
We must realize that time has passed. We must realize it is time for the people to take back their government and their society. If we do not, we will have a government and a society which we no longer recognize...and will have only ourselves to blame.
10 comments:
I disagree with this ruling, insofar as it overrides the will of the people and forces them to accept something they don't want. I think that's always wrong.
But if the majority of a state's population is in favor of legal rights for gay couples, and achieves that goal through legislation rather than a court ruling, then you, being in the minority, would have no right to stop them. You'd just have to suck it up and deal with it.
That said, I do believe that same-sex relationships should be legally recognized. But infringing on the rights of others and re-interpreting existing laws rather than creating new ones is not the way to do it.
re: Bob Ellis
Methinks he doth protest too much.
I'm a support of gay marriage, but this decision worries me. It's really bad timing. I worry that it will galvanize the support for the marriage ban in California. It will be a sad sad day if Calinfornia, of all places, doesn't support gay rights.
(And yes Bob I know you'll disagree with my opinion of gay marriage. We've argued about this before to no end.)
The courts and law protect religious expression. Nobody goes into churches or people's homes to stop them teaching their children whatever they want them taught. But if a person is gay, they're denied access to the law that protects each party in a committed relationship and grants them numerous rights. The religious who oppose marriage for same-sex couples don't have the "special right" to deny others access to the law...nor do they have the "special right" to deny citizens the benefits of government...yet they claim these "special rights."
And time and again they are proven wrong in courts...courts who protect religious expression. Bob will disagree...I hear his blood boiling now. Happy I could help you stew in your own juices, Bob.
It's good to know that my very existence as a homosexual is an affront to someone.
Anonymous 4:20, Methinks good people have been too quiet for too long and allowed us to reach this pitiful point.
You're right about one thing, Haggs: if there's a silver lining to this lawbreaking and usurpation by the Connecticut court, it could turn out to be a bucket of cold water to wake up those who think the assault on marriage and family will go away if we just ignore it.
That must be a pretty sad existence, Barry, to enjoy being an affront to people and to what is right.
You and I both know homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else; what homosexual activists want is a new and special right to hijack the institution of marriage and call their relationships by a name that lends legitimacy to a relationship which by its very nature can never be legitimate.
The only thing that's been proven in the courts is that we have too many judges with no moral compass, who are willing to ignore their oath of office and subvert not only our form of government but society itself.
And just like every time evil makes inroads, we will eventually overcome.
Special rights?!
We insist that heterosexuals have the same right to marry someone of the same sex!
Must be hard being a bigot nowadays!
There is no right to do what is immoral, unnatural and unhealthy, Anonymous 12:34.
Must be tough for some folks to figure out the obvious...obviously.
You make me sick.
Post a Comment