 |
 |
A celebration ensued after the Connecticut high court ruled, ‘in light of the history of pernicious discrimination faced by gay men and lesbians … the segregation of heterosexual and homosexual couples into separate institutions constitutes a cognizable harm.’ (Photo by Bob Child/AP)
|
|
|
| | |
|
|
| | |
|
|
| | |
HOME > NEWS > NATIONAL NEWS
By: LOU CHIBBARO JR COMMENTS
 
continued...
voters in those states and could make it tougher for pro-gay advocates to win those elections.”
“Personally, I wish they had just waited a little longer,” Hunter said of the Connecticut Supreme Court justices. “They already waited a year and a half. They could have waited a month longer until after the election.”
Conservative groups that oppose gay rights criticized the Connecticut court decision as yet another example of how unelected judges overstepped their bounds by imposing gay marriage on another state.
“It’s ridiculous to imagine that the framers of the Connecticut Constitution could have even conceptualized the oxymoronic notion of ‘gay marriage,’ much less considered it a ‘constitutional right,’” said Matt Barber, an official with the Lynchburg, Va., based Liberty Alliance Action and Liberty Council and associate dean for Liberty University School of Law.
“Why do we even need the legislative and executive branches of government if we are going to allow the courts to brazenly legislate from the bench as a self-ordained Judiciocracy,” Barber said.
He called on conservative activists to redouble their efforts help John McCain defeat Barack Obama in the presidential election.
“Despite hollow platitudes to the contrary, the overwhelming body of evidence indicates that Barack Obama is a strong supporter of ‘gay marriage’ and that he would appoint judges who believe the constitution changes with the times,” he said.
Opponents of same-sex marriage immediately called on state residents to vote “yes” on the constitutional convention referendum, which asks whether a convention should be called to consider across-the-board changes in the document.
State officials noted the ballot measure’s timing is purely coincidental to the gay marriage issue and part of an existing clause in the state constitution that calls for voters to decide every 20 years whether a constitutional convention should be held.
But gay marriage opponents urged voters to approve a constitutional convention for the specific purpose of creating a state initiative and referendum process to overturn the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage. Some gay marriage opponents also proposed that the constitutional convention be used to amend the constitution to explicitly ban same-sex marriage.
The state’s constitution, as currently written, does not provide for initiatives and referenda on any issue. It does allow the state legislature to amend the constitution, but the process requires a three-fo
|
