Skip to main content

View Diary: Connecticut Supreme Court: Marriage Can't Discriminate (201 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Ask yourself... (5+ / 0-)

    If someone who is only allowed to sit at the back of the bus truly has the same rights as the person who can sit anywhere they damn well please.

    I think we covered this in history class -- separate but equal does not give you the same rights.

    [I]n the secret courts of men's hearts, Atticus had no case.

    by TichMarie on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 11:50:07 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  but its NOT seperate (0+ / 0-)

      if they have the same rights. the quality or all black schools were not equal to the quality of all white schools - the right to visit a partner in a hospital or the right to declare a new tax status is EQUAL whether you're straight or gay.

      words matter, sure. but you cant say this is a violation of seperate but equal if the only thing not equal is a word, not a set of rights.

      •  And I can tell you from my own life experience (8+ / 0-)

        Having been a "domestic partner" and now being a married women that the quality of being a domestic partner is not equal to the quality of being married.

        It is a simple as that.

        When I say I'm married, everyone understands what that means -- I don't have to explain it and I don't have to -- merely by the act of saying that -- "out" myself to strangers (as I had to do when I told them I was a domestic partner) (that's what's called an invasion of my privacy rights, btw).  What I don't think you understand is that being in a relationship that is called a marriage is, in and of itself, qualitatively different.

        It's like saying that you and I will be given the same job, with all the same duties -- but my title will be "Senior Shitbag Manager" and you will be called "Waste Control Expert."  I think we all recognize that words can and do have serious implications in our society that can affect the fundamental quality of the very things they are used to describe.

        [I]n the secret courts of men's hearts, Atticus had no case.

        by TichMarie on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 12:04:19 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  But it is seperate if... (3+ / 0-)

        ...straight couples get marriage licenses from the government and gay couples get civil union licenses.

      •  It's not just a word (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pucknomad, Killer of Sacred Cows

        These things that are excluded from civil unions that a marriage enjoys include that whole range of social esteem and the respect due to that commitment that either cannot be adequately represented in the law, or that should not be represented in the law, in part, because civil unions lack a significant cultural history.  As I understand civil rights in general, they are those things or effects which you demand from others, on the condition that they demand those same things as well.  One is certainly justified in demanding this sort of unquantifiable respect and esteem, as it is expected of him or her to respect these commitments of others in a like manner.  It doesn't mean people aren't going to treat "gay marriages" differently than "straight marriages."  It does mean that this court won't let the currently empowered vocal minority use the State to hide their bigotry behind a dysphemism.

        While the voices of dissent are many, reason has but one voice. -lizardbox

        by Nellebracht on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 12:27:36 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  They don't have the same rights. Read the (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pucknomad, Killer of Sacred Cows

        CT ruling.

        If you don't have an earth-shaking idea, get one, you'll love building a better world.

        by hestal on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 12:30:20 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If it's not the same word, it's not the same (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pucknomad

        thing.

        The thing is, as stated by TichMarie, words DO matter. Words have meaning, words have impact. Words wound, words heal, words CONVEY. WHAT we say IS as important as HOW we say it.

        People thought George Bush was nuts when he uttered that line about how words mean what he wants them to mean, but that really is a part of the conservative ideology, to make words mean something other than what they mean to most people. "Domestic partnership" does not convey the same sense of love, committment and unity as the word "marriage" does. So get it through your thick fucking skulls that the fucking word is important!

        •  Screw the word. I don't want it (0+ / 0-)

          Let the Mormons, Baptists, Witchdoctors, KKK or the freaking bridge club throw their blessings at whatever twaddle they like.  

          As far as I'm concerned the word is as ruined for me as  the sacrament Joe and Jill SixPack serve with their lips and sphincters.

          I say stop the priests, elders and faith-healers from dispensing instruments of CIVIL dispensations and let them have their incantations, magic drawers and miracle water jugs.  

          Give me equal rights under the law and call it "Fred" for all I care.  

          I'll decide whether to pray to some alien-spaghetti-demilord or not -- I'll be just as happy.  

          I'll be even happier, should the whole bunch of fundie magic-junkies boycott my the "unnatural abomination" that is my LEGAL arrangement with our constitution.  

          (Wow. I feel better :o  We now resume your regularly scheduled program of apologetics.)

          -5.75 -5.85 Belief in absolutes is the laziest form of delusion.

          by FeastOr on Fri Oct 10, 2008 at 02:47:04 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Wrong (0+ / 0-)

        Try reading the court ruling. I'll make it easy for you with someexcerpts from an earlier diary:

        the institution of marriage carries with it a status and significance that the newly created classification of civil unions does not embody, the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm.

        Especially in light of the long and undisputed history of invidious discrimination that gay persons have suffered; see part V A of this opinion; we cannot discount the plaintiffs’ assertion that the legislature, in establishing a statutory scheme consigning same sex couples to civil unions, has relegated them to an inferior status,
        in essence, declaring them to be unworthy of the institution of marriage. In other words,

        ‘‘[b]y excluding samesex couples from civil marriage, the [s]tate declares that it is legitimate to differentiate between their commitments and the commitments of heterosexual couples.  Ultimately, the message is that what same-sex couples have is not as important or as significant as ‘real’ marriage, that such lesser relationships cannot have the name of marriage.’’

        Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal rights under our law, they are by no means ‘‘equal.’’

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site