Yeah, CT! Only 47 left...

Good news.

Governor Rell said she wouldn't fight it, but that doesn't mean much. Nothing is ever permenant when it comes to these sort of things, which is good and bad depending on the issue.

So good for now and considering Connecticut is a historically left-leaning state that's probably good as well.

I'm curious what the people who are against same-sex rights but for "letting the states decide" will do now. Some will no doubt want a national consitutional ammendment, but hopefully many will say that the state decided, just not in their favor.

As far as myself goes, I'm happy with the ruling but would rather see this sort of ruling happen nationally.

Congrats to all the CT couples who will no doubt be running to the court house soon! Yay!

Yay!!! Such great news!

It is curious that Liberal feminists fail to see that gay rights actually undermine civil/women's rights. If you equate one's sexual acts with one's race and gender you reduce race and gender to matters of action as well. That is a very reductionist view of rights, in that they are based on action instead of the way one was born.

So if action is key to being identified with a particular group, like homosexual activity, then a white, asian, or hispanic person could become black by engaging in whatever activity is perceived to be as apart of black culture. That is absurd and should be rejected just as the logic of gay rights, there is something sacred about one's racial identity and gay rights are assaulting that. We should show tolerance for homosexuals but that does not meet equating it to being born black, hispanic, white, or female.

http://whyimnotademocrat.blogspot.com/2008/10/episcopal-church-splits-over.html

Wow! This makes me really happy. Hopefully Illinois will follow sometime in the near future.

Yay! The rest of the tri-state area (and really, the nation) should follow suit now.

"If you equate one's sexual acts with one's race and gender you reduce race and gender to matters of action as well."

LOL, WHAT? "Sexual acts"? Sexuality does not have to do with "sexual acts." And sexuality is NOT THE SAME THING AS GENDER AND RACE. Your logic is ... odd, to say the least. And it fails.

@ bluecollarphilosopher

I registered just to response to this, though I suspect this may be trolling. It's important to point out.

Gender is not "who you are". It is a product of social interaction (important: action). Some have argued that the concept race is also a product of social interaction, and I agree. So when we talk about gender equality, civil rights, and queer rights, we're talking about counting the institutitionalized ways our society thinks and talks about concepts like race, gender, and sexual orientation. So, no, queer rights don't undermine civil rights and gender equity.

I must say, the timing of this decision could be a lot better, with the Prop 8 polls already looking dicey. Still, I'm glad the court reached the right conclusion.

Those interested in the reasoning of the decision can visit my blog, Polymorphous Perversity, where I have a series of posts about it.

Also, bluecollarphilosopher does it again! (If by "it" you mean "amusingly fails to make a lick of sense.") If homos have constitutional rights, black folks will lose their coveted spot in the hierarchy of the oppressed! I love it!

@ bluecollarphilosopher

It is curious that conservative bigots fail to see that your objection to gay rights undermines religion freedom. If you object to one's sexuality because it is a choice, you inadvertently hurt everyone freedom to practice religion, because faith in god is a choice. That is a very reductionist view of rights, by your logic your faith should not be protected, because it’s a choice.

So if you hate that action is key to being identified with a particular group, like homosexual activity, then willfully choosing to believe in jesus makes you a Christian, is ridiculous and your rights to freedom of religion shouldn’t be protected. That is so absurd, it should be rejected, there is something sacred about one's religious identity and your views on gay rights are assaulting that. We should show tolerance for homosexuals, and recognize the parallels between freedom of religion, and freedom to marry who you like.

That is of course making the assumption it is a choice.

good for them.

bluecollar"philosopher",
Gawd that is a stupid argument. What are you? An MRA, homophobe, right wing republican? What variety of troll are we privy to today? Its like a crappy menu.

YEAH FOR ANOTHER WIN FOR HOMOSEXUAL MARRIAGE! Hopefully, more states will follow!

Yeah for CT!!!!!! I hope that more states follow along.

"If homos have constitutional rights, black folks will lose their coveted spot in the hierarchy of the oppressed!"

Love that summary!Hilarious! Sums up every stupid argument these MRAs, anti-feminists, homophobes, KKK, whatever, make.

Yeah for CT!!!!!!!! Hopefully other states will do the same soon.

*cheer*
Hooray for equal rights! :D

@ bluecollarphilosopher

So "sexual choices" are the reason behind holding back same-sex rights? Interesting.

Sexual choices were also one of the reasons why inter-racial marriages weren't allowed for a long time. White women were shamed using such phrases as "she's with a black man, she clearly must be into sex". People couldn't get past the fact the sex part.

Thankfully eventually people realized that, shockingly, people don't get married because of sex. They get married because they're in love. That's true for whites, blacks, Christians, other religions, and gays as well.

Great news! I hope more states follow. I've been so frustrated the past few weeks with all the negative campaigning going on, and it's heartening to know that things do change for the better.

Oh, thank you Connecticut, you made my day.

Aaronstack, that was fantastic.

Yay! I am always discreet about being from connecticut, but now i have something to be proud about! YES!

Yay! I was really glad to hear that. It's still up in the air in CA though, sadly: http://www.eqca.org

Whenever a conservative idea gets closer to death, I feel better about life in general. This’ll last me for the weekend.

Hooray!

*dances*

(oh, and yay Aaronstack! I feel we are kindred spirits. I always use the religion argument as well.)

*dances*

(oh, and yay Aaronstack! I feel we are kindred spirits. I always use the religion argument as well.)

Religion is not like race, ethnicity or sex. Belief in some sort of magic sky fairy aside from being kind of stupid is an acquired idiosyncrasy.

One subject to getting over through education and deprogramming. Therefore religion should not be a protected category.

Marriage is a contract freely entered into by two people who have reached the age of adult agency.

It has nothing to do with religion. If religions want to perform words of superstition in some strange ritual so be it. But for legal recognition one needs the state to issue the paper work.

yay! This is awesome! :)

Yet another reason why bluecollar"philosopher" is cracktastically wrong:

The roots of sexism lie in the notion that men are supposed to adhere to one strict set of behaviours, women to another set. As Brown vs. Board of Education established, "separate but equal" doesn't work -- one side is always relegated to an inferior status.

To keep the hierarchy intact, "gender outlaw" behaviour is suppressed or punished. Therefore, it's logical for those of us who want to dismantle the hierarchy to support GLBT folk.

This is a very positive step,

Hopefully it sends a message to other 'western' states.

This makes me so happy, especially since I am currently scared out of my mind that we are going to lose marriage here in CA... the Attorney General said that my marriage will be safe, but I worry that it will still be challenged somehow...

Anyone in the US, *please* donate your time and/or money to No on 8! We need it now more than ever!

Hey, FemWarrior: Go, us! I'd almost say this makes up for our majority voting for Liberman, but... it doesn't.

That said, while my beloved home state now allows homosexual couples to marry, that is by no means a right guaranteed in the future. A referendum for a state Constitutional Convention is on our November ballots, and I've no doubt that marriage's definition will be one of the issues discussed should such a convention occur. Will the court's decision remain legal under a revised Constitution? I don't know.

I *do* know that the Convention will be populated by delegates- that is, politicians and lobbyists. I urge Connecticut my fellow residents to know their representatives, know their representatives' opponents (should the opponents win in November), and know these people's opinions on the issues important to the citizens of our state. That way, when you see the ballot category for a Constitutional Convention, you'll be able to vote your truth.

I am soooooo happy that gay marriage is becoming available but we seriously have to stop prop 8. They basically want to ban gay marriage and it's getting me angry (specially since I just found out my neighbors have a "yes on prop 8" sign on their lawn. I just want to go and destroy it already.)

One down, many more to go. I'm glad change is beginning to happen in the USA. I've had to move to Europe from the USA just so i can have a recognized relationship with my partner. Hopefully, the USA will catch up.

@NC-mama - You have said "It is curious that Liberal feminists fail to see that gay rights actually undermine civil/women's rights"

As a black woman, a feminist and a lesbian, I don't think giving me part of my human rights undermines the rest of my human rights that I'm still demanding to receive..