Judge enters final ruling, making Connecticut 2nd state now allowing gay marriage

[n2doc]

Source: MSNBC

update with link

Read more: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27677272/

[n2doc]

1. some text:

NEW HAVEN, Conn. - While there's anger and recriminations in California's gay-rights movement after voters there banned same-sex marriage, gay couples in Connecticut are at the opposite extreme: They're getting ready to exchange vows.

A hearing Wednesday morning, Superior Court Judge Jonathan Silbert entered the final judgment in the case that allows same-sex marriages in Connecticut. Couples now are allowed to pick up marriage license forms at town and city clerk's offices.

It's unclear how many same-sex couples will wed. According to the state public health department, there have been 2,032 civil union licenses issued in Connecticut between Oct. 2005 and July 2008.

The Connecticut Supreme Court ruled 4-3 on Oct. 10 that same-sex couples have the right to wed rather than accept a civil union law designed to give them the same rights as married couples.

[blueraven95]

2. Proud to K&R

[mrs_p]

3. yes

:bounce:

[xchrom]

4. recommend

[Stinky The Clown]

5. As it should be

K&R

[GoddessOfGuinness]

6. I hope it's contagious!

:bounce:

[Ms. Toad]

10. It will be.

My prediction is that within 10 years, at lest within the United States, there will be marriage equality. Compared to the 27+ year path I've been on personally, things are moving at lightning speed the past 5 years. (The opposition is growing more vocal - but that often happens just before the dam breaks.)

[GoddessOfGuinness]

54. I'm sorry you've had to wait so long...

and I'll do whatever I can to push the issue. I get so tired of hearing people say "We're not ready for that" or "That issue will cost us the election". It tells me that there are too many self-professed supporters of same-sex marriage that don't really care because it doesn't affect their personal lives.

There's no time like immediately for civil rights. :hug::hug::hug:

[Ms. Toad]

58. My only real regret about it taking so long

is that because our marriage was not recognized, my daughter does not have a legal relationship with my spouse (that was the basis of the court decision denying the second parent adoption). Because she became an adult this summer, we may not ever be able to establish that legal relationship.

Otherwise, although it wasn't a pleasant path by any means, I know that our very open struggle has changed the hearts and minds of many people who are now walking hand in hand with us rather than blocking our path.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

62. I would think that a good lawyer could help...

if the rest of the country can get over their weirdness.

[Ms. Toad]

64. We had Lambda for the first go-round...

:o We have offered to be available for a new Loving v. Virginia challenge via the adoption statutes . . . but the time is not right

The issue (once the country gets over its weirdness) is that is harder to adopt an adult than a child. There are some exceptions for adults who lived with the adopting parent as a child - but generally the presumption is there is no real reason to permit competent adults to be adopted.

We'll look again when either there is marriage equality or the Ohio adoption laws change.

[GoddessOfGuinness]

65. Isn't there?

What about in cases where a parental figure is incapacitated? Shouldn't the child be able to make medical decisions and handle the estate if the parental figure's spouse is unavailable for any reason?

Or what about the opposite situation...If the child is unable to care for himself and no birth parent or spouse is available to help?

[Ms. Toad]

67. Lots of expensive legal documents

:crazy:

There are all sorts of powers of attorneys, or guardianships that can be created.
That authority doesn't have to be created via family relationships.

The adoption law in Ohio requires that all current parents have to terminate their parental rights in order to create parental rights for prospective parents. The only exception is for stepparents - the biological parent doesn't have to terminate parental rights in order for the stepparent to adopt - but here's the catch - you can only qualify for the stepparent exception if the state recognizes the marriage that created the stepparent.

There's no way we would terminate my parental rights so that my spouse can be granted parental rights. (Switching one parent for another doesn't do us much good since the goal is to have two parents, not a different single parent. In addition, there is no guarantee they would grant the adoption anyway. Once my rights are terminated, I would have no more say and the court is not obligated to assign parental rights to the person I choose.)

So - as I said, there are some exceptions for adult children who lived with the adopting parent as a child. We haven't specifically researched it yet, since it doesn't do us any good until we have a marriage the state will recognize.

[AlbertCat]

84. it doesn't affect their personal lives.

In a strange kinda way.....THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT!

[ebdarcy]

7. Woohoo Connecticut!

Very nice. :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

[nichomachus]

8. I'm so happy for you all in CT

Here's hoping we get good news this week in CA too.

[Kajsa]

15. Nichomachus, is there a ruling

coming this week?

Can this nightmare come to an end by that time?

[nichomachus]

40. It could be

Yesterday a spokesperson for the court said the ruling could come as early as this week. I had earlier heard next year -- maybe January. The sooner the better as far as I'm concerned.

[Kajsa]

66. You are so right.

I hope we get a ruling striking down '8', soon.

[AldebTX]

9. This Whole Being Allowed to Vote

on other people's rights argument by the opposition bothers me.

I really think in states like California, Arizona, and Florida we need to put ballot initiatives on the books denying divorce, etc...

We only want to save their obviously weak and threatened marriages.

[123infinity]

11. Wonder how they would like "one man, one woman, one time"

:shrug:

[BR_Parkway]

12. 1 man, 1 woman - forever and ever - if they want to save marriage

then ban divorce. Oh yeah, while we're voting - lets make it retroactive!

[n2doc]

16. Aaaand...then throw all the folks on 2nd or third marriages in jail for bigamy!

Starting with McCain....

[TrogL]

52. Don't forget stoning for adultery

[Castleman]

38. As a friend of mine said

"When do I get to vote on what rights straight people can or can't have?"

[Bryn]

61. and Arkansas, too!

They put no or yes to ban gay/single people from being able to foster/adopt children on the ballot and it passed to ban. Ugh!

Anyway, way to go, CT! :bounce:

[AlbertCat]

85. As if married people are all straight.

Perhaps they should head down to the local "meat rack" at around 4:30 to see all the business men showing up for a quick BJ before going home to dinner with the wife and kids.

Seriously. I had a friend who liked to "service" this type. The stories he would tell! It got so bad at the Carolina Beach State Park, they had to put up cameras.
And no it wasn't a bunch of mincing gays in feather boas, it was coat and tie 45-50 year old married men. (Personally, I don't condone sex in public places...straight or gay)

Why do these states and the USA in general refuse to see reality?

[AntiFascist]

79. This is what the CA Supreme Court ruling will decide...

at least in California. People should not be able to change the State Constitution (so easily) in significant ways concerning Fundamental Rights of protected minorities. Several amicus briefs have been filed arguing this point over and over again from all sorts of angles. The people of California have already decided this in their state constitution, where a revision process would be necessary involving the legislature first. The problem for the Prop 8 campaign was that the proposition was drafted before the CA marriage ruling.

[wryter2000]

13. Yay, CT!

The wave of the future!

[Kajsa]

14. This makes me so happy.

I'm glad Connecticut has emerged from
the Dark Ages of thinking.

:)

I'm hoping we can follow.

Hurray for Connecticut!!

:toast:

[mnhtnbb]

17. Hooray for CT!

[helderheid]

18. YEAH CT!!!!

[mindfulNJ]

19. Yay! I'm proud of my home state:)

Does this make up a little for Lieberman?:hide:

[dixiegrrrrl]

29. No.... 2 wrongs don't = one right, sorry.

Love ya, anyway, tho.

[TommyO]

55. What exactly do you mean by two wrongs?

[dixiegrrrrl]

63. As I see it..

Lieberman was 2000 Democrat candidate for VP.

Then switched from being a full Party Dem to being an
"independent Dem".
Then acted like a Repug when running 2 steps behind McCain this campaign.


Then ran back to Dems saying "I'm sorry, I am really a Dem, sort of, and want to keep my Dem. chairmanship, but if you don't let me do that , I will go over to the Repug side".

I may have miscounted, that sounds like 3 wrongs.

Could just be me, tho.
And KO
And Maddow
And a few dozen newspapers and mags and political blogs and a whole bunch of people in Congress.

edit:
oh, then there is this Youtube news bit of this morning:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x238911

[varun]

73. Lieberman will be history

in 2010 when he is up for re-election

[CatholicEdHead]

20. Good job CT now fight off this ballot measure for a Constitutional Convention

pushed by the CT Catholic Bishops and the Knights of Columbus. :puke:

[mindfulNJ]

21. It was already defeated

60 to 40 I believe.:)

[CatholicEdHead]

23. Glad to hear that

[JerseygirlCT]

60. We did.

With a big yawn.

Despite their ad campaign. (Which was good, I have to admit! Very warm and fuzzy). CT said, "thanks, but no thanks".

[Jankyn]

22. Congratulations, CT! n/t

[Ohio Joe]

Congrats CT

It is nice to see this, it will be even better when all states get on board and grant civil rights to all.

[LynzM]

24. Am proud to live here!

:D Go CT! :bounce:

[Rockholm]

25. Congratulations Connecticut !!!!

Once again, New England leads the way forward!

[wroberts189]

26. If your angry at prop8 ..look to the East and get packing. eom

[calico1]

27. From what I understand, you don't have to be a CT

resident to get married here. I was listening on the radio on the way home yesterday to a JP. She said her phone was ringing off the hook with requests, many from out of state.

[n2doc]

31. Yep, But I'll bet some are going to vote with their dollars/feet n/t

[greeneyedboy]

28. no such thing as "gay marriage"

Nobody's getting "gay marriage license" or "hetero marriage license" paperwork. Connecticut now issues MARRIAGE licenses for everyone, as does Massachusetts, and soon California's Supreme Court will invalidate the marriage discrimination initiative that voters approved last week.

[Maestro]

36. Good point.

I don't have a gay or hetero marriage license. I just have a marriage license.

[ronnykmarshall]

30. Good for CT!!

Welcome to the club!

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v4.1
==================



This week is our fourth quarter 2008 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[orleans]

33. i saw that! thank you connecticut! n/t

[LiberalFighter]

34. Too bad the judge didn't rule that Lieberman is not permitted to marry Bush.

[RedLetterRev]

35. Proud and Relieved to K&R

:woohoo: Awright Connecticut!

A few weeks back I asked my partner if after nearly 13 years I could make an honest man of him when Connecticut said we could get married.

He said yes! :woohoo: again!

Now we've gotta get a doggy-sitter so we can do the marathon drive (about 14 hours each way). Dunno when it'll be, but stay tuned.

I hope folks will also remember to show up at actions this Saturday in solidarity with folks in California. My partner and I are attending in NC. Hope to see some DU'ers there!

[BlueJazz]

51. Might actually be cheaper to Fly or if flyings not you and your Partners "thing"...

..maybe a Train ??
Oh..and Congratulations! :)

[Castleman]

37. Yay for Connecticut!

This may sound crazy, but can't any of these haters use their common sense and see what a boon to an economy gay marriage can be? If you're in the catering, flowers, party rentals, DJ'ing, musician, etc. business more marriages=more money. It's not rocket science. Connecticut will see a rise in tourist dollars as a result, and quite frankly, it's not that special as tourism goes. If Washington legalized it? In the Emerald City? The Puget Sound would be awash in cash...:-)

[2QT2BSTR8]

39. Ms. Toad - post 10 - I respectfully disagree with you on this matter

I think that the rulings in CA and FL will set the GLBT movement back a decade and it will take us another 20 years if not more to gain marriage equality.

[ieoeja]

42. Every election those of you who hate gays win ... by less than the time before.

So, no, the narrow result in CA proves this is moving forward while you sit mired in the past.

I really don't understand Conservatives. How can someone actually convince themselves that society is never, ever going to change?

[greeneyedboy]

44. why do you think so?

CA: Will be invalidated by the court or worst case repealed by voters or legislature within 2 years.

CT and MA: Marriage equality is the law and will remain so.

NJ, NY, VT, RI: I'd bet full marriage equality will happen very soon in these states.

DOMA: Barack Obama promised to get it repealed. I hold him to that promise. Once that's done, it won't be long before we have a perfect case to bring to the SCOTUS--a wholesome taxpaying couple who married in CT but can't get a green card, or a widow(er) who isn't receiving Social Security benefits and a pension after her/his spouse dies, for example--and off we go.

FL, AZ, AS, all the other states with marriage discrimination written into their constitutions: will stay as is until the matter reaches the SCOTUS.

SCOTUS: Justices Stevens, Souter, and Ginsburg are likely to retire soon. I read somewhere that even Scalia was considering leaving the court because he wanted to do more advocacy--wouldn't that be fantastic? (The ABA Journal has an article on likely replacements here: http://abajournal.com/news/experts_predict_supreme_court_retirements_and_likely_replacements ). One more reason we must keep the pressure on our Democratic officeholders re: making good court appointments and backing them up with the full strength of our majority. However, even in a worst-case scenario, with this court or a new one that's no better, we have some good precedent on privacy and equal protection: Griswold v. Connecticut, Romer v. Evans, Lawrence v. Texas.

[Ms. Toad]

56. All I can say is I've been actively working in this arena

for 27+ years (including being the first in my faith community to be married 14+ years ago - after an 8 year struggle, being the only appellate court case in Ohio on second parent adoption (we lost that one), and being legally married 3+ years ago in Canada). I have seen amazing and rapidly increasing progress in recent years compared to the early years.

California is absolutely a discouraging travesty, but the vote was much closer than it was just a couple of years ago, and there is a good chance it will be overturned either by court challenge or by a ballot initiative supported by a smart campaign to repeal the amendment in a couple of years.

Florida, I am sorry to say, was expected. That the vote was expected does not ease the enormous pain of those living there (or the pain of living there and having all of the public outrage and sympathy directed toward California).

There were a number of states that carried anti-miscegenation laws on their books for decades after Loving v. Virginia; laws that were meaningless because all an interracial couple had to do to be legally married was to cross the border into another state, get married, and their marriage had to be recognized even though the couple could not legally get married in their home state. In fact - Massachusetts - the first state to legally marry same gender couples STILL carried an anti-miscegenation law on its books at the time same gender marriages became legal, and was the reason that many out of state couples did not initially go to Massachusetts to marry. (It did not expressly bar interracial marriages; rather it used the code that if you could not be legally married in your home state then Massachusetts could not marry you - or that one member of the couple had to be a resident of Mass. - I forget which variation, but the purpose was to prevent interracial couples from marrying in Mass. when they could not marry at home.)

I fully expect same gender marriage to follow the same path. More and more states will add themselves to the few that now offer marriage equality - a process that will be easier as the new adults of today age and begin to take control of the political institutions of our nation. More moderate Supreme Court Justices will be appointed, and a Loving v. Virginia case will succeed, and it will be all over because the discriminatory laws still on the books of regressive states will be as irrelevant as the anti-miscegenation laws were post Loving v. Virginia).

So - I am very hopeful.

[Rebubula]

41. Only 48 to go...

Still...very nice Connecticut!!!!

:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: illegal codesmilie_remote(':bounce:')

[McCamy Taylor]

43. Time for package tours of Conn. Increase their tourism and other states may follow.

[Window]

45. Fantastic news!

:kick:

[sellitman]

46. Glad to be here. (CT Resident)

I'm happier for the people who this will have great bearing on.

Nice job CT!!!!!!!

[happygoluckytoyou]

47. SARAH PALIN "marriage is between 1 man, 1 woman, 1 husbands ex-business partner"

[happygoluckytoyou]

48. JOHN MCCAIN "marriage is defined as 1 man, 1 woman, 1 divorce, 1 other woman"

[happygoluckytoyou]

49. MITT ROMNEY "marriage is between 1 man, 1 woman, 1 other woman, 1 other woman..."

[happygoluckytoyou]

50. LARRY CRAIG "marriage is between 1 man, 1 woman, what happens at the airport stays at the airport"

[bullwinkle428]

59. DAVID VITTER "marriage is between 1 man, 1 woman, 1 mistress, & 1 box of Pampers"

[varun]

75. TED HAGGARD "marriage is between 1 man, 1 woman, and 1 male escort"

http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2006-11-05-haggard-evangelist-sex_x.htm?loc=interstitialskip

Ousted evangelical leader confesses to followers, admits 'sexual immorality'
Updated 11/6/2006

COLORADO SPRINGS (AP) — Less than 24 hours after he was fired from the pulpit of the evangelical megachurch he founded, the Rev. Ted Haggard confessed to his followers Sunday that he was guilty of "sexual immorality."...

[trickyguy]

53. Congratulations Connecticut. We will plod along state by state until

serving President Barack Obama strikes down the prohibitions against gay marriage

in every state constitution saying that discrimination against anyone does not belong there

and so gay marriage becomes the law of the land.

I truly believe he will see it that way once he becomes Chief Executive.

One can only hope. :bounce:

[LostinVA]

57. PE Obama will never, ever do that

:sigh:

[rhett o rick]

86. I notice that you do not accept personal messages. Why is that? nm

[greeneyedboy]

68. hooray for the Nutmeg State!

[Maraya1969]

69. I bet the anti-choice people are sending around the petition right now

to ban it is the next elected. At least they will have to wait 2 years.

If I am wrong please tell me.

[WillyT]

70. Big K & R !!!

:woohoo:

:kick:

[Jersey Ginny]

71. Great news! New Jersey is next!!! n/t

[Zhade]

72. WOOHOO! JUSTICE!

NT!

[varun]

74. I am proud to be a resident of CT

Hurray!

[Mollis]

76. Good for Connecticut!

Now lets hope we get more sensible people in Cali.
And let's hope they don't get a prop in two years trying to ban it.

[AllyCat]

77. Way to go, CT!!!

Can you give the rest of us some pointers on how to do this in our bigoted states?????

[SeattleGirl]

78. Hooray for Connecticut!

Did you see that, California? Did you see that, America?

Equal rights for the GLTB community!!

[machI]

80. Kicked and Recommended

[machI]

81. We are going to win in California too

I can only hope Florida is in the que also.

[Dystopian]

82. KandR n/t

peace~

[connecticut yankee]

83. I'm so proud

to be a Nutmegger!

:woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: :woohoo: